International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online
Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...William Woods
There are a plethora of data indicating that intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs at high rates in college students (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). Although studies have repeatedly demonstrated these high rates of IPV, some researchers have criticized the reliability and validity of the self-report measures commonly used to assess these rates (Follingstad & Ryan, 2013; Ryan, 2013). There is some research to suggest that subtle factors, such as item order, can impact self-reports of violence victimization and perpetration (Ramirez & Straus, 2006). This phenomenon has been most widely studied in the context of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, et al., 1996), a widely used measure of IPV, which may not comprehensively assess psychological aggression. Thus, in the current study we examined differences in self-reports of psychological aggression victimization and perpetration using the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy & Hoover, 1999) when it was administered in either the standard format or in a format in which question order was randomized. Given that there may be gender differences in victimization and perpetration, we also examined the impact gender would have on item order effects.
Presented at ABCT, Nov. 2015.
Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...William Woods
There are a plethora of data indicating that intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs at high rates in college students (Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2008). Although studies have repeatedly demonstrated these high rates of IPV, some researchers have criticized the reliability and validity of the self-report measures commonly used to assess these rates (Follingstad & Ryan, 2013; Ryan, 2013). There is some research to suggest that subtle factors, such as item order, can impact self-reports of violence victimization and perpetration (Ramirez & Straus, 2006). This phenomenon has been most widely studied in the context of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2; Straus, et al., 1996), a widely used measure of IPV, which may not comprehensively assess psychological aggression. Thus, in the current study we examined differences in self-reports of psychological aggression victimization and perpetration using the Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse (MMEA; Murphy & Hoover, 1999) when it was administered in either the standard format or in a format in which question order was randomized. Given that there may be gender differences in victimization and perpetration, we also examined the impact gender would have on item order effects.
Presented at ABCT, Nov. 2015.
Physical Attractiveness and its Influence on Perceptions of Criminal Culpabilityrrcampb
Physical attractiveness and its ability to influence perceptions of criminal culpability was examined in the context of an online assignment of guilt task. Two-hundred and fifty participants were surveyed and asked to label photographs of adult males as either criminal or not criminal. A 3 (attractiveness) X 3 (ethnicity) repeated measures statistical analysis found highly significant main effects for physical attractiveness, ethnicity, and the interaction. The results suggest that physical attractiveness serves as a heuristic cue in the assignment of criminal culpability. These findings are highly relevant to those involved in the discretionary processes of the criminal justice system.
Focusing on credibility and trust, as key elements is critical to evaluating negative campaign messages. At the very least this study offers insights into the transference of attitudes and actions regarding negative comparative statements supporting existing research on Learning Theory.
Credibility, reputation, identity, and image may be irreparably damaged from negative campaigning. This study provides useful insights for political advisors and the communications
industry to consider.
Assessing Mediation in HIV Intervention Studiesfhardnett
This presentation describes the use of asymmetric confidence limits to test for mediation when the direct effect was not significant and effect suppression was present.
Physical Attractiveness and its Influence on Perceptions of Criminal Culpabilityrrcampb
Physical attractiveness and its ability to influence perceptions of criminal culpability was examined in the context of an online assignment of guilt task. Two-hundred and fifty participants were surveyed and asked to label photographs of adult males as either criminal or not criminal. A 3 (attractiveness) X 3 (ethnicity) repeated measures statistical analysis found highly significant main effects for physical attractiveness, ethnicity, and the interaction. The results suggest that physical attractiveness serves as a heuristic cue in the assignment of criminal culpability. These findings are highly relevant to those involved in the discretionary processes of the criminal justice system.
Focusing on credibility and trust, as key elements is critical to evaluating negative campaign messages. At the very least this study offers insights into the transference of attitudes and actions regarding negative comparative statements supporting existing research on Learning Theory.
Credibility, reputation, identity, and image may be irreparably damaged from negative campaigning. This study provides useful insights for political advisors and the communications
industry to consider.
Assessing Mediation in HIV Intervention Studiesfhardnett
This presentation describes the use of asymmetric confidence limits to test for mediation when the direct effect was not significant and effect suppression was present.
(Re) Considering risk assessment and safety planning in child protection work with domestic violence cases.
Angelique Jenney, MSW, PhD.
Director, F family Violence Services,
Child Development Institute
Asst Prof (Status-Only)
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work
University of Toronto
Explanation of how do individuals with multiple sclerosis cope with social is...Liberty University (LU)
Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a progressive neurological disease that can severely affect the psychosocial aspects of primary caregivers of individuals with MS (PCIMS). Objective: This study aimed to explore the process of social isolation among PCIMS in Kerman, Iran. Methods: This study was performed with grounded theory approach through a semi-structured interview with PCIMS (n=15), individuals with MS (n=13), and healthcare providers (n=5) who were selected through purposive and theoretical sampling in Kerman, Iran, during February 2017-April 2018. The data were analyzed through constant comparison method recommended by Corbin and Strauss. Results: Yield of this study was a theory in which "social isolation" was recognized as a core variable. "Lack of awareness and information", "Occupational Difficulties”, " Marital Difficulties, and " Endeavor to Reduce Restrictions" were the other extracted concepts that were related to the core variable which altogether contributed to its exploration. Conclusion: The results of this study showed that social isolation could endanger the well-being of PCIMS. This is the first study which shows to reduce the social isolation of PCIMS it is needed to address both the mutual needs and interests of the caregiver and the care-recipient. Therefore, occupational therapists are advised to design appropriate co-occupations based on the mutual needs and interests of the caregivers and the care-recipients to reduce the social isolation of these caregivers. For an in-depth examination, it is also suggested that studies be conducted discovering relationships between the concepts found in this theory.
Journal Entries & T-AccountsACT300 Principles of Accounting IModul.docxchristiandean12115
Journal Entries & T-AccountsACT300 Principles of Accounting IModule 2: Critical Thinking Template Option #1Journal EntriesDateAccount NameT-AccountsJanuaryDebitCredit1CashCapital Stock23BalanceBalance4Accounts ReceivableAccounts Payable5BalanceBalance6Equipment7BalanceSupplies8BalanceRevenueBalanceRent ExpenseBalanceUnadjusted Trial BalanceAccount NameDebitCreditCash- 0Accounts receivable- 0Equipment- 0Supplies- 0Accounts payable- 0Capital stock- 0Revenue- 0Rent expense- 0 Total- 0- 0
Unadjusted Trial BalanceACT300 Principles of Accounting IModule 2: Critical Thinking Template Option #1Unadjusted Trial Balance[NAME OF COMPANY]Unadjusted Trial Balance[DATE]Account balancesAccountDebitCreditCashAccounts receivableEquipmentSuppliesAccounts payableCapital stockRevenueRent expense Totals$ -$ -
Bethany Fulcher
Professor Custer
Sociology 101
7/22/2018
Summary of an Academic Journal Article
The journal that I have decided to research served to answer the question of, to what extent are young adults engaging in “Relationship Work” with a partner and with a friend?”. These researchers focused on the differences that these behaviors caused within creating a functioning relationship that lasts within young couples. They decided to focus on dating couples because of a previous article about married couples that stated that relationships are greatly affected by outside factors like friends and family because they can influence the individual to believe that their status is either good or bad, (Proulx, Helms & Payne). This made the researchers believe there was still a piece missing in the study and that piece was young and fresh relationships. They wanted to know how this relationship work could change the overall wellbeing of that couple and how happy the two individuals were within it.
Before they surveyed the individuals, the authors came up with a few hypotheses. The first hypothesis that they explored was that females would be more willing to talk to their friends about relationship problems than their partners and that males would be the exact opposite, talking to their significant others more than their friends. The second hypothesis that they believed would be true is that unlike the study that observed older couples, younger relationships would struggle greatly if they were talking to their friends more than each other. This was assumed because the artists realized that older people tend to pick friends that would be more supportive of their relationships while younger people choose friends that trend to have information that can be “incorrect, misleading, and unsupportive.”(Jensen & Rauer).
The main factor that they were testing, or the dependent variable, was a combination of three different areas: happiness, commitment, and relationship quality. They used the quantitative method of surveying to sample individuals that both volunteered and were convenient to the authors. In other words, the researchers put out a questionnaire as ext.
This chapter highlights theory and research that clarifies how communication establishes and maintains interpersonal relationships. Although all interpersonal communication episodes have implications for the relationships between participants, we focus on research traditions that specifically address communication’s role in the initiation, development, and maintenance of intimacy within personal relationships.
Dr. Sean Tan, Head of Data Science, Changi Airport Group
Discover how Changi Airport Group (CAG) leverages graph technologies and generative AI to revolutionize their search capabilities. This session delves into the unique search needs of CAG’s diverse passengers and customers, showcasing how graph data structures enhance the accuracy and relevance of AI-generated search results, mitigating the risk of “hallucinations” and improving the overall customer journey.
Enchancing adoption of Open Source Libraries. A case study on Albumentations.AIVladimir Iglovikov, Ph.D.
Presented by Vladimir Iglovikov:
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/iglovikov/
- https://x.com/viglovikov
- https://www.instagram.com/ternaus/
This presentation delves into the journey of Albumentations.ai, a highly successful open-source library for data augmentation.
Created out of a necessity for superior performance in Kaggle competitions, Albumentations has grown to become a widely used tool among data scientists and machine learning practitioners.
This case study covers various aspects, including:
People: The contributors and community that have supported Albumentations.
Metrics: The success indicators such as downloads, daily active users, GitHub stars, and financial contributions.
Challenges: The hurdles in monetizing open-source projects and measuring user engagement.
Development Practices: Best practices for creating, maintaining, and scaling open-source libraries, including code hygiene, CI/CD, and fast iteration.
Community Building: Strategies for making adoption easy, iterating quickly, and fostering a vibrant, engaged community.
Marketing: Both online and offline marketing tactics, focusing on real, impactful interactions and collaborations.
Mental Health: Maintaining balance and not feeling pressured by user demands.
Key insights include the importance of automation, making the adoption process seamless, and leveraging offline interactions for marketing. The presentation also emphasizes the need for continuous small improvements and building a friendly, inclusive community that contributes to the project's growth.
Vladimir Iglovikov brings his extensive experience as a Kaggle Grandmaster, ex-Staff ML Engineer at Lyft, sharing valuable lessons and practical advice for anyone looking to enhance the adoption of their open-source projects.
Explore more about Albumentations and join the community at:
GitHub: https://github.com/albumentations-team/albumentations
Website: https://albumentations.ai/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/100504475
Twitter: https://x.com/albumentations
In the rapidly evolving landscape of technologies, XML continues to play a vital role in structuring, storing, and transporting data across diverse systems. The recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) present new methodologies for enhancing XML development workflows, introducing efficiency, automation, and intelligent capabilities. This presentation will outline the scope and perspective of utilizing AI in XML development. The potential benefits and the possible pitfalls will be highlighted, providing a balanced view of the subject.
We will explore the capabilities of AI in understanding XML markup languages and autonomously creating structured XML content. Additionally, we will examine the capacity of AI to enrich plain text with appropriate XML markup. Practical examples and methodological guidelines will be provided to elucidate how AI can be effectively prompted to interpret and generate accurate XML markup.
Further emphasis will be placed on the role of AI in developing XSLT, or schemas such as XSD and Schematron. We will address the techniques and strategies adopted to create prompts for generating code, explaining code, or refactoring the code, and the results achieved.
The discussion will extend to how AI can be used to transform XML content. In particular, the focus will be on the use of AI XPath extension functions in XSLT, Schematron, Schematron Quick Fixes, or for XML content refactoring.
The presentation aims to deliver a comprehensive overview of AI usage in XML development, providing attendees with the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Whether you’re at the early stages of adopting AI or considering integrating it in advanced XML development, this presentation will cover all levels of expertise.
By highlighting the potential advantages and challenges of integrating AI with XML development tools and languages, the presentation seeks to inspire thoughtful conversation around the future of XML development. We’ll not only delve into the technical aspects of AI-powered XML development but also discuss practical implications and possible future directions.
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdfPaige Cruz
Monitoring and observability aren’t traditionally found in software curriculums and many of us cobble this knowledge together from whatever vendor or ecosystem we were first introduced to and whatever is a part of your current company’s observability stack.
While the dev and ops silo continues to crumble….many organizations still relegate monitoring & observability as the purview of ops, infra and SRE teams. This is a mistake - achieving a highly observable system requires collaboration up and down the stack.
I, a former op, would like to extend an invitation to all application developers to join the observability party will share these foundational concepts to build on:
Communications Mining Series - Zero to Hero - Session 1DianaGray10
This session provides introduction to UiPath Communication Mining, importance and platform overview. You will acquire a good understand of the phases in Communication Mining as we go over the platform with you. Topics covered:
• Communication Mining Overview
• Why is it important?
• How can it help today’s business and the benefits
• Phases in Communication Mining
• Demo on Platform overview
• Q/A
How to Get CNIC Information System with Paksim Ga.pptxdanishmna97
Pakdata Cf is a groundbreaking system designed to streamline and facilitate access to CNIC information. This innovative platform leverages advanced technology to provide users with efficient and secure access to their CNIC details.
Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity. Users of mobile devices desire to take full advantage of the features
available on those devices, but many of the features provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security. This best practices guide outlines steps the users can take to better protect personal devices and information.
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FMESafe Software
In this second installment of our Essentials of Automations webinar series, we’ll explore the landscape of triggers and actions, guiding you through the nuances of authoring and adapting workspaces for seamless automations. Gain an understanding of the full spectrum of triggers and actions available in FME, empowering you to enhance your workspaces for efficient automation.
We’ll kick things off by showcasing the most commonly used event-based triggers, introducing you to various automation workflows like manual triggers, schedules, directory watchers, and more. Plus, see how these elements play out in real scenarios.
Whether you’re tweaking your current setup or building from the ground up, this session will arm you with the tools and insights needed to transform your FME usage into a powerhouse of productivity. Join us to discover effective strategies that simplify complex processes, enhancing your productivity and transforming your data management practices with FME. Let’s turn complexity into clarity and make your workspaces work wonders!
Securing your Kubernetes cluster_ a step-by-step guide to success !KatiaHIMEUR1
Today, after several years of existence, an extremely active community and an ultra-dynamic ecosystem, Kubernetes has established itself as the de facto standard in container orchestration. Thanks to a wide range of managed services, it has never been so easy to set up a ready-to-use Kubernetes cluster.
However, this ease of use means that the subject of security in Kubernetes is often left for later, or even neglected. This exposes companies to significant risks.
In this talk, I'll show you step-by-step how to secure your Kubernetes cluster for greater peace of mind and reliability.
A tale of scale & speed: How the US Navy is enabling software delivery from l...sonjaschweigert1
Rapid and secure feature delivery is a goal across every application team and every branch of the DoD. The Navy’s DevSecOps platform, Party Barge, has achieved:
- Reduction in onboarding time from 5 weeks to 1 day
- Improved developer experience and productivity through actionable findings and reduction of false positives
- Maintenance of superior security standards and inherent policy enforcement with Authorization to Operate (ATO)
Development teams can ship efficiently and ensure applications are cyber ready for Navy Authorizing Officials (AOs). In this webinar, Sigma Defense and Anchore will give attendees a look behind the scenes and demo secure pipeline automation and security artifacts that speed up application ATO and time to production.
We will cover:
- How to remove silos in DevSecOps
- How to build efficient development pipeline roles and component templates
- How to deliver security artifacts that matter for ATO’s (SBOMs, vulnerability reports, and policy evidence)
- How to streamline operations with automated policy checks on container images
Full-RAG: A modern architecture for hyper-personalizationZilliz
Mike Del Balso, CEO & Co-Founder at Tecton, presents "Full RAG," a novel approach to AI recommendation systems, aiming to push beyond the limitations of traditional models through a deep integration of contextual insights and real-time data, leveraging the Retrieval-Augmented Generation architecture. This talk will outline Full RAG's potential to significantly enhance personalization, address engineering challenges such as data management and model training, and introduce data enrichment with reranking as a key solution. Attendees will gain crucial insights into the importance of hyperpersonalization in AI, the capabilities of Full RAG for advanced personalization, and strategies for managing complex data integrations for deploying cutting-edge AI solutions.
UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series, part 6DianaGray10
Welcome to UiPath Test Automation using UiPath Test Suite series part 6. In this session, we will cover Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI webinar offers an in-depth exploration of leveraging cutting-edge technologies for test automation within the UiPath platform. Attendees will delve into the integration of generative AI, a test automation solution, with Open AI advanced natural language processing capabilities.
Throughout the session, participants will discover how this synergy empowers testers to automate repetitive tasks, enhance testing accuracy, and expedite the software testing life cycle. Topics covered include the seamless integration process, practical use cases, and the benefits of harnessing AI-driven automation for UiPath testing initiatives. By attending this webinar, testers, and automation professionals can gain valuable insights into harnessing the power of AI to optimize their test automation workflows within the UiPath ecosystem, ultimately driving efficiency and quality in software development processes.
What will you get from this session?
1. Insights into integrating generative AI.
2. Understanding how this integration enhances test automation within the UiPath platform
3. Practical demonstrations
4. Exploration of real-world use cases illustrating the benefits of AI-driven test automation for UiPath
Topics covered:
What is generative AI
Test Automation with generative AI and Open AI.
UiPath integration with generative AI
Speaker:
Deepak Rai, Automation Practice Lead, Boundaryless Group and UiPath MVP
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
By Design, not by Accident - Agile Venture Bolzano 2024
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI)
1. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention
ISSN (Online): 2319 – 7722, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 7714
www.ijhssi.org Volume 2 Issue 8 ǁ August. 2013ǁ PP.93-99
www.ijhssi.org 93 | P a g e
Relational Uncertainty And Avoidance Following The Discovery
Of A Relational Partner’s Deception: The Mediating Role Of
Efficacy Assessments
Su Ahn Jang1
, Anita L. Vangelisti2
, & Rene Dailey2
1
(Department of Communication, University of Missouri – St. Louis, USA)
2
(Department of Communication Studies, University of Texas at Austin, USA)
ABSTRACT : The current study was conducted to examine the association between uncertainty and people’s
tendency to engage in avoidance following the discovery of a relational partner’s deceptive communication.
Based on the theory of motivated information management, outcome assessments and efficacy assessments were
posited as a possible explanation for this association. The results of the present study revealed that efficacy
assessments mediated the links between both partner and relationship uncertainty and avoidance. These
findings suggest that a sense of efficacy can predict individuals’ tendency to engage in avoidance when they
discover a partner’s deception.
KEYWORDS : Avoidance, communication efficacy, deception, mediation, relational uncertainty
I. INTRODUCTION
When people discover that someone they are close to has lied to them, they often experience a great
deal of uncertainty. In some cases, knowledge that they thought they had about their relationship, their partner,
and even themselves may be called into question. Indeed, of the various events that can increase uncertainty in
close relationships [1], deception can be particularly influential. Why? Because partners often lie to avoid
revealing relationally threatening information or to preserve their autonomy or independence [2]. Once the
relationally threatening information or the effort to preserve autonomy is uncovered, questions about the nature
of the relationship as well as the partner’s or one’s own involvement in the relationship are likely to emerge.
Although the most direct response to experiencing uncertainty after a partner has lied may be to talk to
the partner about the lie and the issues surrounding it, studies suggest that this response is relatively uncommon.
As noted by Knobloch and Solomon [3], individuals’ perceptions of relational uncertainty generally hinder
direct, fluent communication between partners. In fact, when individuals experience an event that increases their
uncertainty in close relationships, they often avoid talking about the event altogether. In their Theory of
Motivated Information Management (TMIM), W. Afifi and Weiner [4] suggest that the decision about whether
to seek information or avoid talking about such an event likely depends on two assessments: (a) the outcomes
associated with seeking information (i.e., outcome assessments), and (b) beliefs about the ability to obtain
information (i.e., efficacy assessments).The purpose of the current study was to examine the association
between people’s uncertainty and their tendency to avoid communicating with a relational partner after
discovering the partner lied to them and to test whether individuals’ outcome assessments and their efficacy
assessments explain this association.
II. RELATIONAL UNCERTAINTY, DECEPTION, AND AVOIDANCE
According to Knobloch and Solomon [5], uncertainty that occurs in the context of interpersonal
relationships, or relational uncertainty, can be defined in terms of the confidence that people have in their
perceptions of involvement within their interpersonal associations. Knobloch and Solomon suggest that
relational uncertainty involves three interconnected, but distinct types: Self, partner, and relationship
uncertainty. These three types of uncertainty are associated with how people behave in the context of their close
relationships [6, 7].Knobloch and Solomon [3] argue that the experience of relational uncertainty often
discourages direct communication. More specifically, these researchers note that “direct communication is risky
for people to employ under conditions of relationship doubt” (p. 461). They suggest that, because of the
perceived risk associated with direct communication, individuals who experience uncertainty often engage in
avoidance.
2. Relational Uncertainty And Avoidance…
www.ijhssi.org 94 | P a g e
The link between relational uncertainty and avoidance may be especially evident following the
discovery of a partner’s deception. Compared to other events that increase uncertainty in close relationships,
deception is relatively common [8]. What is more, research shows that the most serious lies are told in romantic
relationships[9], and partners often lie to avoid threatening their relationship or hurting the other’s feelings [2,
10]. The revelation of deception and relationally threatening or hurtful information both are likely to engender
uncertainty and increase the risk of direct communication. Based on this argument, the following hypothesis was
put forth:H1: There is a positive association between relational uncertainty (i.e., self, partner, and relationship
uncertainty) and avoidance following the discovery of a partner’s deception.Although the literature suggests that
there is an association between the uncertainty experienced in close relationships and avoidance, the explanation
for this association is not yet clear. The TMIM, developed by W. Afifi and Weiner [5, 11], offers a framework
that can be used to explain this association. In brief, the theory suggests that individuals’ information
management decisions can be characterized by three phases. The first is the interpretation phase, when people
become aware that the level of uncertainty they desire about an important issue is either higher or lower than the
level they are experiencing. The second phase is the evaluation phase, when individuals assess both the costs
and benefits of seeking information (outcome assessments) and their own ability to effectively engage in a
particular strategy (efficacy assessments). Finally, the decision phase involves individuals’ choice to either seek
or avoid additional information.In line with the TMIM, the present study positions outcome and efficacy
assessments as an explanation for the link between individuals’ uncertainty and their avoidance following the
discovery of a romantic partner’s lie. In other words, we argue that one reason people who feel
relationaluncertainty engage in avoidance after discovering their partner lied is that they anticipate the outcomes
of more direct communication to be relatively negative and they lack a sense of efficacy in talking with their
partner about the deception. Given this, the following research question was put forth:
RQ1a: Do outcome assessments mediate the link between relational uncertainty (i.e., self, partner, and
relationship) and avoidance following the discovery of a partner’s deception?
RQ1b: Do efficacy assessments mediate the link between relational uncertainty (i.e., self, partner, and
relationship) and avoidance following the discovery of a partner’s deception?
III. METHODS
1.1Participants and procedures:
Two hundred forty-five undergraduate students at a large southwestern university participated in the
current study. Eighty-four (34.3%) were men and 161 (65.7%) were women. Their ages ranged from 18 to 46
years (M = 19.87, SD = 2.35). The duration of the relationships that participants described for the study ranged
from one month to 12 years (M = 17 months, SD = 22.97). More than a third of participants (n = 92, 37.6%)
reported they were currently in the relationship, whereas the rest of the sample had dissolved their relationship.
Participants completed a packet of questionnaires that consisted of several scales and an open-ended item. The
first item in each packet instructed respondents to recall and describe the most recent incident in which they
discovered that their current or former intimate partner had lied to them. McCornack and Levine’s 12] definition
of a lie was given in writing to the participants as part of the instructions: A lie was defined as “the deliberate
falsification or omission of important information by a communicator, with the intent to deceive or mislead the
conversational partner” (p. 120). Participants then completed a series of randomly ordered measures and
demographic information.
1.2Measurements:
Participants’ self uncertainty, partner uncertainty, and relationship uncertainty were assessed by
measures developed by Knobloch and Solomon [6]. Each of the items that comprised the three measures was
followed by a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = “completely uncertain” and 6 = “completely certain”). Similar to
previous uses of these scales [13, 4], confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to determine the
unidimensionality of the scales. Certain items needed to be excluded to achieve sufficient fit. The resulting self
uncertainty scale included 10 items, χ2
(32) = 70.41, p < .001; CMIN/df = 2.20, CFI = .98; RMSEA = .07, α =
.95.The resulting partner uncertainty scale included 10 items, χ2
(33) = 88.36, p < .001; CMIN/df= 2.68, CFI =
.98; RMSEA = .08, α = .97. The resulting relationship uncertainty scale also included 10 items, χ2
(32) = 97.74,
p < .001; CMIN/df = 3.05, CFI = .97; RMSEA = .09, α = .95. Items were reflected and combined so that higher
scores indicate greater uncertainty. Outcome assessment was operationalized as participants’ expectations about
the possible outcomes associated with talking about a particular issue with their partner [5]. The measure of
outcome assessment was comprised of three items followed by 7-point Likert-type scales (-3 = “a lot more
negatives than positives,” 0 = “about as many negatives as positives,” and 3 = “a lot more positives than
3. Relational Uncertainty And Avoidance…
www.ijhssi.org 95 | P a g e
negatives”). In the current study, the phrase “this person” was changed to “your partner” and “this issue” was
changed to “the lie.” Outcome assessment data were recoded to eliminate negative scores (α = .94).Similar to
W. Afifi, Dillow, and Morse[14], participants’ efficacy assessments were measured using the communication
efficacy and target honesty scales from W. Afifi and Weiner [5]. The communication efficacy scale includes
three items which asked participants about their ability to successfully seek information about the lie they
described.Each item was followed by a 7-point Likert-type scale(1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 =“strongly
agree”; α = .84). The target honesty scale used in this study is comprised of one of two subscales of a measure
originally designed by W. Afifiet al. to evaluate target efficacy. The four items included in the current
investigation asked participants about their perceptions of their partner’s willingness to be honest about the issue
at hand.Each item was followed by a 7-point Likert-type scale(1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 =“strongly agree”;
α = .90).Participants were also asked to recall the degree to which their reaction to their partner’s lie was
characterized by avoidance. Four items from Jang, Smith, and Levine’s [15] communication pattern scale were
selected to measure avoidance. Each item was followed by a 9-point Likert-type scale(1 = “not at all” and 9 =
“very much”). The exclusion of one item (“I pretended nothing happened after the incident while interacting
with my partner”) increased the reliability (the 3-item α = .88).Table 1 includes correlations between each of the
aforementioned variables as well as the means and standard deviations of each.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 M SD
1. Self U -- 2.78 1.30
2. Partner U .62*** -- 3.09 1.52
3. Rela. U .78*** .80*** -- 3.11 1.36
4. Comm.
Efficacy
-.21** -.34*** -.34*** -- 5.36 1.77
5. Target
Honesty
-.33*** -.47*** -.43*** -.41*** -- 3.83 1.70
6. Outcome
Asses.
-.29*** -.31*** -.32*** .36*** .37*** -- 3.68 1.82
7. Avoidance .10 .14* .19** -.50*** -.16* -.20** -- 2.75 2.00
8. Status‡
-.37*** -.50*** -.46*** .31*** .47** .33*** -.17** -- --
Note. *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001 ‡
For current status, 1 = no, 2 = yes.
Table 1 Correlation matrix,means, and standard deviations of the variables
IV. RESULTS
The first hypothesis tested the associations between self, partner, and relationship uncertainty and
avoidance in situations when people believed a relational partner lied to them. The bivariate correlations showed
that partner and relationship uncertainty were associated with avoidance, but self uncertainty was not (see Table
1). Hence, H1 was supported for partner and relationship uncertainty.The potential mediation effects proposed
in RQ1a and RQ1b were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM). We conducted models for only partner
and relationship uncertainty given the non-significant association between self uncertainty and avoidance (i.e.,
there was no relationship between self uncertainty and avoidance to mediate). Similar to much of the previous
research on relational uncertainty [6, 7], we assessed the sources of uncertainty separately because we were
interested in how the different types of uncertainty were related to avoidance. Further, due to the number of
parameters to be estimated relative to the sample size, partner and relationship uncertainty were assessed in
separate models. In order to test the mediating roles of outcome assessments and efficacy assessments, the
following paths were included in both models: uncertainty to avoidance, efficacy assessments to avoidance,
outcome assessments to avoidance, uncertainty to efficacy assessments, uncertainty to efficacy assessments, and
uncertainty to outcome assessments.
4. Relational Uncertainty And Avoidance…
www.ijhssi.org 96 | P a g e
Although previous research has examined the effect of outcome assessments on efficacy assessments
[14], this was not the focus of the current research and was instead modeled as a covariance term. In addition,
despite preliminary analyses showing that the relationships within the model were similar for those who were
currently dating their partners and those who had dissolved their relationships, current relationship status (i.e.,
not currently together vs. currently together) was included as a control based on its correlation with the
dependent variable. Relationship length was also considered as a control variable, but it was not associated with
avoidance (r = -.06, p = .34) and was thus not included in the models. The overall model for partner uncertainty
showed good fit, χ2
(143) = 255.48, p< .001, CMIN/df = 1.79, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06, as did the model for
relationship uncertainty, χ2
(142) = 291.30, p< .001, CMIN/df = 2.05, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07. The results of
the partner and relationship uncertainty models are presented in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
Fig. 1 Model for partner uncertainty
Fig. 2Model for relationship uncertainty
5. Relational Uncertainty And Avoidance…
www.ijhssi.org 97 | P a g e
For both the partner and relationship uncertainty models, uncertainty was negatively related to both
outcome assessments and efficacy assessments. Individuals who reported relatively high partner or relationship
uncertainty were likely to anticipate more negative outcomes and feel less efficacious in confronting their
partners when they perceived that their partner lied to them. Efficacy assessments also were negatively
correlated with avoidance following the discovery of a partner’s deception; individuals who had relatively low
efficacy were likely to respond to their partner’s lie with avoidance. Yet, outcome assessment was not
significantly related to avoidance for either model. RQ1a pertains to the mediating effect of outcome assessment
on the relationship between uncertainty and avoidance. For the partner uncertainty model, because outcome
assessment was not related to avoidance, it is not surprising that the Sobel test also showed outcome assessment
was not a significant mediator, z = -1.41, p = .16. Similarly, outcome assessment did not mediate the association
between relationship uncertainty and avoidance, z = -1.38, p = .17. Overall, individuals with higher uncertainty
anticipated more negative outcomes, yet these anticipated outcomes did not appear to influence their avoidance.
RQ1b was put forth to examine whether efficacy assessments mediate the links between uncertainty and
avoidance following the discovery of a partner’s deception. As shown in Fig1, in addition to significant
associations between uncertainty and efficacy assessments as well as efficacy assessments and avoidance, the
significant bivariate correlation between partner uncertainty and avoidance interestingly changed to a negative
relationship in the mediation model. The Sobel mediation test showed that the indirect effect of partner
uncertainty on avoidance was significant, z = 3.25, p = .001. In the model for relationship uncertainty (see Fig.
2), the significant bivariate correlation between relationship uncertainty and avoidance was not significant in the
mediation model, and the Sobel mediation test also showed that the indirect effect of relationship uncertainty on
avoidance was significant, z = 3.05, p = .001. Thus, efficacy assessments mediated the association between
partner uncertainty and avoidance as well as relationship uncertainty and avoidance.
V. CONCLUSION
The current study was conducted to investigate whether outcome assessments and efficacy assessments
explain the association between people’s uncertainty and their tendency to avoid communicating with a
relational partner after discovering the partner lied to them. To explore this issue, the association between
individuals’ uncertainty and their tendency to engage in avoidance first was examined. Then, the possibility that
outcome assessments and efficacy assessments mediate the association between uncertainty and avoidance was
tested.Following the arguments of Knobloch and Solomon [3], we predicted that individuals’ perceptions of self,
partner, and relationship uncertainty would be positively associated with their tendency to avoid communicating
with a partner after discovering their partner lied to them. Our findings revealed a positive association between
partner uncertainty and avoidance, as well as between relationship uncertainty and avoidance. However, no
association was found between self uncertainty and avoidance. As suggested by Theiss and Solomon [17], the
greater ambiguity involved in making predictions about a partner or a relationship might serve to strengthen the
positive associations between partner and relationship uncertainty and avoidance. Perhaps when individuals
have more uncertainty about their own involvement, they are less concerned about the relational implications of
directly communating about the deception as compared to when they have greater partner or relationship
uncertainty.In addition to examining the links between various types of uncertainty and avoidance, the present
study investigated the mediating role of outcome assessments and efficacy assessments. The findings revealed
that efficacy assessments, but not outcome assessments, mediated the associations between both partner and
relationship uncertainty and avoidance. In short, greater partner and relationship uncertainty increased the
likelihood that people would anticipate negative outcomes and feel less efficacious after discovering their
partner lied to them. But the anticipation of negative outcomes was not linked to avoidance; rather, people’s
feelings of efficacy predicted their tendency to avoid communicating with their partner about the lie.
The findings of the current study are consistent with Bandura’s [18, 19] claim that self-efficacy is key
in determining social behavior in that they suggest that avoidance following events that increase uncertainty
may depend on people’s perceptions of their ability to effectively communicate about the issue at hand. When
individuals perceive they are able to communicate with their partner about something such as the discovery of a
lie, they are more likely to do so. Further, when people experience partner or relationship uncertainty after
discovering their partner has lied to them, positive assessments of their own efficacy appear to embolden them
to talk with their partner. Given that relational uncertainty complicates communication [20], a lack of efficacy
may be an important explanation for why partners find communication more difficult when experiencing
uncertainty, particularly uncertainty about the partner’s involvement in the relationship. Put another way,
individuals with high efficacy in confronting their partners may seek more information to deal
6. Relational Uncertainty And Avoidance…
www.ijhssi.org 98 | P a g e
with uncertainty [21, 22].The absence of a significant association between outcome assessments and
avoidance suggests that outcome assessments may function differently than efficacy assessments. It is possible
that people who anticipate negative outcomes are as likely to talk with their partner about the event as those who
anticipate positive outcomes. If this is the case, individuals may decide whether to engage their partner in
conversation based on factors other than the likelihood that the conversation will result in positive outcomes.
For instance, people may opt to talk to their partner after discovering he or she has lied because they feel
justified in doing so, because they have a desire to express themselves, or because they have a strong sense of
efficacy. It also is possible that the lack of an association between outcome assessments and avoidance is a
result of including efficacy assessments in the model. Given that bivariate associations show that both efficacy
and outcome assessments are related to avoidance, and that efficacy and outcome assessments are associated
with each other, including both types of assessments in the same model may mask any association between
outcome assessments and avoidance.
Of course, the current study’s findings are limited. One limitation involves the use of retrospective
reports. Participants in the present study may not have accurately recollected the lies they described or may have
found it difficult to recall the degree to which they felt uncertain about the lie [23]. It also is important to
acknowledge that people’s decisions to avoid talking about the lie incident may have been due to reasons other
than their efficacy assessments. For example, some individuals may have used avoidance because they wanted
to protect their partner from psychological or emotional pain or because they felt pressured by their partner to
conceal certain information [24].In spite of these limitations, the mediating role of efficacy assessments raises
several issues for researchers to consider. Perhaps most obvious, when studying relational uncertainty and
avoidance in close relationships, researchers need to consider the possible influence of efficacy assessments.
Although uncertainty often has been conceived as a predictor of people’s tendency to seek or avoid information,
in many cases it may be that efficacy assessments, rather than uncertainty, are the primary influence on
individuals’ avoidance behavior. In a similar vein, scholars may find it useful to further explore the cognitive
and affective predictors of efficacy assessments. The results of the present study indicate that uncertainty is one
of these predictors, but there likely are others. For instance, Bandura [25] argued that psychological or
physiological arousal is one of the principal sources of self-efficacy. Studying the link between efficacy
assessments and either psychological or physiological arousal could yield theoretically important information
about how people judge their efficacy and why they respond in particular ways to those judgments.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Planalp and J. Honeycutt, Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 11,
1985, 593-604.
[2] T. Cole, Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
18, 2001, 107-129.
[3] L. Knobloch and D. Solomon, Intimacy and the magnitude and experience of episodic relational uncertainty within romantic
relationships.Personal Relationships, 9, 2002, 457-478.
[4] L. Knobloch, L. Miller, and K. Carpenter, Using the relational turbulence model to understand negative emotion within
courtship. Personal Relationships, 14, 2007, 91-112.
[5] W. Afifi, andJ. Weiner, Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14, 2004, 167-190.
[6] L. Knobloch and D. Solomon, Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty.Communication Studies, 50, 1999,
261-278.
[7] J. Theiss and L. Knobloch, An actor-partner interdependence model of irritations in romantic relationships. Communication
Research, 36,2009, 510-537.
[8] S. Metts, An exploratory investigation of deception in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 1989,
159-179.
[9] D. Anderson, M. Ansfield, and B. DePaulo, Love's best habit: Deception in the context of relationships. In P. Phillippot, R.
Feldman & E. Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 372-409) (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1999).
[10] B. Depaulo, W. Morris, and R. Sternglanz, When the truth hurts: Deception in the name of kindness. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.),
Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 167-190) (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
[11] W. Afifi andC. Morse, Expanding the role of emotion in the theory of motivated information management. In T.Afifi and W.
Afifi (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions (pp. 87-105)(New York: Routledge, 2009).
[12] S. McCornack and T. Levine,When lies are uncovered: Emotional and relational outcomes of discovered deception.
Communication Monographs, 57,1990, 119-138.
[13] L. Knobloch, and E. Donovan-Kicken, Perceived involvement of network members in courtships: A test of the relational
turbulence model. Personal Relationships, 13, 2006, 281-302.
[14] W. Afifi, M. Dillow, and C. Morse, Examining predictors and consequences of information seeking in close relationships.
Personal Relationships, 11, 2004, 429-449.
[15] S. Jang, S. Smith, andT. Levine,To stay or to leave? The role of attachment styles in communication patterns and potential
termination of romantic relationships following discovery of deception.Communication Monographs, 69, 2002, 236-252.
7. Relational Uncertainty And Avoidance…
www.ijhssi.org 99 | P a g e
[16] L. Knobloch, Perceptions of turmoil within courtship: Associations with intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from
partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 2007, 363-384.
[17] J. Theiss and D. Solomon, A relational turbulence model of communication about irritations in romantic
relationships.Communication Research, 33, 2006, 391-418.
[18] A. Bandura, Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 1982, 122-147.
[19] A. Bandura, Social foundations of thoughts and action: A social cognitive theory(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986).
[20] [L. Knobloch andD. Solomon, Relational uncertainty and relational information processing: Questions without answers?
Communication Research, 32, 2005, 349-388.
[21] C. Berger and J. Bradac, Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations (London, England: Edward
Arnold, 1982)
[22] C. Berger and R. Calabrese, (1975). Some exploration in initial interactions and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of
interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 1975, 99-112.
[23] E. Loftus and G Loftus,On the permanence of stored information in the human brain. American Psychologist, 35, 1980, 409-420.
[24] T. Afifi, L. Olson, and C. Armstrong, The chilling effect and family secrets: Examining the role of self protection, other
protection, and communication efficacy. Human Communication Research, 31, 2005, 564-598.
[25] [A. Bandura,Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (New York: Freeman, 1987).