Argument avoidance and secrecy maintenance have traditionally been underexplored fields of study in favor of scientific inquiry into self-disclosure, something that has only recently begun to change in recent decades. In the field of communications, the reasons behind maintaining secrecy are seen as incredibly important and potentially harmful to an individual's mental and physical health, and it is imperative that they are thoroughly investigated. Potential reactions, roles of power, protection and privacy are just some of the reasons why both secrecy keeping and topic avoidance are practiced, with this essay focusing in particular on the cycle of concealment and the chilling effect. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayThe most commonly cited reasons for keeping secrets can be divided into five categories. Most reasons for keeping secrets involve an individual's perception of what would happen if the secret were revealed. This usually translates into concerns about being evaluated negatively. Individuals are less likely to report that they would reveal a secret in the future if their reasons for keeping it secret include the belief that others would evaluate them negatively or that their relationship with the targeted individual would otherwise be negatively affected (Afifi et al., 2008 ). People often report keeping secrets because they are worried about maintaining their relationship with the goal of potential secret disclosure. There is also something to be said about the defensive aspect of maintaining secrecy. When an individual foresees that his private information could be used against him if he revealed it, maintaining secrecy can become a form of defense. Reasons for this defense often include the possibility that the recipient of the secret violates the teller's trust 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 disclosure would be a challenging event to deal with. This includes the possibility of miscommunication because the person at hand questions their ability to discuss the secret satisfactorily. The fifth of these common reasons why people choose not to reveal their secrets is privacy. This follows the basic belief that information is only relevant to the individual it directly concerns and that they have no obligation to tell others because it is irrelevant to them (Caughlin et al., 2005). Topic avoidance serves as the primary method through which individuals can maintain privacy in family relationships. It was supported by Burgoon et al. (1989), that some degree of privacy is necessary for both individual and relational well-being in the context of a family relationship. If relationship partners are completely accessible to each other, a variety of negative consequences can result. Individuals are very likely to experience emotional overload, increased opportunities for conflict, and excessive dependence as a result (Afifi & Guerrero, 1995). It can be argued that privacy regulation and topic avoidance are strategies used to manage boundaries within a family. In accordance with communications privacy management theory, revealing secrets or other private information causes a sense of vulnerability. When people feel vulnerable, they are driven to erect metaphorical boundaries. Meaning whatespecially likely to happen when a family member is expected to have a negative response. These boundaries are flexible depending on the audience, with greater permeability when communicating with people they trust, or even when they anticipate that the chosen confidant will be accepting and supportive, or at least open-minded (Afifi & Steuber, 2008). When the person is distrusted, these boundaries become rigid. When individuals receive consistent disconfirmatory responses to their disclosures, they are much more likely to keep their walls up 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 known as a “hiding cycle” within the family (Afifi & Steuber, 2008). A history of negative, disconfirming, or verbally aggressive responses to the revelation of secrets often serves as a means of encouragement for individuals to continually hide their secrets from specific family members. When people begin to use a target individual's anticipated reaction as a determinant to regulate their own disclosures, this self-directed suppression of information is more likely to be supported by both potential and actual negative responses from a respondent. This phenomenon has been dubbed the chilling effect by researchers (Afifi & Steuber, 2008). This effect occurs most often when an individual thinks that their partner will use power from a vantage point in future confrontations. This anticipated abuse of power and sensitive information usually leads people to deny their opinions out of fear. If a family member has previously reacted negatively to a past revelation of a secret, this valorizes the experience negatively and sets in place an expectation of negative reactions to be exhibited for future secret revelations. The chilling effect can also be experienced by several family members when their potential aggression suppresses the individual's desire to reveal their secret. The chilling effect has always been studied in dating and marital relationships, where relational resentments are stifled in the face of the partner's coercive power (Afifi & Olson, 2005). This effect also reinforces the cycle of concealment as those with less power continue to avoid confrontation and sustain their feelings of powerlessness, resulting in the secret not being revealed. There are three different types of power found in family dynamics, and they each address chilling differently. On the one hand, power dynamics are an essential part of the family. Parents must be able to exercise power over their children to keep them safe and be an effective parent. Some families are believed to have influence over their ideas because of the roles family members take on. When family members communicate in ways that command respect, they can be seen as powerful by others due to their leadership and communication skills. This is generally the most positive form of power seen in this model, but it has negative potential. Individuals may revere their family members to the extent that their persuasive and influential nature leads them to fear potential disappointment as a result of revealing their secret (Afifi & Olson, 2005). Oppressive power is the second form potentially present in the chilling effect. Afifi and Olson (2005) define oppressive power as the degree to which people have the ability to punish others, control their behaviors andopinions and manipulate their actions. Those who have oppressive power over others use this interpersonal influence to control an individual's behavior through punishment and withholding rewards, commanding them, dominating conversations, and persuading them to do something they otherwise would not do (Afifi & Olson, 2005). Punitive power is the last type, referring to the aggressive potential of the target of the secret. Unlike influential and oppressive power, punitive forms of power tend to be more aggressive in nature both physically and verbally. While power in itself may be enough to cause a chilling effect on the continued concealment of a secret, it may be even more powerful in a relationship where the threat of physical or symbolic violence is present. Although they may resort to physical acts of aggression, such as breaking objects and pushing people, family members may also engage in verbal or symbolic aggression in the form of sulking, crying, and walking out 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 concealment of secrets (Afifi & Olson, 2005). Families are particularly unique for the study of power because of the seemingly inherent norms and rules that dictate how family members communicate with each other (Afifi & Olson, 2005). For example, both daughters and sons tend to frequently disclose much more to their mothers than to their fathers. When interacting with their fathers, children of both sexes reported feeling uncomfortable disclosing highly emotional and personal information, and were much more willing and comfortable engaging in discussions about practical matters (Afifi & Guerrero, 1995). These findings support a general principle of self-disclosure that has been instilled in us by social norms: Regardless of the sex of the secret keeper, people tend to show greater avoidance of topics with male rather than female targets. It was also found that males were more avoidant than females for all topics studied, with the sole exception of sexual experiences. These findings mirror those found when working on patterns of disclosure and avoidance in friendships (Afifi & Guerrero, 1995). The chilling effect was particularly pronounced in families where conformity in values, beliefs, behaviors and a lack of openness and acceptance of multiple points of view dominate the family context. Family-specific rules for conformity and openness directly impact an individual's ability to freely reveal negatively valenced secrets (Afifi & Olson, 2005). Families who had high degrees of conversation orientation, the extent to which families foster open communication and the expression of beliefs and values, encourage the free exchange of ideas and opinions between individuals on a wide variety of topics. These families impose very few rules on topics of conversation. An examination of coercive power in families with different conversational and conformity orientations revealed that those who maintained a direct coercive approach were linked to families with high conformity orientations and families with low conversational orientations influencing their continued concealment. It was also found that power in these families also negatively influenced family members' closeness and commitment, but that these weakened ties did not promote continued concealment (Afifi & Olson, 2005). In families strongly oriented towards conversation, the indirect aspects.