Secret disclosure and social relationships in groups

Personal secrets are a ubiquitous fact of group life, but the conditions under which they are revealed have not been explored. In five studies, we assessed secret disclosure in groups governed by four models of human sociality (Communal Sharing, Equality Matching, Authority Ranking, Market Pricing; Fiske). In Studies 1a and 1b, participants indicated their willingness to disclose secrets in hypothetical groups governed by the models. In Studies 2a and 2b, participants rated how much a group in which they disclosed secrets or nonsecrets is governed by the models. In Study 3, participants indicated their disclosure of various types of secrets in Communal Sharing and Equality Matching groups to which they belonged. Across studies, disclosure was most strongly associated with Communal Sharing, followed by Equality Matching. Study 3 further showed that identity fusion predicted disclosure in these two kinds of groups. Implications for understanding disclosure of personal secrets in group contexts were discussed.

Secrecy in Everyday Life

Secrecy is common, yet we know little about how it plays out in daily life. Most existing research on secrecy is based on methods involving retrospection over long periods of time, failing to capture secrecy "in the wild." Filling this gap, we conducted two studies using intensive longitudinal designs to present the first picture of secrecy in everyday life. We investigated momentary contextual factors and individual differences as predictors of mind-wandering to and concealing secrets. Contextual factors more consistently predicted secrecy experiences than person-level factors. Feeling more negative about a secret predicted a greater likelihood of mind-wandering to the secret. Interacting with the secret target was linked with a greater likelihood of secret concealment. Individual differences were not consistently associated with mind-wandering to secrets. We conclude that daily experiences with secrets may be better predicted by momentary feelings rather than individual differences such as personality traits.

Donate for your Secrets: Relationship between Secrecy, Guilt and Donation Behavior

Previous research has well documented the negative sides of secrecy, ignoring its potential constructive aspects. Based on the concept of compensatory behavior, this study conducted two experiments with 532 adults to explore the mediating role of felt guilt between secrecy and donation, and the moderating role of moral identity. Study 1 (N = 272) showed that felt guilt mediated the relationship between secrecy and donation behaviors. Study 2 (N = 260) validated the mediation effect of Study 1 and further indicated that the mediated path was stronger for participants with higher moral identity. Specifically, participants with higher moral identity felt more guilty and donated more after secrecy than those with lower moral identity. The results of this study not only expand the constructive consequences of secrecy but also add more ways to appeal for donations.

The influence of avoidant attachment and perceived support on disclosure about involvement in donor-assisted conception to family and friends

STUDY QUESTION

Do the attachment-related dimensions Anxiety and Avoidance and perceived partner and social support in recipients and donors influence disclosure to others about their involvement in donor-assisted conception (DAC)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A higher global score on attachment Avoidance was associated with greater non-disclosure about involvement in DAC by participants to relationship-specific others.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Within the context of DAC, the topic of disclosure has been investigated in terms of the 'if', 'when', and the 'how' to disclose about circumstances of conception. Less focus, however, has been directed to investigating psychological theoretical frameworks that influence disclosure decisions to others, i.e. to whom information is disclosed and to what extent details are transparently revealed about the donor programme.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The study was of a cross-sectional design and utilized a sample of 301 participants who were, or had been, involved in DAC, and were recruited across states of Australia. An online self-report questionnaire was completed between June 2014 and June 2017.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

English speaking participants consisting of 209 female recipients and 92 donors (36 sperm; 48 egg; 8 embryo donors). Of the recipients, 104 had successfully conceived children via donated gametes (68 sperm, 23 eggs, 6 embryos, and 7 recipients where both gametes were donated from 2 donors to create the embryo). Participants anonymously completed an online questionnaire consisting of five sections: Demographics, Donor Conception and Disclosure Practices, the Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationships Structure, the Quality of Relationship Inventory, and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Pearson correlations, independent samples t-tests, Chi-square, and ANOVA were used to explore the association between attachment Anxiety and Avoidance scores and disclosure about involvement in a DAC programme to significant others (i.e. parents, siblings, in-laws, and friends).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Compared to published community cohort data, participants reported lower global scores on attachment Anxiety and Avoidance and high levels of romantic partner and social network support, suggestive of secure relationships in the overall study sample. A higher score on attachment Avoidance was associated with less disclosure to significant others in their social network (i.e. parents, siblings, in-laws, and close friends), even in the presence of strong partner support (partial r = -0.248, P = 0.005). Higher scores on attachment Avoidance were inversely associated with level of perceived partner and social network support (all P < 0.05). Irrespective of attachment scores, more than 90% of all participants agreed that a child born of DAC should be told about mode of conception.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This study utilized a cross-sectional design precluding causal inferences between dimensions of insecure attachment and disclosure practices. Participants were required to self-report on the quality of their relationships with the potential for social desirability respondent bias. The study's self-selecting sample may limit generalization to participants who were dis-inclined to participate. Specifically, respondents who have an Avoidant attachment style, may have elected not to participate in the study.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Given the increased use of biotechnology and digital facial recognition enabling self-discovery of the donor and the donor's extended family, non-disclosure about involvement in DAC may have consequences. An 'Avoidant' attachment style is important to assess as a potential risk factor for non-disclosure about involvement in DAC across different relational contexts (e.g. close family members and friends). Fertility counsellors should consider introducing a measure of attachment screening as a pre-emptive psychoeducational strategy during donor implications counselling. This information could be used to offer patients insight into concerns they have about DAC disclosures to key important relationships, providing a target of clinical intervention.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funds were sought for this work. None of the authors have any competing interests to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance

Having secrets is incredibly common. However, secrecy has only recently started to receive more attention in research. What has largely been neglected so far are the consequences of secret-sharing for the relationship between sharer and receiver. In this project, we aim to fill this gap. Previous research has shown that closeness can make secret-sharing more likely. Building on research from the self-disclosure and relationship literature, we experimentally investigate whether secret-sharing might in turn increase perceptions of closeness. In addition, we test the valence of the secrets shared as potential driver of the hypothesized effect, as negative secrets might signal a high level of trust, but might also present a burden to the receiver. To provide a holistic picture, we build on a variety of methods to investigate three perspectives: Study 1 focuses on the receiver and tests whether another person sharing secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) decreases distance in the eyes of the receiver. Study 2 investigates lay theories and tests how an observer perceives the relationship between two people who share secrets (vs. nonconfidential information). Study 3 tests whether these lay theories about sharing secrets are predictive of behavior, and how a sharer might choose secrets of negative or positive valence to decrease perceived distance on the receiver’s side. Our results will contribute to the understanding of how sharing secrets affects the way individuals think about each other, how close they feel to each other, and how they interact with each other.

Holding Secrets While Living With Life-Threatening Illness: Normalizing Patients' Decisions to Reveal or Conceal

Communicating openly and directly about illness comes easily for some patients, whereas for others fear of disclosure keeps them silent. In this article, we discuss findings about the role of keeping secrets regarding health and illness. These findings were part of a larger project on how people with life-threatening illnesses re-story their lives. A narrative approach drawing on Frank's dialogical narrative analysis and Riesman's inductive approach was used. Interviews were conducted with 32 participants from three populations: chronic kidney disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer. Findings include case exemplars which suggest keeping secrets is a social practice that acts along continuums of connecting-isolating, protecting-harming, and empowering-imprisoning. Keeping secrets about illness is a normative practice that is negotiated with each encounter. Findings call health-care providers to rethink the role of secrets for patients by considering patient privilege, a person's right to take the lead in revealing or concealing their health and illness experience.

Secrets and social networks

Secrets are information kept from others; they are relational. They shape the intimacy of our relationships, what we know of others and what we infer about the world. Recent research has promoted two models of voluntary secret disclosure. The first highlights deliberate and strategic disclosure to garner support and to avoid judgment. The second maintains strategic action but foregrounds that disclosures are made in contexts which shape who is in one's social network and who may be the recipient of a disclosure. Work outside of this main vein examines the mechanisms and motivations to share others' secrets as well as the potential consequences of doing so. The final avenue of inquiry in this review considers how keeping secrets can change (or avoid changing) the size and composition of the secret-keeper's social network and what information is shared within it. Understanding how secrets spread within and form social networks informs work from public health to criminology to organizational management.

The relative impacts of disclosure and secrecy: the role of (perceived) target response

This review examines the current trends in understanding the impact of individuals' decisions to either disclose information or continue to conceal it. As a whole, the evidence points to a relative benefit of disclosure over secret-keeping, but with clear cases, in which disclosure may be harmful. Advances in knowledge about factors that shape that impact, new research on the role verbal rumination with a partner following disclosure, and attention to the role of communal coping as an outcome of traumatic disclosures are addressed. In addition, recent re-conceptualization of secret-keeping, and investigations into the burden experienced by confidants are reviewed. Finally, a call for greater attention to the culture-specific impacts of disclosure decisions is made.