Contexts of Concealment: Initial Validation of Three Disclosure Avoidance Process Measures

Abstract

The choice to withhold subjective distress reflects a multifactorial decision highly sensitive to context. Unfortunately, existing measures are built on unidimensional models (i.e., concealment-disclosure as a single, bipolar dimension) and operationalize the construct as a stable trait. In this article, we outline the development and initial validation of a self-report inventory that accounts for problem-context and assesses multiple processes central to both the concealment and disclosure of emotional distress. Exploratory analysis of pilot items in Study 1 (male student sample; N = 373) guided subsequent item development and revisions to our conceptual model. In Study 2 (mixed-gender community sample; N = 297), we refined the item-pool based on additional tests of latent scale structure and associations with concurrent criteria. In a final validation sample (Study 3; international community participants; N = 978), confirmatory factor analyses corroborated our hypothesized three-factor model (Privacy Management, Disclosure Desire, and Social Fear) and supported measurement invariance by sex. The three Contexts of Concealment Scales (CCS) were internally consistent and associated in expected directions with external indices of concurrent concealment, disclosure, depression, anxiety, loneliness, experiential avoidance, and self-stigma.

Disclosure statement

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Notes

1 We use the terms distress concealment and disclosure avoidance as a general rubric referring to the nondisclosure or active hiding of clinically significant personal problems. For parsimony, we use this term to encompass multiple constructs from the literature that are ostensibly related yet possibly distinct (e.g., self-concealment, self-disclosure, distress-disclosure, etc.). We also use this term to emphasize our focus on the concealment of clinically significant concerns.