This study sought to examine the impact upon actors' selection of strategies to manage failure events of several contextual factors: characteristics of the reproachedactor relationship, communicative goal-orientation of the actors, severity of the failure event, character of the reproach for the failure event, and the actors' degree of expressed guilt. Results indicated that actors elected to make no response when they felt less guilt, when there was no overt reproach, when their instrumental goal (securing honoring) was unimportant, and when the failure event was a severe offense. Concessions were used when the reproachers said nothing or projected a concession, when the offense was severe, when the acton' instrumental goal was important, and when they felt guilty. Actors chose to justify their behavior in high intimate situations where their instrumental goal was less important. Refusal to account was most likely to occur when reproachers used an aggravating reproach form, when actors felt unjustly accused, and when reproachers were dominant. Excuses were fairly uniformly distributed across all contexts.And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I war afraid, because I war naked, and I hid mysev.And He said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hart thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?And the man said, The woman who thou givest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, Whar is rhis rhar thou hast done?And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me and I did -Genesis 3: 9-13 eat.

No abstract

This study investigated cue leakage during deception of factual information for both prepared and spontaneous types of lies. Liars anticipating lying engaged in less postural shifting and shorter latencies than truth tellers prior to lying. During a prepared lie, liars engaged in shorter latencies, shorter message durations, more affirmative head nodding, less smiling, and more body adaptors than truth tellers did. During a spontaneous lie, liars engaged in more body adaptors than truth tellers. No substantive differences were obtained between truth tellers and liars after the lying behavior was completed. Cues were not leaked differently by high and low Machiavellians.

Few behaviors have been found that consistently dvferentiate deceivers from truth-tellers. Consequently, recent research has focused upon identifying the factors that impact upon the display of behavioral correlates of deception. Following previous work in this area, four factors held to be important in this regard are reviewed: arousal, emotion, cognitive difficulty. and control. A n integrative model that explicates the inierrelations of these components is then developed. Finally, a study examining the effects of preparafion and controt on leakage during deception ispresented. Planning of deception was found to relate to response latency and duration of eye contact. In addition, subjects appear to use inhibitory control processes to suppress the display of behavioral cues of deception.Throughout history, the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of the liar have fascinated scholars, artists, detectives, kings, and lovers. However, the search for generalizable clues to deception has been, generally, a disheartening one. Major reviews indicate that only a few behaviors (pupil dilation, shrug rate, use of adaptors, speech errors, speech hesitations, and vocal pitch) consistently differentiate liars from nonliars across a number of empirical investigations (see Hocking, Miller