The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes
Abstract
The desires of one sex can lead to deceptive exploitation by the other sex. Strategic Interference Theory proposes that certain “negative” emotions evolved or have been co-opted by selection, in part, to defend against deception and reduce its negative consequences. In Study 1 (N = 217) Americans reported emotional distress in response to specific forms of deception. Study 2 (N =200) replicated the results in a German sample. Study 3 (N =479) assessed Americans’ past experiences with deception and conducted additional hypothesis tests using a procedure to control for overall sex differences in upset. Each study supported the hypothesis that emotions track sex-linked forms of strategic interference. Three clusters of sex differences proved robust across studies—emotional upset about resource deception, commitment deception, and sexual deception. We discuss implications for theories of mating and emotion and directions for research based on models of antagonistic coevolution between the sexes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An argument for basic emotions
Ekman, P. (1992) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699939208411068 · Cited by 9,646
Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465 · Cited by 4,636
Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures
Buss, D. M. (1989) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00023992 · Cited by 4,484
Self-citationSexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204 · Cited by 4,253
Self-citationProgress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.46.8.819 · Cited by 3,272
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 · Cited by 2,479
Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x · Cited by 1,263 · cited 1×
“The fact that sexual infidelity was most upsetting to men in the long-term context provides support for the evolutionary hypothesis that sexual infidelity signals compromised paternity and the potential for adaptively misdirected long-term investment ( Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst…”
BackgroundSelf-citationGender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29 · Cited by 1,134
Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology.
Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.686 · Cited by 1,067 · cited 4×
“Evidence from a variety of sources suggests that women may be more emotionally expressive than men, including in their self-reports of emotional experiences (e.g., Diener, Sandvik, & Larsen, 1985; Fujita, Diener, & Sandvik, 1991; Gross & John, 1995; also see Kring & Gordon, 1998, for a review).”
BackgroundInfluentialEvolutionary explanations of emotions
Nesse, R. M. (1990) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/bf02733986 · Cited by 884
Cited by
Mate Preferences and Their Behavioral Manifestations
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408 · Cited by 503
Self-citationEvolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations.
Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M. G., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0018413 · Cited by 482
Self-citationHall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010) · Journal of Social and Personal Relationships · doi:10.1177/0265407509349633 · Cited by 260
Adaptive rationality: an evolutionary perspective on cognitive bias
Haselton, M. G., Bryant, G. A., Wilke, A., Frederick, D. A., Galperin, A., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Moore, T. (2009) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2009.27.5.733 · Cited by 222
Self-citationSexual Regret: Evidence for Evolved Sex Differences
Galperin, A., Haselton, M. G., Frederick, D. A., Poore, J., von Hippel, W., Buss, D. M., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2013) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-012-0019-3 · Cited by 101
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A.
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-23
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2082154383
- Cited by
- 202
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 3.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0146167204271303
- The paper
- Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, Lies, and Strategic Interference: The Psychology of Deception Between the Sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271303
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
