New study identifies five strategies women use to detect deception in dating

A new study published in Evolutionary Psychological Science identifies five distinct strategies that women employ to detect or prevent deception from potential romantic partners. The findings indicate that introducing partners to family members and taking relationships slowly are the most common methods women use to verify a man’s honesty. These behaviors appear to function as evolutionary counter-measures against the risks of sexual exploitation in mating contexts.

Humans face a fundamental adaptive challenge in the realm of mating known as exploitation. One individual might attempt to enhance their own reproductive success at the expense of another’s fitness. This dynamic often involves deception, where a person misrepresents their intentions or background to gain sexual access.

Evolutionary theory suggests that women have historically faced higher costs from such deception than men have. This disparity stems from biological realities regarding parental investment. Women are obligated to invest substantial metabolic resources into offspring through gestation and lactation.

Men, conversely, can theoretically achieve reproduction with a minimal investment of time and resources. This asymmetry means that a man could walk away after a sexual encounter with few immediate consequences. A woman in the same situation would be left with the burdens of pregnancy and child-rearing without partner support.

This discrepancy likely created strong selection pressures for women to develop specific defenses. Researchers view this interaction as a form of evolutionary arms race. As men developed deceptive tactics to secure short-term mating opportunities, women likely co-evolved detection strategies to protect themselves.

“The core concept draws from the evolutionary arms race between measures of exploitation and counter-exploitation, as previously examined in studies of rape avoidance mechanisms that mitigate the high costs of rape as an exploitative strategy. A milder form of intersexual conflict manifests in sexual deception, yet a key research gap persisted regarding women’s specific counter-strategies to this form of exploitation,” said study author Peyman Sayyad of the Shams Higher Education Institute.

The researchers sought to catalog women’s specific anti-deception tactics. They aimed to understand how these behaviors are structured and what personality traits influence their use. The researchers conducted two separate investigations to explore this topic.

The first study utilized a qualitative approach to generate a broad list of potential behaviors. The research team recruited 147 female undergraduate students from a large public university in the Southeastern United States. The average age of these participants was approximately 19 years old.

Participants answered open-ended questions about what actions they or other women take to avoid being deceived in dating contexts. They were asked to describe specific things they might do, such as asking friends for verification. They also listed things they might avoid doing, such as rushing into intimacy.

The researchers and a graduate student independently analyzed these written responses. They worked to eliminate vague or redundant answers to create a consolidated list. This process resulted in the identification of 43 distinct anti-deception acts that women might perform.

The second study involved a new group of 249 female participants recruited from the same university setting. The sample was predominantly White, though it included participants from various ethnic backgrounds. Approximately 44 percent of the sample reported being in a relationship at the time of the study.

These participants reviewed the list of 43 behaviors identified in the first phase. They rated how likely they would be to perform each action on a scale ranging from “to no extent” to “to a very high extent.” This allowed the researchers to quantify which strategies are most prevalent.

The researchers also administered standard psychological questionnaires to assess individual personality differences. Participants completed the Mate Value Scale to rate their own self-perceived desirability as a partner.

They also completed the revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. This inventory measures an individual’s willingness to engage in uncommitted sexual activity. It assesses past sexual behavior, attitudes toward casual sex, and sexual desire. Higher scores on this measure indicate a more unrestricted sociosexuality, meaning a preference for short-term mating.

The researchers also measured attachment styles using the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale. This specifically looked at avoidant attachment, which involves discomfort with intimacy. Finally, the researchers assessed neuroticism using a short form of the Big Five Inventory.

Statistical analysis of the survey responses revealed that the anti-deception tactics clustered into five main categories. The researchers labeled the first and most frequently considered category as “Integration.” This domain involves introducing a potential partner to family members or meeting his family.

Integration serves as a robust vetting mechanism. Involving family allows a woman to verify a partner’s background and intentions through the scrutiny of kin. This finding aligns with historical patterns where families played a central role in mate selection.

The second most common domain was labeled “Reticence.” This strategy focuses on slowing down the pace of the relationship to prevent premature emotional attachment. Tactics in this category include avoiding rushing into commitment or delaying sexual intimacy until trust is firmly established.

By maintaining distance, a woman can observe a partner’s behavior over time. This reduces the risk of overlooking red flags due to the blinding effects of infatuation. It provides a longer window for deceptive signals to become apparent.

The third domain identified was “Social Media.” This involves researching a partner’s online presence or checking the profiles of his friends. Women might look for inconsistencies between what a man says and what his digital footprint reveals.

The fourth category was “Religion Matching.” This entails seeking partners with shared religious beliefs or ensuring a partner is a practicing believer. This strategy relies on the heuristic that religious individuals may adhere to stricter moral codes regarding honesty and fidelity.

The least common strategy was labeled “Distrust.” This category includes more active and confrontational tactics. For example, a woman might ask questions to which she already knows the answer to test a partner’s honesty.

“Women might employ diverse strategies to counter sexual deception in mating and dating contexts,” Sayyad told PsyPost. “These include familial oversight, religion, and modern cultural mechanisms like social media.”

The researchers also found associations between these strategies and individual personality traits. Women who were more open to short-term mating were less likely to use Integration or Religion Matching tactics. This suggests that women focused on casual relationships may prioritize these long-term vetting mechanisms less.

For women pursuing short-term mating, the goal is often immediate sexual access rather than long-term resource provisioning. As a result, the deep vetting provided by family integration or religious alignment may be viewed as unnecessary obstacles.

Additionally, the researchers found a link between attachment style and behavior. Women with higher levels of avoidant attachment were more likely to use Reticence tactics. These individuals often feel uncomfortable with intimacy and may use distance as a protective mechanism.

This tendency to hold back serves a dual purpose for avoidantly attached women. It protects them from the emotional risks of intimacy while simultaneously guarding against deception. By not committing quickly, they minimize their vulnerability to exploitation.

Contrary to the researchers’ expectations, a woman’s self-perceived mate value did not predict which tactics she used. High mate value is often associated with being a target for deception. The authors hypothesized that these women would be more vigilant, but the data did not support this link.

Similarly, neuroticism did not show a significant connection to any specific anti-deception domain. Neuroticism is characterized by higher sensitivity to threat and negative emotion. The researchers expected this trait to correlate with increased vigilance, but the results were null.

There are some limitations to consider. The sample consisted entirely of undergraduate women. This demographic is relatively young and may have limited mating experience compared to older adult populations.

The specific context of the study also matters. The research focused on a modern Western environment where women have free choice in mating. This differs from ancestral environments or cultures where family members play a dominant role in arranging marriages.

The study also relied on self-reported intentions rather than observed behaviors. Participants indicated what they would do, which may not perfectly align with their actions in a real-world scenario. Future research is needed to determine the actual effectiveness of these tactics in detecting lies.

“This study investigates women’s counter-strategies to sexual deception within a free-choice mating context that minimizes parental involvement, diverging from ancestral conditions prevalent across much of human history,” Sayyad noted. “Moreover, such defenses may rely on domain-general adaptations to exploitation rather than deception-specific mechanisms, warranting more tests in future research. These caveats highlight opportunities for extensions.”

It is also possible that men have evolved counter-counter-strategies. If women use these specific tactics to detect deception, men may have developed ways to bypass these checks. This ongoing co-evolutionary dynamic suggests that the repertoire of deception and detection is likely complex.

The findings provide a structured framework for understanding how women navigate the risks of modern dating. They highlight that skepticism is not a singular trait but manifests through diverse behavioral strategies. These strategies appear to be deployed selectively based on a woman’s mating goals and attachment style.

“Assessing the role of parents in offspring intersexual conflicts offers a promising avenue for future research,” Sayyad added.

The study, “Women’s Anti-Deception Tactics in Mating: A Preliminary Investigation,” was authored by Peyman Sayyad, Mazyar Bagherian, Farid Pazhoohi, and Mitch Brown.