In the course of a given day, it is likely that we will encounter the light and dark sides of interpersonal relationships. So what constitutes the dark side of relationships? There are two dimensions of the dark side of relationships: one is the degree to which something is deemed acceptable or not by society; the other includes the degree to which something functions productively to improve a relationship or not (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). These dimensions become more complicated when we realize that there can be overlap between them, meaning that it may not always be easy to identify something as exclusively light or dark.
Some communication patterns may be viewed as appropriate by society but still serve a relationally destructive function. Our society generally presumes that increased understanding of a relationship and relational partner would benefit the relationship. However, numerous research studies have found that increased understanding of a relationship and relational partner may be negative. In fact, by avoiding discussing certain topics that might cause conflict, some couples create and sustain positive illusions about their relationship that may cover up a darker reality. Despite this, the couple may report that they are very satisfied with their relationship. In this case, the old saying “ignorance is bliss” seems appropriate. Likewise, communication that is presumed inappropriate by society may be productive for a given relationship (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). For example, our society ascribes to an ideology of openness that promotes honesty. However, as we will discuss more next, honesty may not always be the best policy. Lies intended to protect a relational partner (called altruistic lies) may net an overall positive result improving the functioning of a relationship.
Lying
It’s important to start off this section by noting that lying doesn’t always constitute a “dark side” of relationships. Although many people have a negative connotation of lying, we have all lied or concealed information in order to protect the feelings of someone else. One research study found that only 27 percent of the participants agreed that a successful relationship must include complete honesty, which shows there is an understanding that lying is a communicative reality in all relationships (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Given this reality, it is important to understand the types of lies we tell and the motivations for and consequences of lying.
We tend to lie more during the initiating phase of a relationship (Knapp, 2006). At this time, people may lie about their personality, past relationships, income, or skill sets as they engage in impression management and try to project themselves as likable and competent. For example, while on a first date, a person may lie and say they recently won an award at work. People sometimes rationalize these lies by exaggerating something that actually happened. So perhaps this person did get recognized at work, but it wasn’t actually an award. Lying may be more frequent at this stage, too, because the two people don’t know each other, meaning it’s unlikely the other person would have any information that would contradict the statement or discover the lie. Aside from lying to make ourselves look better, we may also lie to make someone else feel better. Although trustworthiness and honesty have been listed by survey respondents as the most desired traits in a dating partner, total honesty in some situations could harm a relationship (Knapp, 2006). Altruistic lies are lies told to build the self-esteem of our relational partner, communicate loyalty, or bend the truth to spare someone from hurtful information. Part of altruistic lying is telling people what they want to hear. For example, you might tell a friend that his painting is really pretty when you don’t actually see the merit of it, or tell your mom you enjoyed her meatloaf when you really didn’t. These other-oriented lies may help maintain a smooth relationship, but they could also become so prevalent that the receiver of the lies develops a skewed self-concept and is later hurt. If your friend goes to art school only to be heavily critiqued, did your altruistic lie contribute to that?
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Some lies are meant to protect someone or make someone feel better. Pamela Jackson – crossed fingers – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
As we grow closer to someone, we lie less frequently, and the way we go about lying also changes. In fact, it becomes more common to conceal information than to verbally deceive someone outright. We could conceal information by avoiding communication about subjects that could lead to exposure of the lie. When we are asked a direct question that could expose a lie, we may respond equivocally, meaning we don’t really answer a question (Knapp, 2006). When we do engage in direct lying in our close relationships, there may be the need to tell supplemental lies to maintain the original lie. So what happens when we suspect or find out that someone is lying?
Research has found that we are a little better at detecting lies than random chance, with an average of about 54 percent detection (Knapp, 2006). In addition, couples who had been together for an average of four years were better at detecting lies in their partner than were friends they had recently made (Comadena, 1982). This shows that closeness can make us better lie detectors. But closeness can also lead some people to put the relationship above the need for the truth, meaning that a partner who suspects the other of lying might intentionally avoid a particular topic to avoid discovering a lie. Generally, people in close relationships also have a truth bias, meaning they think they know their relational partners and think positively of them, which predisposes them to believe their partner is telling the truth. Discovering lies can negatively affect both parties and the relationship as emotions are stirred up, feelings are hurt, trust and commitment are lessened, and perhaps revenge is sought.
Sexual and Emotional Cheating
Extradyadic romantic activity (ERA) includes sexual or emotional interaction with someone other than a primary romantic partner. Given that most romantic couples aim to have sexually exclusive relationships, ERA is commonly referred to as cheating or infidelity and viewed as destructive and wrong. Despite this common sentiment, ERA is not a rare occurrence. Comparing data from more than fifty research studies shows that about 30 percent of people report that they have cheated on a romantic partner, and there is good reason to assume that the actual number is higher than that (Tafoya & Spitzberg, 2007).
Although views of what is considered “cheating” vary among cultures and individual couples, sexual activity outside a primary partnership equates to cheating for most. Emotional infidelity is more of a gray area. While some individuals who are secure in their commitment to their partner may not be bothered by their partner’s occasional flirting, others consider a double-glance by a partner at another attractive person a violation of the trust in the relationship. You only have to watch a few episodes of The Jerry Springer Show to see how actual or perceived infidelity can lead to jealousy, anger, and potentially violence. While research supports the general belief that infidelity leads to conflict, violence, and relational dissatisfaction, it also shows that there is a small percentage of relationships that are unaffected or improve following the discovery of infidelity (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). This again shows the complexity of the dark side of relationships.
The increase in technology and personal media has made extradyadic relationships somewhat easier to conceal, since smartphones and laptops can be taken anywhere and people can communicate to fulfill emotional and/or sexual desires. In some cases, this may only be to live out a fantasy and may not extend beyond electronic communication. But is sexual or emotional computer-mediated communication considered cheating? You may recall the case of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who resigned his position in the US House of Representatives after it was discovered that he was engaging in sexually explicit communication with people using Twitter, Facebook, and e-mail. The view of this type of communication as a dark side of relationships is evidenced by the pressure put on Weiner to resign.
Communication Aggression
Violence and abuse are a pervasive “dark side” of interpersonal relationships, with data showing widespread anger, rejection, bullying, stalking, and nearly two million workplace-violence victims annually (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; OSHA, 2011). Beyond physical harm, communication both contributes to and can help prevent interpersonal violence, which typically unfolds within ongoing relationships rather than as isolated incidents (Johnson, 2006). Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes three forms: intimate terrorism (a pattern of control through economic, emotional, and social isolation tactics, most often men against women); violent resistance (retaliatory violence, often women against abusive male partners); and situational couple violence (conflict‑triggered aggression without a control motive), which is the most common. Domestic violence also encompasses child‑to‑parent, sibling, and elder abuse. Child abuse exceeds a million confirmed cases yearly (Morgan & Wilson, 2007) and often features harmful communication patterns: abusive parents misattribute mistakes as intentional, deliver global negative evaluations (“You can’t do anything right”), discount successes with external attributions, and respond unpredictably—undermining children’s self‑esteem and promoting aggression. Reports of adolescent‑to‑parent abuse—often beginning between ages 10–14, more frequently targeting mothers and, when fathers, more often by sons—describe youths using verbal, emotional, and physical attacks to wear parents down rather than reacting to parental abuse (Eckstein, 2007). Recognizing these patterns clarifies how communication practices intersect with power, control, and safety across family and romantic contexts.
Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Aggression and even abuse directed from child to parent is becoming more of an issue. The Mighty Tim Inconnu – Aggressive Children – CC BY 2.0.
While physical violence has great potential for causing injury or even death, psychological and emotional abuse can also be present in any relationship form. A surprising statistic states that almost all people have experienced at least one incident of psychological or verbal aggression from a current or past dating partner (Dailey, Lee, & Spitzberg, 2007). Psychological abuse is most often carried out through communicative aggression, which is recurring verbal or nonverbal communication that significantly and negatively affects a person’s sense of self. The following are examples of communicative aggression (Dailey, Lee, & Spitzberg, 2007):
Threatening physical harm (threatening self, relational partner, or friends/family/pets of relational partner)
While incidents of communicative aggression might not reach the level of abuse found in an intimate terrorism situation, it is a pervasive form of abuse. Even though we may view physical or sexual abuse as the most harmful, research indicates that psychological abuse can be more damaging and have more wide-ranging and persistent effects than the other types of abuse (Dailey, Lee, & Spitzberg, 2007). Psychological abuse can lead to higher rates of depression, anxiety, stress, eating disorders, and attempts at suicide.
The discussion of the dark side of relationships shows us that communication can be hurtful on a variety of fronts. At the extreme, violence and communicative aggression—whether intimate terrorism, violent resistance, situational couple violence, child or adolescent abuse—illustrate how power, control, and harmful message patterns can erode safety, self‑concept, and health. Still, the “dark side” of relationships is not a single place but a continuum shaped by two intersecting dimensions—social acceptability and relational functionality—and many behaviors resist neat labels. Practices often assumed to be positive (full openness, relentless pursuit of “understanding”) can sometimes be maladaptive, while socially disapproved behaviors (like selective, altruistic deception) may preserve dignity or stability in specific contexts. Competent communicators respond by assessing intent, impact, and consent; monitoring patterns rather than isolated incidents; and prioritizing safety and resources when harm is present. As you move on, apply a both/and mindset: weigh societal norms and relational outcomes together, choose transparency or discretion with care, and intervene early in escalating patterns—because ethical, informed communication can prevent harm and, when needed, connect people to protection and repair.
