The Journal of Social Ps\rlu>loi;y. 1998.

I3S{61 677-689

Managing the Outcomes of

Discovered Deception
R. KELLY AUNE
Department of Speech
University of Hawaii at 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 210 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 EEFORTS to understatid 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-

Addre.ss correspondence to R. Kelly Anne. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of

Speech, George Hall 326, 2560 Campus Road, Honolulu, HI 96H22.

bll
678 The Jounuii of Social P.Kxchologv

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 ofa 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 Amer-
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; (j) 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 Research Questions

Whether relationship type influences strategy selection when managing dis-

covered deception is not known. Research has shown that because people in var-
 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, 1989), 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 (1975) 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:
680 The Journal of Social

Hypothesis I: 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'
 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 ofthe target's attribution ofthe 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 ofthe significance ofthe 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 ofthe target's negative valence ofthe relational impact

of the deception will be negatively correlated with use of apology, discussion,
soothing, relational work, and relational invocation.

Method

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 210 completed surveys. Eighty-five (40%)
ofthe 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 Eilipinos or Eilipino 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.

P weedtire

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-
682 The Journal of Social P.sychology

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 relevant/important infor-
mation in a discussion. It may involve exaggerating or distorting relevant/important
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 10-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 = .89).

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 al.'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.
 Aune. Metts. & Ebesu Hubhard 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 -A {much less) through 0
{not affected) 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 fmal 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. Eriends 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 (HI), 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 I 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).
684 The Journal of Social Pwcholot^y

TABLE 1
Means for Use of Repair Strategies by Relationship Type

Relationship types
Co-worker Family Friend Dating Married
Strategy a (« = 33) in = 28) in = 40) in = 50) (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 .83 2.71 2.86 2.81 3.11 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 2.21 2.61 3.53 3.30 4.03 6.07 .11
invocation
Relationship .67 2.08 2.59 3.06 3.27 3.70 4.16 .08
work
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 —

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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.
 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 .28^ .30" .32" .29" .09 -.11

Excuse .09 .08 .03 -.13 .10 .09
Justification .19 .18 .20 .11 .09 .01
Refusal -.11 .05 -.01 -.05 .13 -.08
Avoidance -.03 -.02 -.04 -.02 .06 -.12
Apology 29a .3P .37" .45" .14 .01
Soothing .36^ .35^ .43" .33" .17 -.05
Relationship .26^ .34^ .36 .31" .08 .08
invocation
Relationship .39-' .46^ .56" .52" .11 .02
work
Discussion .24'" .26" .22=* .15 .26" -.07
Ritual .32'' .35" .43" .30" .03 .05

Note. 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. Einally, 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 tbe 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
686 The Journal of Social Psychol<)f>y

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
 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 of
deception. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association Convention,
Chicago, IL.
Ayres, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and perceived
usage. Communication Quarterly, i / ( l ) , 62-67.
Baxter, L. A., & Dindia, K. (1990). Marital partners' perceptions of marital maintenance
strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 187-208.
Bochner, A. P. (1982). On the efficacy of openness in close relationships. In M. Burgoon
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 109-124). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1988). 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, 1(2).
Dindia, K., & Baxter, L. A. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital rela-
tionships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 143-158.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and
tactics in interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 27{4), 3-11.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Mar-
riage and rhe Family, 50, 93-98.
McComack, S. A., & Levine, T. R. (1990). When lies are uncovered: Emotional and rela-
tional outcomes of discovered deception. Communication Monographs, 57, 119-138.
Metts, S. (1989). An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal
of Social and 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, 37-51.
Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). 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,
477-518.
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. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal rela-
t i o n s h i p s . Human Communication Research, II, 5 9 3 - 6 0 4 .
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty
in personal relationships II. Human Communication Research, 14, 516-547.
Schlenker, B. R., & Darby, B. W. (1981). Tjie use of apologies in social predicaments.
Social Psychology Quarterly 44, 271-278.
Scott, M., & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 22, 46-62.
688 Ihe Journal of Social P.sycholoi^y

APPENDIX A
Scale Items
Relational Repair Strategies

Instructions: The following items deal with how you attempted to repair or correct any
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.
1) Truth-telling (a = .66, r = .49)
a) I told the truth and continued to tell the truth.
b) I was more careful about telling the truth in the future.
2) Excusing the behavior (a = .73, /• = .57)
a) I tried to make ( ) see that I had a very good reason for doing what I
did.
b) I admitted what I did but pointed out that, under the circumstances, I practical-
ly had to do it.
3) Justifying the behavior (a = .83, 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)
a) When ( ) brought the subject up, I tried to avoid discussing it or
denied it completely.
b) I talked about it but I withheld or omitted some information.
5) Avoiding/evading (a = .62, r = .45)
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."
6) Apologizing (a = .84,/-= .73)
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.
7) Soothing and ingratiation (a = .62, r = .45)
a) I tried to make ( ) see that I understood and knew how he/she was
feeling.
b) I tried to pay more attention to ( ) and make him/her feel better.
8) Impression management/image manipulation (a = .27, r = .16)
a) I acted in a manner that I thought would get ( ) to forgive me or per-
haps understand me.
b) I tried to present a specific image to ( ) (e.g., guilty, innocent, angry,
etc.).
9) Invoking the relationship (a = .65, r = .49)
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 = .83, r = .70)
a) I/we spent more time together, reaffirming our caring for each other.
b) I/we worked a lot on strengthening and improving our relationship.
 Aune, Metts, & Ebesu Hubbard 689

11) Performing relational rituals (a = .67, r = .51)

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 event/relational 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.
3) Relational Intimacy
a) The demonstrated openness in the relationship.
b) The demonstrated closeness in the relationship.

Received May 23, 1996