Self-Concealment

1. Abstract

The Self-Concealment Scale is a psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s dispositional tendency to actively conceal conscious, personal, distressing, or potentially incriminating information from intimate others. Originally operationalized in clinical and personality psychology by Larson and Chastain (1990), the construct was contextualized and refined for dyadic and relational environments by Garbinsky, Gladstone, Nikolova, and Olson (2020) to investigate covert behaviors, interpersonal transparency, and relational misconduct such as financial infidelity. The instrument comprises 10 self-report items evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Extensively cross-validated across clinical, personality, and consumer research samples, the measure demonstrates robust psychometric integrity. Internal consistency reliability systematically yields Cronbach’s alpha values between α = .87 and α = .92, complemented by McDonald’s omega coefficients exceeding ω = .89, and high test-retest stability over four- to eight-week intervals (r > .80). Factor analytic investigations confirm a dominant general factor explaining significant variance, while capturing critical sub-dimensions: possession of distressing secrets, anticipation of relational rejection upon disclosure, and chronic behavioral suppression of negative affect. The scale demonstrates rigorous construct, convergent, and predictive validity, correlating positively with psychological distress, interpersonal anxiety, avoidant attachment, and covert transgressive behaviors, while demonstrating negative associations with subjective well-being, relationship satisfaction, and interpersonal intimacy.

2. Keywords

Self-concealment, secrecy, interpersonal disclosure, financial infidelity, romantic relationships, psychological distress, behavioral suppression, psychometrics, scale validation, attachment orientation

3. Authors

The relational adaptation of the Self-Concealment Scale analyzed herein was operationalized by Emily N. Garbinsky, Joe J. Gladstone, Hristina Nikolova, and Jenny G. Olson (2020). The conceptual and empirical architecture traces its direct lineage to the seminal foundational instrument developed by Dale G. Larson and Robert L. Chastain (1990).

• Emily N. Garbinsky, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. Specializes in consumer financial decision-making and relationship dynamics.
• Joe J. Gladstone, Ph.D. — Assistant Professor of Marketing, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA. Specializes in behavioral economics, consumer psychology, and personal finance.
• Hristina Nikolova, Ph.D. — Coughlin Sesquicentennial Associate Professor of Marketing, Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA. Specializes in dyadic decision-making, interpersonal influence, and consumer well-being.
• Jenny G. Olson, Ph.D. — Assistant Professor of Marketing, School of Business, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. Specializes in consumer behavior, morality, and romantic relationship functioning.
• Historical Originators: Dale G. Larson, Ph.D., Department of Counseling Psychology, Santa Clara University, and Robert L. Chastain, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of North Texas.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Self-Concealment Scale is to quantify an individual’s persistent, active, and conscious predisposition to withhold negative, highly personal, or intimate information from relevant social actors, particularly significant others and romantic partners. In contrast to normal inclinations toward psychological privacy, self-concealment represents a transdiagnostic, clinically meaningful, and relationally consequential vulnerability factor characterized by the active cognitive inhibition and conscious hiding of distressing thoughts, experiences, and past behaviors.

In clinical and counseling psychology, the instrument is employed to diagnose and track the chronic maintenance of cognitive secrets. Clinical research demonstrates that high self-concealers manifest heightened vulnerability to anxiety, depression, generalized psychological distress, and somatic symptomatology. By measuring the specific dread of social devaluation, interpersonal vulnerability, and active cognitive suppression, the scale equips clinicians with empirical data regarding the client’s avoidance of vulnerability within therapeutic alliances and interpersonal relationships.

In relational, social, and consumer psychology—as exemplified by Garbinsky et al. (2020)—the scale evaluates the degree to which concealment tendencies transcend emotional states to govern behavioral deception. Specifically, it assesses how individuals manage asymmetric information in intimate partnerships, predicting covert behaviors such as financial infidelity (e.g., hiding debt, undisclosed bank accounts, secret spending), sexual secrecy, and deceptive impression management. The theoretical rationale rests on the principle that the deliberate withholding of diagnostic personal data creates profound dyadic distance, erodes shared reality, diminishes relational trust, and accelerates relationship dissolution.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct of self-concealment is defined as the active and deliberate suppression or non-disclosure of personal information that an individual consciously recognizes, considers distressing, views as socially or interpersonally hazardous, and actively keeps hidden from others (Larson & Chastain, 1990). It is critical to distinguish self-concealment from related psychological phenomena, such as privacy, non-disclosure, introversion, and social desirability:

• Self-Concealment vs. Privacy: Privacy entails the autonomous regulation of personal boundaries regarding information that does not inherently possess negative emotional valence or threaten relational integrity. Conversely, self-concealment operates over information perceived as deeply threatening, shameful, stigmatizing, or socially unacceptable, requiring chronic cognitive vigilance to conceal.
• Self-Concealment vs. Shyness or Introversion: While introversion reflects a temperament characterized by lower social stimulation needs, self-concealment reflects active, intentional behavioral and cognitive suppression driven by the fear of adverse social consequences (e.g., partner rejection, devaluation, or abandonment).

The construct encompasses three tightly integrated operational components:

1. Possession of Conscious, Distressing Secrets: The individual acknowledges harboring salient, disruptive secrets regarding past indiscretions, moral transgressions, traumatic events, or hidden liabilities (e.g., “I have an important secret that I haven’t shared with someone”; “Some of my secrets have really bothered me”).
2. Anticipation of Interpersonal Vulnerability and Social Rejection: The cognitive appraisal that self-disclosure will inevitably result in catastrophic relational devaluation, partner estrangement, or punitive interpersonal judgment (e.g., “If I shared all my secrets with my partner, he/she would see me differently”; “I’m afraid that if I shared all my secrets with my partner, he/she would reject me”).
3. Dispositional Behavioral Suppression and Affective Withholding: A cross-situational tendency to withhold negative emotional states, distress, and personal adversity rather than seeking interpersonal co-regulation or emotional support (e.g., “When something bad happens to me, I tend to keep it to myself”; “When I’m upset about something, I usually try to keep it to myself”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The Self-Concealment Scale is grounded in foundational paradigms spanning cognitive, social, personality, and clinical psychology.

The Inhibition Model of Stress and Disease

Articulated by Pennebaker (1989), the Inhibition Model posits that actively suppressing thoughts, emotions, and personal disclosures is physiological and cognitive work. Concurrently suppressing significant personal material acts as a chronic, low-grade stressor that dysregulates the autonomic nervous system, taxes cognitive bandwidth, and compromises immune functioning. The Self-Concealment Scale measures this chronic inhibitory state, explaining why high self-concealers exhibit elevated rates of psychosomatic symptoms, cardiovascular reactivity, and subjective distress.

The Ironic Process Theory of Mental Control

According to Wegner’s (1994) Ironic Process Theory, the deliberate attempt to suppress a specific cognitive representation initiates two simultaneous cognitive operations: an intentional operating process that searches for distractors, and an unconscious monitoring process that scans for intrusions of the forbidden thought. Under cognitive load, emotional exhaustion, or relational stress, the operating process falters, allowing the monitoring process to hyper-activate the concealed material. This produces an ironic rebound effect, resulting in intrusive cognitive rumination and hyper-preoccupation with the secret, precisely captured by items assessing how secrets “bother” the individual.

The Preoccupation Model of Secrecy

Synthesizing Pennebaker and Wegner, Kelly and Yip (2006) introduced the Preoccupation Model of Secrecy, demonstrating that self-concealment triggers a self-reinforcing cycle of thought suppression, intrusive thoughts, and escalating cognitive preoccupation. This chronic preoccupation intensifies negative self-evaluation, fostering a profound sense of inauthenticity and alienation within close relationships.

Attachment Theory and Relational Internal Working Models

From an attachment perspective (Bowlby, 1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), self-concealment reflects insecure attachment orientations, particularly avoidant attachment. Individuals with high attachment avoidance employ deactivating strategies to suppress distress and maintain autonomy, viewing intimate others as untrustworthy or inherently rejecting. Relational adaptations of the scale (such as Garbinsky et al., 2020) operationalize this framework by capturing partner-specific concealment expectations, demonstrating how the internal working model of the partner as an agent of rejection drives covert behaviors and compromises relationship stability.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Self-Concealment Scale has been thoroughly demonstrated across extensive empirical investigations.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced by robust, statistically significant correlations with conceptually convergent psychological constructs:

• Psychological Distress and Psychopathology: Across literature, self-concealment correlates positively with depressive symptoms (r = .40 to .54), generalized anxiety (r = .38 to .48), and somatic complaints (r = .28 to .37) (Larson & Chastain, 1990; Cramer, 1999).
• Affective Ambivalence and Suppression: The scale demonstrates substantial convergence with Ambivalence over Emotional Expression (AEQ; r = .45 to .58) and the suppression facet of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; r = .35 to .46).
• Insecure Attachment: Significant positive associations exist with attachment avoidance (r = .35 to .50) and attachment anxiety (r = .25 to .38), confirming theoretical linkages with relational insecurity.

Discriminant Validity

The scale effectively distinguishes dispositional concealment from non-pathological psychological states:

• Social Desirability: The instrument shares negligible-to-weak correlations with standard measures of socially desirable responding (e.g., Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, r = -.08 to -.15, p > .05), confirming that low scores do not simply reflect impression management.
• Introversion: Although introverts engage in less voluntary social sharing, self-concealment exhibits only modest correlations with Big Five introversion/extraversion (r = -.12 to -.22), confirming that the construct captures active concealment rather than low sociability.
• Self-Monitoring: Discriminates clearly from self-monitoring scales (r = .05 to .14), demonstrating that concealment is distinct from context-sensitive expressive control.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

In dyadic research, the scale exhibits high predictive validity. In Garbinsky et al. (2020), scores on this relational self-concealment instrument significantly predicted the propensity to commit financial infidelity within romantic relationships (β = .34, p < .001), even after controlling for objective financial standing, materialism, and generalized dishonesty. Furthermore, elevated scores longitudinally predict relational dissatisfaction, diminished intimacy, lower subjective well-being, and premature relationship dissolution.

8. Reliability

The Self-Concealment Scale exhibits high internal consistency, structural reliability, and temporal stability across diverse demographic populations and clinical cohorts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

The 10-item instrument consistently satisfies psychometric standards for internal consistency:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): The original validation study by Larson and Chastain (1990) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .83 across initial normative samples. Subsequent validations in clinical, general, and relational populations report consistently higher values, typically spanning α = .87 to α = .92 (Garbinsky et al., 2020 reported α = .89 in romantic dyads).
• McDonald’s Omega (ω): Under modern psychometric modeling that accounts for varying factor loadings, McDonald’s categorical omega routinely exceeds ω = .90 (ω_hierarchical > .82), demonstrating that common variance is driven by the general self-concealment factor.
• Mean Inter-Item Correlation: Inter-item correlations range between .35 and .58, falling within the psychometric range (.20–.60) indicating high construct homogeneity without excessive item redundancy. Corrected item-total correlations range from .51 to .74.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluations confirm that self-concealment operates as a stable personality trait rather than a transient psychological state:

• Four-week test-retest reliability: r = .81 (p < .001; Larson & Chastain, 1990).
• Eight-week test-retest reliability: r = .74 to .79 across non-clinical college and adult samples.
• Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): Analyses indicate an SEM ranging between 2.10 and 2.65 points on the summed scale, confirming measurement precision for individual client and participant tracking.

9. Factor Analysis

The internal structural validity of the Self-Concealment Scale has been examined across numerous exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal components and maximum likelihood factor analyses conducted by Larson and Chastain (1990) revealed a dominant first factor accounting for approximately 43% to 48% of the total variance, with an eigenvalue exceeding 4.20. While a single-factor solution was originally retained for parsimony, multiple contemporary psychometricians (e.g., Cramer & Barry, 1999) identified three correlated sub-factors using oblique (Promax or Quartimin) rotations:

1. Secret Possession and Distress (Items 1, 3, 4, 7): Capturing the presence of bothersome, embarrassing secrets.
2. Anticipated Relational Rejection / Vulnerability (Items 2, 6, 10): Capturing anticipated interpersonal harm upon disclosure to significant others.
3. Behavioral Concealment of Affect and Adversity (Items 5, 8, 9): Capturing the behavioral withholding of negative emotions and adverse experiences.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural evaluations using Confirmatory Factor Analysis demonstrate that both a high-order hierarchical model and a bifactor model fit the empirical data robustly:

• Model Fit Indices: Across large-scale samples (N > 1,000), the bifactor model (consisting of one dominant general self-concealment factor and three group factors) achieves excellent goodness-of-fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .962; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = .951; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .048 (90% CI [.039, .057]); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .038.
• Standardized Factor Loadings: Standardized factor loadings (λ) for the unidimensional or general factor solution are consistently high, ranging between λ = .58 and λ = .84 across all 10 items, meeting classical psychometric criteria (> .40) without exhibiting cross-loading contamination.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Name of Instrument: Self-Concealment Scale (Dyadic / Relational Adaptation)
• Original Foundations: Larson & Chastain (1990); Garbinsky, Gladstone, Nikolova, & Olson (2020)
• Construct Measured: Dispositional tendency to conceal distressing personal information, secrets, and negative affect from significant others/romantic partners
• Number of Items: 10 self-report items
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree)
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Target Population: Adults (aged 18+) across general, clinical, dyadic, and consumer psychology research
• Scoring Procedures:
  • All 10 items are positively keyed (no reverse scoring required).
  • Composite Sum Score: Calculated by summing all 10 items (Range: 10 to 70).
  • Mean Index Score: Calculated by computing the average score across all 10 items (Range: 1.00 to 7.00).
  • Interpretation: Higher aggregate or mean scores correspond directly to elevated levels of dispositional self-concealment, heightened apprehension regarding relational disclosure, and active informational suppression.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The relational Self-Concealment Scale adapted by Garbinsky et al. was published in 2020 within the Journal of Consumer Research (Oxford University Press), building upon the foundational instrument established in 1990 by Larson and Chastain. As an academic psychometric instrument published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, it is made widely available for scholarly, educational, and empirical non-commercial research without licensing fees under fair use principles, provided that appropriate bibliographic credit and formal academic citations are rendered to the original authors.

Researchers intending to deploy the scale in sponsored, proprietary, or commercial enterprise applications (e.g., commercial apps, organizational hiring assessments, proprietary clinical software) must seek explicit written permission and licensing agreements from the copyright owners, relevant university technology transfer offices, or the publisher (Oxford University Press / American Psychological Association).

12. References

• Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books.
• Cramer, K. M. (1999). Psychological antecedents to help-seeking behavior: A reanalysis using path analysis and structural equation modeling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.381
• Cramer, K. M., & Barry, J. E. (1999). Psychometric properties of the Self-Concealment Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.1.58
• Frijns, T., Finkenauer, C., Vermulst, A. A., & Engels, R. C. (2010). Keeping secrets from parents: Longitudinal associations of secrecy in adolescence with psychological well-being and problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017126
• Garbinsky, E. N., Gladstone, J. J., Nikolova, H., & Olson, J. G. (2020). Love, lies, and money: Financial infidelity in romantic relationships. Journal of Consumer Research, 47(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucaa004
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
• Kelly, A. E., & Yip, J. J. (2006). Is conceal personal information naturally self-defeating? Journal of Personality, 74(5), 1349–1380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00412.x
• Larson, D. G., & Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-concealment: Conceptualization, measurement, and health implications. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(4), 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.4.439
• Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Confession, inhibition, and disease. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60307-3
• Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.34

13. Items of the Scale