Topic avoidance and secret keeping have traditionally been under-researched areas of study in favor of the scientific investigation of self-disclosure, something that has only recently begun to change in recent decades. In the field of communication, the reasons for secrecy are considered extremely important and potentially harmful to an individual's mental and physical health, and it is imperative that they be thoroughly investigated. Potential reactions, power roles, protection and privacy are some of the reasons why keeping secrets and avoiding the subject is practiced, with this essay placing particular emphasis on the cycle of hiding and l deterrent effect. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original EssayThe most frequently cited reasons for keeping a secret can be classified into five categories. Most reasons for keeping secrets depend on an individual's perception of what would happen if the secret were revealed. This usually results in fear of being evaluated negatively. Individuals are less likely to report that they would reveal a secret in the future if their reasons for keeping the secret include the belief that others would evaluate them negatively or that their relationship with the named person would otherwise be negatively affected (Afifi et al., 2008). ). People often report keeping secrets because they are concerned about maintaining their relationship with the target of the potential secret revelation. There is also something to be said for the defensive aspect of keeping a secret. When an individual anticipates that their private information could be used against them if they reveal it, keeping it secret can become a form of defense. Reasons for this defense often include the possibility that the recipient of the secret will violate the trust of the revealer by revealing the secret to other people (Caughlin et al., 2005). Sometimes a secret will be kept because the individual anticipates that the interaction involving the disclosure would be a difficult event to experience. This includes the possibility of communication problems, as the person in question questions their own ability to discuss the secret satisfactorily. The fifth most common reason people choose not to divulge their secrets is privacy. This stems from the fundamental belief that information is only relevant to the individual it directly concerns and that they are not obligated to tell others about it because it does not concern them (Caughlin et al., 2005). Avoidance of the topic is the primary method by which individuals can maintain privacy in family relationships. Burgoon et al. (1989), that a certain degree of intimacy is necessary for individual and relational well-being in the context of a family relationship. If relationship partners are fully accessible to each other, many negative consequences can follow. It is very possible for individuals to experience emotional overload, increased opportunities for conflict, and overdependence (Afifi & Guerrero, 1995). It can be argued that regulating privacy and avoiding topics are strategies used to manage boundaries within a family. Consistent with communications privacy management theory, revealing secrets or other private information results in feelings of vulnerability. When people feel vulnerable, theyare led to erect metaphorical limits. This is especially likely to happen when a family member is expected to have a negative response. These boundaries are flexible depending on the audience, with increased permeability when they communicate with people they trust, or even when they anticipate that their chosen confidant will be accepting and supportive, or at the very least open-minded (Afifi & Steuber, 2008). When the person is not trusted, these boundaries become rigid. When individuals receive consistently refutable responses to their disclosures, they are much more likely to keep their walls high and have a harder time divulging secrets to these people in the future. Unfortunately, when individuals continue to anticipate negative reactions from other family members, they can create what is called a “cycle of hiding” within the family (Afifi & Steuber, 2008). A history of negative, contentious, or verbally aggressive responses to the disclosure of a secret often serves as encouragement for individuals to continually hide their secrets from specific family members. When people begin to use a target person's anticipated reaction as a determining factor in regulating their disclosures, this self-directed suppression of information is more likely to be sustained by potential and actual negative responses from a person. questioned. This phenomenon has been nicknamed “paralyzing effect” by researchers (Afifi & Steuber, 2008). This effect most often occurs when an individual believes that their partner will use power advantageously in future confrontations. This anticipated abuse of power and sensitive information typically leads individuals to withhold their opinions out of fear. If a family member has previously reacted negatively to a past revelation of a secret, this valorizes the experience in a negative way and sets up an expectation of negative reactions to display during future revelations of a secret. The deterrent effect may also be felt by multiple family members when their potential aggression suppresses the individual's desire to reveal their secret. The deterrent effect has been studied in romantic and marital relationships, where relational grievances are suppressed in the face of the partner's coercive power (Afifi & Olson, 2005). This effect also reinforces the cycle of hiding as those with less power continue to avoid confrontation and harbor their own feelings of powerlessness, resulting in the secret not being revealed. There are three different types of power in family dynamics, and each of them addresses the chilling effect in a different way. On the one hand, power dynamics constitute an essential element of the household. Parents must be able to exercise power over their children in order to keep them safe and be effective parents. Some families are seen as having influence over everyone's ideas because of the roles family members take on. When family members communicate in a way that commands respect, they may be seen as powerful by others because of their leadership and ability to communicate. This is generally the most positive form of power seen in this model, but it has negative potential. It is possible that individuals revere their family members to the extent that their persuasive and influential nature makes them fear potential disappointment following the revelation of their secret (Afifi and Olson, 2005). Oppressive power is the second potentially present form of the chilling effect. Afifi and Olson (2005) define oppressive power asthe ability of individuals to punish others, control their behaviors and opinions, and manipulate their actions. Those who exercise oppressive power over others use this interpersonal influence to control an individual's behavior by punishing them and withholding rewards, commanding them, dominating conversations, and persuading them to do something they want. would not do otherwise (Afifi and Olson, 2005). Punitive power is the last type, referring to the aggressive potential of the target of the secret. Unlike influence and oppressive power, punitive forms of power tend to be more aggressive in nature, both physically and verbally. Although power itself may be enough to act as a deterrent to continued concealment of a secret, it can be even more powerful in a relationship where the threat of physical or symbolic violence is present. Although they may resort to acts of physical aggression, such as breaking objects and shoving people, family members may also engage in verbal or symbolic aggression in the form of sulking, crying, and stomping outside. of the room. When these events occur, they unfortunately serve to reinforce existing positions of power within the family dynamic as well as the continued hiding of secrets (Afifi & Olson, 2005). Families are particularly privileged to study power because of the seemingly inherent norms and rules that govern them. dictate how family members communicate with each other (Afifi & Olson, 2005). For example, daughters and sons tend to talk about it frequently to their mothers, much more than to their fathers. During their interactions with their fathers, children of both sexes reported feeling uncomfortable disclosing highly emotional and personal information, and were significantly more willing and comfortable engaging in discussions on practical issues (Afifi and Guerrero, 1995). These findings support a general principle of self-disclosure that has been imposed on us by societal norms: regardless of the gender of the secret keeper, people tend to avoid the topic more with male rather than female targets. Men were also found to be more avoidant than women for all topics studied, with the sole exception of sexual experiences. These results mirror those found in work on patterns of disclosure and avoidance in friendships (Afifi & Guerrero, 1995). The deterrent effect has been found to be particularly pronounced in families where conformity of values, beliefs and behaviors as well as a lack of openness and acceptance of multiple points of view dominate the family setting. Family-specific rules of conformity and openness have a direct impact on an individual's ability to freely reveal secrets of negative value (Afifi & Olson, 2005). Families that have a high degree of conversation orientation, the extent to which families promote open communication and the expression of beliefs and values, encourage the free exchange of ideas and opinions between individuals on a wide variety of subjects. These families impose very few rules on topics of conversation. An examination of coercive power in families with varying conformity and conversation orientation found that those who maintained a direct approach to coercion were linked to families with high conformity orientation and low conversation orientation in affecting their continued concealment . It was also found that power within these families also negatively affected the closeness and commitment of family members..