Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haselton, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Angleitner, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Haselton, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by Angleitner, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 1, 3-23 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167204271303
© 2005 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes

Martie G. Haselton

University of California-Los Angeles, haselton{at}ucla.edu

David M. Buss

University of Texas-Austin

Viktor Oubaid

DLR-German Aerospace Center, Aviation, and Space Psychology

Alois Angleitner

Bielefeld University

The desires of one sex can lead to deceptive exploitation by the other sex. Strategic Interference Theory proposes that certain "negative" emotions evolved or have been co-opted by selection, in part, to defend against deception and reduce its negative consequences. In Study 1 (N = 217) Americans reported emotional distress in response to specific forms of deception. Study 2 (N =200) replicated the results in a German sample. Study 3 (N =479) assessed Americans’ past experiences with deception and conducted additional hypothesis tests using a procedure to control for overall sex differences in upset. Each study supported the hypothesis that emotions track sex-linked forms of strategic interference. Three clusters of sex differences proved robust across studies—emotional upset about resource deception, commitment deception, and sexual deception. We discuss implications for theories of mating and emotion and directions for research based on models of antagonistic coevolution between the sexes.

Key Words: deception • sexual strategies • evolutionary psychology • strategic interference • antagonistic coevolution


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol RevHome page
R. Kurzban and C. Athena Aktipis
Modularity and the Social Mind: Are Psychologists Too Self-ish?
Personality and Social Psychology Review, May 1, 2007; 11(2): 131 - 149.
[Abstract] [PDF]