15

Click here to load reader

Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

This article was downloaded by: [Case Western Reserve University]On: 24 November 2014, At: 05:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Managing the Outcomes ofDiscovered DeceptionR. Kelly Aune a , Sandra Metts b & Amy S. EbesuHubbard aa Department of Speech , University of Hawaii atManoab Department of Communication , Illinois StateUniversityPublished online: 03 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: R. Kelly Aune , Sandra Metts & Amy S. Ebesu Hubbard (1998)Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception, The Journal of Social Psychology,138:6, 677-689, DOI: 10.1080/00224549809603254

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224549809603254

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

Page 2: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

The Journal of Social Psychology, 1998, 138(6), 677-689

Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

R. KELLY AUNE Department of Speech

University of Hawaii ar Manoa SANDRA METTS

Department of Communication Illinois State University

AMY S. EBESU HUBBARD Department of Speech

University of Hawaii at Manoa

ABSTRACT. This study analyzed strategies individuals use to manage the discovery of deception in a relationship. A sample of 2 10 participants completed questionnaires detail- ing their use of repair strategies subsequent to deception. Findings showed that the use of repair strategies differed across relational types and that the use of prosocial relational repair strategies was positively correlated with the target’s increase in trust for the deceiv- er, the target’s expressions of affection for the deceiver, and relational intimacy. Relation- al satisfaction was positively correlated with the tendency to use prosocial strategies. The deceiver’s message selection was partially constrained by perceptions of the target’s attri- butions concerning the relational significance of the deception; prosocial strategies were correlated with the deceiver’s belief that the target attributed relational significance to the deceptive act.

RESEARCHERS HAVE MADE SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS to understand rela- tionship continuation by focusing on communicative strategies that couples use to prevent and remediate relational deterioration. Researchers have developed several typologies of maintenance strategies (Ayres, 1983; Baxter & Dindia, 1990; Canary & Stafford, 1992; Dindia & Baxter, 1987). In our study, we exam- ined one particular type of relational disruption, the discovery of deception. Although deception is a rather common and sometimes functional communica- tion practice in relationships (Bochner, 1982; Parks, 1982), an individual’s dis- covery of his or her partner’s deception is typically a disruptive event. The dis-

Address corre.vpondence to R. Kelly Aune, University of Hawaii at Munoa, Deparlment of Speech, George Hall 326, 2560 Campus Road, Honolulu, HI 96822.

677

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

678 The Journal of Sociul Psychology

covery of deception has been shown to increase uncertainty (Planalp & Honey- cutt, 1985; Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988) and arouse strong negative affect in the recipient, especially if the information lied about and the act of lying are perceived to be significant (McCornack & Levine, 1990). Researchers have found that American college students consider deception to be a very serious “relational transgression” (Metts, 1991).

Management of the revelation episode and the ensuing discussions is a com- municative challenge for the individual whose deception is discovered or revealed. At the very least, the individual must account in some way for both his or her decision to use deception and the event that prompted it (Aune, Metts, & Ebesu, 1990). Furthermore, the individual must convince his or her partner that the deception is an occurrence and not evidence of a personality trait (DeTurck & Steele, 1988) and also address the relational consequences of the deception (e.g., reduced trust, commitment, and love).

Despite the complexity of the problem, many couples have mechanisms for coping with discovered deception and repairing relational damage before it leads to termination. McCornack and Levine (1990) found, among a sample of Arner- ican college students, that only 24% of those who had discovered deception actu- ally broke off the relationship. In an effort to identify the strategies used to cope with discovered deception, Aune et al. (1990) asked a sample of community res- idents and college students how they responded to, and consequently dealt with, being caught in a deception.

Answers to the open-ended questions indicated that respondents relied on a set of 12 general strategies to manage the discovery of deception, including (a) telling the truth; (b) providing an excuse (denying responsibility); (c) providing a justification (denying the pejorative nature of the information or the deception); (d) refusing to explain when asked (denying the event occurred); (e) evading the issue during conversation; (f) apologizing; (g) soothing the partner; (h) using impression management techniques (strategic presentation of saddened, repen- tant, or guilty image); (i) invoking the relationship as a reason to forgive and for- get; 6 ) making efforts to reaffirm or strengthen relational bonds; (k) using rela- tional rituals (e.g., giving gifts, flowers, or cards); and (1) talking explicitly about the deception and its impact on the relationship.

In our investigation we examined the extent to which these repair strategies are effective in restoring relational qualities (e.g., trust, commitment, and love). We also analyzed the extent to which their use is associated with relationship type, overall level of satisfaction, and characteristics of the situation (e.g., per- ceived significance of the deception).

Hypotheses and Reseurch Questions

Whether relationship type influences strategy selection when managing dis- covered deception is not known. Research has shown that because people in var-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

Aune, Metts, & Ebesu Hubbard 679

ious types of relationships differ in the kind of deception they report as well as in the reasons they give for the deception (Metts, 1989j, they may also differ in the type of strategy they are most likely to use to manage the discovery of decep- tion, particularly because the individuals involved in the relationships differed in familiarity. Miller and Steinberg’s ( I 975 j arguments on interpersonal communi- cation as well as research by Miller, Boster, Roloff, and Seibold (1977) suggest that our knowledge of one another might allow us to choose a very specific and limited number of strategies known to be effective with the target person. On the other hand, an individual’s knowledge of his or her partner may also suggest that a wide variety of strategies would be more successful. The argument that rela- tionship type influences strategy selection is reasonable. However, the specific manner in which it influences strategy selection is uncertain.

Regardless of a communicator’s particular goal, some messages allow an individual to be more effective in achieving that goal than others. This is partic- ularly true if a communicator’s goal is to repair a relationship damaged by the discovery of deception. Although no study to date directly tests this assumption, research in the related area of verbal influence offers some direction for logical hypotheses. Newton and Burgoon (1990) recently developed a typology of ver- bal influence strategies used by relational partners during conflict. They reasoned that strategies eliciting positive emotional responses in targets (i.e., prosocial strategies) would lead to more successful influence of targets. They found that individuals were more persuasive when using content-validation and other-sup- portive strategies (e.g., agreements, support of other, concessions) and less per- suasive when using content-invalidation and other-accusing strategies (e.g., accusing, exaggerating, blaming the other). Furthermore, they reported evidence of reciprocal behavior in such situations; use of content-validation and other-sup- port tactics elicited use of the same tactics in relational partners.

In the typology described earlier (Aune et al., 1990), content-validation and other-support strategies are represented by apology, discussion, soothing, rela- tional work, and relational invocation. Content-invalidation and other-accusation include strategies such as avoiding and denying. To the extent that the target believes that the deceiver refuses to accept responsibility or is minimizing the outcomes of the deception, use of excuses and justifications could be perceived as content-invalidation as well. Strategies such as using relational rituals and impression management are inherently ambiguous in reference to the Newton and Burgoon (1990) typology. Relational rituals may serve the same function as relational work, or, conversely, may be perceived as patronizing and low effort, and thus as inappropriate responses to what may be perceived as a significant relational event. Likewise, Aune et al.’s data indicate that impression manage- ment could serve prosocial and antisocial functions. In the former, a deceiver may deliberately attempt to present a sympathetic, guilty, or apologetic face, whereas in the latter a deceiver may act in an outraged fashion in an attempt to reframe the situation. Thus, we have posited the following hypothesis:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

680 The Journul of Social Psychology

Hypothesis 1: Relational repair will be positively correlated with the deceiver’s use of apology, discussion, soothing, and relational work and negatively corre- lated with use of excuse, justification, avoidance, and refusal.

It is reasonable to assume that individuals in relationships characterized by greater relational satisfaction would be more motivated to successfully repair damage than would those in less satisfactory relationships. Such motivation should lead to the deceiver’s preference for prosocial repair strategies. Yet Din- dia and Baxter (1987) did not find a correlation between strategy selection in marital maintenance and repair and relational satisfaction. This finding may be due in part to their more global treatment of repair as compared with its treatment in our study. Findings in the conflict literature do, however, provide evidence of an association between the use of certain prosocial conflict strategies and rela- tional satisfaction. Fitzpatrick and Winke (1979) found that highly satisfied part- ners reported using manipulation (comparable to the soothing strategy identified in the pilot study) and less satisfied partners reported using nonnegotiation. In a particularly sophisticated test of the association between satisfaction and conflict strategies, Canary and Cupach (1988) found that the use of integrative conflict tactics led to communication satisfaction and perceptions of communication competence which, in turn, increased control mutuality, trust, intimacy, and rela- tional satisfaction. Distributive tactics, however, also exert a direct influence on relational quality. Specifically, one’s use of distributive tactics is negatively asso- ciated with control mutuality, trust, and relational satisfaction. On the basis of the above reasoning and the consistent trends in the conflict literature, we posed a second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Relational satisfaction will be positively correlated with use of truth, relational work, relational invocation, soothing, apology, and discussion, and it will be negatively correlated with use of avoidance and refusal.

Strategies used to deal with the discovery of deception also vary as a func- tion of the significance of the event in the life of the relationship. For example, research has shown that apologies become increasingly complex as the offense becomes more severe (Schlenker & Darby, 1981); an appeal to accident is an accepted explanation for stepping on someone’s foot but not for stealing some- one’s car (Scott & Lyman, 1968). In discovered deception, the deceiver would likely manage the event and its consequences on the basis of assumptions about the partner’s perceptions of the significance of the deception: that is, whether the deceiver chooses to discuss the event would be more dependent on his or her beliefs regarding the partner’s response to the discovered deception. Findings from earlier studies indicate that if deceivers believed their partners viewed their deception as relationally insignificant, they avoided talking about the event, even though the deceivers themselves may have perceived the deception to be very significant. It appears that deceivers chose to let sleeping dogs lie rather than cre- ate unnecessary problems. In our present study, we expected that the deceivers’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

Aune, Metts, & Ebesu Hubbard 681

perceptions of their partners’ assessment of the significance of the deceptive act will constrain message selection in the following way: If it is believed that the partner finds the deception relationally significant, the deceiver will be more motivated to engage in relational repair. Thus we hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 3: Perceptions of the target’s attribution of the relational significance of the deception will be positively correlated with use of apology, discussion, soothing, relational work, and relational invocation.

In addition to the partner’s perceptions of the significance of the event, the deceiver will also base message selection on perceptions of how the partner has viewed the valence of the event. The degree to which the event is seen as positive- ly or negatively affecting the relationship should constrain message selection as well. If the deceiver believes the target perceives the event as having a negative impact on the relationship, the deceiver will again focus more on prosocial mes- sages.

Hypothesis 4: Perceptions of the target’s negative valence of the relational impact of the deception will be negatively correlated with use of apology, discussion, soothing, relational work, and relational invocation.

Participants

Approximately 1,000 randomly selected residents of a large metropolitan area of the U.S. were contacted by phone. Numbers were randomly selected from the local telephone directory. Individuals 18 years of age or older were asked to par- ticipate in a study on the use of deception in relationships. A total of 578 individu- als agreed to participate and were mailed questionnaires; 253 (43.7%) question- naires were returned. Several surveys were unusable and were eliminated from the sample. The final sample consisted of 2 10 completed surveys. Eighty-five (40%) of the respondents were men and 123 (58.5%) were women. In addition, several ethnic groups were represented in the sample, including 94 Euro-Americans, 46 Japanese or Japanese Americans, 18 Hawaiians or part Hawaiian, 15 Chinese or Chinese Americans, 12 Filipinos or Filipino Americans, 5 African Americans, 5 Hispanics, 3 Koreans or Korean Americans, 2 Native Americans, and 6 mixed. The ages of participants ranged from 18 to 85 years, with a mean age of 38.5 years.

Procedure

In addition to the questionnaire, respondents received a cover letter includ- ing instructions that asked them to recall a time when they had been less than truthful with another person who subsequently learned of this deception. Partic-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

682 The Journal of Social Psychology

ipants were asked to recall a fairly recent event so that their memory of the event would be most accurate. The letter allowed that deception need not always be damaging to a relationship and that the respondents should consider any discov- ery of any form of deception regardless of the consequences. To that end, the questionnaire also provided the following definition of deception:

Deception occurs when someone intentionally leads another person to believe some- thing that he/she knows is not true. Deception can take many forms. It may take the form of silence, such as ‘‘just not saying anything” or omitting relevanthportant infor- mation in a discussion. It may involve exaggerating or distorting relevanthmportant information. It may take the form of a direct contradiction of the truth, either by deny- ing the truth when asked or by volunteering false information before being asked.

Finally, participants were asked to consider deception in any of their rela- tionships.

Demographic information about the participant (gender, age, ethnic type, strength of identification with ethnic type), the target (age, gender), and the type of relationship (co-workers, family members, friends, daters, and spouses) was also collected.

Relational satisfaction. A 1 0-item measure of the respondent’s level of satisfac- tion with the relationship consisting of Hendrick’s (1988) 7-item Relationship Assessment Scale and three additional items used by Metts (1989) was included. Alpha reliability for the scale was .94.

Attributions of target’s perceptions of deception. Deceiver attributions concern- ing the target’s perceptions of the deceptive behavior were assessed using scales similar to those of McCornack and Levine (1990). Participants were asked to take the target’s point of view and assess, using four 7-point semantic differen- tial scales (significant-insignificant, important-unimportant, major-minor, rele- vant-irrelevant), the target’s perceptions of the relational significance of the deceptive act (a = -94). In addition, the deceiver was asked to respond to four semantic differential scales concerning the valence of the relational significance (positive-negative, favorable-unfavorable, pleasant-unpleasant, good-bad) the target attached to the deceptive act (a = 39).

Relational repair strategies. Respondents were asked to assess which of 24 items they felt were relevant in their attempts to repair any damage to the relationship they believed had been caused by the deception. These items originated in the 12 repair strategies described in Aune et ale’s (1990) earlier study. Each of the 12 items were converted to two statements using 7-point Likert-type statements anchored by not relevant and very relevant. Alpha reliabilities for the 12 scales are reported in Appendix A.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

Aune. Metts, & Ebesu Hubbard 683

Relational repair: Participants were asked to respond to six items assessing the current status of the deceiver’s relationship with the target and the qualities of the relationship itself. The scale for each item ranged from 4 (much less) through 0 (not afected) to +4 (much more). Two items measured perceptions of the deceiv- er’s honesty (a = .93), two items measured the target’s demonstrated affection for the deceiver (a = .97), and the final two items assessed the level of relational inti- macy (a = .86; see Appendix B).

Results

Research Question

We used a multivariate analysis of variance to ascertain whether repair strategies differed, as a set, across relationship types. There was a significant main effect for relationship type, F(44, 788) = 1.87, p < .05, A* = .66. Significant univariate analyses showed that, of the five relationship types, married partici- pants invoked the relationship in the repair process most often. Friends were also inclined to invoke the relationship, whereas co-workers were least likely to do so. A near linear relationship across relationship types showed that married partici- pants were most likely to attempt to soothe the target in an effort to repair the relationship and co-workers were least likely to soothe the target. A similar pat- tern was found for relationship to work; co-workers were least likely to direct their attentions at repairing the relationship itself, whereas married participants reported most frequent use of this strategy. The strategy of discussion, however, did not follow this pattern. Talking about the event and its implications was used most by the daters, who discussed the event more than those in any other rela- tionship type (Table 1).

Tests of Hypotheses

We tested the hypotheses by using Pearson product-moment correlations between the repair strategies and the relational repair items reflecting changes in relational intimacy, expressed affection, and attributions of honesty (H l), rela- tional satisfaction (H2), and the items concerning the target’s assessments of the relational impact of the deception (H3 & H4).

Relational repair: We set alpha at the Bonferroni corrected level of .001 to cor- rect for experimentwise error due to the number of correlations involved. The first part of Hypothesis 1 was largely supported. All of the 15 hypothesized cor- relations were significant at the .001 level. The second part, concerning the rela- tionship between antisocial strategies (excuse, justification, avoidance, and refusal) and relational repair, was not well supported. None of the 12 hypothe- sized correlations were significant at the .001 level of significance (Table 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

684 The Journal of Social Psychology

TABLE 1 Means for Use of Repair Strategies by Relationship Qpe

Relationship types Co-worker Family Friend Dating Married

Strategy ~1 (n = 33) (n = 28) (n =40) (n = 5 0 ) (n=58) F

Truth .66 4.23 5.29 4.39 4.67 5.00 1.79 - Excuse .73 3.52 3.38 3.65 3.77 3.83 .30 - Justification 3 3 2.7 1 2.86 2.81 3.1 1 3.31 .72 - Refusal .60 2.50 2.75 2.80 2.79 3.06 .60 - Avoidance .62 2.48 3.36 2.98 2.69 2.66 1.10 - Apology .84 2.52 3.84 3.14 3.39 3.31 1.52 - Soothing .62 2.89 3.38 3.29 4.06 4.41 5.30 .09 Relationship .65 2.2 1 2.61 3.53 3.30 4.03 6.07 . I 1

Relationship .67 2.08 2.59 3.06 3.27 3.70 4.16 .08

Discussion .76 2.12 2.43 2.93 3.58 3.14 3.70 .07 Ritual .67 2.05 2.46 2.46 2.84 2.71 1.26 -

invocation

work

Relational satisfaction. The first part of Hypothesis 2 was supported. Using the Bonferroni correction, we set alpha at .004. Table 2 shows that five of the corre- lations were significant. Neither refusal nor avoidance was significantly correlat- ed with relational satisfaction.

Target’s perceptions of the deception. To protect against experimentwise error, we set alpha at .004. Correlations reported in Table 2 show that this hypothesis was not supported. Only discussion was significantly correlated with the deceiver’s beliefs concerning the target’s attributions of the relational significance of the deception.

In Hypothesis 4 we predicted that perceptions of the target’s negative valence of the relational impact of the deception would be negatively correlated with use of apology, discussion, soothing, relational work, and relational invoca- tion. However, this hypothesis was not supported. None of the strategies was cor- related significantly with perceptions of the target’s perceived assessed valence of the relational impact of the deception.

Discussion

Our study was designed to develop and test a typology of postdeception rela- tional repair strategies and to investigate the usefulness of such strategies across relationships. We investigated relationships between strategy usage and relation- al satisfaction, deceiver perceptions of the target’s beliefs about the deception,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

Aune, Metts, & Ebesu Hubbard 685

TABLE 2 Correlations of Repair Strategies With Relational Repair, Satisfaction,

Significance, and Valence

Rel. repair Strategy Honesty Affection Intimacy Rel. satis. Rel. sig. Valence

Truth Excuse Justification Refusal Avoidance

Soothing Relationship

invocation Relationship

work Discussion Ritual

Apology

,288 .09 .I9

-.I 1 -.03

.29a

.36a

.26"

.39"

.24"

.32"

.30"

.08

.I8

.05 -.02

.31"

.35Ia

.34a

.46"

.26"

.35"

.32a

.03

.20 -.01 -.04

.37a

.43"

.36

.56"

.22"

.43a

.29a -.I3

. I 1 -.05 -.02

.33"

.3Ia

.52a

.IS

.30"

.09

.I0

.09

. I3

.06

.I4

.I7

.08

. I 1

.26a

.03

-.I 1 .09 .01

-.08 -.I2 .o 1

-.os .08

.02

-.07 .os

Nore. N = 210. The strategy of impression management and image manipulation was omitted from analyses because of a low reliability level (a = .27). Rel. = relational, satis. = satisfaction, and sig. = significance. "Correlations are statistically significant with the Bonferroni correction.

and relational repair. In addition, differences of strategy usage across relationship types were found. Results showed that relationships characterized by more het- erosexual romantic involvement made greatest use of prosocial strategies during the repair process. Furthermore, deceivers reported the greatest improvement in qualities of the relationship when they used prosocial strategies. The hypothe- sized relationships between the deceiver's beliefs about the target's perceptions of the event and strategy usage were not as strong as expected. Finally, deceivers who reported being satisfied with their relationships were most likely to use prosocial strategies when faced with relational repair.

We did not find the expected negative correlations between relational repair and use of possible antisocial strategies. Some evidence was found for positive correlations between justification and repair. Although use of the hypothesized antisocial strategies contributed little to actual relational repair, findings seem to indicate that perhaps some strategy usage is better than none at all. Perhaps by trying to justify one's behavior or by refusing to cooperate in discussions about the deception, the participants kept the issue of the deception alive and they were forced to deal with it. Likewise, refusal and avoidance were not correlated nega- tively with relational satisfaction, thereby indicating that such strategies are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

686 The Journal of Social Psychology

viable (though perhaps not preferred) options for dealing with deception even in satisfied relationships and even when the deceiver believes the target attributes relational significance to the deception.

Much of the repair variance accounted for by the use of repair strategies in the present study is small to moderate in size. It is likely that these effect sizes would be larger were it not for the heterogeneity of the sample. These data are representative of a wide range of ages, relationship types, and ethnic and cul- tural heritages. Consequently these findings can be generalized to a large por- tion of the population. However, such heterogeneity may obscure relationships more culturally specific or particular to certain age groups or relationship types.

Although the findings demonstrate repair strategy differences across rela- tionships, a full explanation for these differences is needed. Factors not examined in the present study probably contribute to the choice of strategy in different rela- tionships. For instance, pressure from social support groups may influence rela- tional repair, particularly in relationships characterized by frequent interaction or higher degrees of pressure from social sanctions or mandates to enforce the union. Co-workers may have to find ways to get along rather than disrupt the pro- ceedings of the work place. In such situations, repair of the relationship may take a backseat to perpetuating the working relationship. Friends, on the other hand, may find less support for their relational bonds from their immediate social group and may face the task of relational repair relatively alone. Conversely, married couples may be overwhelmed with family and social support, providing pressure to resolve the conflict rather than dissolve the relationship.

Although the present study concentrated on the deceiver’s perspective in the process of relational repair after deception, it has inherent limitations that future research needs to address. First, the accounts provided here are recall-based, self- report data. These data must be supplemented with behavioral data before we can have complete confidence in the results. Furthermore, given that the present data provide only a unilateral account of relational repair, patterns of interaction are inaccessible. Research has shown that couples engaged in conflict often are rec- iprocal rather than complementary in their verbal strategy usage (Newton & Bur- goon, 1990). Managing the outcomes of deception in a relationship, however, may be a situation in which such a pattern does not hold. Patterns of comple- mentarity or reciprocity may be influenced by an assumption that blame for the conflict is asymmetrical (i.e., the deceiver is expected to serve solely as the cause of the conflict). Asymmetrical blame could lead to asymmetrical prosocial and antisocial behavior. If perceptions of the relational significance of the deception differ, reciprocal behavior could give way to complementary behavior as a result of reactance on the part of the deceiver or target. Likewise, whereas McCornack and Levine (1990) have provided the target’s perceptions of and responses to the discovery of deception, relatively little is known of the target’s role in relational repair. How the target perceives the deceiver’s attempts at repair, what strategies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

Aune, Metts. & Ebesu Hubbard 687

are considered appropriate, and what the target perceives his or her role in the repair process to be all require further study.

REFERENCES

Aune, R. K., Metts, S., & Ebesu, A. S. (1990, November). Managing the discovery oj deception. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, IL.

Ayres, J. ( 1 983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and perceived usage. Communication Quarterly, 31( 1 ), 62-67.

Baxter, L. A,, & Dindia, K. (1990). Marital partners’ perceptions of marital maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Per.yonal Relationships, 7, 187-208.

Bochner, A. P. (1982). On the efficacy of openness in close relationships. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 109-1 24). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. ( 1 988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated with conflict tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 305-325.

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in mar- riage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243-267.

DeTurck, M. A., & Steele, M. E. (1988). Once a liar always a liar: Effects of individuat- ing information on the utilization of base-rates in deceptive attributions. Communica- tion Reports, l ( 2 ) .

Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital rela- tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-1 58.

Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tactics in interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 27(4), 3-1 I .

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Mar- riage and the Family, 50, 93-98.

McCornack, S. A., & Levine, T. R. ( 1 990). When lies are uncovered: Emotional and rela- tional outcomes of discovered deception. Communication Monographs, 57, 1 19-1 38.

Metts, S. ( 1 989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Social und Personal Relationships, 6, 159-179.

Metts, S. (1991, February). The wicked things you say, the wicked things you do: A pilot study of relational transgressions and revelation episodes. Paper presented at the West- em States Communication Association Convention, Phoenix, AZ.

Miller, G. R., Boster, F. J., Roloff, M. E., & Seibold, D. R. (1977). Compliance-gaining message strategies: A typology and some findings concerning effects of situational dif- ferences. Communication Monographs, 44, 37-5 I .

Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. ( 1 975). Between people: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago: Science Research Associates.

Newton, D. A,, & Burgoon, J . K. (1990). The use and consequences of verbal influence strategies during interpersonal disagreements. Human Communication Research, 16,

Parks, M. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication: Off the couch and into the world. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 79-108). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. M. ( I 985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal rela- tionships. Human Communication Research, I I , 593-604.

Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships 11. Human Communication Research, 14, 5 16-547.

Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). The use of apologies in social predicaments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 27 1-278.

Scott, M., & Lyman, S. ( 1 968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 22. 46-62.

477-5 18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

688 The Journal of Social Psychology

APPENDIX A Scale Items

Relational Repair Strategies

Instructions: The following items deal with how you attempted to damage, problems, or disruptions that you felt the situation had caused your relation- ship. Consider the things that you did in future interactions. Please indicate how rele- vant each item was in your attempt to repair the relationship during future interactions.

or correct any

I ) Truth-telling (a = .66, r = .49) a) I told the truth and continued to tell the truth. b) 1 was more careful about telling the truth in the future.

a) I tried to make ( ) see that I had a very good reason for doing what I

b) I admitted what I did but pointed out that, under the circumstances, I practical-

2) Excusing the behavior (a = .73, r = .57)

did.

ly had to do it. 3) Justifying the behavior (a = 3 3 , r = .70)

a) I argued that it wasn’t really as bad a situation as ( ) seemed to think it to be.

b) I tried to make ( ) see that the event wasn’t as serious as he/she believed it was.

4) Refusing/denying (a = .60, r = .43)

denied it completely. a) When ( ) brought the subject up, I tried to avoid discussing it or

b) I talked about it but I withheld or omitted some information.

a) After the first time we discussed it, I tried to avoid talking about the event. b) I used the strategy “ignore it and it will go away.”

a) I said I was sorry and that it wouldn’t happen again. b) I said I was sorry and asked ( ) to please forgive me.

a) I tried to make ( ) see that 1 understood and knew how he/she was

b) I tried to pay more attention to ( ) and make himher feel better.

a) I acted in a manner that I thought would get ( ) to forgive me or per-

b) I tried to present a specific image to ( ) (e.g., guilty, innocent, angry,

9) Invoking the relationship (a = .65, r = .49)

5) Avoiding/evading (a = .62, r = .45)

6) Apologizing (a = 3 4 , r = .73)

7) Soothing and ingratiation (a = .62, r = .45)

feeling.

8) Impression managemenuimage manipulation (a = .27, r = .16)

haps understand me.

etc.).

a) I said I thought our relationship was strong enough to deal with the event. b) I brought up the nature of our relationship and said that ( ) should

consider our relationship when responding to the event. 10) Working on qualities of the relationship (a = 33, r = .70)

a) Ywe spent more time together, reaffirming our caring for each other. b) I/we worked a lot on strengthening and improving our relationship.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: Managing the Outcomes of Discovered Deception

Aune, Metts, & Ebesu Hubbard 689

I I ) Performing relational rituals (a = .67, r = 3 1 ) a) I did things like giving ( ) gifts, flowers, candy, etc. b) I did the usual things that I always do in such situations to make ( )

feel better. 12) Discussing the eventhelational consequences (a = .76, r = .61)

a) We discussed the event and the impact it had on our relationship. b) We had a lot of discussions about the event.

APPENDIX B Scale Items

Relational Outcomes

Instructions: Please indicate how the following qualities of your relationship are affected currently. We are concerned with the state of your relationship now.

1) Honesty a) (- )'s trust in you. b) (- )'s perception of your honesty.

2 ) Affection a) ( )'s demonstrated affection for you. b) ( )'s demonstrated fondness for you.

a) The demonstrated openness in the relationship. b) The demonstrated closeness in the relationship.

3) Relational Intimacy

Received May 23, 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cas

e W

este

rn R

eser

ve U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

29 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014