DIMINISHING SELF-DISCLOSURE that hance relationship ingly ortive evidence We expect that perceivers ofter s that people are inaccurate a them ro tionship vity (lekes Simpson.2003:Simpson.Ickes. research we exneet that motivated n r (whether one c ar小ycon ds anc nade with less accurac and clarity tha nts of one ers behave (or are perceived to behave)in a cold,selfish,or n.Glas G hat is.pere e dis other situations pasis of asymn ne ato s of perceivers'diselo should suggest that the internal expen may chavior is not diagnos if only itw they judge situati ns as diagnc d by the self-disel of next mo 20120 982 10931 arch o 90 This prediction that targets nsive behavior not diagnostic whic and ma close re Relation to Other The retical Views on Self-Disclosure (Rusbul Van Lange 1996Th Our prediction that most vale relaionships ee lack of se urehas positive interpers of which heir en 1988)model of intima that intir commitme hancing perceptions are trengt ps thr ough a process of disclosing important information about the depth this does noe tre sentiments (Lemay Self-di osure has a consistent p itive as th relation 08 hip evaluations (e.g.,Fin 2011:B their partners in wav rick,Adle 988:La et al..1998;M .He k hat are consistent with their romantic ideals to justify theirwn To achieve a sense of conviction in the conclusion that unrespon￾sive behaviors are nondiagnostic, they must be able to point to seemingly supportive evidence. We expect that perceivers often underestimate their own self-disclosure of needs and desires as a way of supporting the claim that partners’ behaviors lack diagnos￾ticity. For a number of reasons, this strategy may be especially com￾pelling. First, this strategy depends on a judgment regarding own behavior (whether one clearly communicated needs and desires to partners). Judgments regarding one’s own behavior tend to be made with less accuracy and clarity than judgments of one’s own internal states or others’ behavior (Andersen, Glassman, & Gold, 1998; Vazire, 2010), and this may indicate greater leeway for cognitive distortion of perceivers’ own behavior relative to other strategies, such as those that involve altering perceptions of the behaviors enacted by partners. Second, insufficient disclosure may be argued on the basis of asymmetries in information regarding needs and desires conveyed to partners versus information that is privately experienced. Given that people do not usually express every nuance of their internal experiences, they may easily gen￾erate counterfactual thoughts regarding the information that would have elicited partners’ responsiveness, if only it were conveyed (e.g., “I should have expressed how important it was to me”). Third, attributing partners’ unresponsive behavior to perceivers’ own lack of disclosure shifts the responsibility for partners’ unre￾sponsive behavior from partners to perceivers, leaving intact per￾ceivers’ sense of control regarding partners’ responsiveness in future interactions (i.e., next time, if I more clearly disclose my needs, my partner will be responsive) and circumventing poten￾tially destructive feelings of anger (Lemay et al., 2012; Quigley & Tedeschi, 1996; Weiner, Graham, & Chandler, 1982). Perceivers’ chronic relationship motives may determine the use of these strategies. Strong desires to maintain bonds may shift the perceived utility of the available risk-regulation strategies, such that strategies that manage vulnerability by bolstering connection and security, including underestimating disclosure of needs and desires in the face of partners’ unresponsive behavior, are pre￾ferred over strategies that manage vulnerability by reducing de￾pendence on the partner. This prediction is consistent with inter￾dependence theoretical perspectives on motivated interpersonal cognition. According to interdependence theory, people who strongly want to maintain close relationships (i.e., people who are high in commitment) are motivated to defend their relationships from threat (Rusbult & Van Lange, 1996; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Consistent with this framework, highly committed individ￾uals perceive their relationships as superior to others’ relationships (Rusbult, Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000), and they devalue alternative romantic partners (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989), both of which can maintain their feelings of commitment. More￾over, these commitment-enhancing perceptions are strengthened when perceivers are under threat, suggesting that they reflect motivated processes (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; Rusbult et al., 2000). Similarly, individuals who care for their partners’ welfare tend to perceive their partners as similarly caring in return, even when this does not reflect partners’ true sentiments (Lemay & Clark, 2008; Lemay et al., 2007). Research examining positive illusions in relationships (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996a, 1996b) similarly suggests that people view their partners in ways that are consistent with their romantic ideals to justify their own commitment and that these illusions can enhance relationship quality for both partners. Research on motivated inaccuracy in close relationships also suggests that people are inaccurate at reading their partners’ minds when inaccuracy protects them from recognizing threatening information and that this process promotes relationship longevity (Ickes & Simpson, 2003; Simpson, Ickes, & Blackstone, 1995). Hence, in the current research, we expect that motivated per￾ceivers exhibit a bias in which they underestimate their own self-disclosure in unresponsive situations—situations in which partners behave (or are perceived to behave) in a cold, selfish, or neglectful manner. That is, perceivers who strongly value targets should perceive less disclosure of their needs and desires following targets’ unresponsive behavior relative to other situations (i.e., situations in which the partner does not behave in an unresponsive manner), and comparison of disclosure perceptions to external indicators of perceivers’ disclosure should suggest that perceivers underestimate their disclosure in these unresponsive situations. In turn, underestimating disclosure should facilitate the conclusion that partners’ behavior is not diagnostic of their sentiments. In other words, motivated perceivers may exhibit a backward logic (backward relative to the logic implied in most theorizing on trust) in which they judge situations as diagnostic based on their impli￾cations for trust. They see situations are diagnostic, and as char￾acterized by the self-disclosure of needs and desires that makes them so, when partners behave in a caring or otherwise pro￾relationship manner, but they claim inadequate disclosure to see situations as nondiagnostic when partners behave in unresponsive ways that could undermine trust. In addition to being consistent with research on biased judgments of interpersonal relationships, this prediction coincides with research on diagnosticity biases, which suggests that people see events as conveying desired infor￾mation (Vorauer & Ross, 1993) and with general research on motivated reasoning, which suggests that people construct biased impressions, beliefs, and evaluations that support desired conclu￾sions (Kunda, 1990). Hence, it seems plausible that motivations to maintain relationships with targets can bias perceptions of self￾disclosure, as these perceptions could support the desired conclu￾sion that targets’ unresponsive behavior is not diagnostic, which could protect trust and maintain interdependence. Relation to Other Theoretical Views on Self-Disclosure Our prediction that perceivers who most value relationships wish to see lack of self-disclosure in some situations contradicts most theoretical frameworks involving self-disclosure, which posit that disclosure has positive interpersonal consequences and plays a key role in the maintenance of relationships. For instance, Reis and Shaver’s (1988) model of intimacy proposes that intimacy devel￾ops through a process of disclosing important information about the self to a partner and then receiving a responsive response. Similarly, social penetration theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973) proposes that relationship closeness involves increases in the depth of self-disclosure. A number of findings support these views. Self-disclosure has a consistent positive association with relation￾ship evaluations (e.g., Finkenauer, Engels, Branje, & Meeus, 2004; Finkenauer & Righetti, 2011; Hendrick, 1981; Hendrick, Hen￾drick, & Adler, 1988; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Meeks, Hendrick, & Hendrick, 1998; Pollmann & Finkenauer, 2009). Moreover, meta￾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 39