Five strategies women use to avoid being cheated on dates

On dates, 'sexual deception' can occur, where a partner exaggerates their background or intentions or deceives in a way that is convenient for them. This deception is sometimes considered 'exploitation' in the sense that it often results in a loss for the other person's benefit. Psychology media outlet PsyPost introduced a study that found five strategies that women use to detect deception in their dates or to make it harder for them to be deceived.

Women's Anti-Deception Tactics in Mating: A Preliminary Investigation | Evolutionary Psychological Science
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-025-00454-2

New study identifies five strategies women use to detect deception in dating | PsyPost
https://www.psypost.org/new-study-identifies-five-strategies-women-use-to-detect-deception-in-dating/

PsyPost explains the background of this study: 'Women, who may have to bear the costs of pregnancy and breastfeeding, may suffer greater losses from deception.' Furthermore, if a dater cheats, it could lead to those who detect the cheating developing countermeasures, which could lead to the other person developing countermeasures to counter the countermeasures, creating an arms race. Payman Sayyad of the Shams Institute of Higher Education in Iran, who conducted the study, also told PsyPost, 'The framework of the conflict between exploitation and countermeasures is at the core of this study.'

Sayyad and her colleagues conducted two surveys to identify behaviors that women use to avoid or detect deception on dates. In the first survey, 147 female undergraduate students at a large public university in the southeastern United States were asked questions such as, 'What do women do/avoid to avoid being deceived on dates?' and free-form responses were collected. Responses ranged from 'checking with friends' to 'not rushing into intimacy.' The researchers and graduate students separately analyzed the responses to eliminate ambiguity and overlaps, resulting in the identification of 43 behaviors.

In a second survey, 249 female undergraduate students at the same university were presented with the 43 behaviors extracted from the first survey and asked to rate how likely they were to engage in each behavior. To examine individual differences, the researchers also measured self-rated attractiveness, short-term relationship orientation, attachment style, and neuroticism. Factor analysis of these responses revealed that the 43 behaviors fell into five broad categories, which PsyPost has dubbed the 'Five Strategies.'

The first strategy is integration (involving family members) . This is a strategy that involves using family members as a check mechanism, such as by introducing the other person to their family or meeting their family. This makes it easier for a third party to confirm the background and intentions, and can sometimes reveal information that would be difficult to see through conversations between the people involved alone.

The second strategy is reticence . This is a strategy of not rushing the relationship and not rushing into intimacy. By keeping a distance, you can take your time to observe the other person's behavior, which may reduce the risk of getting carried away and overlooking red flags.

The third strategy is social media . This involves checking the social media accounts of the other person and their friends to see if their statements match their digital traces. This gathers clues that are difficult to find in person, such as their profile, past posts, and social relationships.

The fourth strategy is Religion Matching , which involves determining whether the other person shares your religious beliefs and practices them. PsyPost explains this strategy is based on the empirical assumption that 'religious people may adhere to moral standards related to honesty and faithfulness.'

The fifth strategy is distrust . This is a strategy of asking questions to confirm what the other person says. PsyPost gives the example of 'asking questions you know the answer to and seeing how the other person responds.'

According to the paper, of the five strategies, 'integration/involvement of family members' was the most likely to be implemented, while 'distrust' was the least likely.

Analysis of individual differences showed that people with a stronger positive tendency toward short-term relationships were less likely to use 'integration/family involvement' and 'religious congruence.' PsyPost suggests that short-term orientation may make deeper checks, such as family involvement or asking about religion, more likely to be perceived as 'unnecessary obstacles.'

Furthermore, people with strong avoidant attachment tendencies, who tend to avoid becoming too close and prefer to keep their distance, were more likely to use 'caution.' However, self-rated attractiveness did not predict which strategy they would use, and neuroticism was not significantly related to either strategy.

PsyPost points out the limitations of this study, including that 'participants were limited to female undergraduate students,' 'it was based on the assumption of free love in a modern Western environment,' and 'it was based on self-reporting of 'likely to do it' rather than actual behavioral observation.' They also state that future work will examine the effectiveness of each strategy in detecting lies.