Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–64

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Adolescence

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jado

Shared secrets versus secrets kept private are linked to better adolescentadjustment

Tom Frijns a,b,*, Catrin Finkenauer c, Loes Keijsers a

aResearch Centre Adolescent Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlandsb Trimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction), Utrecht, The NetherlandscClinical Child and Family Studies, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Keywords:SecrecySharing secretsDisclosureAdjustmentInterpersonal functioning

* Corresponding author. Trimbos Institute, P.O. BoE-mail address: TFrijns@trimbos.nl (T. Frijns).

0140-1971/$ – see front matter � 2012 The Foundahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.09.005

a b s t r a c t

It is a household notion that secrecy is bad while sharing is good. But what about sharedsecrets? The present research adopts a functional analysis of sharing secrets, arguing thatit should negate harmful consequences generally associated with secrecy and servesimportant interpersonal functions in adolescence. A survey study among 790 Dutchadolescents showed that, in line with hypotheses, shared secrets (1) were kept bymore adolescents than private secrets, (2) were not linked to maladjustment and (3) werelinked to higher interpersonal functioning. Whereas private secrecy was associated withincreased delinquency, physical complaints, depressive mood, loneliness, and withlower quality relationships, shared secrecy was associated only with more interpersonalcompetence. Moreover, sharing a secret was specifically linked to a higher qualityrelationship with the confidant, and sharing with parents was linked with less delinquency,whereas sharing with a best friend was linked with less loneliness and more interpersonalcompetence.� 2012 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier

Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keeping secrets is generally considered to be problematic and harmful for the secret-keeper, a view that is consistent withresearch among both adults (e.g., Finkenauer & Rimé, 1998a; Lane & Wegner, 1995) and adolescents (e.g., Finkenauer, Engels,& Meeus, 2002; Frijns, Keijsers, Branje, &Meeus, 2010; Laird &Marrero, 2010; Smetana, Villalobos, Rogge, & Tasopoulos-Chan,2010). In this paper, we aim to qualify this conclusion and propose that secrets are only harmful when they are kept all tooneself. We propose that adolescents generally share their secrets with at least one person and that such shared secrets shouldbe less harmful than secrets kept private (i.e., secrets that have not been shared with anybody), in terms of their associationswith adjustment problems. Moreover, we propose that sharing secrets serves as a skill in relationship maintenance, andshould thus be related to higher quality relationships and interpersonal competence. The present research aimed at exam-ining differences between shared secrets and secrets kept private and their links with adolescent adjustment and inter-personal functioning. Additionally, we explore the role of the confidant by examining the associations of sharing a secret withparents versus best friends.

x 725, 3500 AS, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Tel.: þ31 302959239; fax: þ31 302971111.

tion for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–6456

Secrecy in adolescence

Adolescence may be the period par excellence for the study of secrecy. During adolescence, adolescents have to deal withthe development of self and identity, social relationships, and the self in social relationships (Finkenauer, Engels, Meeus, &Oosterwegel, 2002; Erikson, 1959, 1968; Hartup, 1996; Paul & White, 1990). Relationships with parents and peers undergodrastic changes (De Goede, Branje, & Meeus, 2009a,2009b; Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996). Adoles-cents strive to attain independence from parents (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986). Secrecy from parents may help them attainthis goal (Finkenauer, Engels, &Meeus, 2002) and increases during the adolescent-years (Keijsers, Branje, Frijns, Finkenauer, &Meeus, 2010). Adolescents increasingly form their own social networks outside the family (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986).Friendships and romantic and sexual relationships gain importance (Larson & Richards, 1991; Paul & White, 1990). Havinga friend or partner to confide in becomes a social achievement for adolescents and an indicator of social competence(Buhrmester, 1990; Hartup, 1996). Thus, developmental tasks in adolescence provide ample opportunity for keeping secretsand for sharing them.

Consequences of keeping secrets

Keeping secrets can be hard and stressful work that has been suggested to increase stress-related physical and psycho-logical problems (Pennebaker, 1989, 1997). It may also prevent a person from organizing and assimilating the secret infor-mation and coming to terms with it, and lead to mental rumination and obsessive preoccupation with the secret and mayultimately cause psychopathology (Newth & Rachman, 2001; Pennebaker, 1989, 1997; Wegner & Lane, 1995). Furthermore,because certain people, situations, and conversation topics will be avoided in the attempts to conceal secrets, secrecy maydeprive a person of social support and validation and cause social isolation or feelings of loneliness (e.g., Finkenauer, Righetti,Kerkhof, & Branje, 2009). Finally, concealment in relationships is incompatiblewith autonomy and relatedness needs andmaythus lower relational well-being (Uysal, Lee Lin, Knee, & Bush, 2012).

Keeping secrets may thus have short-term and long-term consequences for adolescent adjustment and interpersonalrelationships, many of which have only recently been understood. For instance, research among adolescents has shown thatkeeping secrets from parents is associated with physical, psychosocial, and behavioral problems, and contributes to theseproblems in the long-run (Finkenauer, Engels, & Meeus, 2002; Frijns, Finkenauer, Vermulst, & Engels, 2005; Frijns et al., 2010;Laird & Marrero, 2010). These studies focused specifically on secrecy in the adolescent–parent relationship, but researchamong adults provides evidence of the detrimental associations of secrecy per se (e.g., Finkenauer & Rimé, 1998b; Ichiyamaet al., 1993; Kelly & Achter, 1995; Lane & Wegner, 1995; Larson & Chastain, 1990; Pennebaker & Susman, 1988). For example,Larson and Chastain (1990) found that the dispositional tendency to keep secrets, which they labeled “self-concealment”,contributed to physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression.

When secrets are shared

Although secrecy and disclosure are often viewed as opposites and used interchangeably (e.g., Chelune, Waring, Vosk,Sultan, & Odgen, 1984; but see Frijns et al., 2010 for an opposing view), we propose that most adolescents strive to balancethe costs and benefits of secrecy and disclosure by strategically sharing their secrets, rather than rigidly concealing them fromeveryone or fully disclosing them. Given that people generally share intimate and emotional aspects of themselves with theirintimates (e.g., Rimé, Finkenauer, Luminet, Zech, & Philippot, 1998; Rimé, Philippot, Boca, & Mesquita, 1992), we propose thatadolescents generally share their secrets as well. Shared secrets allow for balancing the seemingly incompatible tasks ofbecoming autonomous and developing intimate relationships (e.g., keeping a secret from parents but sharing it with a friend).

Sharing secrets should alleviate some of the detrimental effects of secrecy and should produce some of the benefits ofdisclosure. For instance, talking or writing about upsetting or traumatic experiences has been associated with improvedphysical health (e.g., Pennebaker, Colder, & Sharp, 1990), immune function (e.g., Petrie, Booth, Pennebaker, Davison, &Thomas, 1995) and psychological well-being (e.g., Greenberg, Wortman, & Stone, 1996; for a review see Smyth, 1998).Recent studies have shown that public or social disclosure yield greater benefits than purely private disclosure (Macready,Cheung, Kelly, & Wang, 2011; Radcliffe, Lumley, Kendall, Stevenson, & Belltran, 2007). In addition, sharing a secret witha confidant may help a person to assimilate and make sense of the experience, as confidants may give helpful feedback orprovide support (Kelly & McKillop, 1996). When parents are confidants, knowledge about their adolescent’s secrets mayenable them to provide their offspring with support and guidance, and to steer them away from risky or problematicbehaviors. Adolescent disclosure to parents (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Keijsers, Frijns, Branje, & Meeus, 2009; Keijsers, Branje,Frijns, et al., 2010; Keijsers, Branje, Van der Valk, & Meeus, 2010), and as studies have shown recently, secrecy from parents(Frijns et al., 2010; Laird & Marrero, 2010) are important predictors of adolescent adjustment.

Furthermore, because sharing secrets can be construed as a form of self-disclosure or social sharing, it may benefitinterpersonal relationships and social bonds (e.g., Christophe & Rimé, 1997; Pennebaker, Zech, & Rimé, 2001). Shared secretsmay create andmaintain intimacy and relatedness in interpersonal relationships (Karpel,1980; Vangelisti,1994). According toBellman (1984), feelings of intimacy and relatedness caused by sharing secrets are far more intense than those that arecreated by any other type of disclosure. In this view, sharing secrets is an important skill in creating andmaintaining intimacyand relatedness in relationships and should thus contribute to interpersonal competence in adolescence.

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–64 57

In sum, shared secrets may combine the best of bothworlds. They allow for concealment of information for the purposes ofavoiding negative consequences or gaining autonomy, while minimizing the detriments of the concealment itself. Addi-tionally, theyallow for strategic sharingwith intimates andmay thus promote interpersonal competence and relational bonds.

The present research

The present study is the first to differentiate between secrets kept private and shared secrets and to investigate their linkswith adolescent adjustment and interpersonal functioning. It tests three main hypotheses. First, we predicted that adoles-cents would generally share their secrets with their intimates, and that more adolescents should therefore report havinga shared secret than a secret kept private. Second, based on the suggestion that the sharing of a secret will reduce, and mayeven nullify the disadvantages of secrecy, we predicted that shared secrets would be less strongly linked to maladjustmentthan secrets kept private. Specifically, we predicted that the disadvantages of secrecy found among adults and adolescents(i.e., delinquency, physical complaints, depressive mood, and loneliness) would be associated with secrets kept private butnot with shared secrets. Third, we predicted that shared secrets are associated with higher interpersonal competence,because sharing secrets may be a skill in regulating interpersonal relationships.

Furthermore, because the impact of shared secrets may depend onwhom they are shared with (cf. Kelly &McKillop, 1996),we will explore the role of the confidant of shared secrets by comparing the associations between having shared one’s secretwith parents versus best friends and adolescent psychosocial adjustment, interpersonal competence, and relational qualitywith friends and parents. Our one prediction in this regard is that sharing a secret should be differentially linked to a higherquality relationship with the specific confidant (e.g., sharing a secret with one’s parents should be specifically linked witha better relationship with parents, but not with friends). Additionally, we controlled for the influence of confoundinginfluences of secret characteristics, such as how personal, important, or serious the secret-keeper perceives the secret to be.Finally, because there are clear gender differences in (the development of) secrecy in adolescence (Keijsers, Branje, Frijns,et al., 2010), and in adjustment problems, we will explore gender differences.

Method

Procedure and sample characteristics

To test our hypotheses, we conducted a survey study among 790 14–19 year old adolescents in the Netherlands. A total of 5schools in the regions of Amsterdam and Haarlem participated in the study. Before the questionnaires were administered,parents were informed about the aims of the study and could return a form stating that they did not want their child toparticipate (although some parents requested additional information, none of the parents returned this form).

The questionnaires were completed in the classrooms in the presence of the principal researcher or a teacher, who hadreceived instructions on how to administer the questionnaire. Attention was drawn to the confidentiality of responses (seeBotvin & Botvin,1992). The letters of introduction and the questionnaires emphasized privacy aspects, and clearly stated that noinformation about the specific responsesof participantswouldbepassedon to teachersor parents. Also, theprincipal researcherand teachers ensured that confidentiality and anonymity were rigorously respected. Because of the intimate and potentiallydistressingnature of the questions concerning ones secrets, counselingwas available (one participantmadeuseof this offer). Noexplicit refusals were recorded; non-response was exclusively due to the adolescent’s absence at the day of assessment.

In total, 356 (45.3%) boys and 430 girls participated in this study (mean age 15.8 years; SD ¼ .97). Most adolescents (94%)were born in the Netherlands, and 80% lived with two parents, 14.5% lived with their mother, 1.8% lived with their father, and3.7% lived with other family members or in institutions.

Questionnaires

Participants were given a broad definition of secrets as the intentional concealment of personal information from others(cf. Bok, 1989; Kelly, 2002). Moreover, we specified that secrets consist of information that (at least) one person actively andconsciously withholds from (at least) one other person.

Participants then indicated whether they currently had a secret that they kept private (yes or no), defined as “a secret thatyou have never talked about or shared with anyone.” If they were keeping more than one such secret, they were asked toselect the most recent one. Participants indicated how long they had been keeping this secret (1¼ a week or shorter; 5¼morethan a year) and rated their agreement (1 ¼ not at all; 5 ¼ very much) with 7 statements concerning characteristics andperceptions of their secret. To verify the distinction between secrets kept private and shared secrets, participants rated howmuch others knew about their secret (i.e., others know a lot about this secret). To further ensure the comparability of thesecret-content, they also rated the personal relevance, importance, seriousness, and intrusiveness of their secret. Finally, theyindicated howdifficult keeping this secret was to them and how freely they felt they could choose to keep or reveal this secret.

Next, theywere asked to indicatewhether they currently kept a shared secret (yes or no), defined as “a secret that you havetalked about or shared with at least one other person. There are, however, still other people that you do not want to knowabout it.” Participants again indicated how long they had been keeping this secret and rated the 7 statements concerning theirshared secret. Additionally, they were asked to indicate with how many people their secret had been shared (1 ¼ 1 person;

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–6458

4 ¼ 4 persons or more) and with whom (i.e., best friend, a friend, mother, father, other family member, partner, acquaintance,teacher, and other).

DelinquencyAdolescent delinquency was assessed using 14 self-reported items dealing with minor delinquency (adjusted from

Baerveldt, Van Rossem, & Vermande, 2003). Respondents indicated on a 4-point scale (1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ once, 3 ¼ two or threetimes, and 4 ¼ four times or more) how many times they had committed minor offences, such as shoplifting, petty theft,vandalism, and substance use in the previous year (Cronbach’s a ¼ .92).

Physical complaintsTo assess adolescents’ physical complaints, we used Sikkel’s (1980) physical wellness scale. Thirteen items assess the

extent to which a person suffers from minor physical complaints (e.g., headaches, nausea, tiredness). Respondents ratedwhether or not they experienced each complaint on a regular basis (yes versus no). Their answers were summed to establisha physical complaints score (Kuder-Richardson’s (KR20) r ¼ .80).

Depressive moodKandel and Davies’ (1982) 6-item Kandel Depression Scale was used to assess depressive mood. Adolescents rated the

frequency (0 ¼ never; 4 ¼ always) with which they experienced symptoms of depressive mood such as feeling nervous andtensed. Their responses were averaged to yield a depressive mood score (Cronbach’s a ¼ .79).

LonelinessLoneliness was assessed using a shortened version of the revised UCLA Loneliness scale (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980).

The scale consists of 10 statements concerning the extent to which people feel lonely (e.g., I feel left out). Adolescents ratedthe items on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (very true for me) (Cronbach’s a ¼ .86).

Quality of relationship with friends and parentsTo assess the quality of the relationship with their parents and friends, participants rated how they felt about their

relationship with parents and friends on 10 adjectives (e.g., good, pleasant, valuable, difficult (reverse scored), cf. Campbell,Converse, & Rodgers, 1976). We chose this measure because it does not refer to interpersonal behaviors related to commu-nication and thereby reduces the risk of yielding artificially high correlations with measures of secrecy and disclosure (seeFincham& Bradbury,1987 for a detailed discussion). Participants rated both relationships on 5-point scales (e.g., 1¼ not at all;5 ¼ very much). In our study, the internal consistencies were high (Cronbach’s a ¼ .92 and .87 for quality of relationship withparents and friends, respectively).

Interpersonal competenceTo assess interpersonal competence, a shortened version of the interpersonal competence questionnaire developed by

Buhrmester, Furman, Wittenberg, and Reis (1988) was employed. For each of five domains of interpersonal competence,participants rated4descriptions of common interpersonal situations for their level of competence andcomfort inhandlingeachsituation (1 ¼ I’m poor at this; 5 ¼ I’m extremely good at this). The domains include initiation (e.g., “Introducing yourself tosomeoneyoumight like to get to knowordate”; Cronbach’sa¼ .79), negative assertion (e.g., “Confronting your close companionwhen he or she has broken a promise”; Cronbach’s a¼ .76), disclosure (e.g., “Knowing how tomove a conversationwith a date/acquaintancebeyond superficial talk to reallyget to knoweachother”; Cronbach’sa¼ .76), emotional support (e.g., “Beinga goodand sensitive listener for a companionwho is upset”; Cronbach’s a ¼ .81), and conflict management (e.g., “Being able to admitthat youmight bewrongwhen a disagreementwith a close companion begins to build into a seriousfight”; Cronbach’s a¼ .75).

Results

Descriptive analyses: secret prevalence

The majority of participants reported having at least one secret kept private or shared secret (n ¼ 622, 78.7%), indicatingthat secrecy is a widespread phenomenon among adolescents. Consistent with hypotheses, more adolescents kept a sharedsecret (n¼ 550, 69.6%) than a private secret (n¼ 268, 33.9%), c2(1, n¼ 790)¼ 185.35, p< .001. Overall, 168 (21.3%) participantsreported not having a secret, 72 (9.1%) participants reported having only a secret kept private, 354 (44.8%) participants re-ported having only a shared secret, and 196 (24.8%) participants reported having both types of secret. Of all secrets, 149(18.2%) were shared with one confidant, 138 (16.9%) were shared with two, 110 (13.4%) were shared with three, and 148(18.1%) were shared with four confidants or more.

Descriptive analyses: confidants of secret-keepers

Confidants were mostly intimates (note that because some adolescents reported having shared their secret with severalconfidants, the number of confidants exceeds 550). Best friends (n ¼ 369, 67.1%) were the most frequently mentioned

Table 1Means and standard deviations of the assessed variables.

Variable Total sample Female adolescents Male adolescents Tests for gender differences

n M SD M SD M SD t df p

Delinquency 760 1.26 .50 1.13 .34 1.41 .60 7.95 756 .000Physical complaints 783 3.62 3.08 4.43 3.11 2.66 2.76 8.31 777 .000Depressive mood 782 2.47 .76 2.66 .74 2.23 .73 8.13 776 .000Loneliness 783 1.75 .59 1.78 .60 1.71 .58 1.45 777 .147Relational Quality Parents 782 4.00 .77 4.00 .79 4.00 .75 .24 776 .807Relational Quality Friends 777 4.32 .54 4.37 .51 4.27 .57 2.54 771 .011Competence in disclosure 758 2.98 .72 3.07 .72 2.87 .70 3.74 754 .000Emotional support 754 3.82 .72 3.97 .64 3.63 .76 6.67 750 .000

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–64 59

confidants, followed by friends (n ¼ 227, 41.3%). The following categories of confidants were family members, includingmothers (n ¼ 147, 26.7%), fathers (n ¼ 94, 17.1%) and other family members (n ¼ 93, 16.9%), and intimate partners (n ¼ 73,13.3%). Acquaintances (n ¼ 20, 3.6%), teachers (n ¼ 5, .9%), and others (n ¼ 13, 2.4%) were rarely mentioned. Other confidantsincluded classmates, parents of (best) friend, neighbor, social worker, psychotherapist, and God.

Descriptive analyses: secret characteristics

Confirming the distinction between secrets kept private and shared secrets, others were more knowledgeable aboutshared secrets (M¼ 2.67; SD¼ 1.22) than about secrets kept private (M¼ 1.85; SD¼ 1.09), t(777)¼ 9.03, p< .001. On average,participants had been keeping private secrets longer (M ¼ 4.11; SD ¼ 1.22) than shared secrets (M ¼ 3.68; SD ¼ 1.25),t(771) ¼ 4.54, p < .001. Secrets kept private were rated as more personal (M ¼ 3.90; SD ¼ 1.20), t(776) ¼ 5.00, p < .001, moreimportant (M ¼ 3.10; SD ¼ 1.35), t(778) ¼ 3.60, p < .001, and more serious (M ¼ 2.90; SD ¼ 1.36), t(778) ¼ 4.31, p < .001, thanwere shared secrets (M ¼ 3.43; SD ¼ 1.23, M ¼ 2.75; SD ¼ 1.26, and M ¼ 2.45; SD ¼ 1.34, respectively). No differences werefound in intrusiveness, personal choice, or difficulty.

Descriptive analyses: gender differences

To examine gender differences, we compared the percentages of boys versus girls who reported keeping a private anda shared secret, and examined gender differences in all of the outcome measures of this study (see Table 1). Having a privatesecret was more common among girls (n ¼ 163, 37.9%), c2(1, n ¼ 786) ¼ 6.56, p ¼ .010, than among boys (n ¼ 104, 29.2%).Having a shared secret was also more common among girls (n¼ 354, 82.3%), c2(1, n¼ 786)¼ 72.74, p< .001, than among boys(n ¼ 193, 54.2%). These differences suggest a general tendency of girls to keep more secrets than boys, as the distribution ofthe two types of secrets did not differ between girls and boys, c2 (1, n ¼ 814) ¼ 1.04, p ¼ .307.

Adolescent boys reported higher levels of delinquency than did girls. Girls reported more physical complaints, morefrequent depressive mood, better relationships with their friends, and being more socially competent in the domains ofdisclosure and emotional support than boys. No gender differences emerged for loneliness and the other domains of inter-personal competence.1

Associations of the two types of secrets with adolescent adjustment

To examine the associations of the two types of secretswith adolescent adjustment, we performed regression analyses on theoutcome measures, entering gender, private secrecy, shared secrecy, and all interactions among these three variables aspredictors (see Tables 2 and3,model 1). Reflecting thegenderdifferences reportedabove, gender predicteddelinquency, physicalcomplaints, depressive mood, relational quality with friends, and competence in providing emotional support. Consistent withour predictions, having a secret kept private predicted higher levels of delinquency, physical complaints, depressive mood, andloneliness, and predicted lower quality relationships. Having a shared secret, on the contrary, did not predict any of theseoutcomes, but did predict greater interpersonal competence in the domains of disclosure and emotional support.

Significant gender by private secrecy interaction effects were found on physical complaints (b ¼ .13, p ¼ .003) anddepressive mood (b ¼ .12, p ¼ .004). Simple slopes analyses indicated that private secrecy was more strongly associated withphysical complaints (b¼ .30, p< .001) and depressive mood (b¼ .33, p< .001) among girls than among boys (b¼ .11, p¼ .049and b ¼ .16, p ¼ .003 respectively). A significant private by shared secrecy interaction effect was found on depressive mood(b ¼ �.14, p ¼ .001). Simple slopes analyses indicated that private secrecy was less strongly associated with depressive moodwhen a shared secret was also kept (b ¼ .21, p < .001) than when no shared secret was kept (b ¼ .35, p < .001).

1 Interpersonal competence in the domains of initiation, negative assertion, and conflict management showed no gender differences, and was notsignificantly predicted by any of the independent variables in any of our subsequent analyses. The analyses concerning these variables are therefore notreported in the tables.

Table 2Summary of regression analyses for adolescent adjustment.

Variable Delinquency (n ¼ 757) Physical complaints (n ¼ 778) Depressive mood (n ¼ 777) Loneliness (n ¼ 778)

b R2 b R2 Β R2 Β R2

Model 1 .09*** .14*** .15*** .02*Gender �.32*** .29*** .28*** .07Private secrecy .10* .22*** .28*** .14**Shared secrecy .02 .03 .01 �.04Gender by Private secrecy �.04 .13** .12** .07Gender by Shared secrecy .05 .00 .03 �.01Private by Shared secrecy .01 �.06 �.14*** �.05Three way interaction .03 �.01 .00 �.05

Model 2 .10*** .14*** .15*** .03**Gender �.23*** .34*** .31*** .10Private secrecy .10** .19*** .23*** .11**Shared Secret with Parents �.10** �.04 �.04 .04Shared Secret with Best Friend .02 .06 .04 �.11**Gender by Private secrecy �.01 .11** .09* .04Gender by SS with Parents .09* .08 .04 .01Gender by SS with Best Friend .04 �.04 .02 .05

Note. Variable gender is coded such that a high value indicates female; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–6460

Controlling for secret characteristics

To examine the possibility that differences between secrets kept private and shared secrets in their links with adjustmentare due to other secret characteristics, we entered all characteristics onwhich shared secrets and secrets kept private differedinto regression analyses on the outcomes. These analyses could only be conducted on a sub-sample of participants, namelythose participants who reported having only one type of secret (N¼ 426).2 These analyses assessed the respective importanceof the type of secret (kept private or shared) and other secret characteristics (i.e., the duration, personal relevance, impor-tance, and seriousness of the secret) in predicting the outcomes, while controlling for gender and its interactionwith secrecy.Only the results concerning type of secret and the other secret characteristics will be reported.

Above and beyond the predictive power of the potentially differing characteristics of shared secrets and secrets keptprivate, participants with a secret kept private reported more delinquency (b ¼ .09, p ¼ .045), physical complaints (b ¼ .13,p ¼ .012), depressive mood (b ¼ .20, p < .001), loneliness (b ¼ .13, p ¼ .020), but less competence in disclosure (b ¼ �.24,p < .001). Type of secret did not predict relational quality with parents and friends or competence in providing emotionalsupport. Of the other secret characteristics, seriousness emerged as a significant predictor of delinquency (b ¼ .16, p ¼ .010),physical complaints (b ¼ .24, p < .001), and depressive mood (b ¼ .21, p ¼ .001), and importance significantly predictedrelational quality with parents (b ¼ �.16, p ¼ .016). No other characteristic predicted any of the outcome variablessignificantly.

The role of the confidant

To examine differences in the associations of sharing a secret with parents or best friends, we performed regressionanalyses on the outcomemeasures, entering gender, private secrecy, shared secrecy with parents, shared secrecywith friends,and all gender interactions as predictors (see Tables 2 and 3, model 2).

Again reflecting the gender differences reported above, gender predicted delinquency, physical complaints, depressivemood, and competence in supplying emotional support. Again, keeping a private secret predicted higher levels of delin-quency, physical complaints, depressive mood, and loneliness, and predicted lower quality relationships. A shared secret withparents predicted a higher quality relationship with parents, and a lower level of delinquency. A shared secret with friends, onthe other hand, predicted a higher quality relationship with friends, less loneliness, and greater interpersonal competence inthe domains of disclosure and providing emotional support.

Again we found significant gender by private secrecy interaction effects on physical complaints (b ¼ .11, p ¼ .002) anddepressive mood (b ¼ .09, p ¼ .016), again indicating that private secrecy was more strongly associated with physicalcomplaints (b ¼ .31, p < .001) and depressive mood (b ¼ .34, p < .001) among girls than among boys (b ¼ .09, p ¼ .088 andb ¼ .15, p ¼ .005, respectively). In addition, a significant gender by shared secrecy with parents interaction was found ondelinquency (b¼ .09, p¼ .047), indicating that sharing a secret with parents wasmore strongly associatedwith lower levels ofdelinquency among boys (b ¼ �.13, p ¼ .020) than among girls (b ¼ �.05, p ¼ .341).

2 The secrets kept private and shared secrets reported by participants in this sub-sample did not differ from those reported by participants who indicatedhaving both types of secrets, with respect to the assessed secret characteristics. The number and type of confidants that a shared secret had been sharedwith also did not differ between the sub-sample and participants who indicated having both types of secrets.

Table 3Summary of regression analyses for adolescent relational quality and interpersonal competence.

Variable Relationship quality Interpersonal competence

Parents (n ¼ 777) Friends (n ¼ 772) Disclosure (n ¼ 755) Emotional support (n ¼ 751)

b R2 b R2 b R2 b R2

Model 1 .04*** .02* .05*** .07***Gender .01 .12** .07 .22***Private secrecy �.14** �.10* �.07 .02Shared secrecy �.05 .03 .16*** .08*Gender by Private secrecy �.06 .04 �.03 �.02Gender by Shared secrecy �.05 �.03 .06 �.03Private by Shared secrecy .06 .03 .08 .00Three way interaction �.06 �.02 �.02 .01

Model 2 .04*** .03** .05*** .09***Gender �.06 .05 .09 .13*Private secrecy �.12** �.10* �.03 .03Shared Secret with Parents .13** �.01 .01 .01Shared Secret with Best Friend �.05 .11** .16*** .19***Gender by Private secrecy �.07 .03 .01 �.02Gender by SS with Parents �.06 �.04 �.01 �.05Gender by SS with Best Friend �.02 �.03 .01 �.05

Note. Variable gender is coded such that a high value indicates female; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–64 61

Discussion

Our study provides evidence to suggest that adolescents may often share their secrets, as more adolescents had a sharedsecret than a secret kept private. Descriptive results showed that our adolescents shared their secrets predominantly withintimates. Results were also in line with our hypothesis that shared secrets are less disadvantageous for the secret-keeperthan secrets kept private. Consistent with our predictions and replicating earlier findings (e.g., Finkenauer & Rimé, 1998b;Frijns et al., 2010; Lane & Wegner, 1995), adolescents who reported keeping a private secret also reported more delinquency,physical complaints, depressive mood, loneliness, and lower quality relationships. Extending the existing literature andconsistent with our suggestions, shared secrets were not associated with any of these disadvantages. Rather, shared secretswere only associatedwith increased interpersonal competence in the domains of disclosure and providing emotional support.Furthermore, having a shared secret next to a private secret seemed to dampen the association between keeping the privatesecret and depressive mood. When comparing secrets kept private and shared secrets directly, a similar pattern of resultsemerged: Adolescents with a shared secret were better adjusted than those with a private secret. Differences in character-istics of the two types of secrets did not explain the observed differences in adolescents’ adjustment.

Our results concerning the role of the confidant are in line with our hypothesis that sharing secrets serves importantinterpersonal functions.When a secret was shared with parents or a best friend, the quality of that particular relationship washigher. Furthermore, sharing a secret with one’s best friend was associated with less feelings of loneliness and more inter-personal competence. Concerning the role of parents, we found that sharing a secret with parents was associated with lessdelinquency. This finding fits nicely with recent literature on parental monitoring, where disclosure to parents has beenlinked with less delinquency while secrecy from parents has been linked with more delinquency (Frijns et al., 2010; Keijsers,Branje, Van der Valk, et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000), and both findings have been discussed in terms of a link betweenparental knowledge and the effectiveness of parenting practices. Sharing secrets with parents may thus be especiallypowerful in enabling parents to steer their adolescent children, especially boys, away from deviance.

Our results suggest that secrecy may be especially important for girls. Keeping a private secret was more strongly asso-ciated with physical complaints and depressive mood among girls than among boys. Because girls also kept more privatesecrets than boys, private secrecy may amplify existing gender differences in physical and psychological problems amongadolescents. However, because they also kept more shared secrets, girls may stand to reap the benefits of sharing to a greaterextent. The stronger association between sharing with parents and delinquency among males suggests that, for boys,specifically sharing their secrets with their parents may help them keep their higher tendency toward rule-breaking behaviorin check.

Our findings on the associations of keeping a private secret with adjustment are consistent with existing findings on theconsequences of secrecy, while findings on the associations of keeping a shared secret are more in line with the literature ondisclosure. In the available literature, there is a focus on the consequences of keeping secrets and the consequences ofrevealing secrets (e.g., Kelly, Klusas, von Weiss, & Kenny, 2001). Though not necessarily intended, this approach implies twooptions: either a secret is kept all to oneself, or a secret is revealed (and thereby effectively ceases to be a secret). Our researchproposes sharing a secret as a hybrid third option and suggests that shared secrecy may constitute a large part of how peopledeal with secrecy in everyday life. In previous research, secrecy has not always been found to have harmful associations (e.g.,Kelly, 2000). Conversely, disclosure or confession does not always produce benefits (e.g., Kenardy et al., 1996; Stroebe, Stroebe,

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–6462

Schut, Zech, & Van den Bout, 2002). Our results suggest that these contradictory findings might be due to the fact that peopleoften share their secrets with others and thereby avoid the drawbacks of private secrecy. Not differentiating between secretskept private and shared secrets may lead to null-effects of keeping or disclosing secrets (e.g., disclosing an already sharedsecret may produce no additional benefits). Thus, the distinction between secrets kept private and shared secrets may help toexplain contradictory findings on the concealment and disclosure of personal information and may help to integrate thesetwo research traditions.

Our findings suggest that it may not be necessary to “let it all out” or to “get it out into the open” to relieve oneself of thedetriments of secrecy. Rather than revealing one’s secrets and making them public, our findings suggest that people shouldfind at least one confidant to share their secret with (cf. Kelly & McKillop, 1996). This will enable them to keep potentiallyunfavorable or stigmatizing information, as well as cherished personal information, secret while minimizing the negativeeffects of the secrecy itself. Sharing secrets may also provide secret-keepers with an opportunity to “test the waters.”Confidants may serve as a thermometer for what it would be like to reveal the secret to others. Furthermore, sharing theirsecrets may help secret-keepers to harness their interpersonal skills and to create and maintain close personal relationships.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Although our research examined the plausibility of the proposed relationships of private and shared secrecy withadjustment and interpersonal functioning, its cross-sectional nature makes it impossible to draw any conclusions on thecausal direction of the observed associations. We cannot effectively rule out alternative accounts. For instance, the oppositeaccounts that maladjusted adolescents may be more prone to keep secrets all to themselves, or that healthy or sociallycompetent adolescents may be more likely to share their secrets are just as likely as our preferred interpretation. Further-more, third variables may be causing the secrecy-adjustment links. For instance, personality characteristics, such as beinga secretive person, may be driving both private secret-keeping andmaladjustment (e.g., Kelly & Yip, 2006). Finally, the secretsthat adolescents choose to share may simply be less troubling than the ones they choose to keep private, and differences inadjustment may thus have nothing to do with the actual sharing. Our results imply that differences between secrets keptprivate and shared secrets are not likely to be caused by differences in adolescents’ perceptions of their secret. Nevertheless,the associations of the seriousness of a secret with delinquency, physical complaints and depressive mood, and of itsimportance with relational quality suggest that the nature of the information that is being concealed, does matter.

Our investigation of secrecy in adolescence focused on the sharing of secrets, and although our results are in line withstudies showing the benefits of disclosure (Macready et al., 2011; Radcliffe et al., 2007; Smyth, 1998), they provide no clues asto how the apparent effects of sharing were brought about. We assessed whom adolescents chose to share their secrets with,and examined the associations of shared secrets with adjustment and relational functioning. We did not, however, examinehow adolescents selected a confidant or why sharing is linked with benefits. Although we found the hypothesized positivelinks of having a shared secret with the quality of the relationship with the confidant and interpersonal competence, moreresearch is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying the benefits of having shared secrets.

Despite these shortcomings, our study provides potent evidence to suggest that not all secrets are equal. Most secrets arenot as secret as is often assumed, but are shared with at least one person. Further, secrecy seems predominantly linked withmaladjustment when it concerns secrets that are kept private (all to oneself). Keeping a shared secret, on the other hand,carries no such disadvantages. Finally, sharing secrets is associated with interpersonal skills and may serve importantfunctions in themaintenance and regulation of relationships. Given this evidence, shared secrets are an important addition toresearch on secrecy that demands closer investigation.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by grant 42520701 from the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO).

References

Baerveldt, C., Van Rossem, R., & Vermande, M. (2003). Pupils’ delinquency and their social networks: a test of some network assumptions of the ability andinability models of delinquency. Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 107–125.

Bellman, B. (1984). The language of secrecy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Bok, S. (1989). Secrets: On the ethics of concealment and revelation. New York: Vintage Books.Botvin, G. J., & Botvin, E. M. (1992). Adolescent tobacco, alcohol, and drug abuse: prevention strategies, empirical findings, and assessment issues. Journal of

Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 13, 290–301.Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 55, 991–1008.Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal competence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence. Child Development, 61,

1101–1111.Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.Chelune, G. J., Waring, E. M., Vosk, B. N., Sultan, F. E., & Odgen, J. K. (1984). Self-disclosure and its relationship to marital intimacy. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 40, 216–219.Christophe, V., & Rimé, B. (1997). Exposure to the social sharing of emotion: emotional impact, listener responses and secondary social sharing. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 37–54.

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–64 63

De Goede, I. H. A., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009a). Developmental changes and gender differences in adolescents’ perceptions of friendships. Journalof Adolescence, 32, 1105–1123.

De Goede, I. H. A., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009b). Developmental changes in adolescents’ perceptions of relationships with their parents. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 38, 75–88.

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, (monograph no. 1).Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: a reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 797–809.Finkenauer, C., & Rimé, B. (1998a). Socially shared emotional experiences vs. emotional experiences kept secret: differential characteristics and conse-

quences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 295–318.Finkenauer, C., & Rimé, B. (1998b). Keeping emotional memories secret: health and well-being when emotions are not shared. Journal of Health Psychology,

3, 47–58.Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Meeus, W. (2002). Keeping secrets from parents: advantages and disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence. Journal of

Youth and Adolescence, 31, 123–136.Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., Meeus, W., & Oosterwegel, A. (2002). Self and identity in early adolescence: the pains and gains of knowing who and what

you are. In T. M. Brinthaupt, & R. P. Lipka (Eds.), Understanding early adolescent self and identity: Applications and interventions (pp. 25–56). Albany, NY:State University of New York Press.

Finkenauer, C., Kerkhof, P., Righetti, F., & Branje, S. J. T. (2009). Living together apart: perceived concealment as signal of exclusion in marital relationships.Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 35, 1410–1422.

Frijns, T., Finkenauer, C., Vermulst, A. A., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2005). Keeping secrets from parents: longitudinal associations of secrecy in adolescence.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 137–148.

Frijns, T., Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. (2010). What parents don’t know and how it may affect their children: qualifying the disclosure-adjustmentlink. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 261–270.

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, 588–602.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships: a perspective on individual differences in the development of identity androle-taking skill in adolescence. Human Development, 29, 82–100.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep: friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67, 1–13.Ichiyama, M. A., Colbert, D., Laramore, H., Heim, M., Carone, K., & Schmidt, J. (1993). Self-concealment and correlates of adjustment in college students.

Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 7, 55–68.Kandel, D., & Davies, M. (1982). Epidemiology of depressive mood in adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 1205–1212.Karpel, M. A. (1980). Family secrets. Family Process, 19, 295–306.Keijsers, L., Frijns, T., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. (2009). Developmental links of adolescent disclosure parental solicitation and control with delinquency:

moderation by parental support. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1314–1327.Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., Frijns, T., Finkenauer, C., & Meeus, W. (2010). Gender differences in keeping secrets from parents in adolescence. Developmental

Psychology, 46, 293–298.Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., Van der Valk, I. E., & Meeus, W. (2010). Reciprocal effects between parental solicitation, parental control, adolescent disclosure,

and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 88–113.Kelly, A. E., & Achter, J. A. (1995). Self-concealment and attitudes toward counseling in university students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 40–46.Kelly, A. E., & McKillop, K. J. (1996). Consequences of revealing personal secrets. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 450–465.Kelly, A. E., & Yip, J. J. (2006). Is keeping a secret or being a secretive person linked to psychological symptoms? Journal of Personality, 74, 1349–1369.Kelly, A. E., Klusas, J. A., von Weiss, R. T., & Kenny, C. (2001). What is it about revealing secrets that is beneficial? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,

651–665.Kelly, A. E. (2000). Helping construct desirable identities: a self-presentational view of psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 475–494.Kelly, A. E. (2002). The psychology of secrets. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Kenardy, J. A., Webster, R. A., Lewin, T. J., Carr, V. J., Hazell, P. L., & Carter, G. L. (1996). Stress debriefing and patterns of recovery following a natural disaster.

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9, 37–49.Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: further support for a reinterpretation of

monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380.Laird, R. D., & Marrero, M. D. (2010). Information management and behavior problems: is concealing misbehavior necessarily a sign of trouble? Journal of

Adolescence, 33, 297–308.Lane, D. J., & Wegner, D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237–253.Larson, D. G., & Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-concealment: conceptualization, measurement, and health implications. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9,

439–455.Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62,

284–300.Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1996). Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to

18: disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744–754.Macready, D. E., Cheung, R., Kelly, A. E., & Wang, L. (2011). Can public versus private disclosure cause greater psychological symptom reduction? Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 30, 1015–1042.Newth, S., & Rachman, S. (2001). The concealment of obsessions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 457–464.Paul, E. L., & White, K. M. (1990). The development of intimate relationships in late adolescence. Adolescence, 25, 375–400.Pennebaker, J. W., & Susman, J. R. (1988). Disclosure of traumas and psychosomatic processes. Social Science and Medicine, 26, 327–332.Pennebaker, J. W., Colder, M., & Sharp, L. K. (1990). Accelerating the coping process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 528–537.Pennebaker, J. W., Zech, E., & Rimé, B. (2001). Disclosing and sharing emotion: psychological, social, and health consequences. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O.

Hansson, W. Stroebe, & H. Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care. Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Confession, inhibition, and disease. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 22 (pp. 211–244). NewYork: Academic Press.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York: Guilford Press.Petrie, K. J., Booth, R. J., Pennebaker, J. W., Davison, K. P., & Thomas, M. G. (1995). Disclosure of trauma and immune response to a hepatitis B vaccination

program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 787–792.Radcliffe, A. M., Lumley, M. A., Kendall, J., Stevenson, J. K., & Beltran, J. (2007). Written emotional disclosure: testing whether social disclosure matters.

Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 362–384.Rimé, B., Philippot, P., Boca, S., & Mesquita, B. (1992). Long-lasting cognitive and social consequences of emotion: social sharing and rumination. In W.

Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.). European review of social psychology, Vol. 1 (pp. 225–258). Chichester, GB: Wiley.Rimé, B., Finkenauer, C., Luminet, O., Zech, E., & Philippot, P. (1998). Social sharing of emotion: new evidence and new questions. In W. Stroebe, & M.

Hewstone (Eds.). European review of social psychology, Vol. 9 (pp. 145–189). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 39, 472–480.

T. Frijns et al. / Journal of Adolescence 36 (2013) 55–6464

Sikkel, D. (1980). Een verkorting van de VOEG-schaal [An abbreviated version of the VOEG-scale]. Sociaal Cultureel Kwartaalbericht, 2, 22–26.Smetana, J. G., Villalobos, M., Rogge, R. D., & Tasopoulos-Chan, M. (2010). Keeping secrets from parents: daily variations among poor, urban adolescents.

Journal of Adolescence, 33, 321–331.Smyth, J. M. (1998). Written emotional expression: effect sizes, outcome types, and moderating variables. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,

174–184.Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841–851.Stroebe, M., Stroebe, W., Schut, H., Zech, E., & Van den Bout, J. (2002). Does disclosure of emotions facilitate recovery from bereavement? Evidence from two

prospective studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 169–178.Uysal, A., Lee Lin, H., Knee, C. R., & Bush, A. L. (2012). The association between self-concealment from one’s partner and relationship well-being. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 39–51.Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Family secrets: forms, functions, and correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 113–135.Wegner, D. M., & Lane, J. D. (1995). From secrecy to psychopathology. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 25–46). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.