From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Examples of Disguise appearence[edit]

User:Dissembly removed the example "Depict a war as a peace mission", arguing that "this is not a politics forum". Instead I think that this is a perfectly appropriate example, that it's not infering any political POV since it's not referring to any specific war, and that its useful to have some non trivial examples.--BMF81 00:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I believed it to be biased because "disguise" refers to concealing the identity of a physical object, the example "depicting war as peace" is far more abstract than that, and i don't see how it'd help anyone seeking information on 'disguise' (The reason i argue that it's political bias is that wether or not something is a "peace mission" is subjective judgement, whereas the example given treated it as an objective entity. In the current political climate, this seems politically charged, at the least). If disguise does, in fact, have some more abstract technical definition that i'm ignorant of, a little extra information clarifying this might be appropriate.
After thinking about it, i do agree that it's a form of deception, and that non-trivial, politically charged examples can be appropriate in some contexts. I don't think it belongs under 'disguise' (once again, this judgement depends on wether there's some technical definition i'm missing, as i said above...), however a section on propaganda/media&political bias/misleading debating tactics is relevant to the subject of "Deception", and perhaps this is where the example belongs.
Edited to add: I have modified the article in line with this idea. Is this a fair compromise?

Deception and intention[edit]

I propose deception is the very essence of evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that deception occurs only if both of two conditions occur: (1) that there was an intention to deceive, and that (2) the target was successfully deceived. I mention this because if I accidentally tell a lie (for example, I might have misunderstood something and be sharing my incorrect opinion in good faith), I would not consider myself to be a deceiver. The second condition is required because I cannot be said to have deceived someone if they were not actually deceived - for them to be deceived takes place on their cognitive turf. Here are the combinations of intention and belief, only one is (I believe) deception...

- If I accidentally lie, and the target believes me, it is not deception. - If I tell a lie on purpose and the target believes me, it is deception. - If I accidentally lie and the target does not believe me, it is not deception. - If I tell a lie on purpose and the target does not believe me, it is not deception.

Opinions? Jas 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What if there is no intention at all? What about signals sent my mimetic weeds that resemble crops? A definition should be based on a reliable source, not the reasoning of the article's contributors. Richard001 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that weeds send signals. If some of them happen to look more like crops (by some accident of genetic variation), then they might survive better, and this characteristic would help the genetic deviants to survive, but it's not deception any more than a poodle is deceptive by not being spotted in long grass. On your second point, what's unreliable about reason? :) Jas 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

False conclusion.[edit]

In hopes of exposing this type of deception (original research) hopefully someone can find a similar reference to it..

Cult-feminists, used flawed generalized logic to manipulate the models of abuse...

Most victims of violence are female,(in a family setting) (one form of abuse) (not all violence is abuse) therefor all victims are female, and we must develop programs to stop violence against women, by men.

There may be more than one type of manipulation here...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Should "Specious" redirect here?[edit]

A question about whether Specious should redirect to this page has been raised at Talk:Specious#Apr 2008. Comments there would be appreciated. Rossami (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Obviously, there are things that can be said about "deception" which are beyond a simple dictionary definition (which would not merit an actual Wikipedia article.) However, a quick look at the article and the talk page suggests that a great deal of the article is devoted to dictionary definition, and that it has been abused by POV-pushers all adding "examples", in the text and (by implication) in the See Also section. Ideally this article should probably be little more than a disambiguation page, doing the minimum to distinguish between the different forms of deception and then linking to other articles which explain that form. For instance, the section "Deception in Psychological Experimentation" (if it is not a copyright violation) should probably be spun off into an article of its own.

The problem is that the entire subject of "deception" is so huge that focusing on anything besides the very largest divisions of it is showing inappropriate focus. -- (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair point: I have resubmitted my thoughts to WikInfo instead, as my contribution constitutes original research - I think. Jas (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

'five main types of deception'[edit]

the article states catagorically that the five main types of deception are (lying etc.), but incorrectly i think. for example, number 5, understatement, is self-evidently a less common and less egregious form of deceit than making statements which are deliberately misleading (without lying nor etc.). the fact that this practice seems to lack a handy nominal form (i.e. something terser than "making deliberately misleading statements"--what am i missing here?) doesn't mean it shouldn't take it's rightful place on a short list of main "types" of deceptive speech. (which leads to another even more important point, namely that most deception isn't of an overtly verbal nature, obviously: deception isn't just, nor even primarily, a linguistic phenomenon). ----(no tildes to be seen on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rflacco (talkcontribs) 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Deception in sports[edit]

Deception is a very important part of sports strategy (e.g., football and baseball). Would that fit in here? There don't seem to be any other articles on this, at least none that I can find. Genesis 1:3 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


This article is serving two purposes: it is a general discussion of deception (camouflage, etc.) as well as an extended discussion of deception in human relationships. It should be split accordingly into two articles and cross-referenced. Jaywilson (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Investigative detection[edit]


I'm surprised that this article does not cover matters such as investigative detection (e.g. surveillance), or technological methods of revealing evidence, such as wiretaps. I would propose the addition of this. Is there a reason that this is not included in the article? (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

-- I would say that that is unnecessary because this article is based more on deception in relationships instead of deception between enemies. Thepoodlechef (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

  • How are those forms of deception? Based on the title of this section, perhaps you're in the wrong place. This article isn't about detection. Incidentally, that redirected to sensor, which is strange. I've restored it, although it's a pretty rough article. Perhaps you could add some of that information yourself. --BDD (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Aldert Vrij 1981?[edit]

Something by "Aldert Vrij" from 1981 is referred to twice in the text, but the footnote provides no significant bibliographic citation, and nothing is listed in References or See Also. Can this please be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Tactical deception[edit]

Tactical deception was my sole reason for coming here, due to its essential role in developing the Theory of Mind (ToM) in any mindful creature. Mind you, I think it deceptive that this article makes no reference to either concept, though I don't think the omission was intensional. --Pawyilee (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


I'm stunned that there seems to be no discussion or even mention of the term 'Spin' which by its effect is organized and intentional deception. (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Deception within Romantic Relationships[edit]

The following entry's purpose it to be added as a new section to the Deception Wiki page, as well as revise the Motives section. It was believed that the use of deception within romantic relationships was lacking from the page, as there is a sufficient amount of empirical research on this topic. Suggestions and comments to the entry are welcome.

In Romantic Relationships[edit]

Deception is particularly common within romantic relationships, with more than 90% of individuals admitting to lying or not being completely honest with their partner at one time[1].

There are three primary motivations for deception in relationships.

    • Partner-focused motives: Using deception to avoid hurting the partner, to help the partner to enhance or maintain his/her self-esteem, to avoid worrying the partner, and to protect the partner's relationship with a third party.[2][3][4] Partner-focused motivated deception can sometimes be viewed as socially polite and relationally beneficial, such as telling white lies to avoid hurting your partner. Although other, less common, partner-focused motives such as using to deception to evoke jealous reactions from their partner may have damaging effects on a relationship.[2][5]
    • Self-focused motives: Using deception to enhance or protect one’s own self-image, maintain or establish their autonomy, avoid constrictions, unwanted activities, or impositions, shield themselves from anger, embarrassment, or criticism, or resolve an argument.[1][2][3] Another common self-focused motive for deception, is a continuation of deception in order to avoid being caught in a previous deception.[2] Self-focused deception is generally perceived as a more serious transgression than partner-focused deception, because the deceiver is acting for selfish reasons rather than for the good of the partner or relationship.
    • Relationship-focused motives: Using deception to limit relationship harm by avoiding conflict or relational trauma.[2] Relationally motivated deception can be beneficial to a relationship, and other times it can be harmful by further complicating matters. Deception may also be used to facilitate the dissolution of an unwanted relationship.[1]

Deception impacts the perception of a relationship in a variety of ways, for both the deceiver and the deceived. The deceiver typically perceives less understanding and intimacy from the relationship, in that they see their partner as  less empathetic and more distant.[6] The act of deception can also result in feelings of distress for the deceiver, which become worse the longer the deceiver has known the deceived, as well as in longer-term relationships. Once discovered, deception creates feelings of detachment and uneasiness surrounding the relationship for both partners; this can eventually lead to both partners becoming more removed from the relationship and/or deterioration of the relationship.[1] In general, discovery of deception can result in a decrease in relationship satisfaction and commitment level, however, in instances where a person is successfully deceived, relationship satisfaction can actually be positively impacted for the person deceived, since lies are typically used to make the other partner feel more positive about the relationship.

In general, deception tends to occur less often in relationships with higher satisfaction and commitment levels and in relationships where partners have known each other longer, such as long-term relationships and marriage.[1] In comparison, deception is more likely to occur in casual relationships and in dating where commitment level and length of acquaintanceship is often much lower.[6][7]


Unique to exclusive romantic relationships is the use of deception in the form of infidelity. When it comes to the occurrence of infidelity, there are many individual difference factors that can impact this behavior. Infidelity is impacted by attachment style, relationship satisfaction, executive function, sociosexual orientation, personality traits, and gender. Attachment style impacts the probability of infidelity and research indicates that people with an insecure attachment style (anxious or avoidant) are more likely to cheat compared to individuals with a secure attachment style[8], especially for avoidant men and anxious women.[9] Insecure attachment styles are characterized by a lack of comfort within a romantic relationship resulting in a desire to be overly independent (avoidant attachment style) or a desire to be overly dependent on their partner in an unhealthy way (anxious attachment style). Those with an insecure attachment style are characterized by not believing that their romantic partner can/will support and comfort them in an effective way, either stemming from a negative belief regarding themselves (anxious attachment style) or a negative belief regarding romantic others (avoidant attachment style). Women are more likely to commit infidelity when they are emotionally unsatisfied with their relationship whereas men are more likely to commit infidelity if they are sexually unsatisfied with their current relationship.[10] Women are more likely to commit emotional infidelity than men while men are more likely to commit sexual infidelity than women; however, these are not mutually exclusive categories as both men and women can and do engage in emotional and/or sexual infidelity.[10]

Executive control is a part of executive functions that allows for individuals to monitor and control their behavior through thinking about and managing their actions. The level of executive control that an individual possesses is impacted by development and experience and can be improved through training and practice.[11][12] Those individuals that show a higher level of executive control can more easily influence/control their thoughts and behaviors in relation to potential threats to an ongoing relationship which can result in paying less attention to threats to the current relationship (other potential romantic mates).[13] Sociosexual orientation is concerned with how freely individuals partake in casual sex outside of a committed relationship and their beliefs regarding how necessary it is to be in love in order to engage in sex with someone.[14] Individuals with a less restrictive sociosexual orientation (more likely to partake in casual sex) are more likely to engage in infidelity.[10][14] Individuals that have personality traits including (high) neuroticism, (low) agreeableness, and (low) conscientiousness are more likely to commit infidelity.[10] Men are generally speculated to cheat more than women, but it is unclear if this is a result of socialization processes where it is more acceptable for men to cheat compared to women or due to an actual increase in this behavior for men.[15] Research conducted by Conley and colleagues (2011) suggests that the reasoning behind these gender differences stems from the negative stigma associated with women who engage in casual sex and inferences about the sexual capability of the potential sexual partner. In their study, men and women were equally likely to accept a sexual proposal from an individual who was speculated to have a high level of sexual prowess. Additionally, women were just as likely as men to accept a casual sexual proposal when they did not anticipate being subjected to the negative stigma of sexually permissible women as slutty.[15]

Deception in Online Dating[edit]

(see also Catfishing)

Research on the use of deception in online dating has shown that people are generally truthful about themselves with the exception of physical attributes to appear more attractive.[16][17][18]  According to the Scientific American, “nine out of ten online daters will fib about their height, weight, or age” such that men were more likely to lie about height while women were more likely to lie about weight.[19] In a study conducted by Toma and Hancock, “less attractive people were found to be more likely to have chosen a profile picture in which they were significantly more attractive than they were in everyday life”.[20] Both genders used this strategy in online dating profiles, but women more so than men.[20] Additionally, less attractive people were more likely to have “lied about objective measures of physical attractiveness such as height and weight”.[20] In general, men are more likely to lie on dating profiles the one exception being that women are more likely to lie about weight.[16]

Jstoker849 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)jstoker849

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mystification (album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deceptions in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1), 107-129.
  2. ^ a b c d e Guthrie, J., & Kunkel, A. (2013). Tell me sweet (and not-so-sweet) little lies: Deception in romantic relationships. Communication Studies64(2), 141-157.
  3. ^ a b Boon, S. D., & McLeod, B. A. (2001). Deception in romantic relationships: Subjective estimates of success at deceiving and attitudes toward deception. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships18(4), 463-476.
  4. ^ Lemay, E. P., Bechis, M. A., Martin, J., Neal, A. M., & Coyne, C. (2013). Concealing negative evaluations of a romantic partner's physical attractiveness. Personal Relationships20(4), 669-689.
  5. ^ Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner reassurance, and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits of jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior18(6), 387-402.
  6. ^ a b DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of personality and social psychology74(1), 63.
  7. ^ Rowatt, W. C., Cunninghan, M. R., & Druen, P. B. (1998). Deception to get a date. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin24(11), 1228-1242.
  8. ^ DeWall, C. N., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Pond, R. S. Jr.,Deckman, T., Finkel, E. J., Luchies, L. B., & Fincham, F. D. (2011). So Far Away From One’s Partner, Yet So Close to Romantic Alternatives: Avoidant Attachment, Interest in Alternatives, and Infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1302–1316.
  9. ^ Allen, E. S., & Baucom, D. H. (2004). Adult Attachment and Patterns of Extradyadic Involvement. Family Process, 43, 467 - 488.
  10. ^ a b c d Barta, W. D., & Kiene, S.M. (2005) Motivations for infidelity in heterosexual dating couples: The roles of gender, personality differences, and sociosexual orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 339–360.
  11. ^ Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333, 959–964.
  12. ^ Klingberg, T. (2010). Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 317-324.
  13. ^ Pronk, T M., Karremans, J. C., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2011). How can you resist? Executive control helps romantically involved individuals to stay faithful. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 827–837.
  14. ^ a b Simpson, J. A. & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870-883.
  15. ^ a b Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Matsick, J. L., Ziegler, A., & Valentine, B. A. (2011) Women, men, and the bedroom: Methodological and conceptual insights that narrow, reframe, and eliminate gender differences in sexuality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 296 –300.
  16. ^ a b "Can you really trust the people you meet online?". 
  17. ^ "Myth-busting online dating". 
  18. ^ "Detecting deception in online profiles". 
  19. ^ "Catfishing: The truth about deception online". 
  20. ^ a b c "Big fat liars: Less attractive people have more deceptive online dating profiles".