38 LEMAY AND MELVILLE Verette.1999).events that signal partners'lack of care or com and ers"goals to and opportunity to respond in a supportive reflec and heighten That is tang ne. s due to partn lack of a the e feelings of pret s b )For instance not comm and s.Hence people may er a Most relevnt to the.people may thei self-d ern the ap isal of situa and inte upport provision from their partners (Clark&Le 2010 98) Grzelak, ction with the ally from partners who yalue and care for ther On the othe ding the partr nd therefor ependenc (s Murray et al nd loss of er and p 0/ ions of situationa nvolving on th a high risk ofr心je with thei in their partner's ca ors as the partner's true feelings and tion.Of (emyClark.)Hence.peope do sm rust by altering their view er's sentiments toward the self and relationship.whether ositive or negative may 2013) Motivated Perceptions of Lack of Disclosure o clear that the currence of the behavior is un When peonle desire to maintain a close mmunal relationshir with a p ditions welfare (Mills.Clark.Ford.Johnson.2004).they sually wan be partner still cares for the self and relationshin art ners"recin ating care (Clark,Dubash.&Mills,1). gnition Pe ability to reach desired concu y to Thi perceivers' mutual (Atridge.Berscheid.Simpson.9:Drigotas.Rusbult. unresponsive behavior without a seemingly rational justificationmotivations when perceivers believe they have disclosed their needs and desires to partners. The perception of this self-disclosure may contribute to their belief that partners were aware of an opportunity to respond in a supportive or otherwise prorelationship manner, which narrows the range of attributions for partners’ unresponsive behavior. That is, when partners behave in a cold, selfish, or neglectful manner, the perception that one disclosed needs and desires reduces the perceived likelihood that partners’ behavior was due to partners’ lack of awareness, increasing the likelihood that perceivers interpret this behavior as the result of partners’ lack of care, lack of commitment, or unwillingness to sacrifice for the self and relationship. In contrast, when perceivers believe they have not communicated their needs and desires to partners, lack of awareness may be a viable explanation of part￾ners’ negative behaviors. Hence, people may often use the clarity of their own self-disclosure of needs and desires as a way of discerning whether situations should be considered diagnostic of partners’ sentiments. A number of findings are consistent with our argument that self-disclosure serves as a source of information regarding situa￾tional diagnosticity. When needs for support arise, people tend to express those needs to their partners, and this expression tends to elicit support provision from their partners (Clark & Lemay, 2010; Collins & Feeney, 2000; Laurenceau et al., 1998). Moreover, people often use self-disclosure to build close relationships (Der￾lega & Grzelak, 1979; Omarzu, 2000). These findings suggest that people know that disclosure sometimes elicits responsiveness, especially from partners who value and care for them. On the other hand, by revealing potentially negative information or vulnerabil￾ities that could be exploited, disclosure also increases the risk of rejection and loss of power, and people also seem to be aware of this risk (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Kelly & McKillop, 1996). For instance, people with a high need for approval (Brundage, Derlega, & Cash, 1976) and who perceive a high risk of rejection (Omarzu, 2000) are reluctant to disclose personal information about themselves, and people seem to calibrate their self￾disclosure of emotion with their confidence in their partner’s care, taking the risk of revealing emotional vulnerabilities only to the extent that they are confident that this disclosure will not be met with rejection (Lemay & Clark, 2008). Hence, people do seem to be aware that self-disclosure can create a situation that reveals the partner’s sentiments toward the self and relationship, whether positive or negative. Motivated Perceptions of Lack of Disclosure When people desire to maintain a close, communal relationship with a particular partner, as indicated by strong relationship com￾mitment (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993) and care for the partner’s welfare (Mills, Clark, Ford, & Johnson, 2004), they usually want the partner to reciprocate these sentiments (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). Indeed, care for partners’ welfare coincides with interest in partners’ reciprocating care (Clark, Dubash, & Mills, 1998), and commitment is dependent on partners exhibiting signs of recipro￾cated commitment (Wieselquist et al., 1999). Perceiving such reciprocation may satisfy evolved needs to forge stable bonds characterized by mutual care (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). As these relationships depend on the motivation of both partners (Attridge, Berscheid, & Simpson, 1995; Drigotas, Rusbult, & Verette, 1999), events that signal partners’ lack of care or com￾mitment may threaten perceivers’ goals to maintain these relation￾ships. Moreover, perceivers’ commitment and care toward a part￾ner reflect dependence on the relationship and heighten their feelings of vulnerability to emotional pain and more tangible losses when they are confronted with the threat of abandonment or mistreatment by the partner (Lemay, Overall, & Clark, 2012; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006; Wieselquist et al., 1999). Peo￾ple engage in a variety of strategies to reduce these feelings of vulnerability (see Murray et al., 2006). For instance, they may engage in prorelationship behaviors that make partners feel simi￾larly dependent on the relationship, which may restore power imbalances and reduce the perceived likelihood of rejection (Mur￾ray et al., 2009). Alternatively, they may withdraw their psycho￾logical investment in the relationship and devalue their partner as a source of connection, which could also restore power imbalances and reduce the sting of anticipated rejection (Murray et al., 2000). Most relevant to the current research, people may regulate their feelings of vulnerability through the use of motivated cognitive strategies that govern the appraisal of situations and interpretation of partners’ behaviors (see Murray et al., 2006). For instance, people who protect themselves from the threat of rejection by reducing dependence and devaluing the partner may interpret the partner’s behaviors in negative ways that facilitate and justify this distancing decision, whereas people who decide to manage feel￾ings of vulnerability by seeking greater connection with the partner may interpret the same behavior in positive ways that provide reassurance regarding the partner’s trustworthiness and therefore motivate and justify continued dependence (see Murray et al., 2006). These cognitive strategies may target perceptions of situational diagnosticity. Strategies involving reduction of dependence on the partner may involve perceiving cold, neglectful, or selfish behav￾iors as especially diagnostic of the partner’s underlying sentiments and motivations. Strategies that involve maintaining connection and trust may instead include perceiving such unresponsive be￾haviors as irrelevant to the partner’s true feelings and relationship motives, which would help justify a decision to maintain connec￾tion. Of course, motivated perceivers could also try to regulate trust by altering their views of whether partners behaved in unre￾sponsive ways, and some findings suggest that people do have biased perceptions (Lemay & Clark, 2008; Lemay et al., 2007) and memories (Lemay & Neal, 2013) of partners’ responsiveness. However, the presence of unresponsive behavior may sometimes be so clear that the occurrence of the behavior is undeniable, requiring perceivers to rely on other strategies to facilitate their connection goals, such as redefining the situation. Under these conditions, altering perceptions of situational diagnosticity may be a commonly used method of reaching the desired conclusion that the partner still cares for the self and relationship. However, motivation does not have an unfettered influence over cognitive process (otherwise people would never experience un￾desired cognitions). Perceivers’ ability to reach desired conclu￾sions is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reason￾able justifications for those conclusions (Kunda, 1990). This constraint may be relevant to perceivers’ attempts at redefining situations. Perceivers would likely have nagging doubts about their own objectivity if they were to deny the diagnosticity of partners’ unresponsive behavior without a seemingly rational justification. 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. 38 LEMAY AND MELVILLE