Romantic relationships are home to some of our most honest, truthful moments. We speak authentically, we confess, we lay it all on the table. Unfortunately, they’re also the context for some of our most devious, deceptive acts. From little omissions to egregious betrayals, romantic partners—at least many of us—know very well how to deceive.
Why People Deceive Their Romantic Partners
Deception is strategic. People try to cover up their mistakes; they try to make themselves appear in a more positive light; they hide their real feelings or thoughts and pretend their misbehaviors never happened; they try to avoid a conflict.
Some of these motives are pro-relational. Why start a fight? It’s a minor thing. The truth would probably cause more harm than good. Better to say, “I loved that concert. I can see why he’s your favorite artist,” than to spoil the night. And it benefits no one to know that you went to the restroom to spit out your partner’s disgusting pie. Nor does it make the world right to tell your partner you’re home late because you stopped by your buddy’s place: traffic is a ready excuse.
Other times, deceptions are malicious or self-serving. Misleading a partner so that you get the win or ruin their plans; making up information to sound more interesting and keep a partner’s attention. These motives are clearly different than the pro-relational motives that drive others.
Patterns Tied to People, Not Deceptive Acts
Any one act of deception (e.g., lying) could be motivated by kindness or cruelty, so it’s unlikely that specific acts of deception are linked to certain motives. Instead, people might bring a tendency toward a certain type of deception into their relationship. The question becomes: What kinds of people hold certain motives for deception?
Recent research explored this topic by surveying 567 people in the United States, about half women, half men, all of whom reported being currently in a romantic relationship (Cole and Stonebrook, 2026). Participants completed a series of measures, including an assessment of motivations for deception, and then the researchers applied latent profile analysis (LPA) to see if people naturally clustered into different groups based on their typical motivations.
Three Main Types of Deceivers
Analyses revealed three primary types of deceivers (Cole and Stonebrook, 2026). Think about yourself (or your romantic partner!). Which best describes you?
- Strategic Soothers: “Don’t make waves” is the motto for this group. Strategic soothers want to avoid conflict, conceal mistakes, and are low in malicious intent. They’re not catering to a partner’s emotions to get attention; they do it to keep the peace. Just shy of half of participants (48 percent) fell into this category.
- Transparent Partners: Well, hello partners who don’t deceive! Compared to the other clusters, participants sorted into this category (38 percent) were higher in attachment security and low on all motives to deceive. Interestingly, this bunch also reported the highest relationship satisfaction. Honesty, it appears, is the best policy.
- Antagonistic Strategists: People in this category are not afraid of deception. They engage in it often, and for a wide variety of reasons, including malicious motives. About 15 percent of the sample fell into this group. In general, individuals in this category were higher in narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism compared to people in the other categories. They also reported lower relationship satisfaction.
Transparency for the Win
Deception may happen in relationships, but not everyone has the same reasons, and some people are more apt to engage in it than others (Cole and Stonebrook, 2026). This research shows that a particular type of partner, the Antagonistic Strategist, makes deception a part of their relationship maintenance playbook. These individuals have few constraints on their deception and are ready to use it, particularly if it can help them exert their own control.
Meanwhile, Strategic Soothers are struggling. They have attachment insecurities like Antagonistic Strategists but manage them quite differently. They want to keep dynamics steady and are particularly apt to use deception so that they can avoid conflict and appease their partners.
The Transparent Partners take a different approach. Their low drive for deception, coupled with their relational security and satisfaction, suggests that open communication is, indeed, a helpful strategy. The low use of deception suggests honesty is the primary tool for navigating situations that are uncertain, missteps, or other challenges.
What is not known from this research is whether happy couples, like those in the Transparent Partners group, are simply not encountering situations that might open the door to deception. In other words, maybe people high in attachment security create patterns in their relationships for which deception is not possible. Future research might lean into the question of opportunity versus strategy when it comes to differences in the use of deception.
