Supporting in Ways That Do Not Align With What We Feel,Believe,or Want: Theorizing About Deceptive/Reluctant Support Provision in Interpersonal Relationships

Support Provider Experiences

Supportive communication is a dyadic process, and interactants do not necessarily experience the supportive conversation in the same ways. For example, a provider might experience a conversation as negative and challenging whereas the recipient felt the interaction went well and was, overall, a positive one. When specifically considering support providers, research into what might make a supportive conversation a challenging or negative one is somewhat limited. Some evidence suggests that providing support is linked to feelings of frustration and burden, and this is especially true when people already feel unsatisfied in the relationship (Lu & Argyle, 1992). When providers feel obligated to offer support, they might experience negative affect and poorer relationship outcomes (Wortman & Lehman, 1985). Other evidence highlights that providers feel challenged when they feel they must balance their need to communicate honestly with the other’s desires to hear comforting, affirming support (Faw et al., 2019; Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997).

Another manifestation of supportive challenges occurs when providers engage in nonsupport. Currently, nonsupport is conceptualized as both support that is provided but ultimately unhelpful (Neufeld & Harrison, 2003) as well as a support provider’s conscious decision to not provide support (Ray et al., 2019; Ray & Veluscek, 2018). Investigations into nonsupport outline how and why people decline to provide support (Ray et al., 2019; Ray & Veluscek, 2018), and how individuals conceive of their identity and explanations for their nonsupport decisions (Ray et al., 2023). More recent scholarship unpacks the nuances of support boundary creation, or creating parameters around the amount and/or type of support one is willing to provide (Johnson, 2025). Support boundary creation offers insight for how providers navigate discrepancies in their supportive relationships likely before they reach the point of nonsupport (Johnson, 2025). When considering support providers, Inagaki and Orehek (2017) assert that two factors influence their outcomes: “(a) whether an individual freely chooses to give support and (b) whether [they think] the support is effective” (p. 110). This underscores that providers may experience fewer positive outcomes and increased negative ones if they feel obligated to offer support (Inagaki & Orehek, 2017).

A decision not to support someone in need potentially carries significant challenges and may be viewed negatively by others. Social support is often expected (Goldsmith, 2004) and considered the default in close relationships (Ray & Manusov, 2023), and failure to provide support might result in being labeled a bad relationship partner or incompetent communicator (Goldsmith, 1994; Parks & Floyd, 1996). For example, research suggests that unsupportiveness in romantic relationships is considered a destructive relationship behavior (Agnew & VanderDrift, 2015). As such, support providers experience both external and internal pressure to provide support in ways that would be perceived as effective by others (Goldsmith, 1994; Ray & Manusov, 2023). Additionally, support providers might find themselves in situations where they feel forced to communicate support when they would prefer not to and/or in non-preferred ways.

All this suggests that support providers may be placed in tricky situations where they feel obligated to support someone when they would rather not (Ray et al., 2023), where they feel incapable of offering meaningful support (Wortman & Lehman, 1985), or where their attempts at offering support are ineffective or even upsetting (High & Dillard, 2012; McLaren & High, 2019). These supportive pressures placed on relationship partners could create situations where providers feel forced into communicating support in ways that are deceptive. Indeed, research into deception and the related construct, deceptive affection, illustrate that even individuals in satisfying, healthy relationships may use deception as relationship maintenance tool (DePaulo et al., 2009; Pederson et al., 2020). In this way, supportive communication might share characteristics with various types of deception.

Deception & Prosocial Motivations

While openness and honesty are often valued in interpersonal interaction (Knapp, 2008), individuals report a range of acceptability for lying (Dunbar et al., 2016), which might be due in part to how people decide what “counts” as lying. Scholarly definitions often categorize deception by outcomes (benign or harmful), motivations (self-serving or other-oriented), and contextual acceptability (DePaulo et al., 1996). Rules and expectations for deception can vary in terms of how relational partners perceive them to be explicit/implicit and obligatory/discretionary (Roggensack & Sillars, 2014). As such, there are various ways that relational partners can respond to dishonesty depending on its motivations and contexts (Boon & McLeod, 2001). For instance, people withhold how they feel when interacting with a partner to avoid conflict, maintain positivity, or refrain from hurting their partner (DePaulo et al., 2009).

Despite reported prosocial intent, research demonstrates that deception can be disadvantageous for individuals and relationships, leading to decreased relationship satisfaction (Peterson, 1996), closeness (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998), and commitment and intimacy (Cole, 2001). Although our goal is not to find where to situate D/RS into a broader, often messy conceptual umbrella of deception, we recognize that some communicative practices of D/RS might resemble specific types of deception already established in the literature, such as within existing research about deceptive affection.

Deceptive Affection

Affection (i.e., feelings of warmth, fondness, and positive emotional regard for another person) and affectionate communication (i.e., outward expressions of affection to another person) appears in close relationships and enriches relational health (Floyd, 2006). Similarly, MacGeorge and colleagues (2011) assert that “supportive communication can signal care, commitment, interest, compassion, and even love” (p. 324), paralleling the functions of affectionate messages (Floyd, 2006). In recent years, more attention has been given to the nuances of deception in affectionate communication. In fact, research suggests that individuals can feel affection that they choose not to express or to minimize; similarly, they can express affection that they do not genuinely feel, pretending to care for someone when they really do not feel warmth and affection towards them (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). Given the overlap in affectionate and supportive communication, deceptive affection is a beneficial framework to consider while theorizing about the potential presence of deception in supportive contexts.

Deceptive affection occurs when individuals outwardly display affection that does not align with their internal feelings (Floyd, 2006; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011, 2013). Deceptive affection is categorized in two main types: withheld affection and deceptive affectionate messages (DAMs; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). Withholding affection involves intentionally not communicating felt affection (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011). DAMs occur when individuals communicate affection that does not reflect their genuine feelings (Floyd, 2006). Horan and Booth-Butterfield (2019) argue that “[…] deceptive affection is not significantly risky for sources. It may be a normal part of relational interactions” (p. 538). Indeed, individuals provide deceptive affection for various reasons, including masking their negative feelings (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2013), maintaining their relationship (Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011), and preventing conflict (Carton & Horan, 2014). As a result, deception and deceptive affection may be useful frameworks for understanding how individuals engage in support in deceptive ways.

Support and Reluctance

In addition to considering how deception might manifest in supportive communication, it is possible that individuals find themselves in encounters where their support provision is less characterized by deception than it is by a general unwillingness. In this case, support providers may occupy the position of a reluctant supporter. The notion of a reluctant supporter draws from research on reluctant confidants (Petronio, 2000; 2002), or individuals who receive another’s private disclosures against their will. Previous research noted that friends may experience challenges both from being an unwilling recipient of heavy information in addition to sometimes struggling to know how best to respond to that information (McBride & Bergen, 2008). Indeed, according to Petronio (2002), “…finding oneself in the role of reluctant confidant may mean that one is completely unprepared to handle the consequences of a disclosure and have difficulty coordinating rules with the discloser” (p. 112). This suggests that part of being a reluctant confidant can include challenges in knowing how to respond. Support-seeking, inherently, involves disclosure (MacGeorge et al., 2011), and evidence suggests that providers can struggle to know how to respond to support-seeking disclosures, at times even resenting the individual seeking support for their problems (Ray et al., 2023; Wortman & Lehman, 1985).

Deceptive/Reluctant Support

Just as individuals can communicate deceptive affection (Floyd, 2006; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011, 2013), it is possible that individuals are not always honest in their supportive communication. The same motivations for engaging in deception and DAMs (e.g., to avoid conflict or protect the relationship; Carton & Horan, 2014; Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2011, 2013) could be the same reasons that individuals engage in D/RS. Support providers also might feel the need to adhere to norms that privilege helping as opposed to not (Goldsmith, 2004; Ray & Manusov, 2023). Thus, support providers might feel obligated to communicate (in)authentic support, even if they are unwilling to do so. To our knowledge, research has not yet explored how deception manifests in supportive interactions despite work acknowledging tensions between honesty and supportiveness (Faw et al., 2019; Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997). With this in mind, we explore the following research question:

RQ1

What are the defining features of D/RS?

Social support is a highly normative behavior, meaning that supportive communication is both enabled and constrained by factors that shape perceptions of its overall quality and value for interactants (Goldsmith, 2004; MacGeorge et al., 2011). For example, discussions of a support provider’s normative motivation emphasize their desire to behave appropriately, saying the “right things” according to their perception of the relationship, the situation, and broader expectations (Burleson et al., 2005). These can bump up against other motivations and goals, resulting in situations in which providers must adjust their behavior to, hopefully, accomplish as many desired goals as possible (Scott et al., 2011). Each of these goals is informed by a provider’s understanding of the context, including the specific relationship, the support seeker’s situation, etc. (MacGeorge et al., 2011). With this in mind, we pose a second research question to illuminate different contextual features that might influence a provider’s D/RS:

RQ2

What contextual and/or relational features influence D/RS communication?

In addition to considering what characterizes and influences D/RS, it is important to explore how different aspects of D/RS might co-occur with contextual features. Social support is a dynamic process that evolves over time and across relationships, with different messages influencing people’s relationships and evaluations—and vice versa (Goldsmith, 2004; MacGeorge et al., 2011). Scholars in supportive communication have called for investigations into not just the features of support but also ways that interactants, the situation, the relationship, and other factors coalesce together (MacGeorge et al., 2011): “…Supportive interaction is a complex, highly contingent process involving (at a minimum) phases of support seeking, provision, reception, reaction, and response… further work is necessary to develop more accurate—and practical—theory about how and why supportive messages and interactions affect coping processes, relationships, and health” (p. 340). As such, by examining co-occurrences across D/RS defining features and influences, we can explore how these contribute to various provider D/RS experiences. Given this, we pose the following research question:

RQ3

What, if any, co-occurrence relationships emerge between the defining features of D/RS and its contextual and/or relational influences?

Participants

To participate, individuals self-identified at least one experience where they found supporting someone as difficult or challenging. Eligible participants had to be at least 18 years old and able to complete the study in English. The research team conducted 25 interviews in total; however, three interviews were excluded from analysis as these interviews discussed their supportive responsibilities aligning with an organizational role rather than experiences within a specific relationship.

Of the 22 participants, 82% (n = 18) identified as women, 14% (n = 3) identified as men, and 4% (n = 1) identified as nonbinary. Most participants identified as White (n = 19, 86.36%), with additional participants identifying as Black/African American (n = 1, 4.55%), Native American (n = 1, 4.55%), and Lebanese-American (n = 1, 4.55%). Participants ranged in age from 23 to 63 years old (M = 28.82, SD = 8.56). Additionally, 41% (n = 9) of participants self-identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and/or asexual (LGBTQIA+). Participants shared their experiences from a variety of relationships, including with friends, (ex-)romantic partners, in-laws, siblings, coworkers, and workplace supervisors, and across diverse situations, including conflict, interpersonal violence, and physical/mental health crises, among others.

Procedures

All procedures were approved by an institutional review board. The research team used convenience and snowball sampling to recruit participants (Patton, 2001) via various social media sites (LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram) and across two large university campuses. Individuals interested in participating were encouraged to contact the research team to confirm eligibility and schedule an interview. Prior to the interview, participants completed a consent form and demographic survey. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used for data collection (Lindlof & Taylor, 2017). The research team structured the interviews considering the nuances of inauthenticity (i.e., communicating support that did not align with participants’ feelings) and unwillingness (i.e., communicating support when participants did not want to) during interactions, resulting in three interview protocols for participant selection.

At the beginning of each interview, participants were encouraged to think of their challenging supportive relationship while listening to three scenario descriptions. The first scenario explained how people might offer support when they do not want to, but the support they offer aligns with their true feelings (i.e., unwilling). The second scenario described how people might provide support when they do want to help, but the support they offer does not align with their feelings (i.e., inauthentic). The third scenario explained how people might provide support when they do not want to help and the support they offer does not align with their true feelings (i.e., unwilling and inauthentic). After hearing these descriptions, participants selected the one that most closely matched their situation. Then, the researcher used the protocol that best fit the participant’s experience. Each protocol followed a similar format (e.g., asking participants to describe their supportive challenges, the nature of their relationship, their reasons for providing support, outcomes of their support, etc.). However, the language was tailored based on the scenario that aligned most with their experiences (i.e., unwilling, inauthentic, or unwilling and inauthentic). Throughout interviews, follow-up questions generally asked for more detail about various factors (e.g., motivations, emotions, etc.) impacting their D/RS. Interviews allowed participants to share entire stories so that the research team could gather insight about the nuances of their support rather than viewing deception as a singular event. All participants received a $15 e-gift card at the conclusion of their interview.

Analysis

All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by the research team. Interviews ranged from 31 to 87 minutes long (M = 52.27 minutes). Approximately 1,000 double-spaced pages and 225,000 words of text were coded following Braun and Clarke’s (2019) thematic analysis steps, generating themes across the interviews while connecting emergent themes to existing theoretical frameworks. In our initial analysis, we identified three defining features and five complicating contextual factors of D/RS. All participants experienced at least two complicating contextual factors, with most experiencing three or four. To explore how defining features co-occurred with the complicating contextual factors, we completed a thematic co-occurrence analysis (TCA; Scharp, 2021). In keeping with TCA, we relied on Owen’s (1984) criteria (i.e., recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness) to ensure the trustworthiness of themes. Recurrence was present when specific meanings occurred numerous times (e.g., participants detailing their fear of repercussions), repetition occurred when meaning was repeated with the same words (e.g., participants labeling their support as “needed”), and forcefulness existed when participants used emphasis while speaking (e.g., higher volume or intense tone).

To examine potential co-occurrences across themes, we created a co-occurrence matrix and assessed patterns based on the following continua: (a) complementary-contradictory (do the themes reinforce or clash with each other?), (b) sporadic-pervasive (how recurrent and forceful are the co-occurrences?), (c) unilateral-bilateral (does one theme imply the presence of the other and vice versa?), and (d) balanced-unbalanced (are the themes comparable with regard to recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness?). We also focused on the possibilities of ubiquity (whether the theme appears for most participants) and independence (whether a theme does not co-occur with another theme) (Scharp, 2021; Scharp et al., 2024). In our co-occurrence coding process, the presence of a theme for any given participant was marked with an “X” in the matrix. We then marked instances where a theme was forceful with a “+” (Owen, 1984). We used “U” as a code to indicate instances where a theme was ubiquitous (Scharp et al., 2024). Finally, we used letters in alphabetical order (i.e., A, B, C, etc.) to indicate the presences of a co-occurrent relationship among themes and assigned each theme a number to reflect how many themes co-occur (Scharp, 2021; Wolfe et al., 2024). Superscripts reflect that two themes (e.g., A²/A³) may not co-occur with each other but co-occur with the anchor theme which is numbered “1” (e.g., A1). From this analysis, we identified patterns where co-occurrences had complementary relationships (i.e., parallel sentiment; Scharp, 2021) with the defining features, and we also identified instances of ubiquity and independence (Scharp et al., 2024). In these cases, the complicating contextual factors created an increasingly complex D/RS process.

Numerous steps were taken to ensure data credibility, including: reaching data saturation (i.e., additional interviews did not provide new themes or results; we reached saturation after interview 9), triangulation among the research team (i.e., independently coding and comparing findings for consistency), negative case analysis (i.e., searching for data that does not align with emerging themes), and peer debriefing (i.e., discussing findings with other colleagues) (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Lindlof & Taylor, 2017). To ensure our understanding aligned with participants’ experiences, we conducted member checks with five participants (Lindlof & Taylor, 2017). During interviews, the first author rephrased their responses and asked clarifying questions. After themes were established, we provided the results from participants’ interviews (including theme names, definitions, and exemplars) and asked whether anything felt inaccurate. Individuals were selected for member checks based on (1) highly complex or unique features in their interview and (2) their willingness to be contacted. All five member checks confirmed the findings.

Researcher Positionality

Given a researcher’s engagement with data collection and analysis in qualitative research, it is vital to consider their positionality (Tracy, 2020). Throughout all phases of this project, we engaged in self-reflexivity to be aware and transparent about how our identities and scholarly commitments influenced this research (Tracy, 2010). Indeed, “failure to attend to reflexivity can negatively impact the knowledge built via qualitative research and those connected to it” (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023, p. 241). The first author has faced challenges as a support provider, including various moments of unwillingness and inauthenticity, which ultimately motivated this research. Her experiences allowed her to connect with participants and enhanced her ability to understand their experiences. However, the first author embodies a significant amount of privilege as a cisgender, White woman which possibly inhibited individuals with marginalized identities from participating. The second author identifies as a cisgender, White woman, and has studied social support in numerous contexts and relationships. The third author (identifying as a White, cisgender man) has studied support in various contexts that has shaped his views of support as being normatively positive. Neither the second nor the third author conducted participant interviews and thus only analyzed transcribed interview data. In short, various aspects of the research team’s identities and scholarly commitments could have influenced the research.

RQ1: Defining Features of D/RS

We identified three defining features of D/RS: unwillingness, dishonesty, and norms.

RQ2: Complicating Contextual Factors

In addition to defining features, the results provide insight into complicating contextual factors, including fear of repercussions, justification, personal values, isolation, and networks. Although we list the complicating contextual factors second, these factors contributed to and sometimes drove support providers’ experiences of the aforementioned defining features. All participants experienced multiple complicating contextual factors, with most experiencing three to four.

RQ3: Thematic Co-Occurrences

Through our thematic co-occurrence analysis (Scharp, 2021), we examined co-occurrent relationships between participants’ D/RS experiences (RQ1) and their complicating contextual factors (RQ2) (see Table 1). The defining feature, norms, was ubiquitous in nature, occurring for nearly all participants. Fear of repercussions, personal values, and networks were ubiquitous complicating contextual factors, occurring for most participants. Using the co-occurrence matrix, we found three additional patterns: (a) a complementary, unilateral, pervasive, and unbalanced relationship between the defining features (i.e., unwillingness/dishonesty) and justification (relationship A); (b) a complementary, unilateral, pervasive, and balanced relationship between any form of unwillingness (i.e., unwillingness only or unwillingness and dishonesty) and isolation (relationship B); and (c) an inverse relationship between justification and experiencing both unwillingness and dishonesty (relationship C1/C2).

Relationship A was unilateral, such that justification (A1) was reported alongside unwillingness (A²) and dishonesty (A³). The relationship was also pervasive in that it was recurrent throughout the data, and unbalanced, such that unwillingness was more forceful, and dishonesty was more recurrent. Relationship A was complementary, meaning that experiences of unwillingness or dishonesty were reinforced through participants’ justification of their deception. In other words, participants who were unwilling to provide support as well as participants who provided support that did not align with their true feelings or beliefs both offered justification for their D/RS provision. For example, Scarlett justified providing support to her ex-boyfriend, “[…] it’s kind of like that emotional dependency where he put me on a pedestal which, in a way, feels nice.” In Scarlett’s case, the positive feeling she received by being “placed on a pedestal” and praised by her ex-boyfriend reinforced her decision to continue with her D/RS. Even though she simultaneously acknowledged her desire to stop providing support, she partially justified her actions by emphasizing the admiration she received for her actions. For Scarlett and other participants, providing a justification helped them rationalize their continued participation in an experience that they themselves often described as frustrating, annoying, or even hurtful and toxic. This co-occurrence is notable, as justification existed alongside two defining features of D/RS—and, thus, may play an important role in prompting continued D/RS, even as people grapple with their unwillingness and dishonesty in their supportive relationships.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Thematic Co-Occurrence Matrix

Participant ID	Defining features				Complicating contextual factors
	Unwillingness	Dishonesty	Both	Norms	Fear	Justification	Personal values	Networks	Isolation
1		X		U	U+		U	U	X+
2		A^3		U+	U+	A1	U	U+
3			X/C1	U	U+	C2		U
4			X	U	U	X		U+
5		A^3		U	U	A1		U
6		X+		U	U+		U+	U
9	A^2+/B^2+			U	U+	A1	U	U	B1+
10		A^3+		U+	U	A1	U	U
11			B^3+/C1	U+	U+	C2	U	U+	B1+
12			B^3+/C1	U+	U+	C2	U+	U	B1+
13	A^2/B^2			U	U	A1	U	U+	B1+
14			X	U	U		U
15	A^2+/B^2+			U+	U	A1	U+	U	B1+
16		A^3		U	U	A1	U+	U
17		A^3			U+	A1	U+	U	X+
19			X+/C1	U+	U	C2	U	U+
20			B^3+/C1	U+	U+	C2	U+	U+	B1+
21		A^3		U	U+	A1	U	U+
22		X			U		U		X
23	A^2+/B^2+			U	U+	A1	U	U	B1+
24		A^3		U+	U+	A1	U	U
25		X		U+	U		U	U	X+

Relationship B was unilateral, such that isolation (B1) was reported alongside participants who experienced any form of unwillingness, either exclusively (B²) or unwillingness in combination with dishonesty (B³). The relationship was also pervasive, such that the relationship was recurrent throughout the dataset, and balanced, such that the themes reflected similar recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness. Relationship B was complementary in that participants’ experiences of isolation reinforced their experiences of unwillingness. For instance, Abigail found herself providing D/RS to a friend struggling with depression. As this friend’s mental illness progressed, their behavior increasingly drove their other network members away, leaving Abigail as their only supporter. As a result, Abigail grappled with the challenge of being the last supporter standing, stating “It’s going to be detrimental to me, and so, I can’t be [their] only support network when [they] are struggling.” However, Abigail continued providing support—even though it left her drained—because she worried about her friend’s well-being. Reflecting on a conversation with her friend, Abigail shared, “‘I can’t be your only support network anymore. I can’t keep doing this to this degree and this severity… Reach out to a therapist or a psychiatrist or something’, then they never do. So, I guess, I have a fear of, if I don’t provide support, then something might happen…” For Abigail, being the only supporter (isolation) contributed to her unwillingness as well as her perceived inability to stop. As such, it is possible that participants experienced increased pressure to continue providing support beyond their willingness or capacity because they believed that they were the only source of support for the recipient. It is also possible that continued D/RS provision in combination with feelings of isolation may intensify a provider’s sense of unwillingness as the D/RS process drags on.

Relationship C was an inverse relationship, such that all participants, except for one, who experienced both unwillingness and dishonesty in their D/RS did not cite justification as part of their experience. Given the pervasive nature of relationship A, which depicts co-occurrences between justification and unwillingness as well as justification and dishonesty, it is surprising that justification was almost entirely absent from participants who cited experiencing both unwillingness and dishonesty. On the one hand, it is possible that participants do not feel a need to justify their unwilling and dishonest D/RS, in that they might perceive that the combination offsets one another. For example, a person might believe that the seeming contradiction of providing unwilling support is brought into balance by having the support they offer be dishonest. Conversely, it is possible that the combination of unwillingness and dishonesty feels unjustifiable and irrational to participants, but that they experience other factors and pressures that prompt continued D/RS in their relationships.

Deceptive/Reluctant Support and Support Effectiveness

As defined by MacGeorge and colleagues (2011), social support encompasses “verbal and nonverbal behavior produced with the intention of providing assistance to others perceived as needing that aid” (p. 317). This definition does not explicitly address its authenticity or willingness—key considerations, especially for support providers. Some research suggests that individuals intentionally choose to offer dishonest support. For example, Goldsmith and Fitch (1997) found that advice givers deprioritized honesty, choosing supportiveness or meeting the emotional needs of the support seeker instead. Similar research found that parents struggle with the “correct” approach to providing support, whether to offer tough love (i.e., honest support) versus some other support that would alleviate stress and be preferred by the support seeker (Faw et al., 2019). In other research, Inagaki and Orehek (2017) note that support can be considered positive for providers only insomuch as it is offered willingly and deemed effective.

All these studies identify when and how providers choose to communicate support, highlighting a challenge extant in social support research: Who gets to decide when, how, and for whom social support is “effective”? D/RS provides a valuable framework for highlighting how traditional notions of effective support (i.e., providing support seekers with validating, acknowledging messages; High & Dillard, 2012) might not adequately capture what feels effective for support providers. Indeed, D/RS highlights a crucial challenge for support providers. In D/RS, providers choose to communicate in ways that they believe will satisfy the recipient even as that communication fails to meet their own needs or even subjects them to harm. The fact that some participants described their relationships as toxic while highlighting a lack of reciprocity and low respect for boundaries raises questions about for whom this type of support can be deemed effective (Inagaki & Orehek, 2017).

In this way, the experience of D/RS highlights inherent challenges in supportive communication, with providers experiencing their own D/RS efforts as creating and reinforcing problematic dynamics that damage their well-being. D/RS represents an interesting paradox, with providers simultaneously choosing D/RS to promote prosocial, positive outcomes for recipients while also recognizing that it can cause harm, internal conflict, and challenges for the providers themselves. As such, this research contributes to a growing literature that wrestles with a key question: How do support providers choose between honesty and supportiveness, between their own needs and the needs of others, and what are the consequences of those choices? Future research should continue to investigate these questions, exploring support providers’ experiences and outcomes of supportive interactions.

Deceptive/Reluctant Support in a Continuum of Supportive Communication

In addition to considering when, how, and for whom support might be considered effective, participants’ experiences of D/RS highlight that supportive communication is ongoing and dynamic, with providers’ motivations and efforts evolving as situations unfold. For many participants, their support started as genuine; however, as time progressed, they were no longer comfortable or capable of providing support in the same ways. In articulating their relationship norms (especially boundary creep and no questions asked), several participants noted that they only realized how much the norms in their relationship had shifted after it was too late, and an uncomfortable new norm was established. For other participants, the motivation to engage in D/RS sprang from having their genuine supportive efforts poorly received or from the belief they would be poorly received (seen in fear of negative repercussions and justification).

These findings suggest that supportive communication happens on a continuum. Between supportive communication that is authentic and genuine (what is usually discussed, simply, as social support), establishing parameters around the amount and/or type of support a provider is willing to offer (i.e., support boundary creation; Johnson, 2025), and the ultimate decision to cease offering support (i.e., nonsupport; Ray et al., 2023) is D/RS. Indeed, in work where individuals discussed their rationale for support boundary creation and engaging in nonsupport, many cited experiences that share significant similarities with participants’ discussions of D/RS (Johnson, 2025; Ray et al., 2023), including challenges of nonreciprocity, perceived ineffectiveness, and excessive demands for support. This suggests that when D/RS drags on or becomes intolerable, people might resort to minimizing, altering, or withdrawing their support (Johnson, 2025; Ray et al., 2023). Future research should examine the process of how individuals move through different types of support (genuine, within specific boundaries, deceptive/reluctant, and nonsupport) within a given relationship. Of particular value is increased insight into how individuals move from D/RS back to genuine support, something our participants struggled to do.

Complexity in Deceptive/Reluctant Support

The results of our thematic co-occurrence analysis (Scharp, 2021) indicate that D/RS is multifaceted and complex. In addition to the defining features, our participants detailed various complicating contextual factors that created complex D/RS experiences. The number of complicating contextual factors in combination with their nuances proved difficult to find clear-cut relationships between our themes. However, our analysis identified a few key patterns.

First, there were numerous themes that were ubiquitous, or present for almost all participants. Relational norms was a defining feature that was present for nearly all participants, making it ubiquitous in nature. Additionally, the complicating contextual factors of fear of repercussions, personal values, and networks were ubiquitous, occurring for most participants. It is important to note that, given the homogeneity of our participants, the norms and personal values highlighted in this research represent a highly White, female understanding of the D/RS experience. It is likely that individuals who experience different identities might experience different norms and values that influence their D/RS communication. Regardless, three of the five complicating contextual factors appearing to be ubiquitous among our participants illuminates the complexity of D/RS experiences.

Another pattern is reflected in relationship A, such that justification (A1) co-occurred with unwillingness (A²) and a dishonesty (A³). The relationship was unbalanced, as participants’ experiences of unwillingness were more forceful, and participants’ dishonesty was more recurrent. Regardless, this complimentary, pervasive relationship reflects how participants who provided support unwillingly and those who were dishonest both provided justifications of their deception. Surprisingly, the last pattern was an inverse relationship between justification and experiencing both unwillingness and dishonesty in their support. Almost entirely unrelated to one another, relationship C depicts how all participants (except for one) who experienced both unwillingness and inauthenticity in their D/RS provision did not offer justifications for their continued support. The lack of co-occurrence between these themes is surprising, given the pervasive nature of relationship A. However, it is possible that these individuals believed that their D/RS represents a more acceptable form of deception (DePaulo et al., 2009; Pederson et al., 2020), which might explain the lack of justification for their D/RS provision.

Additionally, relationship B depicts co-occurrences between isolation (B1) and any form of unwillingness (i.e., participants who were only unwilling (B²) or unwilling and inauthentic (B³)). This complementary, pervasive relationship reflects how feeling like the only one providing support might contribute to feelings of reluctance for continued support provision. It is possible that being isolated contributes to more continuous, excessive support, which may have accumulated over time and quickened their process of burnout. Other research suggests that the voluntary provisions of support is an important factor in creating positive interactions for support providers (Inagaki & Orehek, 2017); at the same time, pressure to provide support when a person does not want to can place providers in difficult positions, increasing the likelihood of D/RS and, perhaps eventually, supportive burnout (Goldsmith, 1994; Johnson, 2025; Ray & Manusov, 2023). As such, researchers should continue to investigate the complicated social dynamics—both within dyadic supportive relationships as well as broader social and cultural networks—to understand how providers can more effectively navigate these complex situations.

From these patterns, we also noted that all participants who cited being unwilling only experienced all five complicating contextual factors. These four participants cited fear of repercussions, personal values, and networks, which were labeled ubiquitous on our matrix as most participants experienced these themes. However, they also had co-occurrences with justification (detailed with relationship A) and isolation (detailed with relationship B). These findings highlight that there might be something unique about desiring not to provide support but being genuine in that support that is motivated by or creates high levels of complexity. Indeed, research illustrates how people use deceptive affectionate messages most while they have lower levels of commitment and relational satisfaction (Caton & Horan, 2021), and it is possible that our participants were navigating challenges that minimized their willingness to invest in their relationships. Future research should unpack how these contextual factors influence D/RS.

Deceptive/Reluctant Support, Deception, and Deceptive Affection

Our results align with similar research investigating affectionate communication and prosocial deception. Just as with social support, most discussions of affectionate communication assume that it is honest and willing; however, research on deceptive affectionate messages (e.g., Horan & Booth-Butterfield, 2019) illustrates how individuals may choose to deceive in their affection. Other forms of relational maintenance (e.g., surprises; Pederson et al., 2020) can be performed in deceptive ways with the intention to preserve or enhance the relationship. However, even prosocial deception is not universally positive. Pederson and colleagues (2020) noted that relational surprises can raise questions about how well a partner can deceive—if they are capable of prosocial deception, they might also be capable of deception for nefarious purposes, creating opportunities for doubt even in a prosocial deceptive situation.

Similar to deceptive affection, the notion of D/RS might conjure ideas of support that is malicious or coercive. However, it is important to recognize that D/RS is not inherently antisocial. Research into deception has identified numerous prosocial reasons why a person might lie (DePaulo et al., 2009). Aligning with past research on advice givers who perceive that recipients are not truly open to their insights (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997), some participants engaged in D/RS because they felt other supportive efforts would be futile, or that creating boundaries or engaging in nonsupport would threaten their face or the relationship. In this way, participants brought careful thought and strategy to their D/RS, with many of them choosing D/RS because they believed it would result in the most positive outcomes possible. D/RS represents support providers’ efforts to address complex social challenges in ways to promote the most good for a specific relational and situational dynamic. Given other-oriented lies are more common in close relationships (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998), individuals might prioritize relational maintenance while engaging in D/RS. Future research should identify when and how D/RS becomes hurtful to promote communication that meets the needs of both interactants.

Limitations & Directions for Future Research

While this study’s findings generate novel insights about D/RS, it is not without limitations. Our participants were highly racially homogenous, with only three participants identifying as people of color. As such, our results should be considered carefully, as they reflect experiences of deceptive/reluctant support that are largely White and female. Given research demonstrating that supportive communication can be influenced by a person’s identity (Davis, 2021) and our own participants citing their personal and cultural values in their D/RS, it is essential that future research investigates how D/RS varies among different individuals and contexts. Additionally, we did not ask our participants to share information related to their experiences of disability or socioeconomic status, two other factors that might influence D/RS. Similarly, even though this study did not specify any constraints around the circumstances that prompted D/RS, our participants often shared more extreme incidents. While a few reflected D/RS in more mundane circumstances, it is possible that everyday experiences of D/RS might have additional complicating factors and serve varying purposes (Burleson, 1994). Future research could consider utilizing methods like daily diary studies to capture mundane D/RS.