LEMAY AND MELVILLE Results and Discussion in the nresponsive situations were just as low with valued part To be sure that participants selected ers as with valued partners (p neasures of disclosure in unresponsive situation M elative to the devalue condition (M =3.01.2.83.and .however.should well-functionn relation ships and positive relationship perceptions and therefore should b ba spec perceptions function of participantsn of their pan diagnosticity perceptions on both situation-specific and globa pecrcptionsofscfdisclosur Situation-specifc self- ated measures on th neasure type facto The Me 10 20 m 05.P 01,and partner conc saw tar gative bcha d vhen they sav First we compared es to the global alued partne the s.Tha which produced similar result se ed by the lack of responsiveness.F(1.10)-15.14. ved cat and mitment 8-22 t(245) -4372 10.ps 001 global self-dise was positively lobal self-di sure 99 when they laim hig unre ve sure can have opposite implica. ions for trus orted ding d par in hypothetica situations featuring ived low levels o ure in unresponsive situatior pattern of high sponsive behavior and incre care and sng benefits of perceived lack of disclosure in unresponsive vith thisResults and Discussion Manipulation check. To be sure that participants selected partners who varied in intended ways, we compared scores on the measures of partner valuing (care, commitment, and desire to be valued by the partner) across the valued and devalued partner conditions. Participants reported more care for the partner (M
6.03), commitment to the relationship (M
6.22) and desire to be valued by the partner (M
6.25) in the valued partner condition relative to the devalued partner condition (M
3.01, 2.83, and 3.48, respectively), t(285)
20.75, p  .001; t(284)
22.59, p  .001; and t(284)
17.47, p  .001; respectively. Hence, the selected partners varied in intended ways.2 Comparing global and specific perceptions of self-disclosure. We compared global and specific perceptions of self-disclosure as a function of participants’ valuing of their part￾ner 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, 259)
78.10, 2
.23, p  .001, and qualified main effects of measure type, F(1, 259)
12.21, 2
.05, p  .01, and partner condition, F(1, 259)
32.84, 2
.11, p  .001. Means are presented in Figure 2. First we compared responses to the global and specific measures in the devalued and valued partner conditions. That is, do perceivers perceive less self-disclosure in unresponsive situations relative to their perceptions of global disclosure? Participants in the devalued partner condition reported less global self-disclosure relative to self-disclosure in situations characterized by the part￾ner’s lack of responsiveness, F(1, 130)
15.14, 2
.10, p  .001, whereas participants in the valued partner condition reported more global self-disclosure (M
5.27) relative to self-disclosure in these unresponsive situations (M
3.86), F(1, 129)
71.87, 2
.36, p  .001, consistent with our prediction that motivated perceivers would claim high global disclosure but would deny disclosure in unresponsive situations. We also compared the de￾valued and valued partner conditions on both global and specific measures. In other words, do perceivers who value partners report more or less global and specific self-disclosure relative to perceiv￾ers who do not value partners? Whereas participants reported more global self-disclosure to valued partners relative to devalued part￾ners, F(1, 262)
91.77, 2
.26, p  .001, their self-disclosure in the unresponsive situations were just as low with valued part￾ners as with devalued partners (p  .18), supporting our prediction that the association between self-disclosure and positive relation￾ship sentiments applies to global measures of disclosure, but not to measures of disclosure in unresponsive situations. Predicting perceived diagnosticity and trust. We expect that perceivers who strongly value a relationship with partners are motivated to perceive low self-disclosure in situations characterized by partners’ lack of responsiveness because high self-disclosure in these situations engenders perceptions of diagnosticity. Global self-disclosure, however, should reflect well-functioning relation￾ships and positive relationship perceptions, and therefore should be associated with perceiving unresponsive behaviors as less diag￾nostic. To test these predictions, we regressed situation-specific diagnosticity perceptions on both situation-specific and global perceptions of self-disclosure. Situation-specific self-disclosure (in unresponsive situations) positively predicted diagnosticity percep￾tions, 
.29, t(258)
5.66, sr2
.083, p  .001, whereas global self-disclosure negatively predicted diagnosticity perceptions, 
.55, t(258)
10.65, sr2
.295, p  .001. Consistent with our predictions, participants saw targets’ negative behavior as nondi￾agnostic of care—a trust-protective interpretation—when they saw low self-disclosure in unresponsive situations, and when they generally perceived their relationship to be high in self-disclosure. We tested a similar model of global trust in targets’ care and commitment, which produced similar results. Whereas self￾disclosure in unresponsive situations was inversely associated with perceived care and commitment, 
.22, t(245)
4.37, sr2
.046, p  .001, global self-disclosure was positively associated with perceived care and commitment, 
.64, t(245)
12.90, sr2
.399, p  .001. Hence, participants were the most trusting when they perceived lack of disclosure in situations characterized by targets’ unresponsive behavior and perceived high disclosure globally. These results provide strong evidence that global and specific perceptions of self-disclosure can have opposite implica￾tions for trust. Summary. Results of this study supported our predictions regarding differences between global perceptions of self￾disclosure and perceptions in hypothetical situations featuring partners’ unresponsive behavior. Participants who strongly valued a relationship with a target person perceived high levels of self￾disclosure in a global sense, but they also perceived low levels of self-disclosure in unresponsive situations. This pattern of high global self-disclosure and low self-disclosure in unresponsive sit￾uations was associated with reduced perceptions of diagnosticity of unresponsive behavior and increased trust in partners’ care and commitment, which is consistent with both prior research suggest￾ing benefits of self-disclosure generally, and the current prediction proposing benefits of perceived lack of disclosure in unresponsive 2 We argued in the introduction that people who highly value relation￾ships with partners, as indicated by high care or commitment, tend to desire reciprocation of these sentiments. Consistent with this argument, the cor￾relations of care and commitment with desire to be valued by the partner were very strong, r(286)
.84, p  .001; and r(286)
.89, p  .001. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Devalued Valued Perceived Self-Disclosure Partner Condition Global Specific Figure 2. Perceived self-disclosure as a function of type of measure (global vs. specific) and partner valuing (Study 1). 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. 42 LEMAY AND MELVILLE