Why do husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends lie to each other?
It's not pleasant to think about being betrayed by someone you love.  No one likes to think that a husband or wife may be lying, especially not in their own relationship.
And it's probably safe to assume that everyone wants a close, romantic relationship that is built on openness, intimacy and trust.
But despite our best intentions, our close relationships do not always work that way.  Often, our romantic relationships involve some secrecy and deception.
So, why do people lie to those they love?
The explanation offered is fairly detailed and lengthy.  As such, we’ve also created an abbreviated version of it.
But, if you're interested in the longer version,


Here's an overview of the information covered:
myths about romantic relationships
human nature
evolution and human nature
human reasoning
psychological adaptations
behaving in context
thinking out of context
example - altruism
example - cravings
example - fear of snakes
what it all means
telling the truth is necessary
lying is necessary too
opportunity to lie
need to deceive
making the decision to lie
romantic relationships are a paradox

Myths about Romantic Relationships
"When one is in love, one always begins by deceiving one's self, and one always ends by deceiving others."--Oscar Wilde
Love, rarely "works" the way we wish it would.  We tend to hold unrealistic notions about love and marriage that seldom match reality.
For instance, being “madly in love” with someone is not enough to make a marriage last.  Romantic, passionate love, the type of love that rules our decision-making early in a relationship, always fades.  And when it does, people often find themselves stuck with a spouse that they may not like or even appreciate.  If love does last, love, by itself, is not enough to make a marriage or relationship "work".
And while most people believe in "monogamy," that belief is often betrayed by one's thoughts and deeds.  Almost everyone thinks about being intimate with someone other than their romantic partner.  For many people, those fantasies become reality.
Furthermore, even though romantic relationships are viewed as the source of "much happiness, love, and understanding," as it turns out, our closest relationships are actually the source of our most painful emotional experiences.  Spouses tend to be more indifferent, mean, and critical of each other than complete strangers would ever dream of being.



So to put it mildly, relationships supposedly built on love and understanding often cause a lot of hurt, pain, and misunderstanding.
All in all, fantasy, not reality, tends to rule the day when it comes to love and romance.

Human Nature
To better understand why we lie to those we love, it helps to take a close look at our human nature.
What does science tell us about our romantic relationships and how they work?  Over the past several decades thousands of researchers have been exploring this topic.  And currently a lot is known about our intimate relationships, the purpose they serve, and what is likely to happen as two people become sexually involved.
But, to truly understand our romantic relationships, we first need to take a step back and look at the driving force that shaped the nature of every living thing on this planet, including humans and our relationships.
In particular, we need to talk about how "evolution" shaped both our human nature and how we relate to each other. 
Evolution and Human Nature
Evolution has influenced the character and nature of every thing that is alive.  And while many people question this basic claim, such doubts run counter to an ever accumulating body of evidence.
On a side note, it's somewhat ironic that the in the US, a country that has benefited the most from advances made by the theory of evolution (in agriculture and medicine), a higher percentage of its citizens have doubts about evolution's validity.
But even though evolution is just a theory (a set of ideas about how things work), it also happens to be the most well-supported theory in the life sciences.
And all theories are "just theories." For instance, the theory of flight and aerodynamics is "just a theory" - an explanation about how objects pass through air - but people still get on planes everyday.
Not only is the theory of "evolution" the most supported theory in the life sciences, but our knowledge about life is grounded in the theory of evolution.  Our current understanding of disease, health, nutrition, love, beauty, attraction, sex, infidelity, status, wealth, cooperation, competition, and so on, is all based on principles of evolution.
And if you have doubts about the scientific support underlying the theory of evolution, the genetic evidence alone, is hard to dismiss.  Consistent with an evolutionary account of life, humans and chimpanzees share a very similar genetic blueprint (95% overlapping DNA, conservative estimate - Britten).  Likewise, the progression of diseases ranging from the common cold to HIV could not be understood without the theory of evolution.
At a more personal level, your family pet, the flowers and plants in your house or garden, and the food in your refrigerator, have all been influenced by humans exploiting the way that evolution works.  In some cases, this can be as simple as "playing the favorites" - giving a helping hand to certain plants and animals, which over long periods of time, result in more playful dogs and more fragrant smelling roses, etc.

Evolution and Human Reasoning
Not only did evolution design our bodies, but it also designed our minds and how we think and reason.
Each day we must make countless decisions that are critical for our well-being, including decisions regarding what to eat, whom to befriend, whom to trust, whom to deceive, and so on.  And most of the decisions we make occur with little conscious awareness.
In fact, your mind is making countless decisions right now ranging from whether to wiggle your foot, decide if you are hungry, evaluating what you are reading, and maybe even deciding if you should trust your spouse, etc.  Most of these decisions get made in the background - outside of our immediate experience.
The mind lets us in on some decisions and keeps others hidden from us.  And even when you become aware of a decision - it has already been made and you are just now experiencing it.  The mind does not work the way most people think it works.  The experience of making a decision is not the same thing as actually making a decision.  The mind makes decisions and lets us in on some of them, but after the fact.  For readers who are interested in how the mind works, there are two excellent books on the topic - one by Damasio and the other by Gazzaniga.
Not only does the mind keep many decisions hidden from us, but contrary to popular belief the mind is not a “blank slate;” like our physical body, it is equipped to deal with the never-ending, age-old problems our ancestors constantly encountered.
And so our relationships are heavily influenced by psychological adaptations – innate solutions to life's problems.
This is particularly clear when it comes to deception, love, and romance.  Most of what we do in our relationships today is driven by thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that worked well for our ancestors in the past.  And again, most of these decisions are kept hidden from our immediate experience.
For instance, when it comes to selecting a romantic partner today our thoughts reflect what worked the best a long time ago.  Consider the following:
Men all over the world are attracted to women who have a relatively youthful appearance (see, Buss).  If you doubt this, just ask any woman over 40 or look at the billions of dollars spent by women trying to look youthful (In fact, Americans spend more money on their appearance than they spend on education,.  Or think about how many men leave their young wives for older women.
Now, the reason that men are attracted to youthful women is straightforward.  Such preferences are not because of our "culture" or the "media" - rather in the game of life, such preferences were useful to the men who just happened to be attracted to youthful looking women.
Take two men, one who is naturally attracted to older women (40+) and one who is naturally attracted to younger women (18 to 25).  Who do you think is going to have a reproductive advantage in this situation?
Clearly, being attracted to someone who is probably fertile (youthful and healthy) is beneficial when it comes to getting ahead (i.e., having children - and in the past, it was all about getting your genes into the next generation.  Differences that helped an individual survive and/or reproduce were selected over than traits and characteristics that were less useful).

Accordingly, men all over the world today are the descendents of men who preferred youthful looking women in the past.  Men who were naturally drawn to older women, lost out in the game of life – the preference for older women died out over the course of time along with the men who happened to prefer such women.
Psychological Adaptations
Again, it helps to think about psychological adaptations as innate solutions to life's problems.  Solutions that have been etched into the human mind.
Adaptations, designed in the past, work through our emotions and without much awareness they guide our behavior today.
Another example helps illustrate this point:
When it comes to selecting a romantic partner our current desires reflect what worked best a long time ago.  Consider the story of a colonel in the army who was recently accused of defrauding up to 50 women he met on the internet.  He was allegedly engaged to these women and he took advantage of them by exploiting their desire to find a mate.
The interesting thing about this story is that these women were not the type of women you would expect to be so desperate for love that they would put themselves in such a situation; most of them were attractive, successful, and had a lot going for them.  They had one thing in common, however; they were unusually tall.
So what does their height have to do with it?  Well, when it comes to selecting a mate, women universally desire men who are taller than themselves - a psychological adaptation that worked well for our female ancestors.
Having a tall mate also meant having a strong and powerful mate – useful traits to have in a companion who happened to hunt for a living.  But in a world where physical strength is not directly related to most people's job descriptions, women still prefer taller men.
So much so, in fact, that close to 50 successful women were willing to get engaged to a person they had met on-line.  And a person who, by the way, also claimed to be 6'6.  Apparently, when very tall women go looking for someone to love there are simply not enough tall men to go around.
Think about it for a minute - this example reveals a lot about who we are and how we behave.  Why will women only date someone who is taller than themselves?  If you are dating a successful accountant, does it really matter how tall he is?  Not really.  But that is not how we think and behave.  Our feelings give way to reason and logic and they nudge us towards decisions that worked a long time ago.

Behaving "In Context"

An evolutionary view of life is useful when studying love, deception, and romance because it reveals a lot about our human nature.
It reveals that most of our behaviors are driven by the specific circumstances in which we find ourselves.
In other words, our "behavior happens in context." We react to most situations without much thought about what we are doing.
For example, our willingness to help others is greatly influenced by their appearance.  We go out of our way to help individuals who are beautiful while we are much less likely to help strangers who happen to be less attractive.
Research shows that if a stranger falls down in public and needs help - we will go out of our way to help an attractive stranger, but most of us will ignore someone in need if they happen to be unattractive.  In fact, people have even tried to step over an unattractive stranger in need, while racing to help an attractive person in the same situation.
This example illustrates what we mean when we say that our "behavior happens in context." We react to situations when we are in them.  And in many cases we are not fully aware of what we are doing or why we are doing it.
Again, most people do not like to acknowledge this.  Most of us do not like to admit that our willingness to help others is sometimes based on stranger's beauty, not their need.
But whether we like it or not, our behavior is often influenced by the situations we encounter and often we do not fully understand why we behave the way we do.
At the end of the day, the environment we are in and the emotions we experience (governed by adaptations) influence our behavior - "we behave in context."
We can say that we are going to lose weight, but actually eat more, we can tell ourselves that we are going to stop smoking, but smoke more, we can make vows about being faithful, but...
Making promises, trying to change our beliefs, and trying to muster our will power does not change behavior.  Behavior is influence by the environment.  The best way to change behavior is to change the environment or situations in which you place yourself.
Thinking "Out of Context"
While we tend to behave in context, on the other hand, if you ask people if they are willing to help a stranger regardless of what they look like, most people say “yes.”
What we claim to do rarely matches how we actually behave because we think about our behavior "out of context."
When we think about how we behave we give idealistic or socially appropriate answers.  We like to view ourselves in a positive light, but when confronted with a real situation, our rosy and optimistic beliefs often fail to influence how we act.
In fact, research indicates that there is little relationship between what we believe and the actions we take related to those beliefs.  And of course, it is easier to see such hypocritical behavior in others rather than ourselves.
Again, our behavior is heavily influenced by the exact nature of the circumstance in which we find ourselves, while our thoughts are influenced by something entirely different – our desire to be accepted by others.
An evolutionary view of life is useful because it reveals that we are often misguided about who we are - we often deceive ourselves as well as others.
The idea that we "behave in context" and think about our behavior "out of context" highlights two fundamental points:
First, don't listen to what you say, rather watch what you do.  And when it comes to deception, nothing could be closer to the truth – we think about our deceptive behavior out of context – “I'm honest” while behaving very differently in context – we lie, mislead, and deceive.

Second, if you want to create better outcomes in your life, stop spending so much time thinking about your morals, values, and beliefs; rather use this time to create situations and relationships most likely to bring out the best in yourself and others.

Examples of Psychological Adaptations
The idea that evolution has shaped almost every aspect of the human mind and how we relate to each other is important to understand.  This idea helps explain a lot of our deceptive behavior.
But before we talk about deception, in particular, a few more examples help illustrate how psychological adaptations influence our thoughts, reasons, and beliefs.
·                                 altruism
·                                 cravings
·                                 fear of snakes

Altruism and Our Human Nature
Our "altruistic" behavior, ironically, turns out to be a great example of how evolution shaped the human mind.  A lot of research has been done on altruism; that is, doing something helpful for someone else at a cost to the self.
Most of us would like to claim that we are altruistic - we help others from time to time and we do it because it is the “right thing to do.” Or sometimes we help others “out of the goodness of our hearts.”
Research, however, shows that altruism is a lot more complicated than simply helping others.  Generosity is often driven by self-interest.
All living things tend to be selfish - we avoid helping others (which is considered a cost in life) unless there is the possibility that such behavior might lead to some benefits for the self.  In short, we tend to cooperate when it is most likely in our own interest.
So, what about the sacrifices parents make for their children?  Well, such acts of kindness tend not to be selfless, in the least bit, when viewed from an evolutionary framework.  Parents making sacrifices for their children is just a gene's very clever way of transferring resources to the closest living copy of itself; a very smart move, but by no means a selfless move.
What about helping a romantic partner?  Given the many benefits that we get from having a close relationship it makes a lot of sense to provide assistance to a long-term mate.  Not helping a romantic partner when they need it, in general, is a big mistake because in the long run you are just as likely to suffer when your partner suffers.  When two people are highly dependent on each other, it is in each party's interest to help the other person out.
And the same goes for friends.  It generally pays to help a friend because friends tend to return such favors.  In fact, swapping favors is a great way to get ahead in life.  Ever help a friend move?  Well, what happens when it is your turn to move?  Who are you going to call?  And, if we are really acting so selflessly when helping a friend, why do we get so angry and upset when friends repeatedly fail to return our kind deeds?  Many friendships have ended when friends take, but don't give.  How altruistic is that?
What about people who donate their time, energy, and resources to people they don't know through charities or religious organizations?  It is unlikely someone is going to directly benefit by helping others in such a manner.  When you look more closely at these situations, however, there are numerous indirect benefits that such “generous” individuals receive, such as tax breaks, recognition, increased social status, and the respect of their peers.
These indirect benefits are extremely valuable and people work very hard to earn them.  In fact, earning status and respect governs a lot of the things that we do.  Both status and respect are useful to obtain.  Status and respect open a lot of doors, they help us influence others, and they often lead to special treatment.  One way we get respect and status is to help others AND make sure that the people around us know about our good deeds.  Have you ever noticed how people often backhandedly mention or let their good deeds "slip out" during a conversation?
So, what might a truly altruistic act look like?  Perhaps anonymously providing help to someone without any expectation of getting something in return (no possibility of direct payback) or doing it without any acknowledgment from others (no possibility of indirect rewards).
How often does something like that happen?
Well, when it does happen it typically makes the news.  And it is not too hard to imagine such an anonymous donor running around trying to make sure that all the right people know about his or her “anonymous” gift.  So, when you take into account all of the benefits that people receive from helping others, acts of altruism are often governed by the "possibility of returns." When you take away the "possibility of returns" - giving tends to fall by the wayside.
As mentioned, when most people think about being altruistic they do so "out of context." Few people admit the truth when it comes to altruism: “I give to others when it is likely to benefit me or make me look good.” Rather most people say that they “help their children because they love them, that they are kind and compassionate with their friends and loved ones, and that they give to others because it feels like the right thing to do.”
And it is wrong to discount this type of emotional sentiment because this is truly what people feel.  But underneath such emotions lurks our self-interest.  Our emotions are designed to get us to do things that might benefit us rather than make us aware of how selfish we are.  Again, the mind keeps many important decisions hidden from our awareness - like the true motivation underlying many of our actions.
Perhaps right now, you may be thinking that “yes, that's how most people behave, but not me.  I'm different.” Again, most people think they are the exception to the rule, but thinking you are the exception to the rule does not make you the exception to the rule.
In fact, most people think they are the exception to the rule but when placed in a real situation they tend to act just like everyone else.
For example, how many people would claim the following: “Sure, I'd take another person's life, for no reason, other than someone in a position of authority egging me on?” While difficult to imagine, Stanley Milgram, a famous psychologist, demonstrated that people are capable of acting this way.  And if you are thinking, “Well, not me, I'm different,” that may be the case, but again the odds aren't in your favor.  And it may just be another example of how we tend to think about our behavior "out of context."


The Milgram Obedience Experiment

"The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act." –Stanley Milgram, 1974
If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders? Most people would answer this question with an adamant no, but Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments during the 1960s that led to some surprising results. These experiments offer a powerful and disturbing look into the power of authority and obedience.

More recent investigations have cast doubt on some of the implications of Milgram's findings and have even questions the results and procedures themselves. Despite its problems, the study has without question had a major impact on psychology. Learn more about the experiments, the results, and some of the major criticisms of Milgram's infamous research.
Introduction to the Milgram Experiment

Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolph Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was simply following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"
Method Used in the Milgram Experiment

The participants in the most famous variation of the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.
Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 30 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock" and "danger: severe shock." The final two switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX."
Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" every time an incorrect answer was produced. While the participant believed that he was delivering real shocks to the student, the student was actually a confederate in the experiment who was simply pretending to be shocked.
As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once the 300-volt level had been reached, the learner banged on the wall and demanded to be released. Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.
Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:

1.                      "Please continue."
2.                      "The experiment requires that you continue."
3.                      "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
4.                      "You have no other choice, you must go on."




Results of the Milgram Experiment

The level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver was used as the measure of obedience. How far do you think that most participants were willing to go? When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.
Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels. It is important to note that many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught and angry at the experimenter. Yet they continued to follow orders all the way to the end.
Because of concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, all subjects were debriefed at the end of the experiment to explain the procedures and the use of deception. However, many critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment. Milgram later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.
Discussion of the Milgram Experiment

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments, his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. Thomas Blass (1999) reviewed further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments.
Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:
·                         The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
·                         The fact that the study was sponsored by Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
·                         The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
·                         Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
·                         The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.
Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.
"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority," Milgram explained in his best-selling 1974 book Obedience to Authority.
Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience. While this experiment suggests that situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience, other psychologists argue that obedience is heavily influenced by both external and internal factors, such as personal beliefs and overall temperament.
Recent Criticisms and New Findings

Psychologist Gina Perry suggests that much of what we think we know about Milgram's famous experiments is only part of the story. While researching an article on the topic, she stumbled across hundreds of audiotapes found in Yale archives that documented numerous variations of Milgram's shock experiments. While Milgram's own reports of his process report methodical and uniform procedures, the audiotapes of the experimental sessions reveal that the experimenter's often went off-script, often coercing the subjects into continuing the shocks.
"The slavish obedience to authority we have come to associate with Milgram’s experiments comes to sound much more like bullying and coercion when you listen to these recordings," Perry suggested in an article for Discover Magazine.
Milgram's experiments have long been the source of considerable criticism and controversy. From the get-go, the ethics of his experiments were highly dubious. Participants were subjected to considerable psychological and emotional distress. While Milgram suggested that the subjects were "dehoaxed," Perry's findings revealed that of the 700 or so people who took part in different variations of his studies between 1961 and 1962, very few were truly debriefed.
While a true debriefing would have involved explaining that the shocks weren't real and that the other person was not injured, Milgram's sessions were mainly focused on calming the subjects down before sending them on their way. Many left in a state of considerable distress. While the truth was revealed to some months or even years later, many were simply never told a thing.
Another problem is that the version of the study presented by Milgram and most often retold does not really tell the whole store. The statistic that 65-percent of people obeyed orders applied only to one variation of the experiment, in which 26 out of 40 subjects obeyed. In other variations of the experiment, far fewer people were willing to follow the experimenters' orders and in some versions of the study not a single participant obeyed.
Perry even tracked down some of the people who took part in the experiments as well as Milgram's research assistants. What she discovered is that many of his subjects had deduced what Milgram's intent was and knew that the "learner" was simply pretending. Such findings cast Milgram's results in a new light, suggesting that not only did Milgram intentionally engage in some hefty misdirection to obtain the results he wanted, but that many of his participants were simply playing along.
Perry later explained to NPR that retracing the steps of Milgram's research upended her attitudes and beliefs about one of psychology's most famous and controversial figures.
"I regarded Stanley Milgram as a misunderstood genius who'd been penalized in some ways for revealing something troubling and profound about human nature," she told NPR. "By the end of my research I actually had quite a very different view of the man and the research."
More recent work by researchers suggests that while people do tend to obey authority figures, the process is not necessarily as cut-and-dry as Milgram depicted it. In a 2012 essay published by PLoS Biology, psychologists Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher suggested that the degree to which people are willing to obey the questionable orders of an authority figure depends largely on how much they agree with these orders and how much they identify with the person giving the orders.
While it is clear that people are often far more susceptible to influence, persuasion, and obedience than they would often like to be, they are far from mindless machines simply taking orders. 
So why does Milgram's experiment maintain such a powerful hold on our imaginations, even 50 years after the fact? Perry believes that despite all its ethical issues and the problem of never truly being able to replicate Milgram's procedures, the study has taken on the role of what she calls a "powerful parable


." While Milgram's work might not hold the answers to what makes people obey or even the degree to which they truly obey, it has inspired other researchers to explore what makes people follow orders and, perhaps more importantly, what leads them to question authority.
  
Evolution and Cravings for Food
Another example of how evolution has shaped the human mind involves our cravings.
Everyone today, has a craving for sweets and fats.  And our craving for fats and sweets is very easy to explain from an evolutionary perspective.
As humans were evolving, individuals that craved fats and sweets had an advantage over people who disliked sweet and fatty tasting foods.  Liking sweets would have been useful because it prompted people to seek out sweet tasting foods such as fruits and vegetables.
In the past such cravings were useful because fruits and vegetables were (and still are) an important source of many nutrients and vitamins.  Hence, individuals who craved sweetness were healthier than those who disliked sweet tasting foods.
Likewise, the same goes for fat.  As any dieter knows, one gram of fat contains nine calories instead of the four calories you get from a gram of carbohydrates or protein.  Craving fat would have been a useful trait to have in an environment where food supplies were uncertain (i.e., here today and gone tomorrow).
Putting on a little extra weight whenever possible was probably useful when living life as a hunter-gatherer.  And, individuals that disliked the taste of fat undoubtedly had a tougher time getting enough calories and were less likely to make it through temporary (and common) food shortages.
But, the problem today, is that while we are the descendants of people who craved fats and sweets, such preferences are no longer useful in our current environment.
Today, people can satisfy their craving for sweets by eating donuts, cake, ice cream, etc., all of which lack any of the nutritional benefits contained in fruits and vegetables.
Likewise, it is possible to find fat everywhere you go from the coffee house, the gas station, the 24 hour convenience store, to any restaurant and grocery store.  So, while craving fat made a lot of sense when food was scarce, it makes no sense to crave fat when food is always readily available.
In this case, our evolved preferences are now coming back to haunt us because they are not beneficial to us today.
Unfortunately, it takes tens of thousands of years and numerous generations for evolutionary changes to take place and become the norm.  So whether we like it or not, we are stuck with our hunter-gatherer cravings even though many of us live in a society full of food on demand.

Evolution and Fear of Snakes
Another example of how evolution shaped how we think involves our fear of snakes.  It doesn't take much training or instruction to get us (or chimpanzees, our closest living relatives) to be fearful of snakes.
For instance, why is someone who lives in a city so terrified of snakes?  Such fears make little sense, until one looks at our evolutionary past.
Living on the savannahs of Africa for millions of years, snakes were undoubtedly a problem for our ancestors.  And given the nature of life, it is likely that some individuals were naturally more fearful of snakes than others.
It is also safe to assume that people who were more fearful of snakes took extra precautions to avoid close contact with them - precautions such as staying on well traveled paths, being cautious when picking things up off the ground, or freezing in one's tracks when actually coming close to a snake.
People with such fears, who took such precautions, were most likely to have an evolutionary advantage.  Individuals who were prone to being afraid of snakes were more successful at staying alive.
Accordingly, all of us today are the descendants of individuals who were easily scared of snakes (spiders too).  So, even though many of us have yet to encounter a single poisonous snake, except at the zoo or on TV, we are still, at a moment's notice, readily frightened by snakes.
Ironically, and consistent with an evolutionary view of life, we have little natural fear of novel and dangerous things that we are currently surrounded by, such as automobiles or electrical outlets, even though these things are thousands of times more likely to harm us than a snake would nowadays.
In fact, the odds of you dying in a car accident over the course of your lifetime (1 in 242) are quite real compared to the likelihood of a snake causing your death (1 in 298,338; see, National Safety Council Report).
Again, our minds were designed by evolution to deal with life's problems; the solutions obtained in the past remain with us today.

Evolution - Lying, Cheating and Deception
So, what does all of this mean?
An evolutionary perspective suggests that when it comes to our close relationships today, most of our actions happen "in context" and are driven by patterns of behavior that worked well for our ancestors in the past.
Simply put, most of our behaviors occur with little awareness, planning, and/or thought.  Our emotions guide the way and influence how we act, especially when it comes to love, deception, and romance.
On the bright side, we have been designed to tell the truth to our romantic partners.
On the downside, we have also been designed to lie when it comes to love and romance.
Lying is part of our human nature.
  
Telling the Truth is Necessary
Our intimate relationships are designed to help us get ahead in life.  People, who are lucky enough fall in love, come out ahead in terms of their health, wealth, and emotional well-being.
Individuals in close relationships live longer, enjoy better health, obtain more resources, report being happier, and are more satisfied than individuals who fail to find a companion.
In order to obtain the benefits that intimate relationships provide, it is necessary for two people to know each other well.  It is not possible to create beneficial outcomes in a relationship without some degree of intimacy (knowledge about each other).  Romantic partners need to be “experts” on each other.  To create rewards people need to understand their partners “inside and out.”
People gain such knowledge about their partners by spending a lot of time with them, watching how they react in different situations, and by being honest with each other.
People disclose a lot to their spouses.  Intimate partners tell each other that they are, what they like and dislike, their hopes and fears, their past experiences, and their future goals.  Sharing such knowledge is critical because without it people would not be able to get ahead in life.
Our desire to have a husband or wife understand "who we are" and "where we are coming from" is driven by our emotions.  We have a fundamental need to be understood, to have someone know us, get us, and understand us.  And, these feelings drive us to tell our intimate partners the truth.
Our desire to be understood becomes even more intense as we get closer to each other.  The more you tie your fate to someone, the more important it is for that person to understand who you are.  There is an important benefit to having someone close to you "know you." The rewards you are able to create in your relationship are tied to being intimate and sharing yourself with a partner.
This explains why we get so frustrated and upset when we think that someone close to us does not understand us.  Try it out.  If you really want to upset a romantic partner, one of the best ways is to pretend that you don't get where he/she is coming from, that you don't understand his/her point of view, that you don't know what he/she is talking about, or that you don't get his/her jokes.  People go absolutely crazy when they think that someone close to them does not "get them."
Overall, enormous benefits come from having a close relational partner know who you are.  Accordingly, telling the truth is essential.  Simply put, we are designed to share our lives with people and be honest with them.


Lying and Deception are also Necessary
Though our intimate relationships are designed to help people get ahead in life, they are far from easy to maintain and even in the most ideal of circumstances they present any number of challenges.
Inevitably, deception is necessary, even in the best of cases In fact, romantic relationships involve two special features which allow deception to flourish: abundant opportunity and the dire need to deceive.

Intimate Relationships Create the Opportunity for Lying and Deception
As we get close to another person, we intentionally and unintentionally provide them with a great deal of information about who we are, revealing ourselves through both our words and deeds.  As mentioned, creating this kind of intimacy or shared knowledge is critical, as it serves as the foundation for a lot of important rewards.
Because relationships provide so many important rewards, it should come as no surprise that people are inclined to view their romantic partners or spouses in a positive light.  We place a lot of trust in our romantic partners.  In fact, we think we know them better than we actually do.
But while our trust provides us with a sense of security and comfort, it also lays the ground for deceit.  Research show that as we become more trusting, we also become more confident, but less accurate at determining when the truth is being told.
Every study shows that lovers are terrible at telling when their partners are lying.  Detecting deception with anyone is difficult to do, but lovers manage to take this failure to a spectacular low).
More importantly, lovers are not only terrible lie detectors, but they have a hard time acknowledging this fact.  Husbands and wives like to think they can tell when the truth is being told.  But, this is simply not the case.  It is easier to see this type of behavior with a friend than with yourself.  Have you ever noticed how a friend can be so trusting of his or her husband or wife while you have an easier time seeing what is really going on?
When we are in love, we simply become more confident, but less accurate at seeing the truth.  To borrow a quote, lovers are "often wrong but rarely in doubt".  This “truth-bias” or “blind faith” provides the perfect opportunity for romantic partners to engage in deception.
After all, who makes a better victim than someone who is eager and willing to trust everything you have to say?




Intimacy also creates the 

Need for Lying and Deception

Not only do close relationships create an opportunity for deception to occur, they also create the need.
While romantic relationships or marriages offer many rewards, they also tend to be overly constrictive.  Everyone has felt the constraints of a close relationship from time to time; quite simply you are no longer free to do what you want, when you want, and with whom you want.
So intimacy provides tremendous rewards, but at an enormous cost – the loss of your freedom and autonomy.
Lying to a romantic partner or spouse helps us deal with the constraints that our intimate relationships impose.  Quite frankly, deceiving a romantic partner turns out to be the most efficient and effective way of maintaining the rewards we get from our romantic relationships while pursuing extra-relational goals and activities behind a partner's back.

After years of studying deceptive behavior, we have noticed that people tend to mislead their husbands and wives when unique and valued opportunities can be pursued in a way that imposes a minimal strain on their relationship.
The following example provided by a friend, Steve, helps illustrate this point.
Example of Steve lying to his girlfriend of two years:
On a recent afternoon my friend Brian stopped by my office.  Brian wanted to go out for drinks, but there was a problem.  My girlfriend doesn't like it when I spend a lot of time with him because he is not terribly supportive of our relationship.  Brian is single and constantly mentions how much fun I used to be, before I settled down.  Despite the fact that Brian isn't overly supportive of my relationship, he is a good friend.  My professional life has been greatly enriched through my friendship with Brian; he is in “the know” at work, has all the inside gossip, and introduces me to a lot of people.
So, when Brian drops by my office on the spur of the moment, suggesting we go for drinks, I really want to go.  On the other hand, I also know my girlfriend is expecting me to cook dinner and we have plans to spend some time together.  What am I to do?  Call and explain the situation to her?  “Hi.  I'd like to come over and spend some time with you as planned, but going out for drinks with Brian also sounds like a lot of fun.  Do you mind if I go out with Brian tonight and make it up to you later?” Having such a conversation would take a lot of time, energy, and effort and most likely result in a fight.
And even if I'm lucky enough to avoid an argument, this conversation would undoubtedly come back to haunt me down the road with my girlfriend using this incident against me when she wants to.  So, when I find myself in situations like this, I do what comes naturally – I lie.  Before you know it, I'm telling her that “My boss wants some last minute revisions, sorry, I'm going to be working late tonight.”
As Steve's example shows, people mislead their romantic partners in order to spend some time doing the things that they really want to do – the things they value doing.  If Steve were asked to go out for drinks by someone he disliked, he would be having dinner with his girlfriend.
We are also more likely to cheat when opportunities are unique – the kind that don't always present themselves.  Again, if Steve had the opportunity to go out drinking with Brian every night – then he'd probably just wait until he didn't have to break a promise to do so.  But since it is difficult for Steve to plan things with Brian - Steve took the opportunity when he had the chance.
Finally, we are more likely to cheat when cheating doesn't put a lot of strain on our relationship; that is, when we can seize opportunities while breaking the fewest commitments and obligations to our partners.  Again, Steve's breaking a dinner date is something he thinks he can get away with from time to time – it puts some strain on his relationship, but in this case, not enough to seriously damage it.

Making the Decision to Lie and Deceive
So how do we decide when to lie to a romantic partner or spouse?
Well, most of the time we do not intentionally think about misleading our partners.  Rather such decisions are governed by our emotions and just seem to happen when the right situation presents itself.
Again, deception, like a lot of other behaviors, "happens in context." Very few of the lies we tell are intentional in nature.  Rather most lies "happen in context" - we find ourselves in situations where telling the truth is difficult to do, so we avoid doing it - we deceive.
And just like decisions about our willingness to help others, our cravings sweets, and our fear of snakes, we are designed to deceive our romantic partners when placed in the right situation.  Deception is a psychological adaptation - an innate solution to one of life's reoccurring problems.  Our decision to deceive often occurs in the background - outside of our immediate awareness - with little thought, effort, or planning - we lie.
Often a sense of excitement, opportunity, and exhilaration can lead us down paths we had no intention of traveling.  A sense of fear, loss, and trepidation, on the other hand, prompt us to cover-up what we've done and be more conservative in the short-term.



Luckily our emotions are very good at reading situations and keeping our deceptive behavior within limits.  Our emotions prompt us to do things behind our partner's back while also allowing us to maintain the benefits we get from our intimate relationships.
By being honest AND lying, we can "have our cake and eat it, too."


Intimate Relationships Are a Paradox
When you take a step back and put it altogether, the picture that emerges about intimate relationships is somewhat contradictory.
Because our romantic relationships and marriages are so rewarding, yet so constrictive, we are simultaneously more truthful AND more deceptive with those we love.
Additionally, we place the most trust in the person who is most likely to deceive us, just as we are most likely to deceive the person who loves and trusts us the most.
These are just a few of the paradoxes that emerge when taking a close look at the use of deception in our romantic relationships.

Why Lovers Lie - Abbreviated Version

Close relationships are based on interdependence.  Interdependence refers to mutual influence.  Your actions have an impact on your partner's behavior and vice versa.
Interdependence creates a lot of rewards – people get ahead in life by being connected to someone else.
As interdependence increases, telling the truth is essential.  To create positive outcomes through our relationships, couples need to know and understand each other.
On the other hand, interdependence also creates many constraints.  As interdependence increases, people are no longer free to do what they want, when they want, with whom they want.
So as we get closer to someone, telling the truth becomes more important but it also starts posing more risk.
Intimate partners are more concerned about what we are thinking, how we feel, and how we behave.  Our thoughts, feelings and behaviors have a direct impact on a partner's well-being.
What does this all mean?
Telling the truth is easy do to when interdependence is low - like revealing deeply personal information to a complete stranger sitting on a plane.  Telling the truth in such situations does not matter - there is no real consequence for doing so (nor is there any real benefit).
When interdependence is high, however, telling the truth is important.  Telling the truth allows people to coordinate their actions, create intimacy and closeness.
But, interdependence also makes deception more likely.  Because partners expect and demand a lot from us, telling the truth carries more risk.  Telling the truth in a close relationship can lead to increased conflict, negativity and it can restrain one's goals (i.e., "you can't do that").
As it stands, both telling the truth and deception are needed to make a relationship work.
Intimacy requires honesty, but complete honesty tears couples apart.  Finding the right balance, can be difficult for many couples to do.

How to Lie Effectively?
To most people this question is off-putting.
But, a lot of research has looked at this topic and if you have enough time and know where to look, this type of information is readily available.
So, in an attempt to provide a balanced point of view we have summarized the findings for you.  And if you want to know how to beat a polygraph, provides a lot of useful information in that respect.
But, if you want to learn to lie more effectively, the following information may be helpful.
To begin with, it may help to know that lying is usually easier than people think.  When lovers keep close track of all of the times they actually lie, many people discover that lying to a spouse or loved one is a rather easy to do.  Most of the time, people do not get caught - most lies go undetected.
With that said, there are, however, several things you can do to improve your odds of success.
Ironically, most people think they can tell when a lover is lying by simply watching a partner's nonverbal behavior.  Again, nothing could be further from the truth.
Rather than relying on more accurate methods to detect deception, people pay close attention to their partner's verbal responses and body language, which contrary to popular belief does not work.
But, even though romantic partners tend to use the wrong method when trying to detect deception, it helps to know what triggers a partner's suspicion when lying.
Quite a bit of research has looked at how spouses determine if they are being told the truth.  Accordingly, we know a lot about this process and we understand what people think "a typical lie" looks like (the information provided below is adapted from Fiedler and Walka, and Cole, Leets and Bradac's work on deception).
So, if you are going to mislead your lover, probably best to avoid doing things which look suspicious.
How to Avoid Suspicion:

Keep it short and To the Point

First, people evaluate a partner's truthfulness by looking at the amount of detail or information given when responding to questions.
People get suspicious when answers contain more details or information than was required.  Essentially, providing too many details makes people wonder if the truth is being told.
This effect is called the "falsifiability heuristic."
For instance, if you are late coming home from work and you decide to lie about getting stuck in traffic, providing too many details about the traffic jam makes it seem like you are lying (i.e., "You should have seen the traffic, tons of cars backed up, I was standing still for at least 20 minutes, and then when we did start moving, we moved at a crawl for the next five miles...").
Essentially, your spouse may wonder why you are providing such a detailed explanation unless you have something to hide.
Simply stated, when lying - do not provide more details than necessary to answer the question at hand - ("Sorry, traffic was bad tonight.").
Keep it Plausible

Second, partners evaluate the truthfulness of a response by asking themselves "how likely was that to have happened?" When you answer a question or give an excuse that seems far-fetched, even if it is the truth, people will assume you are lying.
This phenomenon is called the "infrequency heuristic."
People evaluate your responses by whether they seem likely or plausible.
For example, if you come home late and tell your husband or wife that traffic was bad because "some ducklings were stuck in the middle of the freeway," even though this might have happened, this answer is likely to raise suspicion because such events are rare; people will begin to question your truthfulness.
Again, when trying to lie, avoid making up excuses that seem far-fetched.  It is better to stick to stories or excuses that seem common and plausible - ("Traffic was bad, a minor fender-bender tied things up.").
Keep Calm

Third, people pay close attention to a partner's level of nervousness.
Noticeable signs of anxiety or stress tend to make partners question what is being said.  And most partners will ask probing questions when they spot anxiety or tension ("What?" Really?").
When partners start asking such questions, this is actually a good thing.  In most cases, this indicates that you are out of trouble.  Once people start asking probing questions, in the end, they tend to assume that the truth is being told.
If you find yourself in such a situation, act calm, and have a plausible, not overly detailed answer ready for why you are so nervous or anxious - ("Work is driving me crazy, sorry.").
Be Mindful of a Partner's Need for Intimacy

Finally, when trying to lie, it helps to take into account a partner's style of attachment.
If your partner is comfortable with intimacy and closeness, it helps to trigger "intimacy cues" when lying.
What does this mean?  Using small indicators of intimacy (e.g., standing closer, initiating touch, using nicknames, etc.) often leads partners to think that they are being told the truth.
Essentially, you are exploiting the "truth-bias." It is just too hard for people, who like intimacy and closeness, to assume that romantic partners would betray their trust.
For example, if dating someone with a "secure" or "anxious" style of attachment, it helps to say something like, "Sweetheart, traffic was bad tonight."
On the other hand, when dating someone who is fearful or uncomfortable with intimacy (i.e., has an "avoidant" style of attachment), it is probably best NOT to use intimacy cues when lying.
Partners uncomfortable with intimacy tend to be put off by such attempts to manipulate them through the use of "intimacy cues" - they don't fall for it and they may actually become more suspicious.
How to Tell the Truth?
Before you tell the truth, it is often wise to consider what you hope to accomplish by doing so.
Are you trying to hurt someone or make your relationship stronger?
And it helps to keep in mind, which both telling the truth AND using deception is important in a close relationship.  Whether we like to admit it or not, both are required to make a close relationship work.
But, if you ultimately decide to tell the truth, what is the best way to do it?
Telling the truth is difficult because it typically involves telling a spouse something that he or she does NOT want to hear.
What are some practical things you can do to make telling the truth easier?

Time and Setting

Do it in private and when your partner or spouse has time to cope with the information.  For instance, pick a time when your spouse or partner can reach out to others for support.  Do not disclose unpleasant information in the middle of the night or when your spouse is on their way to work.  Put yourself in your spouse's or partner's shoes; if you had to, when would you want to be on the receiving end of unpleasant information?
Prepare Your Spouse or Partner

Right before you disclose the information, tell your spouse or partner that you have something which you need to talk about - that you need to disclose something which may be difficult to hear.  And it helps to ask a spouse or partner to listen and react calmly to what you have to say.
Be Descriptive

When disclosing information, try to be descriptive rather than evaluative.  In other words, describe what you have done or what may have happened without blaming your spouse or partner.  Take responsibility for your actions.  The truth is difficult enough to hear without blaming a partner for the situation (even if he or she may be partially responsible).
Expect the Worst

Imagine the worst case scenario and prepare for it.  Will your spouse or partner need time away from you?  Or will they want to ask you a lot of questions?  What do you think his or her response will be?
Resist the Urge to Defend Yourself or Fight Back

The truth can be very painful to hear.  And when people are hurt or in pain they often lash out at or attack the person they believe to be responsible their feelings.  Typically, the best way to deal with such a situation is to avoid fighting back.  Rather, try listening to and acknowledging your partner's feelings.  And it helps to resist the urge offer explanations or excuses (even if they are asked for). 

Generally speaking, when people are hurt or in pain they need to feel understood before they are willing to entertain excuses or explanations for what may have happened.
Finally, it may help to read the section on before you disclose the truth to a romantic partner.

Should I Tell My Partner...?
Are you feeling guilty about something that you've done?
Perhaps you've done something you regret.
Typically, feelings of shame and guilt are often followed by the following question:
Should I tell my husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, what happened?
Everyone makes mistakes from time to time.
For instance, a flirtatious encounter at work may have gone too far.  Or a surprise visit by an ex may have become too (emotionally) intimate.  Or perhaps you've betrayed your partner's confidence by telling his or her secrets to a friend.
Sometimes it pays to come clean, but often it can lead to more problems than it solves.  Not only are such decisions difficult to make, but given the nature of the problem, it is often hard to discuss your options with others.
With this in mind, we have developed some guidelines for helping you decide when it is best to tell the truth and when it is not.

Will Your Husband Or Wife Eventually Discover The Truth?
When trying to determine if you should come clean about something that has happened, the first set of questions to ask yourself are also the most important.
Can you keep it a secret?
Will someone tell your partner what happened?
Will your husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend eventually find out the truth?
If your spouse or partner is going to discover the truth – you MUST be the one to tell before he or she finds out on their own.  If your partner discovers the truth through other means – surveillance, third party information, or accidental discovery, the damage has already been done.
If your spouse uncovers the truth before you confess, it will be much more difficult for you to regain your partner's trust.  If you get caught before you come clean, now not only have you done something wrong, but you also tried to hide it from your spouse.  Unfortunately, you have proven that you can not be trusted to tell the truth when it matters the most.
If, however, you confess before your partner discovers what happened, the disclosure may still cause a lot of problems, but at least your partner can trust what you say.  Having trust is critical when trying to work through problems.  If you come clean before getting caught, your partner is much more likely to forgive you and work through problems with you.
Ultimately, telling the truth is critical, but especially when the truth is going to be discovered.

Are You Dealing With A Reoccurring Problem?
When deciding if you should confess to something you may have done, it also helps to consider about whether the issue involved is a reoccurring problem or a one time incident.
Typically, if what happened is only a one time incident, perhaps it might be best not to tell (for an alternative view,.
Relationships, even in the best of circumstances, are hard to maintain.  If you bring up every mistake you make, it can cause more problems than good in your relationship.  In fact, research consistently shows that relationships work best when romantic partners see each other in a positive light.
When partners or spouses start viewing each other in a more negative light, it is harder for people to get along and work things out.  Some positive biases and good will are critical when trying to get along.  Telling the truth about every little thing that happens, does not always help.
But, if the problem at hand is a recurring problem, then it might be wise to consider telling the truth.
If you hide a recurring problem, it will never get solved and it is not fair to a partner – hiding problems from partners robs them of their choices and they ability to deal with the situation at hand.


Are You Feeling Guilty About What Happened?
Often people tell their husbands or wives, boyfriends or girlfriends, the truth in order to relieve their guilt.  Guilt, or feelings of shame, can wear people and make life unpleasant.  And there are two ways of dealing with feelings of guilt.
The first option is to confess or come clean.  This, however, is not always your best option.
Sometimes confessing leads to more problems than it solves.  When you admit to doing something wrong, often it changes the way that a spouse or partner sees you.  It can create suspicion, hostility, and resentment.
And when partners become suspicious, it is hard for relationships to get back on track.
In fact, research shows that marriages and relationships work the best, not when everything is out in the open, but when partners think they know the truth.
Having everything out in the open often leads to more conflict, fighting, anger and resentment.  And few relationships can survive when negativity between partners becomes the norm.
So if a partner is not going to find out what happened, and if the problem is not going to reoccur, it may be best to keep things quiet and learn to deal with your feelings of guilt in a different manner.  Causing long term problems in a relationship in order to relieve your guilt may not be the wisest thing to do.
The others options for coping with guilt involve the passing of time or sharing what happened with others.
While feelings of guilt can be overwhelming, they are also fleeting.  People experience the most guilt when they think they are going to get caught.  But, as time passes, feelings of guilt tend to fade away.



What Do You Hope To Accomplish?
The final consideration involves examining your intentions.  What do you hope to accomplish by confessing?
It is often wise to trust your instincts.  If you think that telling the truth will only make things worse for your relationship, then it may not be such a good idea.
On the hand other, if you think that telling the truth might allow you and your partner to grew closer through the experience, then it is probably the best thing to do.
Sometimes telling the truth is driven by the underlying desire to hurt a partner or get even.
Good intentions do not always bring about good outcomes, but negative intentions often succeed at bringing about the worst.

If you ultimately decide that telling the truth is the best thing to do, please see our section on.