Supporting in Ways That Do Not Align With What We Feel,Believe,or Want: Theorizing About Deceptive/Reluctant Support Provision in Interpersonal Relationships
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Supporting in Ways That Do Not Align With What We Feel,Believe,or Want: Theorizing About Deceptive/Reluctant Support Provision in Interpersonal Relationships
In this study, we investigate deceptive/reluctant support (D/RS), which we define as verbal and nonverbal supportive communication that is communicated unwillingly (i.e., hesitantly or against their wishes), does not align with support providers’ true feelings or beliefs (i.e., disingenuous or inauthentic), or both. In addition, relational norms and patterns of behavior specific to providers' relationships with support recipients were central to their D/RS experiences. By analyzing 22 semi-structured, narrative-focused interviews, we offer novel conceptualizations for how D/RS manifests in relationships. Our analysis indicated three defining features of D/RS: unwillingness, dishonesty, and norms. Additionally, our results provided insight into complicating contextual factors that further nuance D/RS: fear of repercussions, justification, values, networks, and isolation. This research offers insight into how support providers engage in D/RS, which could be an intermediate step between offering positive support and choosing to disengage as a support provider. Moreover, understanding how providers navigate challenges when communicating support is key as scholars strive to understand what creates satisfying supportive relationships.
AgnewC. R.VanderDriftL. E. (2015). Relationship maintenance and dissolution. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Volume 3. Interpersonal relations (pp. 581–604). American Psychological Association.
2.
BoonS. D.McLeodB. A. (2001). Deception in romantic relationships: Subjective estimates of success at deceiving and attitudes toward deception. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(4), 463–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501184002
3.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
4.
BurlesonB. R. (1994). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. In DalyJ. A.M WiemannJ. (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 135–161). Erlbaum.
5.
BurlesonB. R.HolmstromA. J.GilstrapC. M. (2005). “Guys can’t say that to guys”: Four experiments assessing the normative motivation account for deficiencies in the emotional support provided by men. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 468–501.
6.
CartonS. T.HoranS. M. (2014). A diary examination of romantic and sexual partners withholding affectionate messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513490587
7.
CatonN. R.HoranS. M. (2021). Deceptive affection is strategically expressed under relational threat – but not toward partners with low mate value. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(8), 2512–2537. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075231152909
8.
ColeT. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501181005
9.
DavisS. M. (2021). Strong Black woman collective theory: Understanding the group-level communication practices of Black women. In BraithwaiteD. O.SchrodtP. A. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 271–283). Routledge.
10.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.63
11.
DePauloB. M.KashyD. A.KirkendolS. E.WyerM. M.EpsteinJ. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.979
12.
DePauloB. M.MorrisW. L.SternglanzR. W. (2009). When the truth hurts: Deception in the name of kindness. In VangelistiA. (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 167–190). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770548.010
13.
DunbarN. E.GangiK.CoveleskiS.AdamsA.BernholdQ.GilesH. (2016). When is it acceptable to lie? Interpersonal and intergroup perspectives on deception. Communication Studies, 67(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2016.1146911
14.
FawM. H.SonneJ.LeustekJ. (2019). Exploring tough love communication in parents’ relationships with their young adult children. Communication Studies, 70(4), 470–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2019.1642220
15.
FloydK. (2006). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. Cambridge University Press.
16.
GoldsmithD. J. (1994). The role of facework in supportive communication. In BurlesonB. R.AlbrechtT. L.SarasonI. G. (Eds.), Communication of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community (pp. 29–249). Sage.
17.
GoldsmithD. J. (2004). Communicating social support. Cambridge University Press.
HighA. C.DillardJ. P. (2012). A review of meta-analysis of person-centered messages and social support outcomes. Communication Studies, 63(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.598208
20.
HoranS. M.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2011). Is it worth lying for? Physiological and emotional implications of recalling deceptive affection. Human Communication Research, 37(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01394.x
21.
HoranS. M.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2013). Understanding the routine expression of deceptive affection in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.751435
22.
HoranS. M.Booth-ButterfieldM. (2019). Angry hugs and withheld love: An overview of deceptive affection. In: The palgrave handbook of deceptive communication (pp. 535–550). Springer Nature.
23.
InagakiT. K.OrehekE. (2017). On the benefits of giving social support: When, why, and how support providers gain by caring for others. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416686212
24.
JohnsonK. J. (2025). Good friends have boundaries: Provider strategies for creating support boundaries in friendships. Communication Studies, 76(4), 350–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2024.2408047
25.
KnappM. L. (2008). Lying and deception in human interaction. Pearson.
26.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
27.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2017). Qualitative communication research methods. Sage.
28.
LuL.ArgyleM. (1992). Receiving and giving support: Effects on relationships and well-being. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 5(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515079208254456
29.
MacGeorgeE. L.FengB.BurlesonB. R. (2011). Supportive communication. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 317–354). Sage.
30.
McBrideM. C.BergenK. M. (2008). Becoming a reluctant confidant: Communication privacy management in close friendships. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 33(1), 50–61.
31.
McCornackS. A.LevineT. R. (1990). When lies are uncovered: Emotional and relational outcomes of discovered deception. Communications Monographs, 57(2), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759009376190
32.
McLarenR. M.HighA. C. (2019). The effect of under- and over-benefited support gaps on hurt feelings, esteem, and relationships. Communication Research, 46(6), 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215605155
33.
NeufeldA.HarrisonM. J. (2003). Unfulfilled expectations and negative interactions: Nonsupport in the relationships of women caregivers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02530.x
34.
Olmos-VegaF. M.StalmeijerR. E.VarpioL.KahlkeR. (2023). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE guide no. 149. Medical Teacher, 45(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287
ParksM. R.FloydK. (1996). Meanings for closeness and intimacy in friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407596131005
37.
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
38.
PedersonJ.LeFebvreL.GriffinD. (2020). Relational surprise experiences as a unique form of relational maintenance. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships, 14(2), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.5964/ijpr.v14i2.3647
PetronioS. (2000). The ramifications of a reluctant confidant. In RichardsA. C.SchumrumT. (Eds.), Invitations to dialogue: The legacy of Sidney M. Jourard (pp. 113–150). Kendall/Hunt.
41.
PetronioS. D. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. State University of New York Press.
42.
RayC. D.ManusovV. (2023). What counts as an acceptable reason for not communicating emotional support?Personal Relationships, 30(2), 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12470
43.
RayC. D.ManusovV.McLarenR. M. (2019). “Emotional support won’t cure cancer”: Reasons people give for not providing emotional support. Western Journal of Communication, 83(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2018.1472800
44.
RayC. D.ScharpK. M.ParkerE.DonohoeD. E. (2023). Withholding social support because those in need do not deserve it: A thematic narrative analysis. Communication Research, 52(3), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221146629
45.
RayC. D.VeluscekA. M. (2018). Nonsupport versus varying levels of person-centered emotional support: A study of women with breast cancer. Journal of Cancer Education, 33(3), 649–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-1125z
46.
RoggensackK. E.SillarsA. (2014). Agreement and understanding about honesty and deception rules in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 178–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513489914
47.
ScharpK. M. (2021). Thematic co-occurrence analysis: Advancing a theory and qualitative method to illuminate ambivalent experiences. Journal of Communication, 71(4), 545–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab015
48.
ScharpK. M.AlvarezC. F.WolfeB. H.LannuttiP. J.BryantL. E. (2024). Overcoming obstacles by enacting resilience: How queer adolescents respond to being estranged from their parents. Communication Research, 51(3), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502221142175
49.
ScottA. M.MartinS. C.StoneA. M.BrashersD. E. (2011). Managing multiple goals in supportive interactions: Using a normative theoretical approach to explain social support as uncertainty management for organ transplant patients. Health Communication, 26(5), 393–403.
50.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
51.
TracyS. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.
52.
WolfeB. H.ManusovV.ScharpK. M. (2024). Building resilience in response to identity-based discrimination through in person and online communication. Communication Monographs, 91(3), 418–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2023.2300821
53.
WortmanC. B.LehmanD. R. (1985). Reactions to victims of life crisis: Support attempts that fail. In SarasonI. G. (Ed.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 463–489). Springer.
