Information exchange is essential for decision-making, innovation, and learning in organizations. However, people often struggle to exchange information effectively. In this dissertation, I examine how a fundamental psychological need—the need for affirmation of one’s views—shapes interpersonal perceptions in conversations and ultimately hinders information exchange. In Chapter 1, I investigate how the need for validation leads people to misinterpret disagreement as poor listening. Across 11 experiments that involve different conversation topics and communication mediums, I find that speakers perceive listeners who agree with them as better listeners, even when they are not. Conversely, listeners who express disagreement are perceived as poor listeners, even when they are attentive and engaged. These findings suggest that people heavily rely on a listener's agreement or disagreement to assess the quality of their listening. In Chapter 2, I explore how the need for affirmation leads people to seek cues of agreement in conversations, even when their conversational counterparts do not intend to signal agreement. Across three studies, I find that people infer agreement from high-quality listening because interpersonal markers of good listening—such as nodding, backchanneling, and acknowledgment—also serve as signals of agreement. As a result, listeners may unintentionally convey alignment when they intend only to signal attentiveness and engagement. In Chapter 3, I investigate what it means to "agree" and why people may stop at agreement too soon. Agreement can occur at different levels—people may align on a position but differ in their reasoning, or they may disagree on a position while sharing core values. Across three studies, I find that when people agree, they are less likely to discuss their underlying reasoning compared to when they disagree. This lack of discussion hinders learning, as people who agree often forgo opportunities to learn about others’ reasoning, which is often different from theirs. Together, my research on agreement, listening, and learning reveals how the need for validation can obscure critical opportunities for exchanging diverse perspectives. This dynamic is costly, as it prevents organizations from fully leveraging the rich potential of diverse viewpoints. Addressing this challenge requires not only increasing individual awareness of common misperceptions they fall prey to but also fostering an organizational culture that actively encourages constructive disagreement.