Regulating emotions about secrets.

Secrecy is common and psychologically costly. Research shows that secrets have high emotional stakes, but no research has directly tested how people regulate their emotions about secrets. To fill this gap, we conducted an experimental study (Study 1), then moved to studying secrecy "in the wild" to capture regulatory processes as they unfold in everyday life (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 1 (N = 498), people reported using different strategies to regulate emotions about secrets compared to matched nonsecrets. In two daily diary studies (NStudy 2 = 174, 1,059 surveys; NStudy 3 = 240, 2,764 surveys), participants reported engaging in acceptance, distraction, and expressive suppression most-and social sharing least-to manage emotions about secrets. Moreover, in testing which kinds of secrets required most regulation, Study 3 suggested that significant, negative, controllable, and socially harmful secrets were associated with greater use of rumination, distraction, and suppression; perceived immorality of keeping secrets was associated with greater use of reappraisal; and secret discoverability did not differentially predict regulation strategies. Our findings indicate that when regulating emotions about their secrets, people appear to prioritize their intention to keep secret information hidden, despite potential well-being costs that may come with enacting this intention. Understanding the regulatory processes involved in secrecy is a foundation on which future research can build to identify ways of alleviating the burden of secrecy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Secrecy in Everyday Life.

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

The bright side of secrecy: The energizing effect of positive secrets.

Existing wisdom holds that secrecy is burdensome and fatiguing. However, past research has conflated secrecy with the kinds of adverse events that are often kept secret. As a result, it is unclear whether secrecy is inherently depleting, or whether these consequences vary based on the underlying meaning of the secret. We resolve this confound by examining the consequences of positive secrets. In contrast to the prior research, five experiments (N = 2,800) find that positive secrets increase feelings of energy, relative to (a) content-matched positive non-secrets, (b) other pieces of unknown positive information, and (c) other kinds of secrets. Importantly, these energizing effects of positive secrets were independent of positive affect. We further found that positive secrets are energizing because, compared to other kinds of secrets, people keep them for more intrinsically than extrinsically motivated reasons. That is, these secrets are more freely chosen, more consistent with personal values, and more motivated by internal desires (than by external pressures). Using both measures and manipulations of these motivations, we found that a motivational mechanism helps explain the energizing effect of positive secrets. The present results offer new insights into secrecy, how people respond to positive life events, and the subjective experiences of vitality and energy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Emotion Appraisals and Coping with Secrets.

Secrecy is both common and consequential. Recent work suggests that personal experiences with secrets (i.e., mind-wandering to them outside of concealment contexts), rather than concealment (within conversations), can explain the harms of secrecy. Recent work has also demonstrated that secrecy is associated with emotions that center on self-evaluation-shame and guilt. These emotions may help explain the harms of secrecy and provide a point of intervention to improve coping with secrecy. Four studies with 800 participants keeping over 10,500 secrets found that shame surrounding a secret is associated with lower perceived coping efficacy and reduced well-being. Moreover, shifting appraisals away from shame improved perceptions of efficacy in coping with secrets, which was linked with higher well-being. These studies suggest that emotions surrounding secrets can harm well-being and highlight avenues for intervention.

Categorizing a Face and Facing a Category: The Constructive Impacts of Ambiguity and Uncertainty in Racial Categorization.

The past generation has seen a dramatic rise in multiracial populations and a consequent increase in exposure to individuals who challenge monolithic racial categories. We examine and compare two potential outcomes of the multiracial population growth that may impact people's racial categorization experience: (a) exposure to racially ambiguous faces that visually challenge the existing categories, and (b) a category that conceptually challenges existing categories (including "biracial" as an option in addition to the monolithic "Black" and "White" categories). Across four studies (N = 1,810), we found that multiple exposures to faces that are racially ambiguous directly lower essentialist views of race. Moreover, we found that when people consider a category that blurs the line between racial categories (i.e., "biracial"), they become less certain in their racial categorization, which is associated with less race essentialism, as well. Importantly, we found that these two effects happen independently from one another and represent two distinct cognitive processes.

Revealing secrets.

We all keep secrets, and often to the detriment of our well-being. But what happens when we reveal a secret? This review integrates research on revealing secrets, from the perspective of both the revealer and the confidant. First, revealing secrets must be differentiated from other forms of social disclosure. Second, the decision of whether to share a secret is complex, and the benefits depend on the extent to which sharing elicits social support and insight. On the other side of the revelation, recent research demonstrates antecedents (e.g., certain personality traits) and outcomes (e.g., increased relational closeness) of being a confidant. Occasionally, people reveal others' secrets, the likelihood of which depends on factors such as the perceived immorality of the secret. While many open questions remain when it comes to revealing secrets, we highlight a growing understanding of the processes of secret sharing, both for those who confide and those who are confided in.

Morality, punishment, and revealing other people's secrets.

Nine studies represent the first investigation into when and why people reveal other people's secrets. Although people keep their own immoral secrets to avoid being punished, we propose that people will be motivated to reveal others' secrets to punish them for immoral acts. Experimental and correlational methods converge on the finding that people are more likely to reveal secrets that violate their own moral values. Participants were more willing to reveal immoral secrets as a form of punishment, and this was explained by feelings of moral outrage. Using hypothetical scenarios (Studies 1, 3-6), two controversial events in the news (hackers leaking citizens' private information; Study 2a-2b), and participants' behavioral choices to keep or reveal thousands of diverse secrets that they learned in their everyday lives (Studies 7-8), we present the first glimpse into when, how often, and one explanation for why people reveal others' secrets. We found that theories of self-disclosure do not generalize to others' secrets: Across diverse methodologies, including real decisions to reveal others' secrets in everyday life, people reveal others' secrets as punishment in response to moral outrage elicited from others' secrets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A process model of having and keeping secrets.

Secrecy is a common and consequential human experience, and yet the literature lacks an integrative theoretical model that captures this broad experience. Whereas initial research focused on concealment (an action a person may take to keep a secret), recent literature documents the broader experience of having a secret. For instance, even if a secret is not being concealed in the moment, one's mind can still wander to thoughts of the secret with consequences for well-being. Integrating several disparate literatures, the present work introduces a new model of secrecy. Rather than define secrecy as an action (active concealment), the model defines secrecy as an intention to keep information unknown by one or more others. Like any other intention, secrecy increases sensitivity to internal or external cues related to the intention. Critically, secret-relevant thoughts are cued in one of two broad contexts: (a) during a social interaction that calls for concealment, and (b) the situations outside of those social interactions, where concealment is not required. Having a secret come to mind in these two very different situations evokes a set of distinct processes and outcomes. Concealment (enacting one's secrecy intention) predicts monitoring, expressive inhibition, and alteration, which consumes regulatory resources and may result in lower interaction quality. Mind-wandering to the secret (when concealment is not required) involves passively thinking about the content of the secret. Engagement with these thoughts may lead to repetitive thinking and rumination, reflection on how one feels about the secret, efforts to cope, or specific plans for how to handle the secret. The model brings together a number of literatures with implications for secrecy, identity concealment, relationships, mind-wandering, coping, health and well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Identifying the dimensions of secrets to reduce their harms.

How does the content of secrets relate to their harms? We identified a data-driven model (across five empirical steps), which suggested that secrets are generally seen to differ in how immoral, relational, and profession/goal-oriented they are (Study 1). The more a secret was consensually perceived to be immoral, relational, and profession/goal-oriented, the more that secret was reported to evoke feelings of shame, social connectedness, and insight into the secret, respectively. These three experiences independently predicted the extent to which the secret was judged as harmful to well-being (Studies 2a-c and 3). Reciprocally, reminding participants of the ways in which a secret does not need to be harmful (i.e., across the three dimensions of secrets) bolstered participants' feelings of well-being and efficacy with regard to coping with that secret (Study 4). A final study that examined secrets from romantic partners replicated the effect on perceived coping efficacy, which in turn predicted daily indicators of relationship quality (Study 5). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The Primacy of Gender: Gendered Cognition Underlies the Big Two Dimensions of Social Cognition.

It is notable that across distinct, siloed, and disconnected areas of psychology (e.g., developmental, personality, social), there exist two dimensions (the "Big Two") that capture the ways in which people process, perceive, and navigate their social worlds. Despite their subtle distinctions and nomenclature, each shares the same underlying content; one revolves around independence, goal pursuit, and achievement, and the other revolves around other-focus, social orientation, and desire for connection. Why have these two dimensions emerged across disciplines, domains, and decades? Our answer: gender. We argue that the characteristics of the Big Two (e.g., agency/competence, communion/warmth) are reflections of psychological notions of masculinity and femininity that render gender the basis of the fundamental lens through which one sees the social world. Thus, although past work has identified the Big Two as a model to understand social categories, we argue that gender itself is the social category that explains the nature of the Big Two. We outline support for this theory and suggest implications of a gendered cognition in which gender not only provides functional utility for cognitive processing but simultaneously enforces gender roles and limits men and women's opportunities. Recognizing that the Big Two reflect masculinity and femininity does not confine people to act in accordance with their gender but rather allows for novel interventions to reduce gender-based inequities.

Thinking Through Secrets: Rethinking the Role of Thought Suppression in Secrecy.

Having secrets on the mind is associated with lower well-being, and a common view of secrets is that people work to suppress and avoid them-but might people actually want to think about their secrets? Four studies examining more than 11,000 real-world secrets found that the answer depends on the importance of the secret: People generally seek to engage with thoughts of significant secrets and seek to suppress thoughts of trivial secrets. Inconsistent with an ironic process account, adopting the strategy to suppress thoughts of a secret was not related to a tendency to think about the secret. Instead, adopting the strategy to engage with thoughts of a secret was related the tendency to think about the secret. Moreover, the temporal focus of one's thoughts moderated the relationship between mind-wandering to the secret and well-being, with a focus on the past exacerbating a harmful link. These results suggest that people do not universally seek to suppress their secrets; they also seek to engage with them, although not always effectively.

Shame, guilt, and secrets on the mind.

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).

Facial expressions of authenticity: Emotion variability increases judgments of trustworthiness and leadership.

People automatically generate first impressions from others' faces, even with limited time and information. Most research on social face evaluation focuses on static morphological features that are embedded "in the face" (e.g., overall average of facial features, masculinity/femininity, cues related to positivity/negativity, etc.). Here, we offer the first investigation of how variability in facial emotion affects social evaluations. Participants evaluated targets that, over time, displayed either high-variability or low-variability distributions of positive (happy) and/or negative (angry/fearful/sad) facial expressions, despite the overall averages of those facial features always being the same across conditions. We found that high-variability led to consistently positive perceptions of authenticity, and thereby, judgments of perceived happiness, trustworthiness, leadership, and team-member desirability. We found these effects were based specifically in variability in emotional displays (not intensity of emotion), and specifically increased the positivity of social judgments (not their extremity). Overall, people do not merely average or summarize over facial expressions to arrive at a judgment, but instead also draw inferences from the variability of those expressions.

The Solitude of Secrecy: Thinking About Secrets Evokes Goal Conflict and Feelings of Fatigue.

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.

Dehumanizing Gender: The Debiasing Effects of Gendering Human-Abstracted Entities.

The propensity to "gender"-or conceptually divide entities by masculinity versus femininity-is pervasive. Such gendering is argued to hinder gender equality, as it reifies the bifurcation of men and women into two unequal categories, leading many to advocate for a "de-gendering movement." However, gendering is so prevalent that individuals can also gender entities far removed from human sex categories of male and female (i.e., weather, numbers, sounds) due to the conceptual similarities they share with our notions of masculinity and femininity (e.g., tough, tender). While intuition might predict that extending gender to these (human-abstracted) entities only further reinforces stereotypes, the current work presents a novel model and evidence demonstrating the opposing effect. Five studies demonstrate that gendering human-abstracted entities highlights how divorced psychological notions of gender are from biological sex, thereby decreasing gender stereotyping and penalties toward stereotype violators, through reducing essentialist views of gender. Rather than "de-gendering" humans, we demonstrate the potential benefits of "dehumanizing gender."

Secrecy: Unshared Realities.

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.

To Whom Do We Confide Our Secrets?

Although prior work has examined secret keeping, no prior work has examined who gets told secrets. Five studies find compassion and assertiveness predict having secrets confided in oneself (as determined by both self- and peer reports), whereas enthusiasm and politeness were associated with having fewer secrets confided. These results bolster suggestions that interpersonal aspects of personality (which can fit a circumplex structure) are driven by distinct causal forces. While both related to agreeableness, compassion (empathy and desire to help) predicts being confided in more, whereas politeness (concern with social norms and social rules) predicts being confided in less. Likewise, while both related to extraversion, assertiveness (having the agency and drive to help) predicts being confided in more, whereas enthusiasm (positive sociality) predicts being confided in less.

Future self-continuity is associated with improved health and increases exercise behavior.

To the extent that people feel more continuity between their present and future selves, they are more likely to make decisions with the future self in mind. The current studies examined future self-continuity in the context of health. In Study 1, people reported the extent to which they felt similar and connected to their future self; people with more present-future continuity reported having better subjective health across a variety of measures. In Study 2, people were randomly assigned to write a letter to themselves either three months or 20 years into the future; people for whom continuity with the distant future self was enhanced exercised more in the days following the writing task. These findings suggest that future self-continuity promotes adaptive long-term health behavior, suggesting the promise of interventions enhancing future self-continuity. (PsycINFO Database Record

Perceiving groups: The people perception of diversity and hierarchy.

The visual perception of individuals has received considerable attention (visual person perception), but little social psychological work has examined the processes underlying the visual perception of groups of people (visual people perception). Ensemble-coding is a visual mechanism that automatically extracts summary statistics (e.g., average size) of lower-level sets of stimuli (e.g., geometric figures), and also extends to the visual perception of groups of faces. Here, we consider whether ensemble-coding supports people perception, allowing individuals to form rapid, accurate impressions about groups of people. Across nine studies, we demonstrate that people visually extract high-level properties (e.g., diversity, hierarchy) that are unique to social groups, as opposed to individual persons. Observers rapidly and accurately perceived group diversity and hierarchy, or variance across race, gender, and dominance (Studies 1-3). Further, results persist when observers are given very short display times, backward pattern masks, color- and contrast-controlled stimuli, and absolute versus relative response options (Studies 4a-7b), suggesting robust effects supported specifically by ensemble-coding mechanisms. Together, we show that humans can rapidly and accurately perceive not only individual persons, but also emergent social information unique to groups of people. These people perception findings demonstrate the importance of visual processes for enabling people to perceive social groups and behave effectively in group-based social interactions. (PsycINFO Database Record