个人信息的有意隐藏：藏秘及其后果和应对

2025-08-18 07:06:06

1 引言

藏秘(Secrecy)从人类文明初生之时便随之出现。对藏秘早期的理论探索可以追溯到近代两位社会学家马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber, 1978)和格奥尔格·齐美尔(Georg Simmel, 1906), 二者都从群体层面对藏秘进行理论探讨。而对藏秘的个人心理层面的研究则始于19世纪下半叶的心理治疗领域, 临床心理学家一直面临着来访者的某种阻抗, 来访者会隐瞒自己的经历和问题, 这也使精神分析学家们开始注意到藏秘现象, 此后也引起了社会心理学领域的广泛关注。例如, Wismeijer (2011)研究发现, 保护动机(保护自己免受社会排斥)是个人藏秘的最重要的原因。但这些研究很大程度上还不成系统, 且也忽视了藏秘的内容和现象学解释, 作为一个新兴而又极具潜力的领域, 对藏秘的研究和理解有待学界推进。

本文基于前人对藏秘概念的论述及相关研究, 对其进行归纳和总结, 并尝试提出一个一般而准确的藏秘概念; 我们还对藏秘的消极影响与积极影响进行分类总结, 详细论述消极影响的产生机制, 同时归纳消极影响的应对方式。最后, 我们在前人研究的基础上, 提出今后研究的突破方向和思路, 以期为未来的藏秘研究铺路。

2 藏秘的概念及测量

2.1 藏秘的概念

Margolis (1966)最先提出, 藏秘是故意拒绝给予他人有关个人的信息。Larson和Chastain (1990)给出了一种相对特别的界定：主动向他人隐瞒令人苦恼或消极的个人信息的倾向。这与后来研究者们发现可以将藏秘区分为藏秘行为(Keeping a major secret, KMS)和自我隐瞒(Self-concealment, SC)特质(Wismeijer, 2011)的想法一致。

新近的研究对早期藏秘概念给予了非常重要的补充, 并且让研究者对藏秘的核心内涵有了新的认识。Slepian等人(2017)发现了在人际交往之外的藏秘形式, 即一个人在相关的社会互动之外自发地思考秘密的内容(在那一瞬间它与手头的任务无关)。此后, Slepian和Greenaway (2018)的研究又将藏秘的内容扩展到非个人相关的信息, 从而进一步丰富了藏秘的概念。

总结众多藏秘定义, 我们认为, 藏秘可以是一种倾向于隐瞒信息的人格特质(自我隐瞒特质), 也可以是特定情景下向他人隐瞒某些信息的行为(藏秘行为), 这些信息可以是关于自己的, 也可以是个体所掌握的他人或组织等非自我相关的某些信息。

2.2 藏秘的测量和操纵

2.2.1 自我隐瞒倾向量表

最早Larson和Chastain (1990)共同编制了自我隐瞒倾向量表(Self-concealment scale, SCS), 该量表共包含10个项目, 分别涉及三个方面：(1)关于对个人信息隐瞒的倾向(例如, “我有很多关于自己的事情是隐瞒的”); (2)关于自己的令人痛苦的秘密或消极的故事, 很少或没有与其他人分享(例如, “我对自己有负面的想法, 而我从来没有和任何人分享”); (3)对公开自己秘密的担忧(例如, “如果我与我的朋友们分享我所有的秘密, 他们会不再喜欢我”)。该量表的Cronbach alpha系数为α = 0.83 (N = 306)。

2.2.2 一般秘密问卷

此外, 有研究者关注到了秘密的不同种类可能会产生不同的影响, 因此编制了关于秘密内容的量表：一般秘密问卷(Common secrets questionnaire, CSQ; Slepian et al., 2017)。Slepian等人(2017)通过向2000名被试提供一份常见秘密清单, 询问他们是否有其中的秘密, 然后对得到的秘密进行分类, 并对分类进行了调整和修订, 最终得到38个类别的秘密。秘密的类别包括：伤害某人、吸毒、偷窃、自残、堕胎、创伤经历、说谎、对爱情的渴望、出轨的想法、感情上的不忠、性行为、信仰或意识形态、财务、秘密(目前或以前)工作、野心等。该问卷关注了人们共同的、普遍的秘密。

2.2.3 藏秘作为非连续变量来操纵

Farber (2003)提出了秘密可以被操纵研究的三个原因：一是人们相信在严格的科学研究中, 每个被试的匿名性是可以被保证的; 二是人们更愿意将秘密分享给他们不期待再次见到的陌生人; 三是在大多数关于藏秘的研究中, 被试没有被要求详细地写出秘密的内容。

最早的操纵是让被试回忆并写下曾向他人隐瞒过的创伤经历, 试图以一段具有深刻意义的指导语, 引导被试写出自己隐藏至深的秘密(Pennebaker, 1989)。具体过程为, 在保证匿名性后被试被要求写下有关创伤经历的内容, 他们被告知：希望您写下一生中最令人沮丧或最痛苦的经历, 表达您最深刻的想法和感受。您可以写任何您想要写的东西, 它应该对您有深远的影响。理想情况下, 它应该是您没有与他人详细讨论过的事情。

然而, 有研究者认为被试回忆起的秘密内容并不总是与实验指令相对应, 因此Slepian等人(2016)使用了操作对应(Manipulation correspondence)的方法来增加被试回忆的秘密与实验所要求的内容的匹配程度。引入对比操作, 首先让被试回忆起自己日思夜想的、持续关注(preoccupying)的秘密或不太关注(non-preoccupying)的秘密, 然后给被试展示极为关注或极不关注的秘密示例的其中一种。例如, 如果我们让被试A (回忆持续关注的秘密)接触到另一个高度不关注的秘密示例, 这会导致被试觉得自己的秘密确实是自己比较关注的。同样, 如果我们让被试B (回忆不太关注的秘密)接触到另一高度关注的秘密示例, 被试会被重新锚定, 这种对比使他们觉得自己的秘密确实不太为自己所关注。

Slepian, Halevy等人(2019)提出了一种新的回忆操纵方法。被试被随机分配到两种操纵(藏秘和非藏秘)之中。在藏秘的操纵中, 要求被试思考一些重要的个人信息, 这些信息是他人不知道且是被试有意隐藏的。在非藏秘操纵中, 与藏秘的操纵唯一的区别是, 这些信息是被试没有刻意隐藏的, 并且如果在谈话中涉及这些信息, 被试愿意与他人谈论。两种操纵都要求被试写下4到5句关于个人信息的句子。

2.2.4 小结

目前已有的测量均为自陈量表的形式, 随着对藏秘研究的深入, 藏秘的测量也迅速发展, 关注点从最初的自我隐瞒特质到个体普遍藏秘的内容, 并认识到秘密的不同内容也可能影响到藏秘导致的认知后果。

对于藏秘的操纵大致相同, 均为通过指导语引导被试写出有关藏秘的内容与感受, 以此唤醒藏秘的体验; 但这种操纵注重的是藏秘的内容对被试产生的心理后果, 而忽视了人们藏秘的发生发展的全过程, 这可能是关于藏秘的研究正聚焦于其心理后果的原因。

3 藏秘的动机

McDonald等人(2020)的研究中提出了三个藏秘的动机。首先, 关心自己的声誉是一个人类基本的社会动机(Leary et al., 1995)。人们可能担心自己的行为(隐藏秘密)与不受欢迎或污名化身份有关, 因而损害在自己或他人眼中的声誉, 于是他们可能会避免将这种行为公诸于众。例如, 人们有策略地避免那些可能暗示自己属于不受欢迎的社会群体的行为(Berger & Heath, 2008)。

其次, 对归属感的担忧可能会促使人们藏秘。归属需要是另一个重要的社会动机(Baumeister & Leary, 1995), 对归属感的需要促使个体避免排斥(DeWall et al., 2011)。人们通常会保守他们认为违反规范或不寻常的秘密行为, 其中一个原因可能是害怕被发现这些行为后受到排斥, 从而妨碍归属感的获得。因此, 隐藏身份的人越害怕被排斥, 就越可能隐藏自己的身份。

另外, 维护社会和谐的愿望也会促使藏秘的产生。当对亲密的人坦白自己的喜好、感受或行为时, 如果这与对方的价值观相冲突, 就可能会导致关系紧张(Levine & Cohen, 2018), 因此藏秘很有可能是在试图避免这种冲突。

4 藏秘对个人的影响

4.1 藏秘的积极影响

4.1.1 社会保护

生活中人们会有被他人从道德上谴责并可能遭到社会拒绝或惩罚的信息, 因此人们会主动隐瞒这些负面信息, 从而避免他人的负面评价(Dinev et al., 2009)。隐藏秘密可以通过减少或防止这些来自他人的负面反馈、社会不满和污名而起到社会保护功能(Larson & Chastain, 1990)。藏秘还可能保护自己的社会形象以及和他人的关系(Afifi & Guerrero, 2000), 保护自己免受社会反对等(Lane & Wegner, 1995)。

4.1.2 社交安全

藏秘还是一种保证社交安全的策略。Bouman (2003)提出藏秘作为安全行为的概念, 它在功能上等同于回避。因此, 藏秘有时可被看作是一种策略, 以增加有机体对因社会威胁而导致的排斥的防御, 从而减少或控制被社会排斥的风险(MacDonald & Leary, 2005)。

除了这些在人际交往中提供保护作用, 藏秘还有其独特的积极作用, 在交往之初的藏秘有时可以因为神秘感而增加个人的吸引力(Wegner et al., 1994)。

4.1.3 亲社会谎言

亲社会谎言(prosocial lies)带有善意的色彩, 是以很少甚至是零成本为代价而使他人受益的谎言, 常见的例如防止他人感到受伤或尴尬(DePaulo et al., 1996), 或在经济上帮助他人(Erat & Gneezy, 2012)。此外, 亲社会谎言对说谎者本身亦有益, Levine和Schweitzer (2014)研究发现, 说亲社会谎言的人被认为比说真话的人更有道德, 甚至可以增加信任感。

4.1.4 保护知识和重要信息

藏秘行为可以保护对组织的维系和发展具有重要价值的信息, 使企业或组织在竞争中保持优势(Greve et al., 2010)。例如, 对科学知识的藏秘也是对宝贵的知识产权的守护, 这有利于帮助政府或企业家获得相对于竞争对手的经济或军事优势(Vermeir & Margócsy, 2012)。

4.1.5 增强对组织或共同身份的认同

藏秘还可以促进成员群体身份的创造和巩固, 在内部人员和外部人员之间划清界限, 增加组织成员对群体身份的认同感(Costa & Grey, 2014)。Courpasson和Younes (2018)通过集体互动的方式将藏秘和共同身份联系起来。人们共同隐瞒同一个秘密的行为会产生集体情感体验, 于是藏秘促进了一个有凝聚力的小集体的形成, 从而发展独立的规则和规范, 并为成员提供一种处于例外状态的感觉, 这种例外状态可以提高团队的承诺、凝聚力等, 使小集体形成了相对自主性, 人们可以积极地隐藏起来, 自由地发展他们的互动和工作内容(Costas & Grey, 2016)。

4.1.6 提高个人和组织的创造性

秘密地进行一项活动可能与创造力的产生存在正向关系, 比如, 在大型、固化的组织中, 个人常常不得不求助于地下的、没有正式组织支持的“非法”研发活动, 这些个人试图在研发的方向上获得更大的自主权, 并逃避组织责任的约束(Criscuolo et al., 2014)。这种行为不仅可以提高个人的创造力, 也进一步催化了组织创造力, Garud等人(2011)就曾在3M公司中观察到这一现象。

4.2 藏秘的消极影响

4.2.1 损害身心健康

藏秘所带来的最为显著的后果是损害身心健康, 这也是研究者对整个藏秘研究最关心的一部分。藏秘对身体和认知过程都会产生负面影响, 例如, 拥有秘密的污名身份会对心理和躯体健康有显著的负面影响(Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009)。这些负面影响具体表现为个人内部的一系列消极的精神和身体后果, 如对秘密内容的反省、痴迷(Lane & Wegner, 1995), 产生抑郁的心理症状(Larson & Chastain, 1990), 可能导致身体和精神疾病(Lane & Wegner, 1995; Pennebaker, 1989), 最终导致免疫能力受损而增加机体生病风险(Stowell et al., 2012)。对青少年样本的研究发现, 青少年藏秘也会影响他们的心理社会调节, 从而对他们的心理健康造成损害(Frijns & Finkenauer, 2009)。另外, 研究还发现, 藏秘甚至与青壮年群体的自杀行为显著相关(Friedlander et al., 2012)。藏秘中介了感知到的自杀污名感、悲伤困难与自杀倾向的关系, 也中介了感知到自杀污名感和个人成长的负向关系(Oexle et al., 2020)。

4.2.2 负担感和疲劳感

Slepian等人(2012)通过实验证明, 藏秘会因由人们当前的处境而影响认知判断, 即负担感。随后, Slepian等人(2015)又将藏秘内容的重要程度精确为对藏秘的关注程度, 得出的结果都支持藏秘会导致负担感的假设。此外, 藏秘还会导致疲劳感, 相对于思考没有刻意隐藏的个人信息, 个体思考有意隐瞒的信息时, 藏秘通过唤起孤立感和与所属目标的动机冲突, 间接增加了疲劳的体验(Slepian, Halevy, et al., 2019)。

4.2.3 损害幸福感

在心理治疗领域, 患者经常会对治疗者隐瞒他们自己的症状和经历, 研究者开始注意到这种隐瞒对主观幸福感(Subject well-being, SWB)的负面影响(Larson & Chastain, 1990; Wismeijer, 2011)。藏秘为个人社交付出高昂的代价, 导致了消极的人际后果, 例如人际关系的破裂(e.g., Frijns & Finkenauer, 2009; Larson & Chastain, 1990)。藏秘也会对他人造成伤害, 在关系后期和更亲密的阶段, 藏秘者的伴侣可能会感到被冷落, 伴侣会因而削损自信而变得越来越痛苦(Rimé, 2009)。

4.2.4 损耗自我调节能力

Critcher和Ferguson (2014)的研究发现, 当人们隐瞒信息或身份内容时, 会出现自我调节能力的损耗, 具体表现为削损智力敏锐度(intellectual acuity)、人际约束(interpersonal restraint)、体能(physical stamina)和执行功能(executive function)。他们在研究中将这种隐瞒分解为两个过程：首先, 当人们主动隐瞒信息时, 必须先监视信息以防止泄露; 其次, 如果发现这些信息有可能泄露, 就必须修改自己的表述, 研究者发现, 监视自己要隐藏的信息就足以导致自我调节能力的损耗(Critcher & Ferguson, 2014)。

4.2.5 自我惩罚

研究表明, 为了解决不公平感, 或追求正义感, 人们也会从自身寻求解决, 比如以自我惩罚的方式来寻求平衡(Bastian et al., 2011)。藏秘会使人更频繁地主动追求自我惩罚, 尤其是当这个秘密是不端的行为或对他人造成伤害的行为时(Slepian & Bastian, 2017)。

5 藏秘的消极影响的解释模型

5.1 秘密抑制模型

Pennebaker (1989)的秘密抑制模型(Inhibition Model of Secrecy)对藏秘的消极影响的解释侧重于藏秘中抑制未披露的创伤事件的过程所造成的躯体后果。该模型的一个基本观点是分享生活事件被认为是人自然发生的行为(Wetzer, 2007), 如果抑制这种自然趋势, 可能会产生一种轻微的压力。该模型进一步提出, 当有机会进行表达时由于抑制而不能分享可能比不分享本身更具危害性。藏秘的抑制过程需要强烈地抑制这种分享的自然趋势, 尽管抑制产生的是一种轻微的压力, 但它仍会给人的生理造成负担, 其表现形式可能是血压升高(Christensen & Smith, 1993), 或免疫能力下降(Rimé, 2009)。由于秘密通常被假定具有慢性和长期的性质, 藏秘的抑制过程被认为具有累积效应, 但Pennebaker (1989)并没有详细说明藏秘累积效应背后的确切机制(Wismeijer, 2011)。

5.2 秘密专注模型

Wegner等人(1994)发现了藏秘的两种认知后果, 它们结合起来产生了一种不安的心理状态。首先, 藏秘者必须持续地思考, 哪些是不应该泄露的, 同时, 藏秘者必须小心, 不要在某些情况下考虑它, 因为这可能会促动秘密的揭发。这两种倾向结合起来产生了一种对秘密的强迫性专注。在这种情况下, 焦虑和抑郁症状都会相伴产生。在此基础上, Lane和Wegner (1995)提出了秘密专注模型(Preoccupation Model of Secrecy), 该模型主要关注藏秘的心理后遗症状。同时, 基于Lane和Wegner (1995)的白熊研究范式(让被试在一段谈话里隐瞒‘白熊’这个词, 然后让被试汇报自己在谈话过程中想到这个词的次数)发现了一个矛盾的结果：有意识的思维抑制会导致被压抑的信息或秘密的侵入性思维(intrusive thinking)的增加, 这又引起新的思维抑制, 如此形成恶性循环, 这个循环导致对秘密的强迫性专注(obsessive preoccupation), 最终可导致精神疾病, 例如对于污名化身份的思考过程。

5.3 持续思维模型

以上两个解释模型都隐含地假设藏秘发生在人际互动中, 忽略了藏秘发生在社交场合之外的情况, 例如私下里思考自己秘密的内容。Brosschot和Thayer (2004)提出的秘密持续性思维模型(Perseverative Thinking Model of Secrecy)补充解释这种情况。该模型认为, 持续性思维(类似于对秘密的反刍)通过不断重新激活初始压力源的认知图式, 使个体长期处于心理生理学上“行动准备(fight and fly)”的状态。即持续性思维可能会持续地激活认知网络, 当超过一定的阈值, 就会触发前馈过程, 在这个过程中, 越来越多的相关事件线索被感知。因此, 持续性思维可能会将日常生活事件相关的直接生理和心理的压力转化为长期的生理激活, 成为慢性致病状态形成的条件(Brosschot & Thayer, 1998)。这一理论模型也补充解释了藏秘所导致的心理状态与慢性致病之间的关系。

5.4 紊乱的情绪调节策略

Larson等人(2015)对自我隐瞒的元分析发现, 高水平的自我隐瞒动机会导致一组功能失调的情绪调节策略(例如, 情感表达的抑制、低水平的正念和心理灵活性), 这些策略之间相互关联, 且它们通过不真实感、较低的社会幸福感和对寻求帮助的消极态度直接或间接影响身心健康。

Larson等人(2015)对这类策略产生的原因进行了探索, 不表达本身并不致病, 相反, “沉默但又渴望表达才会导致健康问题(p. 190)” (Kennedy- Moore & Watson, 2001)。Larson等人(2015)认为产生这类不良的情绪调节策略的关键原因在于渴望表露秘密和隐藏秘密之间的双重动机冲突。

5.5 共享现实理论

共享现实理论(Shared Reality Theory)提出了人们分享现实事件的两大动机：一是关系动机, 指的是和别人建立联系; 二是认知动机, 指的是获得他人的观点和见解, 并了解周围的世界(Echterhoff et al., 2009)。Liu和Slepian (2018)从共享现实理论的关系动机和认知动机来解释藏秘的消极影响, 藏秘可以通过使人们感到与他人的联系更少, 并通过阻止人们获得他人对秘密的观点和看法, 阻碍关系动机和认知动机, 从而对人们的身心健康产生消极影响。

5.6 对解释模型的总结

目前关于藏秘后果的解释模型集中在消极后果的解释。这是因为：一方面, 个体违背了分享这一自然趋势, 在渴望表露和想要隐瞒秘密两种动机间产生了冲突, 使个体采取功能失调的情绪调节策略和不良的应对策略, 导致身心压力并对生理造成负担; 另一方面, 个体在抑制的同时, 其实也在加深对秘密的关注, 因而导致恶性循环。而当人们并不处于社交情景中时, 藏秘依旧会发生, 个体会持续地思考秘密的内容, 长期处于藏秘的“行动准备”阶段, 导致长期的生理激活, 进而成为慢性心理疾病的诱因。在此基础上, 基于共享现实理论的关系动机和认知动机进一步解释了负面影响的原因, 藏秘使个体感知到较低的‘链接感’, 因而对身心健康产生消极影响。

藏秘后果的解释模型受到了同时期主流的心理学研究方向和前沿理论的影响, 秘密事件逐渐从创伤等负面事件扩展到更广泛的类别, 产生机制的探索也从重大创伤事件的心理症状产生机制扩展到对日常生活中的藏秘的消极影响产生机制。这表明, 人们对于藏秘从最初的负面的、异常的认识, 逐渐转变为人们的一种常见社会行为的认识; 但受限于当前藏秘领域的研究进展, 对藏秘的解释也仅仅局限于其消极后果, 缺少对于积极后果部分的研究。

6 藏秘的应对

6.1 吐露秘密

研究表明, 吐露秘密(confiding)可以减轻藏秘的负面后果, 并帮助个体同化和理解秘密的内容(Pennebaker, 1989)。吐露秘密打破了思想压抑和干扰的重复循环, 减轻了持续抑制的压力, 从而增强身心健康。与知己谈论秘密还可能有助于一个人对藏秘赋予意义并获得自我理解和控制, 因为知己可能会提供有用的反馈或支持(Slepian & Moulton-Tetlock, 2019)。大量的研究同时发现, 谈论或写下令人不安的或创伤性的经历, 显著改善了个体的心理健康(Greenberg et al., 1996)。

此外, 吐露秘密可能有益于人际关系和社会关系(Pennebaker et al., 2001)。吐露秘密可能会在人际关系中产生并保持亲密感(Bellman, 1984)。根据Bellman (1984)的研究, 吐露秘密唤起的亲密感远比任何其他类型的表露唤起的更强烈, 因此, 吐露秘密对建立和巩固友谊具有十分重要的意义。

6.2 发挥创造性

研究表明, 从事一项创造性的任务可以帮助人们产生“得到解放”的感觉, 这种感觉有助于人们减轻心理负担(Leung et al., 2012)。藏秘与身体负担有着隐喻性的联系, 作为一种心理和身体负担影响着人们的身心健康, 而创造性则与“跳出框框思考”和探索的自由联系在一起(Leung et al., 2012)。Goncalo等人(2015)发现创造性实际上会让人感到解放, 而这种自由的感觉反过来又会减轻藏秘的心理和身体负担。因此, 发挥创造性可能是人们摆脱藏秘负担的一种方式, 它也不会因直接泄密而可能导致羞耻和尴尬。并且当任务允许对不同类型的想法进行广泛的探索, 而不是专注于一个领域时, 创造性工作的去藏秘负担效果最强(Goncalo et al., 2015)。

6.3 训练情绪标记和自我意识

自我隐瞒与情绪标记水平较低有关, 情绪标记水平即理解和标记自己感受的能力,情绪标记水平与幸福感和心理健康之间存在正相关(Bekker & Croon, 2010), 因此训练情绪标记有助于减轻藏秘的消极影响, 从而带来幸福感。Wismeijer等人(2014)的研究还发现, 情绪标记水平和自我意识与藏秘的倾向负相关, 这表明, 在社交互动中意识到自己的需求和想法并能够实现自己的需求, 能够减少藏秘的倾向。

7 总结和展望

7.1 总结

藏秘从未被某个研究者在实验室中发现, 它以隐秘的形式自然而然地存在于人们的日常生活中, 这种特性使得藏秘很晚才开始被系统地研究。最早进行藏秘研究的领域是社会学(e.g., Simmel, 1906; Weber, 1978), 从群体和组织共同隐藏同一个秘密出发, 发现藏秘的控制功能是官僚系统运行的必要手段, 同时藏秘又维持了个人身份的安全感和优越感, 增加群体的凝聚力。而后人们开始进一步关注到个人藏秘的心理和行为过程, 关注心理咨询中来访者藏秘的阻抗现象(e.g., Pennebaker, 1989; Larson & Christin, 1990), 这才在心理学界得以推进。

研究者们在研究中重点聚焦于藏秘的负面影响, 众多研究探索藏秘产生何种特异性的消极影响以及原因和机制(e.g., Pennebaker, 1989; Larson & Christin, 1990; Brosschot & Thayer, 2004; Liu & Slepian, 2018), 并提出了应对这些消极影响的方式(e.g., Slepian & Moulton-Tetlock, 2019; Goncalo et al., 2015; Wismeijer et al., 2014)。但这些研究仍然未形成统一且系统的观点, 关于藏秘的完整体系仍待探索。

7.2 未来研究展望

7.2.1 廓清藏秘的概念

目前, 概念界定是藏秘研究的难点之一, 研究者们对于藏秘这一概念的定义似乎还未触及某些核心的部分。学界认为不能简单地把藏秘描述为拥有一个秘密(e.g., Bouman, 2003; Slepian et al., 2017)。首先, 关于定义中秘密的内容, 有研究者使用问卷调查了人们普遍拥有的秘密内容(Slepian et al., 2017), 但无其他学者做过类似探究, 而在不同学者的研究中秘密也是各自不同的(Thomas & Jewell, 2019)。其次, 以往的研究缺少了对必要的情景条件和心理过程的引入, 例如拥有的秘密是谁的、什么内容及其重要程度、这个过程中伴随的心理状态和前因后果, 等等。最后, 藏秘和欺骗、沉默、掩饰等概念可能存在重叠之处(陈丽金, 唐宁玉, 2019),这些行为的共同点都是为了防止他人获得某些信息, 它们可能是藏秘的途径, 但有时也已是藏秘本身, 未来需要理清藏秘与这些近似概念之间的关系。总之, 藏秘的定义仍需要进一步探讨和明确。

7.2.2 探索更加准确可靠的操纵方法

由于藏秘自身具有不让他人知道的性质, 这点难于探索, 虽然Farber (2003)提出了秘密可以被研究的三个原因, 但藏秘的操纵和研究方法仍然具有不稳定性。例如, Pecher等人(2015)复制Slepian等人(2012)的实验, 但未能得出一致的结果。随后Slepian等人(2016)回应了这一质疑, 他们对藏秘的回忆操纵方法进行了调整, 并且Slepian, Halevy等人(2019)对藏秘的操纵方法又做了进一步改进。

然而, 当前藏秘测量和操纵方式都相对单一。在测量工具方面仅有少数几个问卷, 几乎都是一脉相承地发展而来且应用范围局限于测量藏秘的消极后果, 维度也较单一; 在实验操纵方式上, 受限于没有统一的操作定义, 主要以回忆自己已有的秘密为主。总而言之, 测量和操纵的单一、缺少创新的特点, 也可能是藏秘研究推进缓慢的原因。

因此, 未来的藏秘研究需要更加精准一致且便于实施的操纵和测量方法, 这个问题存有非常大的探索和发展空间, 且对于推进藏秘研究至关重要。例如, 可以用内隐测量的方法结合生理学指标测量隐瞒不同内容秘密、对不同对象藏秘的心理反应; 也可以通过设计某种实验, 唤起藏秘者的自我表露, 结合认知神经技术, 对藏秘时的状态进行测量等, 都是未来可以考虑的具体路径。

7.2.3 探索藏秘的积极结果

研究发现, 藏秘对于人们日常生活和工作同样也具有重要的正向价值和意义, 例如, 对污名化身份的社会保护(Larson & Chastain, 1990)、社交安全(MacDonald & Leary, 2005), 在人际交往之初增加吸引力(Wegner et al., 1994), 亲社会谎言(Levine & Schweitzer, 2014), 等等。这表明, 对于藏秘的研究不仅仅是关注减轻或消除其消极后果, 未来甚至可以通过正确地引导藏秘, 发挥其积极作用。具体来说, 可首先对藏秘的积极后果进行全面的调查, 尝试理清藏秘不同种类的积极后果, 再从其引发积极后果的原因入手进行研究; 此外, 还可从藏秘产生机制的角度深入挖掘, 例如, 在某些特定的情景下会引发对秘密内容的思考, 等等; 甚至还可以以特殊人群为样本研究藏秘的积极影响, 例如Wolfe等人(2018)以色情行业女性从业者为研究对象, 探讨藏秘如何影响情感管理和寻求支持行为, 结果表明藏秘具有保护功能, 向行业外的其他人隐瞒她们的职业角色, 有助于她们自由地构建不同的职业和社会身份角色, 避免工作污名化。深入探究藏秘的积极结果和意义, 如此也可使藏秘研究为人们带来更多积极影响。

7.2.4 挖掘藏秘的影响机制

研究者发现, 心智游移导致对藏秘内容的关注受到羞耻、内疚两种自我指向情绪的中介, 羞耻可以解释为什么心智游移会导致秘密内容的增加, 而内疚则可以解释心智游移为什么会导致秘密内容的减少(Slepian, Kirby, et al., 2020)。藏秘消极后果的产生机制一直以来都是研究者们关注的重点, 研究者们迫切地希望发现藏秘消极后果的产生机制, 尽快减轻藏秘这一常见现象对于人们的不利影响。未来, 可以进一步挖掘藏秘过程中产生和伴随的不同情绪, 比如何种情绪会提高藏秘的频率, 以及情绪是否会影响藏秘对身心健康的损害; 除此之外, 还可以从进化心理学角度研究人类保留下藏秘这一行为的深层原因, 从而拓宽藏秘研究领域。

7.2.5 深化藏秘的理论研究

当前关于藏秘的理论主要集中于藏秘消极后果的解释, 即上文所提到的5个系统化的解释模型, 但这些模型存在自身的局限性, 它们只关注藏秘消极后果的某一方面(Lane & Wegner, 1995)。未来首要任务是总结藏秘已有的理论研究, 然后可与生理心理学、认知神经科学结合对藏秘的消极后果的解释进行完善, 建构起较为全面、合理的藏秘消极后果的理论。此外, 藏秘其他方面理论相对较少, 存有广阔的探索空间, 例如未来可以借鉴消极后果的解释模型来丰富整个藏秘的理论研究。

另外, 有研究发现, 儿童和青少年平均每天保守两个秘密(Lavoie et al., 2017), Colwell等人(2016)发现拥有较高的心理理论发展水平的儿童对秘密理解和描述会更详细。此外, 藏秘的频率与年龄呈正相关, 随着年龄的增长, 青少年可能会对父母隐瞒更多的秘密, 因为他们更频繁地从事父母可能不赞成的行为(Rote & Smetana, 2016)。因此, 对于藏秘的发生发展的理论仍是研究者需继续深入探索的部分, 这或许与人的一些内隐行为的原因具有密切联系。

7.2.6 拓展藏秘研究的广度

现有的藏秘研究具有深度, 但从广度来说还远远不够。学界认为藏秘可能包含更广泛的途径, 在高度信息化的社会背景下, 研究者也开始对信息时代的藏秘进行了新的探索(Weinberg et al., 2015)。众所周知, 互联网可以间接收集大量个人信息, 人们在互联网环境中会不同程度曝露一些和自身相关的信息, 因而会有信息泄露的风险, 对个体产生潜在威胁。许多人也愿意为了诸如福利、权力或其他利益而牺牲自己的这些信息(Berlin, 1958)。对政府而言, 数字化同样会影响政府机密保护, 技术发展以及情报部门和私人合作频率的提高, 情报来源的多样性, 都使得政府藏秘变得愈加困难(Broeders, 2016)。此外, 互联网的一些底层技术本身已成为重要秘密, 因为共享它会产生人们利用系统的风险, 例如算法的藏秘等(Pasquale, 2015)。

总之, 在信息化时代背景的现实下, 暴露出了相当多的关于个体信息处理的问题, 这些个体信息涉及的范围广, 程度深, 甚至可以深入、全面地掌握个体的情况。因此如何从政府、企业和个人的不同角度处理好这些个人信息的保存和共享、如何确定这些信息的界限是十分值得研究的, 对于现代社会的和谐发展也极具意义。

除了该领域的大量研究外, 其他领域也有一些分散研究。比如在消费领域, Yang等人(2018)发现, 藏秘会对消费享受产生两极化效应, 当预期他人的反应是积极的时, 藏秘会增加消费享受, 而当预期他人的反应是消极的时, 则会降低享受。Rodas和John (2020)发现女性消费者想象或参与秘密消费会引发对所消费产品的专注, 从而增加对该产品的积极评价。管理领域中的薪酬藏秘研究、怀孕女员工在工作情境中隐瞒自己怀孕情况的研究等(Bamberger & Belogolovsky, 2010; Gatrell, 2011)。在组织领域, Costas和Grey (2014)将组织层面的藏秘定义为各组织行为者蓄意隐瞒信息的正式的和非正式的过程。其他关于组织藏秘的相关研究, 例如藏秘与组织八卦、透明度、腐败和问责的研究, 这些研究指向隐瞒、撒谎和欺骗等负面形式(e.g., Arellano-Gault & Lepore, 2011; Flyverbom et al., 2011); 组织藏秘的积极影响例如保护知识和控制信念(Vermeir & Margócsy, 2012)、保护信息和增强对组织身份的认同(Schein, 2010), 不同领域的藏秘研究仍然有待未来深入推进。

参考文献

View Option

原文顺序

文献年度倒序

文中引用次数倒序

被引期刊影响因子

[1]

陈丽金, 唐宁玉. (2019). 员工沉默的前因与后果: 回顾与展望

中国人力资源开发, 36(12), 84-104.

[本文引用: 1]

[2]

Afifi, W. A., & Guerrero,L. K. (2000). Motivations underlying topic avoidance in close relationships

In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 165-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

[本文引用: 1]

[3]

Arellano-Gault, D., & Lepore, W. (2011). Transparency reforms in the public sector: Beyond the new economics of organization

Organization Studies, 32(8), 1029-1050.

DOI:10.1177/0170840611416741

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[4]

Bamberger, P., & Belogolovsky, E. (2010). The impact of pay secrecy on individual task performance

Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 965-996.

DOI:10.1111/peps.2010.63.issue-4

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[5]

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary,M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation

Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

URL

PMID:7777651

[本文引用: 1]

A hypothesized need to form and maintain strong, stable interpersonal relationships is evaluated in light of the empirical literature. The need is for frequent, nonaversive interactions within an ongoing relational bond. Consistent with the belongingness hypothesis, people form social attachments readily under most conditions and resist the dissolution of existing bonds. Belongingness appears to have multiple and strong effects on emotional patterns and on cognitive processes. Lack of attachments is linked to a variety of ill effects on health, adjustment, and well-being. Other evidence, such as that concerning satiation, substitution, and behavioral consequences, is likewise consistent with the hypothesized motivation. Several seeming counterexamples turned out not to disconfirm the hypothesis. Existing evidence supports the hypothesis that the need to belong is a powerful, fundamental, and extremely pervasive motivation.

[6]

Bastian, B., Jetten, J., & Fasoli, F. (2011). Cleansing the soul by hurting the flesh

Psychological Science, 22(3), 334-335.

DOI:10.1177/0956797610397058

URL

PMID:21245493

[本文引用: 1]

[7]

Bekker, M. H., & Croon,M. A. (2010). The roles of autonomy-connectedness and attachment styles in depression and anxiety

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(7), 908-923.

DOI:10.1177/0265407510377217

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[8]

Bellman, B. L. (1984). The language of secrecy: Symbols & metaphor in Poro ritual. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

[9]

Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2008). Who drives divergence? Identity signaling, outgroup dissimilarity, and the abandonment of cultural tastes

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 593-607.

DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.593

URL

PMID:18729697

[本文引用: 1]

People often diverge from members of other social groups: They select cultural tastes (e.g., possessions, attitudes, or behaviors) that distinguish them from outsiders and abandon tastes when outsiders adopt them. But while divergence is pervasive, most research on the propagation of culture is based on conformity. Consequently, it is less useful in explaining why people might abandon tastes when others adopt them. The 7 studies described in this article showed that people diverge to avoid signaling undesired identities. A field study, for example, found that undergraduates stopped wearing a particular wristband when members of the

[10]

Berlin, I. (1958). Two concepts of liberty. New York: Oxford University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

[11]

Bouman, T. K. (2003). Intra- and interpersonal consequences of experimentally induced concealment

Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(8), 959-968.

DOI:10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00175-4

URL

[本文引用: 2]

AbstractSecrecy, concealment, and thought supression are assumed to be important aspects of psychopathology. However, most studies address these from an intrapersonal perspective. This study investigates both the intra- as well as the interpersonal consequences of experimentally induced concealment. Two experiments are described in which non-clinical participants were given a concealment instruction (i.e. avoid talking about a certain topic) in a conversation with an interviewer. In the neutral condition there was no such restraint. Interviewees were more tense and more aware during the concealment condition than during the neutral condition, whereas the interviewers were not aware of the participants’ avoidance of the concealment topic. The second counterbalanced experiment replicated the results from the initial experiment. The hypotheses were supported that concealment can be induced experimentally leading to thought suppression and elevated levels of discomfort in the concealing individuals, without their conversation partners noticing. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.]]>

[12]

Broeders, D. (2016). The secret in the information society

Philosophy & Technology, 29(3), 293-305.

[本文引用: 1]

[13]

Brosschot, J. F., & Thayer,J. F. (1998). Anger inhibition, cardiovascular recovery, and vagal function: A model of the link between hostility and cardiovascular disease

Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 20(4), 326-332.

DOI:10.1007/BF02886382

URL

PMID:10234427

[本文引用: 1]

A model of the association between hostility and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is proposed based upon anger inhibition, slow cardiovascular recovery, and low parasympathetic activity (vagal tone). This model is opposed to the more conventional model that emphasizes anger expression, cardiovascular reactivity, and high sympathetic tone. We argue that in social reality, incidences of anger inhibition outnumber incidences of anger expression to a great extent, irrespective of preferred expression style. Moreover, slow cardiovascular recovery, rather than high reactivity, may be the mechanism underlying the CVD risk associated with anger inhibition. Both anger inhibition and slow cardiovascular recovery are associated with a persistently low vagal tone. Thus, the anger inhibition/vagal inhibition model seems more consistent with the actual nature of anger in daily life and with the known cardiovascular control mechanisms. The model may better account for the chronic pathophysiological state that is believed to lead to CVD. Importantly, an experimental inhibition/recovery paradigm might also allow to test potential behavioral and cognitive accelerators of cardiovascular recovery. As an example of an important socially-mediated health risk that may be elucidated using the anger inhibition/vagal inhibition model, we discuss Black-White differences that have been found in CVD.

[14]

Brosschot, J. F., & Thayer,J. F. (2004). Worry, perseverative thinking and health

In I. Nyklícek, L. Temoshok, A. Vingerhoets (Eds.), Emotional expression and health: Advances in theory, assessment and clinical applications (pp. 99-114). New York, NY: Harwood Academic.

[本文引用: 2]

[15]

Christensen, A. J., & Smith,T. W. (1993). Cynical hostility and cardiovascular reactivity during self-disclosure

Psychosomatic Medicine, 55(2), 193-202.

DOI:10.1097/00006842-199303000-00008

URL

PMID:8475234

[本文引用: 1]

Recent research suggests that hostility might contribute to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD) and other illnesses. One potential mechanism linking hostility and health is exaggerated physiological reactivity to social stressors. Given that mistrust and suspiciousness are closely related to this trait, the self-disclosure of personal information regarding a stressful experience may elicit heightened reactivity in hostile persons. To evaluate this hypothesis, undergraduate men (N = 60) classified as high or low on the Cook and Medley Hostility (Ho) Scale were randomly assigned to either a self-disclosure or a nondisclosure condition. Consistent with prediction, among subjects participating in the self-disclosure discussion task, hostile individuals displayed significantly greater blood pressure reactivity compared with subjects low in hostility. These results support the psychophysiological reactivity model of hostility and health, and underscore the potential importance of social context in the psychosomatic process.

[16]

Colwell, M. J., Corson, K., Sastry, A., & Wright, H. (2016). Secret keepers: children's theory of mind and their conception of secrecy

Early Child Development and Care, 186(3), 369-381.

DOI:10.1080/03004430.2015.1031657

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[17]

Costas, J., & Grey, C. (2014). Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy

Organization Studies, 35(10), 1423-1447.

DOI:10.1177/0170840613515470

URL

[本文引用: 2]

This paper brings into focus the concept of organizational secrecy, defined as the ongoing formal and informal social processes of intentional concealment of information from actors by actors in organizations. It is argued that existing literature on the topic is fragmented and predominantly focused on informational rather than social aspects of secrecy. The paper distinguishes between formal and informal secrecy and theorizes the social processes of these in terms of identity and control. It is proposed that organizational secrecy be added to the analytical repertoire of organization studies.

[18]

Costas, J., & Grey, C. (2016). Secrecy at work: The hidden architecture of organizational life

Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

[本文引用: 1]

[19]

Courpasson, D., & Younes, D. (2018). Double or quits: Understanding the links between secrecy and creativity in a project development process

Organization Studies, 39(2-3), 271-295.

DOI:10.1177/0170840617727780

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[20]

Critcher, C. R., & Ferguson,M. J. (2014). The cost of keeping it hidden: Decomposing concealment reveals what makes it depleting

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 721-735.

DOI:10.1037/a0033468

URL

[本文引用: 2]

[21]

Criscuolo, P., Salter, A., & Ter Wal, A. L. (2014). Going underground: Bootlegging and individual innovative performance

Organization Science, 25(5), 1287-1305.

DOI:10.1287/orsc.2013.0856

URL

[本文引用: 1]

To develop innovations in large, mature organizations, individuals often have to resort to underground, "bootleg" research and development (R&D) activities that have no formal organizational support. In doing so, these individuals attempt to achieve greater autonomy over the direction of their R&D efforts and to escape the constraints of organizational accountability. Drawing on theories of proactive creativity and innovation, we argue that these underground R&D efforts help individuals to develop innovations based on the exploration of uncharted territory and delayed assessment of embryonic ideas. After carefully assessing the direction of causality, we find that individuals' bootleg efforts are associated with achievement of high levels of innovative performance. Furthermore, we show that the costs and benefits of bootlegging for innovation are contingent on the emphasis on the enforcement of organizational norms in the individual's work environment; we argue and demonstrate empirically that the benefits of an individual's bootlegging efforts are enhanced in work units with high levels of innovative performance and which include members who are also engaged in bootlegging. However, during periods of organizational change involving formalization of the R&D process, individuals who increase their bootlegging activities are less likely to innovate. We explore the implications of these findings for our understanding of proactive and deviant creativity.

[22]

DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., & Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979-995.

URL

PMID:8656340

[本文引用: 2]

In 2 diary studies of lying, 77 college students reported telling 2 lies a day, and 70 community members told 1. Participants told more self-centered lies than other-oriented lies, except in dyads involving only women, in which other-oriented lies were as common as self-centered ones. Participants told relatively more self-centered lies to men and relatively more other-oriented lies to women. Consistent with the view of lying as an everyday social interaction process, participants said that they did not regard their lies as serious and did not plan them much or worry about being caught. Still, social interactions in which lies were told were less pleasant and less intimate than those in which no lies were told.

[23]

DeWall, C. N., Deckman, T., Pond Jr, R. S., & Bonser, I. (2011). Belongingness as a core personality trait: How social exclusion influences social functioning and personality expression

Journal of Personality, 79(6), 1281-1314.

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00695.x

URL

PMID:22092142

[本文引用: 1]

People have a fundamental need for positive and lasting relationships. This need to belong is rooted in evolutionary history and gave rise to the development of traits that enable individuals to gain acceptance and to avoid rejection. Because belongingness is a core component of human functioning, social exclusion should influence many cognitive, emotional, and behavioral outcomes and personality expression. This article summarizes recent evidence that social exclusion causes an assortment of outcomes, many of which depend on whether the excluded can gain acceptance or forestall possible distress. It highlights common overlap in physical and social pain systems and how a physical painkiller can reduce the pain of social exclusion. Finally, it shows how social exclusion moderates the effects of traits on cognition, emotion, and behavior. To appreciate personality processes in social contexts, scientists should consider how people respond to social exclusion and how the need to belong influences personality expression.

[24]

Dinev, T., Xu, H., & Smith, H. J. (2009, January). Information privacy values, beliefs and attitudes: An empirical analysis of web 2.0 privacy

In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1-10).

[25]

Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others' inner states about the world

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496-521.

DOI:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x

URL

PMID:26162223

[本文引用: 1]

Humans have a fundamental need to experience a shared reality with others. We present a new conceptualization of shared reality based on four conditions. We posit (a) that shared reality involves a (subjectively perceived) commonality of individuals' inner states (not just observable behaviors); (b) that shared reality is about some target referent; (c) that for a shared reality to occur, the commonality of inner states must be appropriately motivated; and (d) that shared reality involves the experience of a successful connection to other people's inner states. In reviewing relevant evidence, we emphasize research on the saying-is-believing effect, which illustrates the creation of shared reality in interpersonal communication. We discuss why shared reality provides a better explanation of the findings from saying-is-believing studies than do other formulations. Finally, we examine relations between our conceptualization of shared reality and related constructs (including empathy, perspective taking, theory of mind, common ground, embodied synchrony, and socially distributed knowledge) and indicate how our approach may promote a comprehensive and differentiated understanding of social-sharing phenomena.

[26]

Erat, S., & Gneezy, U. (2012). White lies

Management Science, 58(4), 723-733.

DOI:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1449

URL

[本文引用: 1]

In this paper we distinguish between two types of white lies: those that help others at the expense of the person telling the lie, which we term altruistic white lies, and those that help both others and the liar, which we term Pareto white lies. We find that a large fraction of participants are reluctant to tell even a Pareto white lie, demonstrating a pure lie aversion independent of any social preferences for outcomes. In contrast, a non-negligible fraction of participants are willing to tell an altruistic white lie that hurts them a bit but significantly helps others. Comparing white lies to those where lying increases the liar's payoff at the expense of another reveals important insights into the interaction of incentives, lying aversion, and preferences for payoff distributions. Finally, in line with previous findings, women are less likely to lie when it is costly to the other side. Interestingly though, we find that women are more likely to tell an altruistic lie.

[27]

Farber, B. A. (2003). Patient self-disclosure: A review of the research

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 589-600.

DOI:10.1002/jclp.10161

URL

PMID:12696134

[本文引用: 2]

Research shows that whereas most patients disclose deeply personal experiences in therapy, a significant proportion conceal some significant information. Findings also indicate that there are several categories of nondisclosed information (secrets, things left unsaid, and client reactions); that patients tend to withhold immediately experienced negative reactions; that disliked characteristics of oneself and parents are among the most thoroughly discussed issues in therapy while sex, aggression, and personal failure are least discussed; that men and women disclose to the same extent and on similar topics; that shame inhibits disclosure of negative affect; that a strong therapeutic alliance, overall tendency to be disclosing, and time in therapy facilitate disclosure; and that the discrepancy between disclosure and patients' ratings of salience of disclosure is a more powerful predictor of outcome than disclosure alone.

[28]

Flyverbom, M., Christensen, L. T., & Hansen, H. K. (2011, May). Disentangling the power-transparency nexus

In First Global Conference on Transparency Research (pp. 19-20). Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.

[本文引用: 1]

[29]

Friedlander, A., Nazem, S., Fiske, A., Nadorff, M. R., & Smith, M. D. (2012). Self‐concealment and suicidal behaviors

Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior, 42(3), 332-340.

DOI:10.1111/sltb.2012.42.issue-3

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[30]

Frijns, T., & Finkenauer, C. (2009). Longitudinal associations between keeping a secret and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(2), 145-154.

DOI:10.1177/0165025408098020

URL

[本文引用: 2]

[31]

Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2011). Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation

Organization Studies, 32(6), 737-767.

DOI:10.1177/0170840611410810

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[32]

Gatrell, C. (2011). Policy and the pregnant body at work: Strategies of secrecy, silence and supra-performance

Gender, Work & Organization, 18(2), 158-181.

[本文引用: 1]

[33]

Goncalo, J. A., Vincent, L. C., & Krause, V. (2015). The liberating consequences of creative work: How a creative outlet lifts the physical burden of secrecy

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 32-39.

DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.03.004

URL

[本文引用: 3]

[34]

Greenberg, M. A., Wortman, C. B., & Stone, A. A. (1996). Emotional expression and physical health: Revising traumatic memories or fostering self-regulation?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 588-602.

DOI:10.1037//0022-3514.71.3.588

URL

PMID:8831163

[本文引用: 1]

Health benefits derived from personal trauma disclosure are well established. This study examined whether disclosing emotions generated by imaginative immersion in a novel traumatic event would similarly enhance health and adjustment. College women, preselected for trauma presence, were randomly assigned to write about real traumas, imaginary traumas, or trivial events. Yoked real-trauma and imaginary-trauma participants wrote about real-trauma participants' experiences. Imaginary-trauma participants were significantly less depressed than real-trauma participants at immediate posttest, but they were similarly angry, fearful, and happy. Compared with control group participants, both trauma groups made significantly fewer illness visits at 1-month follow-up; however, real-trauma participants reported more fatigue and avoidance than did the other groups. Imaginary-trauma group effects could reflect catharsis, emotional regulation, or construction of resilient possible selves.

[35]

Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J. E. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct

Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 53-107.

DOI:10.5465/19416521003654186

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[36]

Kennedy-Moore,E., & Watson,J. C. (2001). How and when does emotional expression help?

Review of General Psychology, 5(3), 187-212.

DOI:10.1037/1089-2680.5.3.187

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[37]

Lane, J. D., & Wegner,D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 237-253.

DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.237

URL

[本文引用: 6]

[38]

Larson, D. G., & Chastain,R. L. (1990). Self-concealment: Conceptualization, measurement, and health implications

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 439-455.

DOI:10.1521/jscp.1990.9.4.439

URL

[本文引用: 9]

[39]

Larson, D. G., Chastain, R. L., Hoyt, W. T., & Ayzenberg, R. (2015). Self-concealment: Integrative review and working model

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34(8), 705-e774.

DOI:10.1521/jscp.2015.34.8.705

URL

[本文引用: 3]

[40]

Lavoie, J., Nagar, P. M., & Talwar, V. (2017). From Kantian to Machiavellian deceivers: Development of children’s reasoning and self-reported use of secrets and lies

Childhood, 24(2), 197-211.

DOI:10.1177/0907568216671179

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[41]

Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518-530.

DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[42]

Leung, A. K. Y., Kim, S., Polman, E., Ong, L. S., Qiu, L., Goncalo, J. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2012). Embodied metaphors and creative “acts”

Psychological Science, 23(5), 502-509.

DOI:10.1177/0956797611429801

URL

PMID:22477105

[本文引用: 2]

Creativity is a highly sought-after skill. Prescriptive advice for inspiring creativity abounds in the form of metaphors: People are encouraged to

[43]

Levine, E. E., & Cohen,T. R. (2018). You can handle the truth: Mispredicting the consequences of honest communication

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(9), 1400-1429.

DOI:10.1037/xge0000488

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[44]

Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer,M. E. (2014). Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 107-117.

DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.03.005

URL

[本文引用: 2]

We demonstrate that some lies are perceived to be more ethical than honest statements. Across three studies, we find that individuals who tell prosocial lies, lies told with the intention of benefitting others, are perceived to be more moral than individuals who tell the truth. In Study 1, we compare altruistic lies to selfish truths. In Study 2, we introduce a stochastic deception game to disentangle the influence of deception, outcomes, and intentions on perceptions of moral character. In Study 3, we demonstrate that moral judgments of lies are sensitive to the consequences of lying for the deceived party, but insensitive to the consequences of lying for the liar. Both honesty and benevolence are essential components of moral character. We find that when these values conflict, benevolence may be more important than honesty. More broadly, our findings suggest that the moral foundation of care may be more important than the moral foundation of justice. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.

[45]

Liu, Z. J., & Slepian,M. L. (2018). Secrecy: Unshared realities

Current Opinion in Psychology, 23, 124-128.

DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.03.006

URL

PMID:29709725

[本文引用: 2]

Much of the social psychological literature considers how people engage with their social worlds. Shared reality theory proposes that people do so for one of two reasons: to connect with others, and to obtain others' perspectives and insights to understand the world around them. Although the literature on shared reality has focused on the ways in which people develop and maintain shared realities with those around them as well as the consequences of achieving such shared realities, we propose that a critical future avenue for this work is to explore what happens when people choose to not share realities. People do not always seek to share their experiences with close others, but sometimes keep secrets. We propose that while shared reality theory is founded upon why and how people connect with others, it can also make predictions for the mechanisms of secrecy and how it relates to well-being. Secrecy could thwart both relational motives and epistemic motives with harm to well-being by making people feel less connected to others, and by preventing people from obtaining others' insights and perspectives with respect to the secret. New theoretical insights would be gained from integrating research on shared reality with research on secrecy, and future work should investigate the intersection of the two.

[46]

MacDonald,G., & Leary,M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain

Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202-223.

DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202

URL

PMID:15740417

[本文引用: 2]

The authors forward the hypothesis that social exclusion is experienced as painful because reactions to rejection are mediated by aspects of the physical pain system. The authors begin by presenting the theory that overlap between social and physical pain was an evolutionary development to aid social animals in responding to threats to inclusion. The authors then review evidence showing that humans demonstrate convergence between the 2 types of pain in thought, emotion, and behavior, and demonstrate, primarily through nonhuman animal research, that social and physical pain share common physiological mechanisms. Finally, the authors explore the implications of social pain theory for rejection-elicited aggression and physical pain disorders.

[47]

Margolis, G. J. (1966). Secrecy and identity

International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 47, 517-522.

URL

PMID:5335259

[本文引用: 1]

[48]

McDonald, R., Salerno, J., Greenaway, K., & Slepian, M. (2020). Motivated secrecy: Politics, relationships, and regrets

Motivation Science, 6(1), 61-78.

DOI:10.1037/mot0000139

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[49]

Oexle, N., Feigelman, W., & Sheehan, L. (2020). Perceived suicide stigma, secrecy about suicide loss and mental health outcomes

Death Studies, 44(4), 248-255.

DOI:10.1080/07481187.2018.1539052

URL

PMID:30451645

[本文引用: 1]

Perceived suicide stigma and consequent secrecy about suicide loss could contribute to impaired mental health among suicide loss survivors. Using online survey data from 195 suicide loss survivors, higher perceived suicide stigma was associated with more grief difficulties, higher suicidality, and less personal growth. Secrecy partly mediated the association between perceived suicide stigma and grief difficulties as well as suicidality and completely mediated the association between perceived suicide stigma and personal growth. Our findings suggest that supporting suicide loss survivors in coping with perceived suicide stigma could reduce secrecy about suicide loss and by this improve their mental health outcomes.

[50]

Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society. Harvard University Press.

[本文引用: 1]

[51]

Pecher, D., van Mierlo, H., Cañal-Bruland, R., & Zeelenberg, R. (2015). The burden of secrecy? No effect on hill slant estimation and beanbag throwing

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), e65-e72.

DOI:10.1037/xge0000090

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[52]

Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Confession, inhibition, and disease. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 211-244). Academic Press.

[本文引用: 7]

[53]

Pennebaker, J. W., Zech, E., & Rimé, B. (2001). Disclosing and sharing emotion: Psychological, social, and health consequences

In M. S. Stroebe, W. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson & A. Schut. (Eds), Handbook of Bereavement Research: Consequences, Coping, and Care (pp. 517-543). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

[本文引用: 1]

[54]

Quinn, D. M., & Chaudoir,S. R. (2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 634-651.

DOI:10.1037/a0015815

URL

PMID:19785483

[本文引用: 1]

The current research provides a framework for understanding how concealable stigmatized identities impact people's psychological well-being and health. The authors hypothesize that increased anticipated stigma, greater centrality of the stigmatized identity to the self, increased salience of the identity, and possession of a stigma that is more strongly culturally devalued all predict heightened psychological distress. In Study 1, the hypotheses were supported with a sample of 300 participants who possessed 13 different concealable stigmatized identities. Analyses comparing people with an associative stigma to those with a personal stigma showed that people with an associative stigma report less distress and that this difference is fully mediated by decreased anticipated stigma, centrality, and salience. Study 2 sought to replicate the findings of Study 1 with a sample of 235 participants possessing concealable stigmatized identities and to extend the model to predicting health outcomes. Structural equation modeling showed that anticipated stigma and cultural stigma were directly related to self-reported health outcomes. Discussion centers on understanding the implications of intraindividual processes (anticipated stigma, identity centrality, and identity salience) and an external process (cultural devaluation of stigmatized identities) for mental and physical health among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity.

[55]

Rimé, B. (2009). Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review

Emotion Review, 1(1), 60-85.

DOI:10.1177/1754073908097189

URL

[本文引用: 2]

[56]

Rodas, M. A., & John,D. R. (2020). The secrecy effect: Secret consumption increases women’s product evaluations and choice

Journal of Consumer Research, 46(6), 1093-1109.

DOI:10.1093/jcr/ucz041

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[57]

Rote, W. M., & Smetana,J. G. (2016). Beliefs about parents' right to know: Domain differences and associations with change in concealment

Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26(2), 334-344.

DOI:10.1111/jora.2016.26.issue-2

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[58]

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership, 4th edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.>

URL

PMID:10126399

[本文引用: 1]

The author re-examines the appropriateness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) management techniques in health care with reference to the stability of North America's work force, staff's difficulty in balancing new responsibilities with everyday tasks, the need to adjust after major change, the real value of group decision making, the proper use of analytical tools, the validity of

[59]

Simmel, G. (1906). The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies

American Journal of Sociology, 11(4), 441-498.

DOI:10.1086/211418

URL

[本文引用: 2]

[60]

Slepian, M. L., & Bastian, B. (2017). Truth or punishment: Secrecy and punishing the self

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(11), 1595-1611.

DOI:10.1177/0146167217717245

URL

PMID:28914163

We live in a world that values justice; when a crime is committed, just punishment is expected to follow. Keeping one's misdeed secret therefore appears to be a strategic way to avoid (just) consequences. Yet, people may engage in self-punishment to right their own wrongs to balance their personal sense of justice. Thus, those who seek an escape from justice by keeping secrets may in fact end up serving that same justice on themselves (through self-punishment). Six studies demonstrate that thinking about secret (vs. confessed) misdeeds leads to increased self-punishment (increased denial of pleasure and seeking of pain). These effects were mediated by the feeling one deserved to be punished, moderated by the significance of the secret, and were observed for both self-reported and behavioral measures of self-punishment.

[61]

Slepian, M. L., Camp, N. P., & Masicampo, E. J. (2015). Exploring the secrecy burden: Secrets, preoccupation, and perceptual judgments

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), e31-e42.

DOI:10.1037/xge0000052

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[62]

Slepian, M. L., Chun, J. S., & Mason, M. F. (2017). The experience of secrecy

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 1-33.

DOI:10.1037/pspa0000085

URL

PMID:28481618

[本文引用: 6]

The concept of secrecy calls to mind a dyadic interaction: one person hiding a secret from another during a conversation or social interaction. The current work, however, demonstrates that this aspect of secrecy is rather rare. Taking a broader view of secrecy as the intent to conceal information, which only sometimes necessitates concealment, yields a new psychology of secrecy. Ten studies demonstrate the secrets people have, what it is like to have a secret, and what about secrecy is related to lower well-being. We demonstrate that people catch themselves spontaneously thinking about their secrets-they mind-wander to them-far more frequently than they encounter social situations that require active concealment of those secrets. Moreover, independent of concealment frequency, the frequency of mind-wandering to secrets predicts lower well-being (whereas the converse was not the case). We explore the diversity of secrets people have and the harmful effects of spontaneously thinking about those secrets in both recall tasks and in longitudinal designs, analyzing more than 13,000 secrets across our participant samples, with outcomes for relationship satisfaction, authenticity, well-being, and physical health. These results demonstrate that secrecy can be studied by having people think about their secrets, and have implications for designing interventions to help people cope with secrecy. (PsycINFO Database Record

[63]

Slepian, M. L., & Greenaway,K. H. (2018). The benefits and burdens of keeping others' secrets

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 220-232.

DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.005

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[64]

Slepian, M. L., Halevy, N., & Galinsky, A. D. (2019). The solitude of secrecy: Thinking about secrets evokes goal conflict and feelings of fatigue

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1129-1151.

DOI:10.1177/0146167218810770

URL

PMID:30537915

[本文引用: 3]

Past research has conceptualized secrecy as speech inhibition during social interaction. In contrast, the current research broadens the understanding of secrecy by conceptualizing it as the commitment to conceal information. Seven experiments demonstrate the implications of this broader conceptualization for understanding secrecy's consequences. The results demonstrate that thinking about secrets-relative to thinking about personal information unknown by others that is not purposefully concealed (i.e., undisclosed information)-indirectly increases the experience of fatigue by evoking feelings of isolation and a motivational conflict with one's affiliation goals. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the fatiguing effects of secrecy have consequences for task persistence and performance. Integrating theories of motivation, fatigue, and social isolation, we offer new directions for research on secrecy.

[65]

Slepian, M. L., Kirby, J. N., & Kalokerinos, E. K. (2020). Shame, guilt, and secrets on the mind

Emotion, 20(2), 323-328.

DOI:10.1037/emo0000542

URL

PMID:30742457

[本文引用: 1]

Recent work suggests that what is harmful about secrecy is not active concealment within social interactions but rather mind wandering to a secret outside of concealment contexts. However, it is not yet clear what predicts mind wandering to and concealing secrets. We proposed that emotional appraisals of shame and guilt for secrecy would predict how secrecy is experienced. Four studies with 1,000 participants keeping more than 6,000 secrets demonstrated that shame was linked with increased mind wandering to the secret. Guilt, in contrast, was linked with reduced mind wandering to the secret. The current work represents the first test of how emotions from secrecy determine how that secrecy is experienced. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

[66]

Slepian, M. L., Masicampo, E. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). The hidden effects of recalling secrets: Assimilation, contrast, and the burdens of secrecy

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), e27-e48.

DOI:10.1037/xge0000194

URL

[本文引用: 2]

[67]

Slepian, M. L., Masicampo, E. J., Toosi, N. R., & Ambady, N. (2012). The physical burdens of secrecy

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 619-624.

DOI:10.1037/a0027598

URL

[本文引用: 2]

[68]

Slepian, M. L., & Moulton-Tetlock, E. (2019). Confiding secrets and well-being

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 472-484.

DOI:10.1177/1948550618765069

URL

[本文引用: 2]

[69]

Stowell, J. R., Robles, T. F., & Kane, H. S. (2012). Psychoneuroimmunology: Mechanisms, individual differences, and interventions

Handbook of Psychology (Second Edition), 9. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[本文引用: 1]

[70]

Thomas, V. L., & Jewell,R. D. (2019). I can't get you out of my head: The influence of secrecy on consumers’ self‐brand connections

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(3), 463-471.

DOI:10.1002/jcpy.2019.29.issue-3

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[71]

Vermeir, K., & Margócsy, D. (2012). States of secrecy: An introduction

The British Journal for the History of Science, 45(2), 153-164.

DOI:10.1017/S0007087412000052

URL

[本文引用: 2]

[72]

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (Vol.1). University of California Press.

[本文引用: 2]

[73]

Wegner, D. M., Lane, J. D., & Dimitri, S. (1994). The allure of secret relationships

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 287-300.

DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.287

URL

[本文引用: 3]

[74]

Weinberg, B. D., Milne, G. R., Andonova, Y. G., & Hajjat, F. M. (2015). Internet of things: Convenience vs. privacy and secrecy

Business Horizons, 58(6), 615-624.

DOI:10.1016/j.bushor.2015.06.005

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[75]

Wetzer, I. M. (2007). Let’s Talk About It. Studies on the Social Sharing of Emotions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)

Tilburg University.

[本文引用: 1]

[76]

Wismeijer, A. (2011). Secrets and subjective well-being: A clinical oxymoron

Secrets and subjective well-being: A clinical oxymoron. In Emotion Regulation and Well-being (pp. 307-323). Springer, New York, NY.

[本文引用: 4]

[77]

Wismeijer, A. A., van Assen, M. A., & Bekker, M. H. (2014). The relations between secrecy, rejection sensitivity and autonomy-connectedness

The Journal of General Psychology, 141(2), 65-79.

DOI:10.1080/00221309.2013.862200

URL

PMID:24846784

[本文引用: 2]

The aim of this study was to examine the effects of two attachment-related variables on secrecy: rejection sensitivity and autonomy-connectedness. We hypothesized that rejection sensitivity is positively associated with secrecy, and autonomy-connectedness negatively with rejection sensitivity and secrecy. These hypotheses were generally corroborated in a sample of 303 university students. Moreover, we found that autonomy-connectedness at least partly explained the association between rejection sensitivity and secrecy. Self-awareness was negatively related to secrecy, suggesting that being aware of what one needs and thinks and being able to realize one's needs in social interactions reduce the tendency to keep secrets. In addition, interesting gender effects were found suggesting that men have a higher tendency to have secrets than women after controlling for the effects of autonomy-connectedness and rejection sensitivity. Our findings deepen the insight into possible reasons behind established associations between rejection sensitivity and secrecy, and may have clinical implications.

[78]

Wolfe, A. W., Blithe, S. J., & Mohr, B. (2018). Dirty workers’ management of hidden emotions: Selling intimacy and seeking social support through the shroud of secrecy

Journal of Communication, 68(1), 194-217.

DOI:10.1093/joc/jqx002

URL

[本文引用: 1]

[79]

Yang, X., Deng, X., & Jia, L. (2018). A tale of two secrets: Examining the diverging effects of secrecy on consumption enjoyment

ACR North American Advances, 46, 144-148.

[本文引用: 1]

员工沉默的前因与后果: 回顾与展望

2019

... 目前, 概念界定是藏秘研究的难点之一, 研究者们对于藏秘这一概念的定义似乎还未触及某些核心的部分.学界认为不能简单地把藏秘描述为拥有一个秘密(e.g., Bouman, 2003; Slepian et al., 2017).首先, 关于定义中秘密的内容, 有研究者使用问卷调查了人们普遍拥有的秘密内容(Slepian et al., 2017), 但无其他学者做过类似探究, 而在不同学者的研究中秘密也是各自不同的(Thomas & Jewell, 2019).其次, 以往的研究缺少了对必要的情景条件和心理过程的引入, 例如拥有的秘密是谁的、什么内容及其重要程度、这个过程中伴随的心理状态和前因后果, 等等.最后, 藏秘和欺骗、沉默、掩饰等概念可能存在重叠之处(陈丽金, 唐宁玉, 2019),这些行为的共同点都是为了防止他人获得某些信息, 它们可能是藏秘的途径, 但有时也已是藏秘本身, 未来需要理清藏秘与这些近似概念之间的关系.总之, 藏秘的定义仍需要进一步探讨和明确. ...

Motivations underlying topic avoidance in close relationships

2000

... 生活中人们会有被他人从道德上谴责并可能遭到社会拒绝或惩罚的信息, 因此人们会主动隐瞒这些负面信息, 从而避免他人的负面评价(Dinev et al., 2009).隐藏秘密可以通过减少或防止这些来自他人的负面反馈、社会不满和污名而起到社会保护功能(Larson & Chastain, 1990).藏秘还可能保护自己的社会形象以及和他人的关系(Afifi & Guerrero, 2000), 保护自己免受社会反对等(Lane & Wegner, 1995). ...

Transparency reforms in the public sector: Beyond the new economics of organization

2011

... 除了该领域的大量研究外, 其他领域也有一些分散研究.比如在消费领域, Yang等人(2018)发现, 藏秘会对消费享受产生两极化效应, 当预期他人的反应是积极的时, 藏秘会增加消费享受, 而当预期他人的反应是消极的时, 则会降低享受.Rodas和John (2020)发现女性消费者想象或参与秘密消费会引发对所消费产品的专注, 从而增加对该产品的积极评价.管理领域中的薪酬藏秘研究、怀孕女员工在工作情境中隐瞒自己怀孕情况的研究等(Bamberger & Belogolovsky, 2010; Gatrell, 2011).在组织领域, Costas和Grey (2014)将组织层面的藏秘定义为各组织行为者蓄意隐瞒信息的正式的和非正式的过程.其他关于组织藏秘的相关研究, 例如藏秘与组织八卦、透明度、腐败和问责的研究, 这些研究指向隐瞒、撒谎和欺骗等负面形式(e.g., Arellano-Gault & Lepore, 2011; Flyverbom et al., 2011); 组织藏秘的积极影响例如保护知识和控制信念(Vermeir & Margócsy, 2012)、保护信息和增强对组织身份的认同(Schein, 2010), 不同领域的藏秘研究仍然有待未来深入推进. ...

The impact of pay secrecy on individual task performance

2010

The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation

1995

... 其次, 对归属感的担忧可能会促使人们藏秘.归属需要是另一个重要的社会动机(Baumeister & Leary, 1995), 对归属感的需要促使个体避免排斥(DeWall et al., 2011).人们通常会保守他们认为违反规范或不寻常的秘密行为, 其中一个原因可能是害怕被发现这些行为后受到排斥, 从而妨碍归属感的获得.因此, 隐藏身份的人越害怕被排斥, 就越可能隐藏自己的身份. ...

Cleansing the soul by hurting the flesh

2011

... 研究表明, 为了解决不公平感, 或追求正义感, 人们也会从自身寻求解决, 比如以自我惩罚的方式来寻求平衡(Bastian et al., 2011).藏秘会使人更频繁地主动追求自我惩罚, 尤其是当这个秘密是不端的行为或对他人造成伤害的行为时(Slepian & Bastian, 2017). ...

The roles of autonomy-connectedness and attachment styles in depression and anxiety

2010

... 自我隐瞒与情绪标记水平较低有关, 情绪标记水平即理解和标记自己感受的能力,情绪标记水平与幸福感和心理健康之间存在正相关(Bekker & Croon, 2010), 因此训练情绪标记有助于减轻藏秘的消极影响, 从而带来幸福感.Wismeijer等人(2014)的研究还发现, 情绪标记水平和自我意识与藏秘的倾向负相关, 这表明, 在社交互动中意识到自己的需求和想法并能够实现自己的需求, 能够减少藏秘的倾向. ...

1984

... 此外, 吐露秘密可能有益于人际关系和社会关系(Pennebaker et al., 2001).吐露秘密可能会在人际关系中产生并保持亲密感(Bellman, 1984).根据Bellman (1984)的研究, 吐露秘密唤起的亲密感远比任何其他类型的表露唤起的更强烈, 因此, 吐露秘密对建立和巩固友谊具有十分重要的意义. ...

Who drives divergence? Identity signaling, outgroup dissimilarity, and the abandonment of cultural tastes

2008

... McDonald等人(2020)的研究中提出了三个藏秘的动机.首先, 关心自己的声誉是一个人类基本的社会动机(Leary et al., 1995).人们可能担心自己的行为(隐藏秘密)与不受欢迎或污名化身份有关, 因而损害在自己或他人眼中的声誉, 于是他们可能会避免将这种行为公诸于众.例如, 人们有策略地避免那些可能暗示自己属于不受欢迎的社会群体的行为(Berger & Heath, 2008). ...

1958

... 现有的藏秘研究具有深度, 但从广度来说还远远不够.学界认为藏秘可能包含更广泛的途径, 在高度信息化的社会背景下, 研究者也开始对信息时代的藏秘进行了新的探索(Weinberg et al., 2015).众所周知, 互联网可以间接收集大量个人信息, 人们在互联网环境中会不同程度曝露一些和自身相关的信息, 因而会有信息泄露的风险, 对个体产生潜在威胁.许多人也愿意为了诸如福利、权力或其他利益而牺牲自己的这些信息(Berlin, 1958).对政府而言, 数字化同样会影响政府机密保护, 技术发展以及情报部门和私人合作频率的提高, 情报来源的多样性, 都使得政府藏秘变得愈加困难(Broeders, 2016).此外, 互联网的一些底层技术本身已成为重要秘密, 因为共享它会产生人们利用系统的风险, 例如算法的藏秘等(Pasquale, 2015). ...

Intra- and interpersonal consequences of experimentally induced concealment

2003

... 藏秘还是一种保证社交安全的策略.Bouman (2003)提出藏秘作为安全行为的概念, 它在功能上等同于回避.因此, 藏秘有时可被看作是一种策略, 以增加有机体对因社会威胁而导致的排斥的防御, 从而减少或控制被社会排斥的风险(MacDonald & Leary, 2005). ...

The secret in the information society

2016

Anger inhibition, cardiovascular recovery, and vagal function: A model of the link between hostility and cardiovascular disease

1998

... 以上两个解释模型都隐含地假设藏秘发生在人际互动中, 忽略了藏秘发生在社交场合之外的情况, 例如私下里思考自己秘密的内容.Brosschot和Thayer (2004)提出的秘密持续性思维模型(Perseverative Thinking Model of Secrecy)补充解释这种情况.该模型认为, 持续性思维(类似于对秘密的反刍)通过不断重新激活初始压力源的认知图式, 使个体长期处于心理生理学上“行动准备(fight and fly)”的状态.即持续性思维可能会持续地激活认知网络, 当超过一定的阈值, 就会触发前馈过程, 在这个过程中, 越来越多的相关事件线索被感知.因此, 持续性思维可能会将日常生活事件相关的直接生理和心理的压力转化为长期的生理激活, 成为慢性致病状态形成的条件(Brosschot & Thayer, 1998).这一理论模型也补充解释了藏秘所导致的心理状态与慢性致病之间的关系. ...

Worry, perseverative thinking and health

2004

... 研究者们在研究中重点聚焦于藏秘的负面影响, 众多研究探索藏秘产生何种特异性的消极影响以及原因和机制(e.g., Pennebaker, 1989; Larson & Christin, 1990; Brosschot & Thayer, 2004; Liu & Slepian, 2018), 并提出了应对这些消极影响的方式(e.g., Slepian & Moulton-Tetlock, 2019; Goncalo et al., 2015; Wismeijer et al., 2014).但这些研究仍然未形成统一且系统的观点, 关于藏秘的完整体系仍待探索. ...

Cynical hostility and cardiovascular reactivity during self-disclosure

1993

... Pennebaker (1989)的秘密抑制模型(Inhibition Model of Secrecy)对藏秘的消极影响的解释侧重于藏秘中抑制未披露的创伤事件的过程所造成的躯体后果.该模型的一个基本观点是分享生活事件被认为是人自然发生的行为(Wetzer, 2007), 如果抑制这种自然趋势, 可能会产生一种轻微的压力.该模型进一步提出, 当有机会进行表达时由于抑制而不能分享可能比不分享本身更具危害性.藏秘的抑制过程需要强烈地抑制这种分享的自然趋势, 尽管抑制产生的是一种轻微的压力, 但它仍会给人的生理造成负担, 其表现形式可能是血压升高(Christensen & Smith, 1993), 或免疫能力下降(Rimé, 2009).由于秘密通常被假定具有慢性和长期的性质, 藏秘的抑制过程被认为具有累积效应, 但Pennebaker (1989)并没有详细说明藏秘累积效应背后的确切机制(Wismeijer, 2011). ...

Secret keepers: children's theory of mind and their conception of secrecy

2016

... 另外, 有研究发现, 儿童和青少年平均每天保守两个秘密(Lavoie et al., 2017), Colwell等人(2016)发现拥有较高的心理理论发展水平的儿童对秘密理解和描述会更详细.此外, 藏秘的频率与年龄呈正相关, 随着年龄的增长, 青少年可能会对父母隐瞒更多的秘密, 因为他们更频繁地从事父母可能不赞成的行为(Rote & Smetana, 2016).因此, 对于藏秘的发生发展的理论仍是研究者需继续深入探索的部分, 这或许与人的一些内隐行为的原因具有密切联系. ...

Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy

2014

... 藏秘还可以促进成员群体身份的创造和巩固, 在内部人员和外部人员之间划清界限, 增加组织成员对群体身份的认同感(Costa & Grey, 2014).Courpasson和Younes (2018)通过集体互动的方式将藏秘和共同身份联系起来.人们共同隐瞒同一个秘密的行为会产生集体情感体验, 于是藏秘促进了一个有凝聚力的小集体的形成, 从而发展独立的规则和规范, 并为成员提供一种处于例外状态的感觉, 这种例外状态可以提高团队的承诺、凝聚力等, 使小集体形成了相对自主性, 人们可以积极地隐藏起来, 自由地发展他们的互动和工作内容(Costas & Grey, 2016). ...

Secrecy at work: The hidden architecture of organizational life

2016

Double or quits: Understanding the links between secrecy and creativity in a project development process

2018

The cost of keeping it hidden: Decomposing concealment reveals what makes it depleting

2014

... Critcher和Ferguson (2014)的研究发现, 当人们隐瞒信息或身份内容时, 会出现自我调节能力的损耗, 具体表现为削损智力敏锐度(intellectual acuity)、人际约束(interpersonal restraint)、体能(physical stamina)和执行功能(executive function).他们在研究中将这种隐瞒分解为两个过程：首先, 当人们主动隐瞒信息时, 必须先监视信息以防止泄露; 其次, 如果发现这些信息有可能泄露, 就必须修改自己的表述, 研究者发现, 监视自己要隐藏的信息就足以导致自我调节能力的损耗(Critcher & Ferguson, 2014). ...

... 的研究发现, 当人们隐瞒信息或身份内容时, 会出现自我调节能力的损耗, 具体表现为削损智力敏锐度(intellectual acuity)、人际约束(interpersonal restraint)、体能(physical stamina)和执行功能(executive function).他们在研究中将这种隐瞒分解为两个过程：首先, 当人们主动隐瞒信息时, 必须先监视信息以防止泄露; 其次, 如果发现这些信息有可能泄露, 就必须修改自己的表述, 研究者发现, 监视自己要隐藏的信息就足以导致自我调节能力的损耗(Critcher & Ferguson, 2014). ...

Going underground: Bootlegging and individual innovative performance

2014

... 秘密地进行一项活动可能与创造力的产生存在正向关系, 比如, 在大型、固化的组织中, 个人常常不得不求助于地下的、没有正式组织支持的“非法”研发活动, 这些个人试图在研发的方向上获得更大的自主权, 并逃避组织责任的约束(Criscuolo et al., 2014).这种行为不仅可以提高个人的创造力, 也进一步催化了组织创造力, Garud等人(2011)就曾在3M公司中观察到这一现象. ...

Lying in everyday life

1996

... 亲社会谎言(prosocial lies)带有善意的色彩, 是以很少甚至是零成本为代价而使他人受益的谎言, 常见的例如防止他人感到受伤或尴尬(DePaulo et al., 1996), 或在经济上帮助他人(Erat & Gneezy, 2012).此外, 亲社会谎言对说谎者本身亦有益, Levine和Schweitzer (2014)研究发现, 说亲社会谎言的人被认为比说真话的人更有道德, 甚至可以增加信任感. ...

Belongingness as a core personality trait: How social exclusion influences social functioning and personality expression

2011

Information privacy values, beliefs and attitudes: An empirical analysis of web 2.0 privacy

2009

Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others' inner states about the world

2009

... 共享现实理论(Shared Reality Theory)提出了人们分享现实事件的两大动机：一是关系动机, 指的是和别人建立联系; 二是认知动机, 指的是获得他人的观点和见解, 并了解周围的世界(Echterhoff et al., 2009).Liu和Slepian (2018)从共享现实理论的关系动机和认知动机来解释藏秘的消极影响, 藏秘可以通过使人们感到与他人的联系更少, 并通过阻止人们获得他人对秘密的观点和看法, 阻碍关系动机和认知动机, 从而对人们的身心健康产生消极影响. ...

White lies

2012

Patient self-disclosure: A review of the research

2003

... Farber (2003)提出了秘密可以被操纵研究的三个原因：一是人们相信在严格的科学研究中, 每个被试的匿名性是可以被保证的; 二是人们更愿意将秘密分享给他们不期待再次见到的陌生人; 三是在大多数关于藏秘的研究中, 被试没有被要求详细地写出秘密的内容. ...

... 由于藏秘自身具有不让他人知道的性质, 这点难于探索, 虽然Farber (2003)提出了秘密可以被研究的三个原因, 但藏秘的操纵和研究方法仍然具有不稳定性.例如, Pecher等人(2015)复制Slepian等人(2012)的实验, 但未能得出一致的结果.随后Slepian等人(2016)回应了这一质疑, 他们对藏秘的回忆操纵方法进行了调整, 并且Slepian, Halevy等人(2019)对藏秘的操纵方法又做了进一步改进. ...

Disentangling the power-transparency nexus

2011

Self‐concealment and suicidal behaviors

2012

... 藏秘所带来的最为显著的后果是损害身心健康, 这也是研究者对整个藏秘研究最关心的一部分.藏秘对身体和认知过程都会产生负面影响, 例如, 拥有秘密的污名身份会对心理和躯体健康有显著的负面影响(Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009).这些负面影响具体表现为个人内部的一系列消极的精神和身体后果, 如对秘密内容的反省、痴迷(Lane & Wegner, 1995), 产生抑郁的心理症状(Larson & Chastain, 1990), 可能导致身体和精神疾病(Lane & Wegner, 1995; Pennebaker, 1989), 最终导致免疫能力受损而增加机体生病风险(Stowell et al., 2012).对青少年样本的研究发现, 青少年藏秘也会影响他们的心理社会调节, 从而对他们的心理健康造成损害(Frijns & Finkenauer, 2009).另外, 研究还发现, 藏秘甚至与青壮年群体的自杀行为显著相关(Friedlander et al., 2012).藏秘中介了感知到的自杀污名感、悲伤困难与自杀倾向的关系, 也中介了感知到自杀污名感和个人成长的负向关系(Oexle et al., 2020). ...

Longitudinal associations between keeping a secret and psychosocial adjustment in adolescence

2009

... 在心理治疗领域, 患者经常会对治疗者隐瞒他们自己的症状和经历, 研究者开始注意到这种隐瞒对主观幸福感(Subject well-being, SWB)的负面影响(Larson & Chastain, 1990; Wismeijer, 2011).藏秘为个人社交付出高昂的代价, 导致了消极的人际后果, 例如人际关系的破裂(e.g., Frijns & Finkenauer, 2009; Larson & Chastain, 1990).藏秘也会对他人造成伤害, 在关系后期和更亲密的阶段, 藏秘者的伴侣可能会感到被冷落, 伴侣会因而削损自信而变得越来越痛苦(Rimé, 2009). ...

Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation

2011

Policy and the pregnant body at work: Strategies of secrecy, silence and supra-performance

2011

The liberating consequences of creative work: How a creative outlet lifts the physical burden of secrecy

2015

... 研究表明, 从事一项创造性的任务可以帮助人们产生“得到解放”的感觉, 这种感觉有助于人们减轻心理负担(Leung et al., 2012).藏秘与身体负担有着隐喻性的联系, 作为一种心理和身体负担影响着人们的身心健康, 而创造性则与“跳出框框思考”和探索的自由联系在一起(Leung et al., 2012).Goncalo等人(2015)发现创造性实际上会让人感到解放, 而这种自由的感觉反过来又会减轻藏秘的心理和身体负担.因此, 发挥创造性可能是人们摆脱藏秘负担的一种方式, 它也不会因直接泄密而可能导致羞耻和尴尬.并且当任务允许对不同类型的想法进行广泛的探索, 而不是专注于一个领域时, 创造性工作的去藏秘负担效果最强(Goncalo et al., 2015). ...

... 发现创造性实际上会让人感到解放, 而这种自由的感觉反过来又会减轻藏秘的心理和身体负担.因此, 发挥创造性可能是人们摆脱藏秘负担的一种方式, 它也不会因直接泄密而可能导致羞耻和尴尬.并且当任务允许对不同类型的想法进行广泛的探索, 而不是专注于一个领域时, 创造性工作的去藏秘负担效果最强(Goncalo et al., 2015). ...

Emotional expression and physical health: Revising traumatic memories or fostering self-regulation?

1996

... 研究表明, 吐露秘密(confiding)可以减轻藏秘的负面后果, 并帮助个体同化和理解秘密的内容(Pennebaker, 1989).吐露秘密打破了思想压抑和干扰的重复循环, 减轻了持续抑制的压力, 从而增强身心健康.与知己谈论秘密还可能有助于一个人对藏秘赋予意义并获得自我理解和控制, 因为知己可能会提供有用的反馈或支持(Slepian & Moulton-Tetlock, 2019).大量的研究同时发现, 谈论或写下令人不安的或创伤性的经历, 显著改善了个体的心理健康(Greenberg et al., 1996). ...

Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct

2010

... 藏秘行为可以保护对组织的维系和发展具有重要价值的信息, 使企业或组织在竞争中保持优势(Greve et al., 2010).例如, 对科学知识的藏秘也是对宝贵的知识产权的守护, 这有利于帮助政府或企业家获得相对于竞争对手的经济或军事优势(Vermeir & Margócsy, 2012). ...

How and when does emotional expression help?

2001

... Larson等人(2015)对这类策略产生的原因进行了探索, 不表达本身并不致病, 相反, “沉默但又渴望表达才会导致健康问题(p. 190)” (Kennedy- Moore & Watson, 2001).Larson等人(2015)认为产生这类不良的情绪调节策略的关键原因在于渴望表露秘密和隐藏秘密之间的双重动机冲突. ...

The cognitive consequences of secrecy

1995

... ), 可能导致身体和精神疾病(Lane & Wegner, 1995; Pennebaker, 1989), 最终导致免疫能力受损而增加机体生病风险(Stowell et al., 2012).对青少年样本的研究发现, 青少年藏秘也会影响他们的心理社会调节, 从而对他们的心理健康造成损害(Frijns & Finkenauer, 2009).另外, 研究还发现, 藏秘甚至与青壮年群体的自杀行为显著相关(Friedlander et al., 2012).藏秘中介了感知到的自杀污名感、悲伤困难与自杀倾向的关系, 也中介了感知到自杀污名感和个人成长的负向关系(Oexle et al., 2020). ...

... Wegner等人(1994)发现了藏秘的两种认知后果, 它们结合起来产生了一种不安的心理状态.首先, 藏秘者必须持续地思考, 哪些是不应该泄露的, 同时, 藏秘者必须小心, 不要在某些情况下考虑它, 因为这可能会促动秘密的揭发.这两种倾向结合起来产生了一种对秘密的强迫性专注.在这种情况下, 焦虑和抑郁症状都会相伴产生.在此基础上, Lane和Wegner (1995)提出了秘密专注模型(Preoccupation Model of Secrecy), 该模型主要关注藏秘的心理后遗症状.同时, 基于Lane和Wegner (1995)的白熊研究范式(让被试在一段谈话里隐瞒‘白熊’这个词, 然后让被试汇报自己在谈话过程中想到这个词的次数)发现了一个矛盾的结果：有意识的思维抑制会导致被压抑的信息或秘密的侵入性思维(intrusive thinking)的增加, 这又引起新的思维抑制, 如此形成恶性循环, 这个循环导致对秘密的强迫性专注(obsessive preoccupation), 最终可导致精神疾病, 例如对于污名化身份的思考过程. ...

... 提出了秘密专注模型(Preoccupation Model of Secrecy), 该模型主要关注藏秘的心理后遗症状.同时, 基于Lane和Wegner (1995)的白熊研究范式(让被试在一段谈话里隐瞒‘白熊’这个词, 然后让被试汇报自己在谈话过程中想到这个词的次数)发现了一个矛盾的结果：有意识的思维抑制会导致被压抑的信息或秘密的侵入性思维(intrusive thinking)的增加, 这又引起新的思维抑制, 如此形成恶性循环, 这个循环导致对秘密的强迫性专注(obsessive preoccupation), 最终可导致精神疾病, 例如对于污名化身份的思考过程. ...

... 当前关于藏秘的理论主要集中于藏秘消极后果的解释, 即上文所提到的5个系统化的解释模型, 但这些模型存在自身的局限性, 它们只关注藏秘消极后果的某一方面(Lane & Wegner, 1995).未来首要任务是总结藏秘已有的理论研究, 然后可与生理心理学、认知神经科学结合对藏秘的消极后果的解释进行完善, 建构起较为全面、合理的藏秘消极后果的理论.此外, 藏秘其他方面理论相对较少, 存有广阔的探索空间, 例如未来可以借鉴消极后果的解释模型来丰富整个藏秘的理论研究. ...

Self-concealment: Conceptualization, measurement, and health implications

1990

... Margolis (1966)最先提出, 藏秘是故意拒绝给予他人有关个人的信息.Larson和Chastain (1990)给出了一种相对特别的界定：主动向他人隐瞒令人苦恼或消极的个人信息的倾向.这与后来研究者们发现可以将藏秘区分为藏秘行为(Keeping a major secret, KMS)和自我隐瞒(Self-concealment, SC)特质(Wismeijer, 2011)的想法一致. ...

... 最早Larson和Chastain (1990)共同编制了自我隐瞒倾向量表(Self-concealment scale, SCS), 该量表共包含10个项目, 分别涉及三个方面：(1)关于对个人信息隐瞒的倾向(例如, “我有很多关于自己的事情是隐瞒的”); (2)关于自己的令人痛苦的秘密或消极的故事, 很少或没有与其他人分享(例如, “我对自己有负面的想法, 而我从来没有和任何人分享”); (3)对公开自己秘密的担忧(例如, “如果我与我的朋友们分享我所有的秘密, 他们会不再喜欢我”).该量表的Cronbach alpha系数为α = 0.83 (N = 306). ...

... ; Larson & Chastain, 1990).藏秘也会对他人造成伤害, 在关系后期和更亲密的阶段, 藏秘者的伴侣可能会感到被冷落, 伴侣会因而削损自信而变得越来越痛苦(Rimé, 2009). ...

... 藏秘从未被某个研究者在实验室中发现, 它以隐秘的形式自然而然地存在于人们的日常生活中, 这种特性使得藏秘很晚才开始被系统地研究.最早进行藏秘研究的领域是社会学(e.g., Simmel, 1906; Weber, 1978), 从群体和组织共同隐藏同一个秘密出发, 发现藏秘的控制功能是官僚系统运行的必要手段, 同时藏秘又维持了个人身份的安全感和优越感, 增加群体的凝聚力.而后人们开始进一步关注到个人藏秘的心理和行为过程, 关注心理咨询中来访者藏秘的阻抗现象(e.g., Pennebaker, 1989; Larson & Christin, 1990), 这才在心理学界得以推进. ...

... 研究发现, 藏秘对于人们日常生活和工作同样也具有重要的正向价值和意义, 例如, 对污名化身份的社会保护(Larson & Chastain, 1990)、社交安全(MacDonald & Leary, 2005), 在人际交往之初增加吸引力(Wegner et al., 1994), 亲社会谎言(Levine & Schweitzer, 2014), 等等.这表明, 对于藏秘的研究不仅仅是关注减轻或消除其消极后果, 未来甚至可以通过正确地引导藏秘, 发挥其积极作用.具体来说, 可首先对藏秘的积极后果进行全面的调查, 尝试理清藏秘不同种类的积极后果, 再从其引发积极后果的原因入手进行研究; 此外, 还可从藏秘产生机制的角度深入挖掘, 例如, 在某些特定的情景下会引发对秘密内容的思考, 等等; 甚至还可以以特殊人群为样本研究藏秘的积极影响, 例如Wolfe等人(2018)以色情行业女性从业者为研究对象, 探讨藏秘如何影响情感管理和寻求支持行为, 结果表明藏秘具有保护功能, 向行业外的其他人隐瞒她们的职业角色, 有助于她们自由地构建不同的职业和社会身份角色, 避免工作污名化.深入探究藏秘的积极结果和意义, 如此也可使藏秘研究为人们带来更多积极影响. ...

Self-concealment: Integrative review and working model

2015

... Larson等人(2015)对自我隐瞒的元分析发现, 高水平的自我隐瞒动机会导致一组功能失调的情绪调节策略(例如, 情感表达的抑制、低水平的正念和心理灵活性), 这些策略之间相互关联, 且它们通过不真实感、较低的社会幸福感和对寻求帮助的消极态度直接或间接影响身心健康. ...

... ).Larson等人(2015)认为产生这类不良的情绪调节策略的关键原因在于渴望表露秘密和隐藏秘密之间的双重动机冲突. ...

From Kantian to Machiavellian deceivers: Development of children’s reasoning and self-reported use of secrets and lies

2017

Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis

1995

Embodied metaphors and creative “acts”

2012

... ).藏秘与身体负担有着隐喻性的联系, 作为一种心理和身体负担影响着人们的身心健康, 而创造性则与“跳出框框思考”和探索的自由联系在一起(Leung et al., 2012).Goncalo等人(2015)发现创造性实际上会让人感到解放, 而这种自由的感觉反过来又会减轻藏秘的心理和身体负担.因此, 发挥创造性可能是人们摆脱藏秘负担的一种方式, 它也不会因直接泄密而可能导致羞耻和尴尬.并且当任务允许对不同类型的想法进行广泛的探索, 而不是专注于一个领域时, 创造性工作的去藏秘负担效果最强(Goncalo et al., 2015). ...

You can handle the truth: Mispredicting the consequences of honest communication

2018

... 另外, 维护社会和谐的愿望也会促使藏秘的产生.当对亲密的人坦白自己的喜好、感受或行为时, 如果这与对方的价值观相冲突, 就可能会导致关系紧张(Levine & Cohen, 2018), 因此藏秘很有可能是在试图避免这种冲突. ...

Are liars ethical? On the tension between benevolence and honesty

2014

Secrecy: Unshared realities

2018

Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain

2005

Secrecy and identity

1966

Motivated secrecy: Politics, relationships, and regrets

2020

Perceived suicide stigma, secrecy about suicide loss and mental health outcomes

2020

2015

The burden of secrecy? No effect on hill slant estimation and beanbag throwing

2015

1989

... 最早的操纵是让被试回忆并写下曾向他人隐瞒过的创伤经历, 试图以一段具有深刻意义的指导语, 引导被试写出自己隐藏至深的秘密(Pennebaker, 1989).具体过程为, 在保证匿名性后被试被要求写下有关创伤经历的内容, 他们被告知：希望您写下一生中最令人沮丧或最痛苦的经历, 表达您最深刻的想法和感受.您可以写任何您想要写的东西, 它应该对您有深远的影响.理想情况下, 它应该是您没有与他人详细讨论过的事情. ...

... ).由于秘密通常被假定具有慢性和长期的性质, 藏秘的抑制过程被认为具有累积效应, 但Pennebaker (1989)并没有详细说明藏秘累积效应背后的确切机制(Wismeijer, 2011). ...

Disclosing and sharing emotion: Psychological, social, and health consequences

2001

Living with a concealable stigmatized identity: The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma on psychological distress and health

2009

Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: Theory and empirical review

2009

The secrecy effect: Secret consumption increases women’s product evaluations and choice

2020

Beliefs about parents' right to know: Domain differences and associations with change in concealment

2016

2010

The sociology of secrecy and of secret societies

1906

... 藏秘(Secrecy)从人类文明初生之时便随之出现.对藏秘早期的理论探索可以追溯到近代两位社会学家马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber, 1978)和格奥尔格·齐美尔(Georg Simmel, 1906), 二者都从群体层面对藏秘进行理论探讨.而对藏秘的个人心理层面的研究则始于19世纪下半叶的心理治疗领域, 临床心理学家一直面临着来访者的某种阻抗, 来访者会隐瞒自己的经历和问题, 这也使精神分析学家们开始注意到藏秘现象, 此后也引起了社会心理学领域的广泛关注.例如, Wismeijer (2011)研究发现, 保护动机(保护自己免受社会排斥)是个人藏秘的最重要的原因.但这些研究很大程度上还不成系统, 且也忽视了藏秘的内容和现象学解释, 作为一个新兴而又极具潜力的领域, 对藏秘的研究和理解有待学界推进. ...

Truth or punishment: Secrecy and punishing the self

2017

Exploring the secrecy burden: Secrets, preoccupation, and perceptual judgments

2015

... Slepian等人(2012)通过实验证明, 藏秘会因由人们当前的处境而影响认知判断, 即负担感.随后, Slepian等人(2015)又将藏秘内容的重要程度精确为对藏秘的关注程度, 得出的结果都支持藏秘会导致负担感的假设.此外, 藏秘还会导致疲劳感, 相对于思考没有刻意隐藏的个人信息, 个体思考有意隐瞒的信息时, 藏秘通过唤起孤立感和与所属目标的动机冲突, 间接增加了疲劳的体验(Slepian, Halevy, et al., 2019). ...

The experience of secrecy

2017

... 新近的研究对早期藏秘概念给予了非常重要的补充, 并且让研究者对藏秘的核心内涵有了新的认识.Slepian等人(2017)发现了在人际交往之外的藏秘形式, 即一个人在相关的社会互动之外自发地思考秘密的内容(在那一瞬间它与手头的任务无关).此后, Slepian和Greenaway (2018)的研究又将藏秘的内容扩展到非个人相关的信息, 从而进一步丰富了藏秘的概念. ...

... 此外, 有研究者关注到了秘密的不同种类可能会产生不同的影响, 因此编制了关于秘密内容的量表：一般秘密问卷(Common secrets questionnaire, CSQ; Slepian et al., 2017).Slepian等人(2017)通过向2000名被试提供一份常见秘密清单, 询问他们是否有其中的秘密, 然后对得到的秘密进行分类, 并对分类进行了调整和修订, 最终得到38个类别的秘密.秘密的类别包括：伤害某人、吸毒、偷窃、自残、堕胎、创伤经历、说谎、对爱情的渴望、出轨的想法、感情上的不忠、性行为、信仰或意识形态、财务、秘密(目前或以前)工作、野心等.该问卷关注了人们共同的、普遍的秘密. ...

... ).Slepian等人(2017)通过向2000名被试提供一份常见秘密清单, 询问他们是否有其中的秘密, 然后对得到的秘密进行分类, 并对分类进行了调整和修订, 最终得到38个类别的秘密.秘密的类别包括：伤害某人、吸毒、偷窃、自残、堕胎、创伤经历、说谎、对爱情的渴望、出轨的想法、感情上的不忠、性行为、信仰或意识形态、财务、秘密(目前或以前)工作、野心等.该问卷关注了人们共同的、普遍的秘密. ...

... ).首先, 关于定义中秘密的内容, 有研究者使用问卷调查了人们普遍拥有的秘密内容(Slepian et al., 2017), 但无其他学者做过类似探究, 而在不同学者的研究中秘密也是各自不同的(Thomas & Jewell, 2019).其次, 以往的研究缺少了对必要的情景条件和心理过程的引入, 例如拥有的秘密是谁的、什么内容及其重要程度、这个过程中伴随的心理状态和前因后果, 等等.最后, 藏秘和欺骗、沉默、掩饰等概念可能存在重叠之处(陈丽金, 唐宁玉, 2019),这些行为的共同点都是为了防止他人获得某些信息, 它们可能是藏秘的途径, 但有时也已是藏秘本身, 未来需要理清藏秘与这些近似概念之间的关系.总之, 藏秘的定义仍需要进一步探讨和明确. ...

The benefits and burdens of keeping others' secrets

2018

The solitude of secrecy: Thinking about secrets evokes goal conflict and feelings of fatigue

2019

... Slepian, Halevy等人(2019)提出了一种新的回忆操纵方法.被试被随机分配到两种操纵(藏秘和非藏秘)之中.在藏秘的操纵中, 要求被试思考一些重要的个人信息, 这些信息是他人不知道且是被试有意隐藏的.在非藏秘操纵中, 与藏秘的操纵唯一的区别是, 这些信息是被试没有刻意隐藏的, 并且如果在谈话中涉及这些信息, 被试愿意与他人谈论.两种操纵都要求被试写下4到5句关于个人信息的句子. ...

Shame, guilt, and secrets on the mind

2020

... 研究者发现, 心智游移导致对藏秘内容的关注受到羞耻、内疚两种自我指向情绪的中介, 羞耻可以解释为什么心智游移会导致秘密内容的增加, 而内疚则可以解释心智游移为什么会导致秘密内容的减少(Slepian, Kirby, et al., 2020).藏秘消极后果的产生机制一直以来都是研究者们关注的重点, 研究者们迫切地希望发现藏秘消极后果的产生机制, 尽快减轻藏秘这一常见现象对于人们的不利影响.未来, 可以进一步挖掘藏秘过程中产生和伴随的不同情绪, 比如何种情绪会提高藏秘的频率, 以及情绪是否会影响藏秘对身心健康的损害; 除此之外, 还可以从进化心理学角度研究人类保留下藏秘这一行为的深层原因, 从而拓宽藏秘研究领域. ...

The hidden effects of recalling secrets: Assimilation, contrast, and the burdens of secrecy

2016

... 然而, 有研究者认为被试回忆起的秘密内容并不总是与实验指令相对应, 因此Slepian等人(2016)使用了操作对应(Manipulation correspondence)的方法来增加被试回忆的秘密与实验所要求的内容的匹配程度.引入对比操作, 首先让被试回忆起自己日思夜想的、持续关注(preoccupying)的秘密或不太关注(non-preoccupying)的秘密, 然后给被试展示极为关注或极不关注的秘密示例的其中一种.例如, 如果我们让被试A (回忆持续关注的秘密)接触到另一个高度不关注的秘密示例, 这会导致被试觉得自己的秘密确实是自己比较关注的.同样, 如果我们让被试B (回忆不太关注的秘密)接触到另一高度关注的秘密示例, 被试会被重新锚定, 这种对比使他们觉得自己的秘密确实不太为自己所关注. ...

The physical burdens of secrecy

2012

Confiding secrets and well-being

2019

Psychoneuroimmunology: Mechanisms, individual differences, and interventions

2012

I can't get you out of my head: The influence of secrecy on consumers’ self‐brand connections

2019

States of secrecy: An introduction

2012

1978

The allure of secret relationships

1994

... 除了这些在人际交往中提供保护作用, 藏秘还有其独特的积极作用, 在交往之初的藏秘有时可以因为神秘感而增加个人的吸引力(Wegner et al., 1994). ...

Internet of things: Convenience vs. privacy and secrecy

2015

Let’s Talk About It. Studies on the Social Sharing of Emotions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)

2007

Secrets and subjective well-being: A clinical oxymoron

2011

The relations between secrecy, rejection sensitivity and autonomy-connectedness

2014

Dirty workers’ management of hidden emotions: Selling intimacy and seeking social support through the shroud of secrecy

2018

A tale of two secrets: Examining the diverging effects of secrecy on consumption enjoyment

2018

人体温度大揭秘：哪个部位最热？绝地求生申请退款需要多长时间？