DIMINISHING SELF-DISCLOSURE "At the time of this event.Idid ot fully for help e more disc e in unresponsive situatic ons than globally municated my stress to partner namel"Cronbach's93). mswere scored so that higher s rflected greater disclo trust-diminishing perceptions. Results and Discussion Study 2:Memories of Prior Events 128) Method ntended wa Participants.Study 2included 130 participants(M age-34 Comparing global and specific perceptions 1.First.we red global and specific percep follows:79%Caucasian,8 African American,,and of se Procedure.Participants completed a questionnare posted on (partner condition d partner)mixed analysis of We randomly assigned part icipants to report ona ures of pa ne 1,127) They the condition,F(1.127)=14.72.n2=.10.p <001.Means ar he- d in which the identifie or work).Particip then pleted the situation-specific mea even tenneynreonsive sitationshe situations m () .7R 58) hether perceivers who value partners (relat wh gree eived global four-itemm tive to devalued partners.F(1.128)=27.36.n2=.18.p<.001 ure of neec gs to the partner (e.g.."I do not ssmy nceds ner namel" ach's 90).Item he partner applied to global self-disclosure.but not to self- Situation-specific measures.Participants completed four disclosure in unresponsive situations Sex did h bomyll-being oine on in my life"Cronbach's 91)Items were completed Hence.sex was using 7-point response scales (1=strongly disagree:7=strongly sing the sam po ts also ompleted four 001: e during the event (e.g situations.3 In contrast, participants who did not value a relation￾ship with the target person exhibited a trust-diminishing tendency to see more disclosure in unresponsive situations than globally. Both patterns are consistent with the view that levels of relation￾ship desire determine whether people hold trust-enhancing or trust-diminishing perceptions. Study 2: Memories of Prior Events We conducted Study 2 to replicate results of Study 1 using a different methodology. Rather than using hypothetical scenarios, we asked participants to describe an actual prior event in which they were recipients of unresponsive behavior. Method Participants. Study 2 included 130 participants (M age
34 years; 34 males; 96 females) who were recruited using the same two methods described in Study 1. The racial distribution was as follows: 79% Caucasian, 8.9% African American, 8.1% Asian, and 4% other. Procedure. Participants completed a questionnaire posted on the Internet. We randomly assigned participants to report on a valued or devalued partner using the same instructions used in Study 1. Participants then completed the measures of partner valuing and global self-disclosure described below. They then recalled and described a time within the last 12 months in which they experienced a stressful event and in which the identified relationship partner did not provide help or support. To facilitate participants’ recall of such an event, participants first completed a checklist containing some common stressful events (e.g., moving to a new residence, problems in a relationship, a setback at school or work). Participants then completed the situation-specific mea￾sures with regard to the selected event. Measures. Partner valuing (manipulation check measures). Participants completed the same measures of partner valuing described in Study 1, including care for the partner (Cronbach’s
.92), commitment (Cronbach’s
.92), and desire to be valued by the partner (Cronbach’s
.90). Items were completed using the same 7-point response scales (1
strongly disagree; 7
strongly agree). Perceived global self-disclosure. Participants completed a four-item measure assessing global perceptions of their self￾disclosure of needs and feelings to the partner (e.g., “I do not clearly communicate my feelings to [partner name]”; “I clearly express my needs to [partner name]”; Cronbach’s
.90). Items were completed using the same 7-point response scales and were scored so that higher values indicate more disclosure. Situation-specific measures. Participants completed four items assessing perceived diagnosticity of the partner’s unrespon￾sive behavior (e.g., “He/she was not helpful or supportive because he/she did not care about my well-being”; “He/she was not helpful or supportive because he/she was not concerned about what was going on in my life”; Cronbach’s
.91). Items were completed using 7-point response scales (1
strongly disagree; 7
strongly agree). Using the same response scales, participants also completed four items assessing their own self-disclosure during the event (e.g., “At the time of this event, I did not fully express a need for help or support to [partner name]”; “At the time of this event, I clearly communicated my stress to [partner name]”; Cronbach’s
.93). Items were scored so that higher scores reflected greater disclo￾sure. Results and Discussion Manipulation check. Participants reported more care for the partner (M
6.13), commitment to the relationship (M
6.33) and desire to be valued by the partner (M
6.26) in the valued partner condition relative to the devalued partner condition (M
3.73, 3.67, and 4.28, respectively), t(128)
12.51, p  .001; t(128)
13.48, p  .001; and t(128)
9.98, p  .001; respectively. Hence, once again, the selected partners varied in intended ways.4 Comparing global and specific perceptions of self-disclosure. We followed the same analysis strategy de￾scribed in Study 1. First, we compared global and specific percep￾tions of self-disclosure as a function of participants’ valuing of their partner using a 2 (measure type: global or specific)  2 (partner condition: valued or devalued partner) mixed analysis of variance with repeated measures on the measure type factor. The Measure Type  Partner Condition interaction was significant, F(1, 127)
6.21, 2
.05, p  .05, and qualified main effects of measure type, F(1, 127)
31.07, 2
.20, p  .001, and partner condition, F(1, 127)
14.72, 2
.10, p  .001. Means are presented in Figure 3. First we compared responses to the global and specific measures in the devalued and valued partner condi￾tions. That is, do perceivers perceive less self-disclosure in unre￾sponsive situations relative to their perceptions of global disclo￾sure? Consistent with predictions that motivated perceivers are reluctant to perceive self-disclosure in unresponsive situations, the tendency to report greater global self-disclosure relative to self￾disclosure in specific unresponsive situations was much stronger for participants reporting on a valued partner (global M
5.26 vs. specific M
3.70), F(1, 69)
35.01, 2
.34, p  .001; than for participants reporting on a devalued partner (global M
3.78 vs. specific M
3.32), F(1, 58)
3.12, 2
.05, p  .09. We also examined conditional effects of partner condition, which examine whether perceivers who value partners (relative to perceivers who do not value partners) report more or less self-disclosure. Partici￾pants reported more global self-disclosure to valued partners rel￾ative to devalued partners, F(1, 128)
27.36, 2
.18, p  .001, but perceptions of self-disclosure in specific unresponsive situa￾tions did not vary across participants reporting on valued and devalued partners (p  .21). Consistent with our predictions, the association between self-disclosure and positive sentiments about the partner applied to global self-disclosure, but not to self￾disclosure in unresponsive situations. 3 Sex did not have a significant main or moderating effect in any of the analyses (ps  .18). In addition, sex did not have consistent moderating effects in subsequent studies. Hence, sex was dropped as a moderator. In some cases, sex did have a significant main effect, but in all cases, critical results remained significant when controlling for sex. 4 Once again, care and commitment were highly correlated with desire to be valued by the partner, r(130)
.83, p  .001; and r(130)
.86, p  .001; respectively, supporting our argument that people who value rela￾tionships with partners desire reciprocation. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. DIMINISHING SELF-DISCLOSURE 43