《社会心理学》课程教学资源（文献资料）social cognition——Diminishing self-disclosure to Maintain Security in Partners’ Care

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 this

Results 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

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