Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 1

Running Head: NON-DISCLOSURE IN RELATIONSHIPS

When You Say Nothing at All: Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships

Jose Antonio Clemente

Paulyn May Duman
Rizalyn Sajoca
Unica Umali

Department of Psychology
University of the Philippines
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 2

Abstract

8 interviews and 2 groups of ginabayang talakayan revealed the range of

motivations/intentions that increased the probability of non-disclosure of a significant
other in an intimate heterosexual relationship and the range of reactions elicited by the
non-disclosure. The researchers also looked into the possible topics that were often not
disclosed. We found that the range of motivations for non-disclosure, largely based on
the anticipated consequences after disclosure, could be classified into three depending on
who will benefit: a) self-centered non-disclosure; b) other-oriented non-disclosure; and c)
kapwa-oriented non-disclosure. To put this range of motivations into context, a cognitive
model, which suggests the steps a discloser goes through in deciding whether to disclose
or not, was posited. Finally, the benefits of non-disclosure in increasing the level of
intimacy in a relationship, with emphasis on the shared identity of the two people
involved in the relationship, were looked into and discussed.
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 3

Research shows that friendships and close relationships are at or near the top of
the list of the things that make people happy. An intimate relationship with someone,
especially that of the romantic kind, has often been regarded as a “two-way street,” with
the two persons involved equally contributing to the relationship. There is a balance
between how much a person gives and how much a person takes. Or at least that’s what
the Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory of Interpersonal Attraction presuppose.

The Social Exchange Theory proposes that “how people feel about a relationship
depends on their perceptions of the rewards and costs of the relationship, the kind of
relationship they believe they deserve or expect to have - their comparison level, and
their chances for having a better relationship with someone else - their comparison level
for alternatives.” Almost quite similarly, the Equity Theory contends that “people are
happiest with relationships in which the rewards and costs a person experiences and the
contributions he or she makes to the relationship are roughly equal to the rewards, costs,
and contributions of the other person.”

In a way, this could probably explain why partners engaged in a conversation tend
to match each other’s intimacy level (Burger, 2000). More often than not, people in a
get-acquainted conversation reveal information about themselves at roughly the same
level of intimacy. This has been labeled as the rule of disclosure reciprocity. Though
this has been closely linked with self-disclosure, it may be hypothesized that disclosures
in general tend to abide by this rule. A discloser may reveal information, whether about
the self or not, to another based on the perceived level of intimacy that they have in the
relationship.

Functions of Self-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships

Self-disclosure has been defined as the communication act of revealing personal
information to others (Grove, 1991). Some of the functions of self-disclosure include: 1)
controlling the pace at which relationships are developed or dismantled; 2) reflecting the
current state of the relationship; 3) suggesting the intimacy level that parties seek to
establish or maintain for a given relationship; 4) signaling change in the relationship as a
whole and; 5) negotiating one’s relationship without talking about it.
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 4

Through its functions, both the level of intimacy and eventual size of the
relationship can be determined. For example, an increase in self-disclosure between
partners may also heighten the level of intimacy in the relationship.

Defining non-disclosure
But more often than not, there are things that some people perceive to be better
left unsaid. One may argue, what one does not know cannot hurt him/her. Though this
may be the case, it is common to hear stories where the mere fact of withholding
information from a significant other may cause the significant other to feel negative
affect. Filipino negative affect can best describe such feeling—pagkainis, pagkairita,
pagkagalit, etc. Whatever the intentions may be, non-disclosure may lead the person
who was deprived of the information to feel the emotions previously stated.

Non-disclosure, in this case, is defined as the act of not relating or revealing

information to the addressee by the discloser, whether intentionally or unintentionally. In
other words, non-disclosure may be an active or inactive inhibition of disclosure (Kelly &
Mckillop, 1996).

Related concepts to non-disclosure

Larson & Chastain (1990 as cited in Kelly & Mckillop, 1996) describe a related
concept to non-disclosure, aptly referred to as self-concealment, an active inhibition of
disclosure. An example of which is secrecy, an active process of secret-keeping that uses
cognitive resources and may involve emotional burden.

Another related concept to non-disclosure is deception. As defined by Miller

(1983 as cited in Miller, Mongeau & Sleight, 1986 as cited in Petronio et al., 1993),
deception “refers to message distortion resulting from deliberate falsification or omission
of information by a communicator with the intent of stimulating in another, or others, a
belief that the communicator himself or herself does not believe.” It is important to note,
however, that the mere fact of neglecting to mention something to a partner is not
sufficient to be considered as deception (ibid.)
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 5

An “allied” term of deception is lying or telling lies, which is “intentionally

[trying] to mislead someone” (DePaulo et al, 1996 as cited in DePaulo & Kashy, 1998).
Telling lies can be thought of as an example of non-disclosure. According to Kashy &
DePaulo (1996), people tell lies to accomplish the most basic social interaction goals,
such as influencing others, managing impressions, and providing reassurance and
support. Each of these goals, when valued deeply, provides a motivation for lying.

In the study, both college students and people from the community described the
interactions during which they lied as intimate and less pleasant than the interactions
during which they told only the truth. But, people who describe their opposite-sex
relationships as very meaningful did not determine whether they will tell more or less
self-serving lies. That is, quality of opposite-sex relationships did not predict lying; it
was found to be consistently irrelevant to lying (ibid).

The study was also looking at possible personality traits that are linked to having
a tendency to tell lies. They found that:
The higher in manipulativeness, the more lies will be told by the individual.
The higher concern with impression management, the more lies told.
Highly sociable individuals told more lies.
The more meaningful the relationships (same-sex but not opposite-sex), the less
lies told (ibid).

Finally, the researchers mentioned, that perhaps lies are elicited by situational
presses or by the behaviors of particular other people, that certain situations and people
elicit lying. But they expected personality to predict lying as well. It is also important to
acknowledge that the individual-differences predictors documented in the study are the
predictors of everyday lies, the vast majority of which are little lies. The personality
correlates of serious lies may be different (ibid).

In this present study, however, the wide range of non-disclosure was explored.
The related concepts mentioned above focused on intended acts or behavior. Non-
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 6

disclosure referred to in this paper is much broader, including unintentional acts that
seemed to have inhibited disclosure.

Deciding when, how, and what to self-disclose

Four considerations are taken into account when deciding to disclose: 1) the
addressee and whether disclosing to that person is a big or small risk (who component);
2) the kind of information disclosed, whether the information about the self is an
appropriate topic to talk about; 3) when to disclose and; 4) the possible outcomes of
disclosure (Rosenfeld & Richman as cited in Braithwaite & Wood, 2000).
Since disclosure is an intentional process (Petronio & Martin, 1986 as cited in
Petronio et.al., 1993), the outcomes of disclosure are considered. As such, there is
regulation of the amount of information disclosed by individuals. The regulating
mechanism used has been posited to be the boundary management process, which
includes considerations of not only the discloser (as mentioned above), but the addressee
as well. Generally observed in marital couples, regulating variables for the discloser
include: 1) need to tell; 2) predicted outcomes; 3) riskiness of telling this information to
the partner; 4) privacy level of the information; and 5) his or her degree of emotional
control. On the other hand, the regulating variables for the addressee include: 1)
evaluation expectations; 2) attributional searches; and 3) determining a message response
(Petronio, 1991 as cited in Petronio et al., 1993).

Problem
Given the functions of and the benefits obtained from self-disclosure in intimate
relationships and the common observation that the mere fact of withholding information
may cause someone to get hurt, the researchers aim to identify the range of motivations
or intentions that increase the probability of non-disclosure of a significant other in
intimate heterosexual romantic relationships and the range of reactions elicited by the
non-disclosure.

The perspectives that will be taken into consideration are those of the addressee
and the discloser. The discloser is the one who has a particular knowledge of any type of
information that concerns both the discloser and the addressee. Since the discloser knows
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 7

this information, he/she has the capacity to relay this information to the receiver. In this
study, the discloser does not reveal this information, at least not right away. The
addressee is the supposed receiver of the information that concerns him/her. For
whatever reason or intention, the addressee will not receive this information directly from
the discloser. The assumption however, is that the addressee will receive this information
from another source. The context of both the discloser and addressee is that they belong
in an intimate heterosexual romantic relationship. The persons involved share a certain
level of intimacy or degree of closeness that go beyond acquaintances.

There are tons of information available that may or may not be significant to a
person. So as to elicit negative affect to the addressee, the type of information withheld
concerns or is related to the addressee. These may be personal information that the
addressee considers to be important to him/her like health, family matters, issues
regarding friends, etc.

Negative affect in this study will be defined as a wide range of negative emotions
that may include feelings of getting hurt, displeased, upset, offended, and being unhappy.

There may be several factors involved in increasing the likelihood of negative

affect on the part of the addressee. Personality traits like attachment styles of the
addressee may play a part once significant information has been withheld. Attachment
styles refer to the ability of adults to develop meaningful attachments with others as
influenced by their relationship with their parents when they were still young (Burger,
2000). Also, research shows that people with secure attachment styles disclose more and
are more likely to share personal information when appropriate.

Another factor may be gender. Who has the tendency to get hurt more, men or
women? Are men commonly known to be disclosers while women tend to be
addressees? These questions were looked into in this present study.

The level of relationship may also have an impact on the negative affect that the
addressee will feel. Is it different if a family member withholds important information as
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 8

opposed to a friend or a romantic partner? Related to this, if an addressee has high

expectations with regard to the disclosure of the other person in the relationship, will the
probability of experiencing negative affect increase?

Rationale
This study is relevant because it will try to answer some fundamental questions in
relationships such as:
What are the types of information that should be disclosed and those types of
information that are better left unsaid?
When is the appropriate time to tell something?
In intimate relationships, is it better sometimes to not say anything at all?

Hopefully, the answers to some of these questions will help solve or even prevent
conflicts that may arise due to non-disclosure.
At the same time, studies regarding non-disclosure are limited. This research
posits a cognitive model employed by a discloser in deciding whether to disclose or not
based on several factors.

Hypothesis
The researchers posit that a discloser goes through this cognitive model when
deciding whether to disclose or not. The assumption is, there is a message and it will be
received by the addressee from some other source but not from the partner. The model is
as follows:

With regard to revealing personal secrets, if the secret keeper knows the confidant
well and for a substantial period of time, then the secret keeper has a wealth of
experience on which to base a prediction regarding the likelihood that the confidant’s
response will be helpful (Kelly & Mckillop, 1996). To fit the purposes of this study, this
research finding was slightly revised. It was hypothesized that with regard to disclosure,
if a discloser knows the addressee well, then the discloser has enough knowledge and
experience to predict the possible outcome of disclosure.
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 9

I. Self- and Other-Awareness (includes awareness of expectations of partner and how the
partner values a certain information)

Is the discloser self- NO: Unintentional non-disclosure

and other-aware? YES: High probability of disclosure

NO Disclose? YES

II. Anticipated Ramifications (Petronio & Martin, 1986 as cited in Petronio et al, 1993)
Anticipates more positive Anticipates more negative
consequences: consequences:
Low probability of non-disclosure High probability of non-disclosure

NO Disclose? YES

III. Temporal Dimension

Any intentions of disclosing?

NO: Yes
Intentional
Disclosure
Duration: When?

WHY?
Range of Intentions
and Motivations for
Non-Disclosure

The researchers also hypothesized that the range of intentions and motivations for
non-disclosure can be classified into two: a) self-centered and b) other-oriented.

Lifted from a previous research regarding everyday casual lies, self-centered non-
disclosure was defined as non-disclosure so as to protect or enhance the non-discloser
psychologically or to advantage or protect the non-discloser’s interests. Other-oriented
non-disclosure, on the other hand, was defined as non-disclosure so as to protect or
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 10

enhance other persons psychologically or to advantage or protect the interests of others

(DePaulo & Kashy, 1998).

The range of reactions by the addressee was perceived to be elicited by at least

one component of the cognitive model stated above. For example, the cause of negative
affect for the non-disclosure was caused by the lack of self- and other-awareness (e.g. the
lack of knowledge regarding the partner’s expectations, etc.).

Method

The researchers employed two methods: informal interview and ginabayang

talakayan in gathering the necessary information regarding the study.

Participants
The study consisted of university students who are currently in an intimate
heterosexual romantic relationship. The mean age of the female participants who were
interviewed is 19.5, while that of the male participants is 19.75. There were 8
interviewees, 4 of which are actual partners in a romantic relationship.

Five males with a mean age of 20.2, while 4 females with a mean age of 20
participated in the ginabayang talakayan. All the females and four of the males are
currently in an intimate heterosexual romantic relationship. One of the male participants
had been in this kind of relationship before. They are all residents of Molave Residence
Hall and were selected through snowball sampling.

Instrument
The researchers made use of additional questions regarding conflict resolution
aside from the guide questions initially approved by the adviser. The guide questions are
found in the Appendix.

Procedure
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 11

The researchers used guide questions in conducting the interviews. Each

participant was interviewed individually in the place he/she had chosen. The interviews
were recorded and were conducted for an average of 30 minutes.

The ginabayang talakayan (GT) required the males and the females to have their
discussion separately. The researchers were divided into two groups and served as either
the facilitator or the scribe of each group. The method was carried out at the same time
for both groups, though in different areas in Molave Residence Hall. They lasted up to
45 minutes, which were also recorded.

Results
The researchers aimed to find out the range of intentions or motivations for non-
disclosure, as well as the various topics that were either disclosed or not disclosed. Based
from the 8 interviews and the 2 GTs, the salient answers were categorized. Some of the
categories used (e.g. types of information and range of motivations) came from previous
researches (Petronio, S & Martin, J.N., 1986; DePaulo & Kashy, 1998). Other categories
were formulated so as to accommodate answers that did not seem to fit to the former
categories provided. The themes/categories are as follows:

Types of Information Disclosed

These included information that were either disclosed by the individual
themselves to their partners or were expected by the individuals from their partners. The
seven categories, with their corresponding examples follow:

Types of Information Disclosed Examples

1. Familial (information disclosed about Issues/updates/news regarding families,
the family) kapatid, pamangkin
2. Achievements (information disclosed Future plans, career options, gusto naming
about aspirations and achievements) gawin sa buhay
3. Sexual (information disclosed about Previous experiences of “oversexed”
sexual activities) partner
4. Evaluations (information disclosed Parents’ or grandparents’ criticism,
regarding relationship evaluation, including reassurance
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 12

partner evaluation)
5. Affect (information disclosed about Sama ng loob, nararamdaman at the
affect or feelings) moment, inis
6. Global (information revealed without Student council, political affiliations, likes
specific topic designated) and dislikes, high school classmates,
experiences, current events
7. Concerns (information disclosed about whatever affects the relationship;
relationship concerns) nakabuntis ng iba; may type na iba;
possible threats; change in plans,
frustrations about the relationship;
if it concerns her

Types of Information Not Disclosed

It was interesting to note if there were any differences between the topics that
were frequently disclosed and those that were not. 5 out of the 7 categories above were
similar to those topics that were often not disclosed. There were no answers that fit the
categories of Achievements and Sexual information in this section. However, there was a
new category for this section, information not disclosed regarding relationships outside
the family and the current romantic relationship.
Types of Information Not Disclosed Examples
1. Familial (information not disclosed secrets, problems
about the family)
2. Outside Relationships (information not Past relationships, former crushes, naka-
disclosed regarding relationships outside close dati, labas kasama ng barkada,
the family and current romantic reputation, Frat stuff
relationship)
3. Concerns (information not disclosed may drastic effect sa relationship, hindi pa
about relationship concerns) kaya i-absorb ng relationship, mga bagay
na ayaw marinig, threats, pinagseselosan,
3rd party; pagpapaalam (nakipag-date,
though in a relationship na), hindi masabi
sa parents yung relationship

4. Evaluations (information not disclosed Dislikes about the partner

 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 13

regarding relationship evaluation, including

partner evaluation)
5. Affect (information not disclosed about ikagagalit ng boyfriend
affect or feelings)
6. Global (information not revealed without Explaining what you have to do or about to
specific topic designated) do

Range of Motivations
Given the premise earlier, we wanted to find out the intentions behind non-
disclosure of people involved in romantic relationships. Consistent with the categories
we presented, the range of motivations included non-disclosure intended for the
enhancement of the self (self-centered) and non-disclosure intended for other people,
specifically the partner and family members. However, we are including a new category
for the range of motivations, called kapwa-oriented non-disclosure, since there were
answers which did not fall under the two categories. Kapwa-oriented non-disclosure in
this study is defined as non-disclosure with the intention of protecting or enhancing not
only the self or the partner in particular, but the relationship as a whole and the shared
identity of the couple as participants in the relationship. The following table provides the
specific examples for the motivations of the individuals.
Range of Motivations Examples
1. Self-centered non-disclosure need for privacy, hindi alam kung paano
sasabihin o paano magpapaalam; mawala
yung guilty feelings, mga bagay na ayaw
mong i-open sa iyo; things you are not
proud of na ginawa mo; protect reputation,
hindi magalit partner sa iyo; protecting
self-image

2. Other-oriented non-disclosure busy siya (implied, ayaw makaabala);

ayaw marinig ng girlfriend; pakiramdam
namin masasaktan siya, leads to social
comparison of the partner, protecting
parents’ from bad impressions, protecting
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 14

self-esteem of partner

3. Kapwa-oriented non-disclosure avoid putting unnecessary strain in the

relationship; ayaw ma-threaten yung
relationship, posibleng makasira sa
relasyon, iwas away at gulo

Though not as varied or wide as expected, there were anticipated ramifications

that were deducted from the responses. Anticipated ramifications are expected outcomes
after disclosure. These outcomes can either be positive or negative, real or imagined
(Petronio & Martin, 1986). Based from the cognitive model presented above, anticipated
ramifications act as regulators for self-disclosure to take place. Individuals weigh the
benefits and costs that might take place after disclosure. An example of a negative
anticipated ramification is fear of provoking the partner (natatakot baka magalit). A
positive anticipated ramification given was that the partner would be calm while
receiving the information.

Range of Reactions
As part of the objectives of this study, the researchers were also interested in
knowing the possible range of reactions that may have occurred after the participants
found out about the non-disclosure of their partner. The range of reactions was gathered
from responses of the participants who had experiences of being the discloser and
addressee. Some of the reactions include: sabi lang pasaway ako, hindi nagalit ng todo,
nakatahimik lang, pinagsabihan/nagbigay ng paalala; nagtatampo; inis na inis na
umabot sa point na nagalit; hindi nag-uusap; nag-break; hindi sumasagot sa text at mga
tawag, umiyak, nag-a-anticipate ng ramifications, naging cold, and a participant became
worried about the safety of the partner.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Non-Disclosure

It would seem that based on the responses given, there were more advantages than
disadvantages when it came to non-disclosure. This implies that indeed, some non-
disclosure is needed in a relationship for it to develop further. This is also consistent with
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 15

several findings that will be discussed later. The table summarizes the advantages and
disadvantages provided by the participants:
Advantages Disadvantages
1. para hindi malagyan ng stress ang guilty feelings after, konsensya
relationship
2. para hindi madagdagan yung
pagdevelop ng insecurity
3. maintain the feeling of excitement
4. simplifies relationship
5. hindi magalit partner; iwas-away-gulo

Discussion
For the discussion, it is necessary to bring back the cognitive model we posited
above. Each component will be discussed separately and revised along the way. This
cognitive model proposes the steps that a discloser goes through before making a
decision whether to disclose or not. This model puts the range of motivations and
reactions into context. By going though this model, one can actually look into the wide
range of motivations for non-disclosure, which is the final component in this model. At
the same time, one can match the wide range of reactions to at least one component in
this model. For example, the negative affect of inis or tampo may find its root in the lack
of other-awareness of the partner (the partner may not know the expectations of the other
with regard to which type of information he/she wants to know), or in the inaccuracies in
the anticipation of ramifications (the expected negative outcome did not or will not take
place), or in the temporal dimension of non-disclosure (delayed disclosure), or from all
three.

I. Self- and Other-Awareness (includes awareness of expectations of partner and how the
partner values a certain information)

Is the discloser self- NO: Unintentional non-disclosure

and other-aware? YES: High probability of disclosure

NO Disclose? YES
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 16

In the Filipino context, the term pagkakilala is more appropriate to use to describe
the level of awareness of the self and the partner. Based from the responses, it was
crucial, in the decision to disclose or not, to know how much information one was willing
to provide, how much or what types of information their partners wanted to hear or know
about, and the expectations that the partners had set with regard to the amount and quality
of information they were supposed to disclose. Such expectations were either
consciously set or discussed or learned through experience. One will be able to use such
information only after one has achieved a certain level of pagkakakilala of the self, the
other, and the kapwa in the relationship. This level of pagkakakilala is not necessarily a
function of length of the relationship, but more of the stability of the relationship
achieved through increasing self-disclosure.

II. Anticipated Ramifications (Petronio & Martin, 1986 as cited in Petronio et al, 1993)
Anticipates more positive Anticipates more negative
consequences: consequences:
Low probability of non-disclosure High probability of non-disclosure

self other
Kapwa in the
relationship

NO Disclose? YES

If awareness were the only basis in the decision to disclose, then at a certain point
in the relationship, both the partners would eventually disclose everything. It was
posited, therefore, that another component had to be considered, and this was the
anticipation of ramifications, defined earlier as weighing the need to disclose against the
need to protect private information about the self. The positive and negative
consequences are always weighed before any disclosure is made. Compared to the
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 17

original model in the hypothesis, this new model now incorporates the idea of
consequences affecting the self, the other, the kapwa in the relationship, or all of these
three, especially if they are thinking of the relationship in terms of long-term stability.
The participants described of possible consequences that may affect the self alone, their
partner, or their relationship as a whole. These ramifications are actually the basis of the
motivations to disclose or not. Will this information benefit the self (self-centered), the
partner (other-oriented), or the relationship as a whole (kapwa-oriented)? Most
participants described of the benefits of non-disclosure which included lessening the
strain in the relationship. Also, most participants who saw their relationships as long-
term or as towards the goal of greater stability, emphasized that there are certain types of
information that have to be disclosed (e.g. infidelity) in order to protect or benefit the
relationship, more than the self alone or the partner alone. In other words, some
participants find it wise to allow their partners to experience hurt in order to save the
relationship. Above all, the relationship is most important because it is a shared
experience of both the self and the partner. Thus, we emphasized the value of the
concept of kapwa, as represented by the overlap of the circles representing the self and
the partner illustrated above.

III. Temporal Dimension

Any intentions of disclosing?

NO: Yes
Intentional
Disclosure
Duration: Timing
-mood
WHY? -setting
Range of Intentions
and Motivations for
Non-Disclosure

We have to clarify that the temporal dimension discussed here does not refer to
the length of the relationship but the time it took for the undisclosed information to reach
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 18

the addressee. Earlier, we mentioned that the information will reach the addressee
through other means. However, we found out that most of the participants who chose not
to disclose actually told some of their partners the information they were concealing.
They were simply waiting for the perfect timing. Timing, in this case, is relative, since it
is dependent on the perceived mood of the partner and readiness of the partner to receive
the information. Such readiness, as most of the participants discussed could only be
facilitated in a stable relationship, where the partner has gained a certain pagkakakilala
and willingness to understand the other.

As stated above, pagkakakilala grows through an increase in intimacy as a

function of an increase in self-disclosure. Meaning, the participants acknowledge the fact
that self-disclosure is very important in a romantic relationship. As already mentioned,
self-disclosure is relative to timing. However, in the event that non-disclosure still
occurs, the range of motivations that we found out come into play. These intentions are
largely based on the consequences of such disclosure. But, as we found out, the
intentions for non-disclosure are actually meant to benefit the relationship in the long run
despite the risk of eliciting negative affect. Therefore, though the participants recognize
the importance of self-disclosure, they also acknowledge that non-disclosure has certain
advantages that help increase the partners’ level of intimacy. As self-disclosure
increases, intimacy and stability of the relationship increase as well. These changes in
the quality of the relationship also suggest changes in the dynamics of the components of
the cognitive model of non-disclosure. For example, an increase in self-disclosure may
increase the pagkakakilala of the individual to one’s partner, increase the probability of
considering consequences pertaining to the relationship as a whole, increase the accuracy
of the anticipation of such ramifications, and as such, may change the temporal
dimension of non-disclosure as well.

In conclusion, if we put the degree of relationship intimacy in a continuum, its

increase is a function of self-disclosure. However, the increase in a relationship’s
intimacy is affected by the benefits provided by non-disclosure as well.
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 19

References

http://academics.vmi.edu/psy/jg/interpers-attract.htm
http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/firo.cfm?source=archauth

Braithwaite, D.O. & Wood, J.T. (2000). Case Studies in Interpersonal Communication:
Processes and Problems. CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Burger, J.M. (2000). Personality (5th edition). CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

DePaulo, B.M. & Kashy, D.A. (1998). Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 63-79.

Groove, T.G. (1991). Dyadic Interaction: Choice and Change in Conversations and
Relationships. IA: Wm. C. Brown Communications, Inc.

Kashy, Deborah A. & DePaulo , Bella M. (1996). Who Lies? Journal of personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 5, 1037-1051.

Kelly, A.E. & Mckillop, K.J. (1996). Consequence of Revealing Personal Secrets.
Psychological Bulletin, 120, 450-465.

Larson, D.G. & Chastain, R.L. (1990). Self-concealment: Conceptualization,

measurement and health imiplications. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 9, 439-455.

Miller, G.R. (1983). ‘Telling it like it isn’t and not telling it like it is: Some thoughts on
deceptive communication.’ In J. Sisco (ed.), The Jensen Lectures: Contemporary
Communication Studies. USF Press: Tampa, FL.

Miller, G.R., Mongeau, P.A., & Sleight, C. (1986). Fudging with friends and lying to
lovers: deceptive communication in personal relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 3, 495-512.

Myers, D. (2004). Social Psychology (8th edition). NY: McGraw-Hill.

Petronio, S. (1991). Communication Boundary Management: A Theoretical Model of

Managing Disclosure of Private Information Between Marital Couples.
Communication Theory, 1, 311-335.

Petronio, S. & Martin, J.N. (1986). Ramifications of revealing private information: a

gender gap. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 499-506.

Petronio, S., Alberts, J.K., Hecht, M.L. & Buley, J. (1993). Contemporary Perspectives
on Interpersonal Communication. IA: Wm. C. Brown Communications, Inc.

Rosenfeld, L.B. & Richman, J.M. What to Tell: Deciding when, how, and what to self-
disclose.
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 20

Appendix

Informal Interview Guide Questions:

I. Kamustahan
1. Kamusta ka naman ngayon?
2. Saan ka abala?

II. Establishing level of intimacy

1. Nasa isang relasyon ka ba ngayon?
2. Gaano na kayo katagal magkakilala?
3. Paano nagsimula ang relationship niyo?
4. Gaano na katagal ang relasyon niyo bilang mag-girlfriend/boyfriend?
5. Gaano kayo kadalas magkita?
6. Paano mo ilalarawan ang uri ng relationship na mayroon kayo ngayon?
7. Anu-ano ang mga bagay na ine-enjoy niyong gawin nang magkasama?

III. Types of Information Disclosed

1. Anu-ano ang mga bagay na pinag-uusapan o pinagkukwentuhan ninyo?
2. Sabi nila, mayroon daw mga bagay na talagang hindi na sinasabi kahit sa
asawa o kapamilya. Naniniwala ka ba dito? Ano ang palagay mo sa ganito?
3. Kung sang-ayon, anu-ano ang mga bagay na ‘yun na hindi na dapat sinasabi
kahit sa malapit na kapamilya o asawa o karelasyon?
Kung hindi naman sang-ayon, ano kaya ang dahilan? Ibig sabihin ba ay
dapat lahat sinasabi sa partner?
4. Anu-ano ‘yung mga bagay na sa tingin mo dapat sinasabi mo sa partner
mo?
5. Anu-ano naman ‘yung mga dapat sabihin sa ‘yo ng partner mo?
6. Kung halimbawa naniniwala ang partner mo na hindi dapat lahat sinasabi
sa iyo kahit na nasa isang relasyon na kayo, maiintindihan mo ba siya, o
tatanggapin mo na ganun na nga? Ok lang ba sa iyo ang ganung set-up?

IV. Probing Non-disclosure

1. Nakaranas ka na ba na mayroon kang hindi sinabi sa partner mo na naging
dahilan ng conflict o hindi ninyo pagkakaunawaan?
2. Kung oo, pwede ba naming malaman kung tungkol saan ‘yung hindi mo
sinabi?
3. Bakit hindi mo sinabi?
4. Nalaman ba eventually ng partner mo?
5. Kung nalaman niya, ano ang naging reaksyon ng partner mo?
6. Kung ano man yung naging reaksyon niya, ano sa tingin mo ‘yung dahilan
bakit ganun ang naging reaksyon niya?
7. Ganun ba ‘yung expected mo na maging reaksyon niya pagkatapos niyang
malaman?
*Kung sakaling, naging negatibo ang reaksyon, sa tingin mo ba dapat sinabi
mo na lang sa kanya sa halip na hindi mo sinabi?
 Non-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships 21

V. Range of Reactions
1. Naranasan mo na rin ba na may hindi sinabi sa ‘yo ang partner mo na
naging dahilan ng conflict o hindi ninyo pagkakasundo?
2. Kung oo, paano mo nalaman na mayroon pala siyang hindi sinasabi sa ‘yo?
3. Patungkol saan ‘yung hindi niya sinabi?
4. Ano naman ang naging reaksyon mo?
5. Saan ka ba mas nag-react, dun sa mensahe na hindi niya sinabi o dun sa
fact na hindi niya sinabi sa ‘yo kung ano mang bagay ‘yun?

VI. Conclusion
1. Paano nakakatulong ang hindi pagsasabi ng mga bagay sa partner mo?
2. Paano naman hindi nakakatulong ang hindi pagsasabi ng mga bagay sa
partner mo?

Central Question of Ginabayang Talakayan

Naniniwala ka ba na dapat lahat sinasabi sa partner mo?