10.1177/0146167204271303PERSONALITYHaselton et al. / AND SEX, SOCIAL LIES, AND PSYCHOLOGY INTERFERENCE BULLETIN Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes Martie G. Haselton University of California–Los Angeles David M. Buss University of Texas–Austin Viktor Oubaid DLR–German Aerospace Center, Aviation, and Space Psychology Alois Angleitner Bielefeld University The desires of one sex can lead to deceptive exploitation by the parentally in their children (Symons, 1979; Trivers, other sex. Strategic Interference Theory proposes that certain 1972). Shared genetic fate through shared vehicles, in “negative” emotions evolved or have been co-opted by selection, short, should create powerful selection pressure for in part, to defend against deception and reduce its negative con- cooperation between a man and a woman. sequences. In Study 1 (N = 217) Americans reported emotional Few things are more obvious, however, than the fact distress in response to specific forms of deception. Study 2 (N = that conflict between the sexes is pervasive. An evolu- 200) replicated the results in a German sample. Study 3 (N = tionary perspective provides compelling explanations 479) assessed Americans’ past experiences with deception and about why. To start with, conflict between the sexes must conducted additional hypothesis tests using a procedure to con- be understood within the broader context of conspecific trol for overall sex differences in upset. Each study supported the conflict. Aside from identical twins, the genetic interests hypothesis that emotions track sex-linked forms of strategic inter- of each individual are never identical to the genetic ference. Three clusters of sex differences proved robust across interests of any other individual. As Symons (1979) studies—emotional upset about resource deception, commitment notes, deception, and sexual deception. We discuss implications for theories of mating and emotion and directions for research based The interests of individual human beings conflict with on models of antagonistic coevolution between the sexes. one another, whether “interests” are understood in the ultimate genetic sense or in the proximate sense of motives and goals. The most fundamental, most uni- versal double standard is not male versus female but Keywords: deception; sexual strategies; evolutionary psychology; stra- each individual human versus everyone else....Inan tegic interference; antagonistic coevolution ultimate sense, this double standard results from the fact that, among sexually reproducing organisms, every Cooperation between a man and a woman is virtually a requirement for successful reproduction. From court- Authors’ Note: The authors thank Jennifer Semmelroth for help with Study 1; David Beaulieu, Emily Cowley, Melissa Iseri, Gary Shteynberg, ship through child rearing, selection should favor the Hsuchi Ting, and Holly Ann Wood for help with Study 3; April Bleske, evolution of strategies for the successful coordination of Josh Duntley, Barry Friedman, Shelly Gable, Gian Gonzaga, and Anne a man’s and a woman’s efforts. A mate provides an indis- Peplau for helpful comments on a previous draft of this article; and Mi- pensable genomic complement for producing offspring. chael Mitchell for statistical advice. Correspondence should be ad- Offspring become the shared vehicles for both man and dressed to Martie G. Haselton, University of California, Communica- tion Studies Program, 334 Kinsey Hall, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles, woman, their genetic fate inextricably intertwined. CA 90095; e-mail: [email protected]. Women benefited historically in the currency of fitness PSPB, Vol. 31 No. 1, January 2005 3-23 when a man invested parentally in their children, just as DOI: 10.1177/0146167204271303 men benefited historically when a woman invested © 2005 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. 3 4 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN conspecific is to a greater or lesser extent one’s repro- strategies, men’s short-term mating “looms larger” in ductive competitor. (pp. 228-229) their strategic repertoire—it typically has greater motiva- tional impetus and attendant design features, such as An important evolutionary premise is that complete mechanisms to evaluate sexual availability, that facilitate alignment of interests among individuals is rarely possi- its success (Buss, 2003; Schmitt, 2003). Dozens of studies ble; conspecific conflict is predicted to pervade group- have verified this sex difference. Men more than women living organisms. desire a larger number of sex partners over various time This general evolutionary expectation for conspecific intervals, are more likely to consent to sex with an attrac- conflict, however, fails to provide a sufficiently precise tive stranger, have twice as many sexual fantasies, are explanation for unique aspects of conflict between the more likely to patronize prostitutes, and relax their stan- sexes that are not shared by other interacting members dards for a partner more in the short-term context (Buss, of a species. Although each individual can be considered 2003). These findings have now been replicated across a reproductive competitor with other conspecifics, it is 10 world regions in a study of 52 nations from around the primarily between members of the same sex that reproductive world (Schmitt, 2003). In sum, men and women have competition is most intense. Men compete primarily with confronted different adaptive problems over the long other men for access to desirable women and for access course of human evolutionary history and as a to the resources and status that women find desirable in consequence have evolved different sexual strategies. men (Buss, 1988, 2003). Similarly, women compete with According to Strategic Interference Theory, conflict other women for access to desirable men. Both sexes occurs when the strategies enacted by one person inter- derogate their same-sex competitors with verbal slurs fere with the desires, goals, or successful enactment of that are surprising only in their subtlety and viciousness strategies by another (Buss, 1989a). To take a single (Buss & Dedden, 1990; Campbell, 2002). If reproductive example, if a man desires a particular woman as a short- competition is most intense within the sexes, why is term mate and deploys seduction strategies accordingly conflict between the sexes so ubiquitous? (e.g., feigning long-term interest), whereas that woman desires the man as a long-term mate, then his strategies Strategic Interference Theory will interfere with the successful attainment of her goal. One answer comes from Strategic Interference The- Strategic interference itself constitutes a profound ory (Buss, 1989a). According to this theory, men and adaptive problem, and so selection should favor the evo- women have recurrently confronted different adaptive lution of solutions that reduce its impact. According to problems. Some of these differences derive from the fact Strategic Interference Theory (Buss, 1989a), the “nega- that fertilization occurs internally within women. tive” emotions of anger and upset have evolved or have Women bear the burdens and pleasures of a 9-month been co-opted by selection, in part, as solutions to the obligatory parental investment to produce a child that problems of strategic interference (also see Mandler, can be produced by a man from a single act of sex. These 1975). When a person’s goals, desires, or strategies are differences have resulted in the evolution of divergent blocked, the arousal of anger and subjective distress are sexual strategies between the sexes (Symons, 1979; proposed to serve four functions: (a) drawing attention Trivers, 1972). Evidence suggests that women, for exam- to interfering events, (b) marking those events for stor- ple, have evolved to desire men with status and age in memory, (c) motivating actions that reduce or resources, whereas men across the globe place less eliminate the source of strategic interference, and (d) emphasis on these qualities (Buss, 1989b; Sadalla, motivating memorial retrieval and hence subsequent Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987). Because status and avoidance of contexts producing future interference resources are especially important to women in securing (Buss, 1989a). This theory suggests that events that inter- long-term paternal investment for their children, fere with an individual’s favored sexual strategy activate women tend to impose longer courtship than men typi- negative emotions. To the degree that men and women cally desire prior to consenting to sex. Women seek men pursue somewhat different sexual strategies, the sources who have access to status and resources, but they also of interference will differ for the sexes (see Buss, 1996, seek men who are willing to commit those resources over 2000, 2003, for more extensive elaborations of Strategic the long run (Buss, 2003). Interference Theory). The large sexual asymmetry in obligatory parental Sex Differences in Emotional Distress investment also has produced one of the largest psycho- Due to Intersexual Deception logical sex differences ever documented—a sex differ- ence in the desire for sexual variety (Oliver & Hyde, Previous research has discovered sex differences in 1993; Schmitt, 2003; Symons, 1979). Although both which acts of deception men and women are likely to sexes have evolved short-term and long-term mating perform in mating contexts. Tooke and Camire (1991), Haselton et al. / SEX, LIES, AND INTERFERENCE 5 TABLE