Deception: Continuing the Conversation

Good morning, readers!

I am happy you are joining me for another conversation about deception. It’s a big topic, especially when we consider relationships and the Contact Continuum™.

Here’s a recap of where we left off:

Deception is a behavior. It is not, by itself, a diagnosis.

And that brings us to a much broader question:

What does deception actually look like in relationships?

Clinically, deception is more complex than simply telling a lie.

It can involve the intentional manipulation, distortion, concealment, or withholding of information in a way that influences another person's understanding of reality.

There it is!

Let’s look at this.

We can also examine deception through a different clinical lens.

In the previous discussion, we looked at deception within a diagnostic framework—specifically, how deceitfulness can appear as part of the diagnostic criteria associated with certain clinical conditions.

But that is not the only way clinicians can understand behavior.

We can also examine deception without making a diagnosis the starting point.

In this context, we are not asking, What disorder does this behavior represent?

Instead, we are asking:

What is happening?

What function might the deception serve?

What is being communicated, concealed, distorted, or controlled?

And perhaps most importantly:

What impact does the deception have on the relationship?

Because deception is not just about lying.

It’s bigger than that.

It’s about the information that is being communicated, withheld, concealed, distorted, or selectively presented—and what another person is being led to understand as a result.

And here’s where it gets interesting.

What is the intention behind withholding that information?

Now, this is where we have to be careful clinically.

We can observe behavior. We can examine patterns. We can assess context and consequences. We can explore what information was available, what was withheld, and what another person was led to believe.

But we cannot directly observe another person's internal intention.

That makes intentionality difficult to determine with certainty.

We may develop a clinical hypothesis about why someone behaved a certain way based on patterns, context, and available information, but a hypothesis is not the same thing as knowing someone's intent.

And that distinction matters.

Because we can identify that deception occurred—or that information was concealed or distorted—without automatically claiming that we know exactly why the person did it.

This is still a clinical examination of the behavior. We are simply approaching it from a relational and behavioral perspective rather than a diagnostic one.

That distinction matters.

Because a behavior does not have to be a symptom of a mental health disorder for us to examine it clinically.

A person can engage in deception without having a diagnosable condition. And we can explore the pattern, function, context, and relational impact of that deception without assigning a diagnosis to the person engaging in it.

So, for the purposes of this conversation, let's take diagnosis out of the driver's seat.

Let's look at deception on its own.

Not as a label.

Not as a diagnosis.

But as a behavior that can occur within relationships—and one that can have very real consequences for trust, informed decision-making, emotional safety, and access.

Now we're getting somewhere.

So, we’ve laid out the clinical definition, which helps us understand what deception is—and what it is not.

Whew!

Heavy lift completed.

Now let’s complete another heavy squat. LOL.

Not all deception looks like an obvious lie.

Sometimes deception is what is said.

Sometimes it is what is deliberately left unsaid.

Sometimes it is how information is presented.

And sometimes it is the creation of a particular impression while technically never saying something that is untrue.

This is where deception becomes particularly relevant when we talk about relationships.

We often evaluate relationships based on what a person does. But we also need to consider whether we can accurately understand what is happening within the relationship in the first place.

Because informed decisions require access to information.

When information is intentionally manipulated, concealed, or distorted, our ability to evaluate a relationship—and determine what level of access is healthy—can be compromised.

And this brings deception directly into the conversation about boundaries and the Contact Continuum™.

Boundaries regulate behavior. Low contact regulates access. But deception can interfere with our ability to determine what access is appropriate in the first place.

Think about that for a moment.

If we believe we are being deceived by someone, do we still want to remain in contact with that person?

And if we do, how much access do we want them to have to our lives?

Those are two different questions.

Contact asks: Do I want a relationship with this person?

Access asks: How much of my life am I willing to make available to this person?

And deception can make us reconsider both.

If a person has demonstrated a pattern of deception, withholding, or selective disclosure, that information may become relevant when we evaluate the level of access we are willing to provide.

That does not automatically mean the relationship has to end.

It does mean we may need to reconsider the conditions under which contact occurs.

Maybe we share less personal information.

Maybe we limit the topics we discuss.

Maybe we communicate less frequently.

Maybe we choose more structured or public settings for interactions.

Maybe we stop relying on that person for certain types of information, support, or decision-making.

Maybe we move from a level of contact where there was considerable openness and trust to one where access is more limited and intentional.

This is where the Contact Continuum becomes useful.

Because the question is not always simply:

“Do I stay or do I leave?”

Sometimes the more clinically useful question is:

“Given what I now know about this relationship, what level of contact and access makes sense?”

And that question requires us to pay attention to patterns.

One instance of withheld information may require clarification. It may have an explanation that has nothing to do with deception.

But when we begin to see a repeated pattern of concealment, distortion, selective disclosure, or withholding—and that pattern consistently affects our ability to understand the relationship—we may need to respond differently.

The distinction is important because we are not simply reacting to one uncomfortable interaction. We are evaluating what the pattern tells us about the relationship and our ability to make informed decisions within it.

And this is where access becomes particularly important.

Access is not all or nothing.

We can change the amount, frequency, conditions, and type of access someone has to our lives.

We can remain connected to someone while changing what we share with them.

We can care about someone while becoming more discerning about what information we give them.

We can maintain contact while reducing access.

And sometimes, depending on the circumstances, we may determine that no contact is the healthiest option.

The point is not that deception automatically determines the level of contact.

The point is that deception gives us information that may need to be considered when determining the level of access that is healthy.

Because access is not simply about how much we want someone in our lives.

It is also about how much access we can safely and reasonably give them based on what we know.

And sometimes, what we learn about a person's relationship with truth changes what we are willing to make available to them.

That's the Contact Continuum™.

Continue the Conversation

So, where does this leave us?

Deception is not always obvious.

It is not always an outright lie.

And it does not automatically tell us what diagnosis, if any, may be present.

What it can do is give us information.

Information about patterns.

Information about trust.

Information about the relationship.

And sometimes, information that causes us to reconsider access.

But there is still another question worth exploring:

What happens when we are the ones trying to make sense of the deception?

How do we know when something feels “off”?

What happens when the information we have does not seem to match what we are experiencing?

And how do we distinguish between being deceived, misunderstanding a situation, and simply not having all of the information?

These questions matter because healthy boundaries require us to make decisions based on what we know—not simply what we hope is true.

And sometimes, before we can determine what level of contact is healthy, we first have to trust ourselves enough to pause and ask:

What am I actually seeing?

That is where we’ll continue the conversation.

About Christen J. Yassin, MSW, LCSW, LCSW-C

Christen J. Yassin is a licensed clinical social worker, author, and creator of The Contact Continuum™, a clinical framework for understanding contact, evaluating access, and creating healthier connections in relationships.

With nearly two decades of clinical experience, Christen has worked across a range of mental health and behavioral health settings, providing clinical assessment, psychotherapy, and treatment to children, adolescents, adults, and families. Her professional experience includes work with individuals and families navigating complex emotional, behavioral, developmental, and relational concerns.

Her clinical background includes work at Joseph J. Peters Institute, Northwestern Human Services, and within community-based and early intervention programs. These experiences have provided her with a broad clinical foundation and a firsthand understanding of the complexities that can arise within relationships, family systems, mental health, and human behavior.

Christen brings this clinical foundation to her work examining boundaries, emotional safety, relational dynamics, and the decisions people make about contact and access. Her approach emphasizes clinical distinction and context rather than labeling or diagnosing people based on individual behaviors.

She is the author of The Contact Continuum: A Guide to No Contact, Low Contact, and Everything In Between, forthcoming.