44 LEMAY AND MELVILLE Patte gra (ieacross the daily reports).This positive sentiments ver we expected a more would judge their Global 2 ■Specific vould disanpear gain.we expecte d that perc ns or lo elt-d iving Devalu thes ns of low anc edby perceivers to ived diag As de uracy benchmarks.W relationships with part rers lack of biased in elf-disclosu these situations she disclosure we-functionn ceptions from analys Study 1 examined attributions of hypothetical events.which may unresp onsive ositivel ciated with diagno .B=42 ve altered the results. The 556,1 .001,global se over.Studies 126) 6.99.2 256.P<001.Hence participants saw tha e ant in light of the curre t model and ceived the situations (rather than iust upresponsive situations)The curren eves of sf-discoure evels behavior. with reduc sticity of the trust-protect Method Participants.Study 3 included a sample of 98 heterosexua romantically involved dyads.Due toa dismiss the unresponsive behavior as nondiagnostic. Study 3:Daily Report Study Sex did not significantly moderate any of the .Th report a high level of commitment and care)would report morePredicting perceived diagnosticity. As described earlier, we expect that perceivers who strongly value relationships with part￾ners are motivated to perceive low self-disclosure in situations characterized by partners’ lack of responsiveness because high self-disclosure in these situations should be related to perceiving unresponsive behaviors as diagnostic. In contrast, global self￾disclosure should reflect well-functioning relationships and be associated with positive relationship perceptions. Therefore, global self-disclosure should be associated with perceiving unresponsive behaviors as less diagnostic. To test these ideas, we regressed situation-specific diagnosticity perceptions on global perceptions of self-disclosure and percep￾tions of self-disclosure in specific unresponsive situations. Whereas self-disclosure in specific unresponsive situations was positively associated with diagnosticity perceptions, 
.42, t(126)
5.56, sr2
.162, p  .001, global self-disclosure was negatively associated with diagnosticity perceptions, 
–.52, t(126)
6.99, sr2
.256, p  .001. Hence, participants saw partners’ prior unresponsive behaviors as nondiagnostic—a trust￾protective response—when they saw lack of disclosure in that specific situation and when they generally perceived their relation￾ship to be high in self-disclosure. These findings provide replica￾tion evidence regarding the divergent associations of global self￾disclosure and self-disclosure in unresponsive situations. Summary. Perceivers who strongly valued a relationship with targets perceived high levels of self-disclosure in a global sense, but they also perceived low levels of self-disclosure in a prior event featuring targets’ lack of responsiveness. This combination was associated with reduced perceptions of diagnosticity of the unresponsive behavior, which is a trust-protective interpretation. These findings are consistent with prior research on the interper￾sonal benefits of global disclosure as well as with the current prediction that perceiving lack of disclosure in situations charac￾terized by partners’ lack of responsiveness can help perceivers dismiss the unresponsive behavior as nondiagnostic.5 Study 3: Daily Report Study In Study 3, we tested our predictions using a daily report study involving both members of romantic dyads. We expected that perceivers who valued relationships with partners (i.e., those who report a high level of commitment and care) would report more self-disclosure in general (i.e., across the daily reports). This pattern would be consistent with prior research suggesting that self-disclosure usually facilitates closeness and is associated with positive sentiments. However, we expected a more nuanced pat￾tern once we considered the daily context of partners’ behavior. Specifically, we expected that these perceivers would judge their disclosure in accordance with partners’ responsive behavior and that the tendency to report higher self-disclosure to valued partners would disappear on days when partners are unresponsive. Once again, we expected that perceptions of low self-disclosure would have a benefit, in that they would be associated with perceiving the partner’s unresponsive behavior as less diagnostic of the partner’s sentiments. As we stated earlier, these perceptions of low disclosure and diagnosticity may be biased and constructed by perceivers to subjectively fulfill their goals. As a first step in addressing this bias aspect of our predictions, we used target partners’ perceptions as accuracy benchmarks. We assessed target partners’ perceptions of perceivers’ disclosure and the diagnosticity of their own behavior, and we controlled for these perceptions in our analyses. Following prior research on biased interpersonal perceptions (e.g., Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Lemay et al., 2007; Murray et al., 1996a), this procedure allows us to statistically remove the influence of targets’ perceptions from analyses of perceivers’ perceptions. To the extent that convergence across perceivers and targets reflects perceivers’ accuracy, this procedure statistically removes the portion of per￾ceivers’ perceptions explained by accuracy. This study also addresses some limitations of Studies 1 and 2. Study 1 examined attributions of hypothetical events, which may not reflect attributions of actual events. Study 2 examined attribu￾tions of actual events, but these events occurred in the distant past and so memory biases could have altered the results. The daily report method used in Study 3 addresses these issues by examining perceptions of everyday relationship events. Moreover, Studies 1 and 2 compared perceptions of disclosure in specific unresponsive situations to perceptions of global disclosure. Although this com￾parison is theoretically relevant in light of the current model and the bulk of prior research on global perceptions of disclosure, it did not address disclosure perceptions in specific situations character￾ized by the partner’s responsive behavior, leaving open the possi￾bility that perceived disclosure is threatening to trust in all specific situations (rather than just unresponsive situations). The current study corrects this issue by examining specific relationship events (i.e., daily interaction) that vary in terms of valence of partner behavior. Method Participants. Study 3 included a sample of 98 heterosexual romantically involved dyads. Due to a computer error, responses from three participants were missing (N
193 participants). Participants were recruited through a variety of methods, including 5 Sex did not significantly moderate any of the reported effects (p  .32). However, sex did have a significant main effect on judgments of disclosure, F(1, 125)
3.93, p
.05. Women reported more disclosure (M
4.15) than men (M
3.61). The Measure Type  Partner Condition interaction remained significant when including sex as a covariate, F(1, 126)
5.92, p  .05, and the pattern of the interaction remained the same. Figure 3. Perceived self-disclosure as a function of type of measure (global vs. specific) and partner valuing (Study 2). 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. 44 LEMAY AND MELVILLE