Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Nov 16;150(8):1004-1025.
doi: 10.1080/00223980.2016.1226742. Epub 2016 Sep 23.

Planning a Stigmatized Nonvisible Illness Disclosure: Applying the Disclosure Decision-Making Model

Soe Yoon Choi  1 , Maria K Venetis  2 , Kathryn Greene  1 , Kate Magsamen-Conrad  3 , Maria G Checton  4 , Smita C Banerjee  5
Affiliations

Planning a Stigmatized Nonvisible Illness Disclosure: Applying the Disclosure Decision-Making Model

Soe Yoon Choi et al. J Psychol. .

Abstract

This study applied the disclosure decision-making model (DD-MM) to explore how individuals plan to disclose nonvisible illness (Study 1), compared to planning to disclose personal information (Study 2). Study 1 showed that perceived stigma from the illness negatively predicted disclosure efficacy; closeness predicted anticipated response (i.e., provision of support) although it did not influence disclosure efficacy; disclosure efficacy led to reduced planning, with planning leading to scheduling. Study 2 demonstrated that when information was considered to be intimate, it negatively influenced disclosure efficacy. Unlike the model with stigma (Study 1), closeness positively predicted both anticipated response and disclosure efficacy. The rest of the hypothesized relationships showed a similar pattern to Study 1: disclosure efficacy reduced planning, which then positively influenced scheduling. Implications of understanding stages of planning for stigmatized information are discussed.

Keywords: Efficacy; nonvisible illness; self-disclosure planning; stigma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Hypothesized model for both studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Tested model for Study 1.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Tested model for Study 2.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Afifi WA, Caughlin JP. A close look at revealing secrets and some consequences that follow. Communication Research. 2006;33:467–488. doi: 10.1177/0093650206293250. - DOI
    1. Afifi WA, Guerrero LK. Some things are better left unsaid II: Topic avoidance in friendships. Communication Quarterly. 1998;46:231–250. doi: 10.1080/01463379809370099. - DOI
    1. Afifi TD, Olson LN, Armstrong C. The chilling effect and family secrets: Examining the role of self-protection, other protection, and communication efficacy. Human Communication Research. 2005;31:564–598. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00883.x. - DOI
    1. Afifi TD, Steuber K. The Revelation Risk Model (RRM): Factors that predict the revelation of secrets and the strategies used to reveal them. Communication Monographs. 2009;76:144–176. doi: 10.1080/03637750902828412. - DOI
    1. Altman I, Taylor DA. Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston; 1973.

LinkOut - more resources