Deception: Part 3 — Deception and the Contact Continuum™

Good morning, readers!

Here we are again.

These blogs about Deception are heavy lifts, so I hope my buddies’ staying power remains with me.

We’ve spent some time talking about deception—what it is, how it can show up in relationships, and how patterns of deception can affect trust, informed decision-making, emotional safety, and access.

But now I want to take the conversation one step further.

Because there is a question that often comes up when we believe someone may be deceiving us:

How can you tell if someone is a deceptive person?

Versus:

How can you tell if someone is deceiving you?

Those questions may sound similar.

They aren't.

One asks us to make a conclusion about who a person is.

The other asks us to examine what is happening.

And that distinction matters.

The more useful question may be:

Can we measure the pattern, degree, and impact of deception in a relationship?

That gives us something to examine without immediately turning a behavior into a conclusion about someone's character.

A Possible Deception Continuum™

I have been thinking about deception as something that may exist along a continuum rather than as a simple Honest / Deceptive binary.

A possible progression might look like this:

Omission → Misrepresentation → Concealment → Repeated Deception → High-Impact Deception → Deception as a Mask

These aren't necessarily fixed categories or diagnoses.

They are ways of thinking about what we may be observing.

1. Omission

Information is left out.

The important question becomes:

Was the information intentionally withheld, and was it information the other person reasonably needed in order to understand or make an informed decision?

2. Misrepresentation

Information is presented in a way that does not accurately reflect what happened.

The question becomes:

What was communicated, and how does it compare with what we later learned?

3. Concealment

Information is not simply absent—it may be actively hidden.

The question becomes:

Was there an effort to prevent the information from being discovered?

4. Repeated Deception

Deception is no longer an isolated incident.

A pattern begins to emerge.

5. High-Impact Deception

The consequences become significant.

The deception may affect important decisions, finances, safety, trust, or a person's ability to make informed choices within the relationship.

6. Deception as a Mask

And then there is another question:

When does deception stop being something you do and become something you hide behind?

This is where deception becomes particularly complicated.

There is a difference between an act of deception and a pattern of deception that becomes part of how someone moves through relationships.

Sometimes deception is situational.

Sometimes it is protective.

Sometimes it is an attempt to avoid conflict, shame, consequences, or rejection.

But what happens when deception becomes so consistent that a person begins constructing their relationships around what they want others to believe rather than what is actually true?

At some point, we may have to ask:

Is deception still a behavior—or has it become a mask?

A mask can protect.

It can hide vulnerability.

It can help someone avoid exposure.

It can create distance between who someone is and what they allow other people to see.

And the longer the mask is worn, the more complicated the relationship can become.

Because now the issue isn't simply:

“Were you dishonest with me?”

It may become:

“How much of what I am experiencing is actually real?”

That is a very different question.

What Are We Actually Measuring?

If we are going to talk about measuring deception, we need to be careful about what we mean.

We aren't measuring whether someone is a “deceptive person.”

We are examining the behavior and its impact within a relationship.

There are several dimensions that may help us do that.

Frequency:Is the deception isolated or recurring?

Severity:How consequential is the deception?

Intent:Was information withheld accidentally, intentionally, or for some other reason?

Pattern:Is this becoming a recognizable pattern of behavior?

Response:What happens when the deception is discovered? Is there accountability, repair, denial, blame, or continued deception?

Impact:What does the deception cost the other person?

Trust:How much does it undermine the other person's ability to rely on what they are being told?

These dimensions can help us slow down and examine what is actually happening rather than immediately deciding who someone is.

Deception and Access

And this is where I think the conversation becomes very Contact Continuum™.

The question isn't only:

“Are they lying to me?”

The question is:

“What does this deception tell me about the level of access I can safely give this person?”

Someone doesn't necessarily have to be labeled “a liar” or “a deceptive person” before you reconsider their access to you.

You might say:

“I don't need to determine whether you are a deceptive person. I need to determine whether I can trust the information I'm receiving from you enough to give you this level of access.”

For example, someone could tell one relatively minor lie, acknowledge it, take responsibility, and repair the relationship.

That's very different from someone who repeatedly lies, denies obvious facts, conceals information, shifts blame, and continues the behavior.

Both involve deception. The relational implications are very different.

This is why deception isn't necessarily binary.

It isn't simply:

Honest / Deceptive

It may be:

What happened → How often → How significant → How they responded → What impact it has → What level of access is appropriate

We Have to Be Careful With Labels

We have to be careful about moving from an observed behavior to a conclusion about someone's character, personality, or diagnosis.

We can observe behavior.

We can identify patterns.

We can examine context.

We can consider consequences.

But we should be cautious about making a sweeping determination about who someone is based on what we observe them doing.

So perhaps the more useful question isn't:

“Is this person deceptive?”

Perhaps it is:

“Is this person deceiving me?”

And even that question requires us to slow down.

Because before we can answer it, we have to ask something even more fundamental:

What am I actually seeing?

Now we're getting somewhere.

What Do I Actually Know?

When something feels off in a relationship, our first instinct may be to figure out what the other person is doing.

Are they lying?

Are they hiding something?

Are they manipulating me?

Are they telling me only part of the story?

Those questions may be understandable.

But before we answer them, there is another step.

What do I actually know?

What did I observe?

What information was directly communicated to me?

What information was withheld?

What changed?

What doesn't seem to fit?

And what am I filling in based on my own assumptions?

That last question can be particularly important.

Because there is a difference between what we know and what we believe may be happening.

And when we are trying to make sense of confusing behavior, those two things can become very easy to blend together.

This does not mean we should ignore our instincts.

It means we should examine them.

What am I actually seeing?

Observation Versus Interpretation

Let's say someone tells you one thing and later you discover information that appears inconsistent with what you were told.

The observation might be:

“I was told X, and I later learned Y.”

The interpretation might be:

“This person deliberately lied to me.”

Those two statements are not necessarily the same thing.

The inconsistency is something we can observe.

The intention behind the inconsistency may require further exploration.

Maybe there was deception.

Maybe there was a misunderstanding.

Maybe information changed.

Maybe something was omitted.

Maybe the person genuinely remembers the situation differently.

Or maybe the explanation does not make sense.

We don't always know immediately.

And that is where clinical thinking can be useful.

Instead of rushing to a conclusion, we can pause long enough to separate the information we have from the meaning we are assigning to it.

That doesn't make us naïve.

It makes us intentional.

Look for Patterns

One confusing interaction may require clarification.

A repeated pattern may require a different response.

This is why context matters.

We can ask:

Has this happened before?

Is there a pattern of information being withheld?

Does the person routinely provide information only after being confronted?

Do explanations consistently change?

Are important details repeatedly omitted?

Does what we are told consistently conflict with what we later discover?

Does the pattern affect our ability to make informed decisions about the relationship?

These questions move us away from trying to determine whether someone is simply a “deceptive person.”

Instead, we are examining the behavioral pattern occurring within the relationship.

And that distinction is important.

Because the Contact Continuum™ is not about creating labels for people.

It is about helping us understand contact, evaluate access, and create healthier connection.

What If I Never Know Their Intention?

This is where things can get uncomfortable.

Because sometimes we may never know exactly why someone withheld information.

We may never know whether they intended to deceive us.

We may never get the explanation we wanted.

And we may have to make decisions anyway.

This is important.

We do not always need certainty about someone's intention in order to make a decision about our own access.

Think about that.

You may not know exactly why someone behaved the way they did.

But you can still consider what happened.

You can still consider the pattern.

You can still consider how the behavior affected you.

And you can still decide what you are comfortable making available to that person moving forward.

That is not punishment.

That is discernment.

And This Brings Us Back to Access

The Contact Continuum™ does not require us to prove someone's intention before we can evaluate access.

We can ask:

What do I know?

What have I observed?

What patterns am I seeing?

What information am I missing?

What questions still need to be answered?

And then:

Given what I know, what level of access makes sense?

Maybe the answer is no change.

Maybe the answer is a conversation.

Maybe it is sharing less information.

Maybe it is limiting communication.

Maybe it is changing the conditions under which contact occurs.

The point isn't to punish someone.

The point is to make an intentional decision about your access based on the information available to you.

When Does Deception Become Your Mask?

And perhaps this brings us back to the final question.

When does deception stop being something you do and become something you hide behind?

We don't have to decide who someone is.

We can observe what they repeatedly do.

We can pay attention to inconsistencies.

We can notice what happens when the truth becomes uncomfortable.

We can look at whether there is accountability, repair, and change.

And we can consider what all of that means for trust and access.

Because ultimately, the Contact Continuum™ isn't asking you to become an investigator of another person's character.

It is asking you to become more intentional about your own access decisions.

You may never know exactly why someone deceived you.

You may never know the full story.

You may never get the admission or explanation you hoped for.

But you can still ask:

What do I know?

What have I observed?

What patterns am I seeing?

What impact is this having on me?

And:

What level of access makes sense based on what I know right now?

Because sometimes the most important conclusion isn't:

“I know exactly who this person is.”

It is:

“I know enough to make a different decision about my access.”

And perhaps that is where the conversation about deception ultimately belongs.

Not in proving someone's character.

Not in assigning a label.

But in learning how to recognize what is happening, trust your observations, tolerate uncertainty, and make thoughtful decisions about your relationships.

Because you don't always need certainty about someone else to have clarity about yourself.

And that may be one of the most important lessons of the Contact Continuum™.

What do you think?

Have you ever found yourself trying to figure out whether someone was a deceptive person—when perhaps the more important question was what you were actually experiencing?

What happens when you stop trying to determine who someone is and start paying attention to the pattern, the impact, and the level of access you are willing to give?

I’d love to hear your thoughts.

And if this conversation resonated with you, stay connected. There is much more to come as we continue exploring deception, access, boundaries, and the Contact Continuum™.

Understanding Contact. Evaluating Access. Creating Healthier Connection.

About the Author

Christen J. Yassin, MSW, LCSW, LCSW-C, is a licensed clinical social worker, author, therapist, and creator of the Contact Continuum™—a framework for understanding contact, evaluating access, and creating healthier connection.

With nearly two decades of clinical experience, Christen has worked across behavioral health settings supporting individuals and families navigating complex relationships, emotional safety, boundaries, and change.

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

Through her writing, clinical work, and workshops, Christen explores the ways we understand relationships—and how we can make more intentional decisions about the access we give to others.

Learn more at Centeredonline.com.