FAMILY SECRECY and the ADULT ADJUSTMENT of CHILDREN from DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES Jacoba A. Leyenhorst B.A. (Honours), University
FAMILY SECRECY AND THE ADULT ADJUSTMENT OF CHILDREN FROM
DYSFUNCTIONAL FAMILIES
Jacoba A. Leyenhorst B.A. (Honours), University of British Columbia, 1999
A THESIS SUBMllTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
in the Department of Psychology
OJacoba A. Leyenhorst, 2001 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY August, 2001
Al1 rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1*1 ofCanada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 WeUington Street 395. nie Wellington Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exchive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ai des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être Imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract
Previous research findings suggest that the presence of secrets within a family, and their concealrnent from others, typifies rnany dysfunctional families (Brown-Smith, 1998), especially those with aIcoholism (Bingham 8 Bargar, 1985). The present study sought to differentiate dysfunctionalism and alcoholism as 2 factors that contribute to the adult adjustment of children from families with alcoholism and/or with other dysfunctions.
Based on a university sample (57 males; 118 females), individuals from dysfunctional families were compared to individuals from non-dysfunctional families on a number of measures, including family secrecy. Results from the present study indicated no significant differences in either the number of family secrets or their discussion for the 3 groups examined: non-dysfunctional families, dysfunctional families, and adult children of alcoholics (COAs). Sornewhat in contrast to previous research suggesting a unique status for COA persons, present findings indicate no differences for the COA versus the dysfunctional group on a number of measures such as reported shame, guilt, and fear of intimacy. A significant difference between these 2 groups was obtained for adult attachment styles. Nutably, a majority of COAs reported their families as non- dysfunctional rather than dysfunctional. Correlations were used to assess relations among variables, regardless of group membership. In support of expectations, persons with a greater number of family secrets reported more shame, guilt, and distrust of others within a relationship. In contrast to expectations, however, results indicated that persons with a greater number of secrets reported more discussion of secrets, both within and outside of the family, than did persons with few farnily secrets. Results are discussed in light of previous findings and implications for future research. Acknowledgments
I would first like to thank my senior supervisor, Janet Strayer, for her support, guidance, and encouragement in preparing this thesis. I would also like to thank Jererny Carpendale for taking the time to sit on my cornmittee and for his suggestions and advice concerning al1 aspects of this work.
I also would like to thank the numerous people who gave me invaluable advice on the writing of a thesis, as well as Elizabeth Michno, who helped with so many aspects of the data analysis.
Finally, 1 would like to thank my family, friends and my husband, Kevin, in particular, for being so very supportive while I completed this thesis. This work is dedicated to them and would not have been possible except for their encouragement and support.
"1 can do everything through Him who gives me strength."
- Philippians 4: 13 Table of Contents
Title Page ...... i .. Approval ...... 11 ... Abstract ...... III Acknowledgments ...... iv Table of Contents ...... v List of Tables ...... vi
Introduction Summary of Hypotheses ...... 14 Method ...... -15 Participants ...... -15 Procedure ...... 15 Dependent Measures ...... -16 Group Assignment ...... 21 Results ...... 22 Set 1: Group Differences on Dependent Measures ...... 23 Hypotheses 1-3: Family Secrets ...... 25 Hypothesis 4: S hame ...... -27 Hypothesis 5: Guilt ...... -28 Hypothesis 6: Adult Attachrnent ...... 30 Hypothesis 7: Fear of Intimacy...... 31 Set 2: Relationships Among Variables ...... -32 Hypotheses 1-2: Family Discussion of Secrets ...... -33 Hypothesis 3: Shame ...... 34 Hypothesis 4: Guilt ...... -35 Hypothesis 5: Adult Attachment ...... 35 Hypothesis 6: Fear of lntimacy ...... 36 Set 3: Predictors to Secrecy ...... -36
Discussion ...... -38 Normal versus Dysfunctional Families ...... 39 Dysfunctional versus COA Families ...... 47 Dysfunctional versus COA Dysfunctional Families ...... 49 Relationships Among Variables ...... 53 Predictors to Secrecy ...... -60 Conclusions...... -61
References ...... -63 List of Tables
Table 1 : Mean Scores for Dependent Measures. Groups 1-5 ...... 24
Table 2: Correlations with Number of Farnily Secrets ...... 33
Table 3: Regression Results Predicting to Number of Family Secrets ...... 37 Farnily Secrecy 1 Introduction
Secrets involve information that is either withheld or differentially shared
between or among people (Karpel, 1980). Although some researchers have
indicated that the presence of secrecy in al1 social organizations is universal
(Bok, 1983),secrecy, by its very definition, remains a difficult topic to study. After all, the success of keeping something secret depends greatly on how well it is concealed from others.
The present study focuses on the presence and role of family secrets.
Families, as one of the earliest forms of social organization that individuals encounter, are of specific interest in the study of secrets. it has even been suggested that family relationships are shaped, in part, by what is shared and what is heid secret by family members (Vangelisti & Caughlin, 1997). Family secrets may thus strongly influence family functioning and the experience of an individual within the family (Joseph & Onek, 1999).
Keeping secrets can be thought of as a form of information control
(Vangelisti & Caughlin, 1997). Even in a relatively intimate relationship such as those in the family, secrets are sometimes still concealed from other members.
Karpel (1980) suggested that family secrets could be one of three types, depending on the extent to which the secret is shared among family members.
The first type, individual secrets, involved those secrets kept by individuals from their families. Examples would include a spouse's extramarital affair, or a child's same-sex partner. The second type, interna1 family secrets, involved those secrets kept by at least two family members from at least one other family Family Secrecy 2 member. Examples would include parents not sharing with their son that he was adopted, or only a daughter and mother knowing that the daughter had had an abortion. Finally, the third type, shared family secrets, involved those secrets
held by the entire family from perçons outside the family. Examples would
include shared knowledge of abuse within the family, alcoholism, or an eating disorder of one member. Because the present study was concerned with the disclosure of secrets withheld by the entire family from outsiders, discussion will be limited to this particular form.
In addition to within-family secrets, families can collectively keep secrets from others outside the farnily. When families act collectively to keep a secret, they agree, whether implicitly or explicitly, to hide information from outsiders in order to create a certain social appearance, both for themselves and others
(Vangelisti & Caughlin, 1997). This shared knowledge strengthens the bond among members while widening the gap between the family and the outside world (Brown-Smith, 1998). A boundary is thus erected around the family, which is closed when the secret is shared only among family members, and opened when one or more members disclose the secret to someone outside the family.
The concept of boundaries between the family and the outside world is, to a certain degree, adaptive and definitive of the family as a separate, distinct unit.
To that end, Wood and Talmon (1 983) define boundaries in families as the
'relative barriers to the exchange of material, energy, and information" (348).
Focusing on information, ail families have a certain amount of information that they consider private and inappropriate to share with the outside world. Thus a Family Secrecy 3 boundary is set up between those who know, and those who are not privy to that
information. An intriguing question, then, is to what extent non-shared information
is considered to be "private" or to be kept a "secret"? For example, expressions
of love among family mernbers may be private rather than public. Nevertheless,
such private intimacies are not necessarily "secrets," which connote that the
information is to be hidden from others.
The answer to this question will depend, to a large degree, on a particular
farnily itself, for different families will define these terrns differently (Karpel, 1980).
What is considered private in one family may be considered a secret in another family, and vice versa. One reason for this difference between the two
evaluations may be the value of the content of what is being concealed. Derlega,
Metts, Petronio, and Margulis (1993) define private material as information "that others do not norrnally know about us (e.g., opinions, beliefs, and feelings about ourselves, social issues, or relationships with others) but that we might be willing to disclose based on others' need to know" (74). In contrast to this, secrecy
implies the concealment of something that may be negatively valued both to those who know the secret and those who do not (Brown-Smith, 1998). Whereas the secret-holder is alrnost obligated to withhold information or to suffer consequences from disclosure, the keeper of private information simply chooses to do so. Thus the boundaries for secrets might be viewed as less fluid and more rigid than those erected to regulate private information (Vangelisti 8 Caughlin,
1997). Family Secrecy 4 The concepts of privacy and secrecy will also change as a reflection of the culture at large. What may have at one point in history been considered shameful, and necessary to be kept a secret, may at present simply be regarded as a private matter. An example would perhaps be adoption. Whereas in the past adoption was often kept a secret, being linked to issues such as infertility or illegitimate births, today adoption remains a private topic, but one which individuals now are more willing to reveal than in the past (e.g., an increase in
"open" adoptions, in which records are not sealed).
In the material presented thus far, it has been suggested that secrets serve relatively negative functions for family members and family relationships.
Typically, the secrets that are studied involve negative, if not traumatic life experiences (Imber-Black, 1993). Very few people would argue that the primary functions of family secrets concerning alcoholism, incest, or physical abuse are positive or beneficial to those holding the secret. It is important to note, however, that not al1 family secrets are negative or serve negative functions (Vangelisti 8
Caughlin, 1997). For example, some families keep certain rituals or traditions secret (Bok, 1983). Although there might be nothing inherently negative about the tradition itself, family members may feel that others would not understand or even respect the ritual. Keeping the secret may then become an important part of intimacy and relational development because it helps to foster a unique bond between those holding the secret. Withholding information can thus sometimes serve very positive, enhancing functions for close relationships, and be an important part of intimacy and relational development. However, as the present Farnily Secrecy 5 study focuses on secrecy and the adult adjustment of children from dysfunctional homes, discussion will be Iimited to what are considered to be more negative family secrets.
Empirical studies of secrecy occupy a small but interesting place in the study of family functioning. A recent study found that individuals reported secrecy as serving several different functions within the family context (Vangelisti, 1994).
A maintenance function was noted when withholding the information helped to keep family members close and to protect them from stressors. A bonding function was noted when individuals felt their family secrets increased unity among family members. In other cases, people reported that family secrets primarily served to help members avoid negative evaluation by outsiders. Other secrets were kept to preserve a family's privacy, such as the family income.
Family membe~also noted that keeping information secret served as a form of defense. When secrets served this function, they were kept because members felt that outsiders might use the information against the family. Finally, some individuals reported that the primary reason their family kept information secret was a lack of open communication among members.
The various functions served by family secrets may play an important role in family members' decisions about whether or not to reveal a particular secret to those outside the farnily. In a follow-up study, Vangelisii and Caughlin (1997) found that of three groups (unlikely, moderately likely, and ver-likely to reveal farnily secrets), those who were unlikely to reveal their secrets more strongly endorsed the evaluation, the maintenance, the privacy, and the defense family Secrecy 6 functions than those who were highly likely to reveal their secrets. Similarly, those who reported that they were only moderately likely to reveal their secrets also felt more strongly that their secrets were kept to avoid evaluation, to maintain their family relationships, to preserve privacy, and to defend the family.
In these two studies, the authors did not differentiate between individuals coming from a dysfunctional family versus those coming from a non- dysfunctional family. It may be that within a dysfunctional family, secrecy serves a different, or more intense function than within a non-dysfunctional family. For example, whereas many families see the function of family secrets as avoiding negative evaluation from others, this function may assume vital importance in a dysfunctional family as they strive to preserve a façade of normality. When a family's secrets contain information that contradicts its desired public appearance, revealing secrets could demonstrate inadequacies within the family
- something a dysfunctional family may be struggling to cover.
Although there is a modest body of literature that examines secrecy within families with a specific type of dysfunction, such as incest or alcoholism, few studies focus on the more general issue of family secrecy across dysfunctional families. Alcoholism, like incest, is a particular problem defined, in part, by its secrecy. Therefore, it is understandable that particular attention would be paid by researchers to the role of secrets in such families. Nevertheless, secrets may also play a significant role in other dysfunctional families. This may be manifest to the extent of there being more secrets in dysfunctional than in normal families.
The design of the present study investigates this possibiiity by comparing both Family Secrecy 7 the number (e.g., Did you or any member of your family have this experience?) and discussion of secrets (e.g., To what extent was this problem discussed idoutside of your family?) in families identified as normal or as dysfunctional in a sample of university students. It is hypothesized that individuals from dysfunctional families will report more family secrets and less discussion of secrets than will individuals from non-dysfunctional families.
In addition to this, while the effect of keeping negative secrets is often assumed to result in poor adjustment, few studies address this question directly.
However, both questions are important when considering how family secrecy and family environment may relate to the adult adjustment of children from dysfunctional homes. Thus the present study also examines group differences between normal and dysfunctional families on measures pertaining to adult adjustment, such as shame, guilt, adult attachment, and fear of intimacy.
It is hypothesized that individuals from dysfunctional families will report more shame and guilt than individuais from normal families. Tangney (1998) notes that although shame and guilt are often thought of as highly self-relevant emotions, these emotions are also linked to interpersonal relationships. Tangney reports that our persona1 moral standards and ideals for the self develop early, as a function of socialization experiences with parents, teachers and important others. lndividuals learn to feel shame and guilt over failures and transgressions, which are in turn defined by the significant people in our lives. Mason (1 993) notes that individuals maintain their shame and guilt by adhering to the interpersonâl process they learned in their families. She states: Farnily Secrecy 8 Our childhood sense of our families is built not only from limited tools and
incomplete data but also from a non-systernic perspective. The child acts
as the center of the universe and absorbs events very personally... Our
childhood perceptions are the birthplace of our process, that is, how we
learn to be in the world, to see ourselves, and to be in relationships... they
- shape our interpretations of our life experiences and the meaning system
we live with as adults (Mason, 1993, p. 39).
When a family experiences many sources of shame and guilt, such as may occur in a dysfunctional family, then shame and guilt feelings may be maintained into adulthood. For example, Hadley, Holloway, and Mallinckrodt
(1 993) found that many adult offspring from dysfunctional families reported a sense of shame that their families were so far removed from societal ideals.
Shame and guilt can be particularly maintained through individuals' loyalty to the family rules of denial, blame and control. Secrets may innervate these rules of shame - rules that perpetuate shame and guilt and serve to "bind" family rnembers in confusion, chaos, and growth-inhibiting relationships (Mason, 1993).
In terms of relationships, I hypothesize that individuals from dysfunctional families will report more maladaptive adult attachment dimensions and more fear of intimacy than individuals from normal families. The attachment system in adults is believed to function in much the same way as the infant system with the set goal of 'Yelt security" (Collins & Read, 1990). For example, the most central theme underlying the nature of the infant-caretaker relatianship is the child's expectation that the caretaker will be available and emotionally responsive when Farnily Secrecy 9 needed. However, this expectation rnay be violated in the setting of a dysfunctional family.
Hadley et al. (1993) found that family-of-origin conflict was significantly associated with insecure attachment. They note that children rnay experience farnily conflict either directly or from a more passive observer role. In the first instance, hostility and rejection, verbal abuse, and constant criticism are aimed directly at the children, which rnay lead them to feel unworthy of parental closeness and affection. In the second instance, unresolved conflict, fighting, and blaming between parents rnay also be witnessed by the children. The stress created by these experiences rnay stimulate fears of abandonment. These fears rnay be carried into adulthood, leaving the individuals insecure in attachments and unable to engage in genuinely intimate relationships (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991).
Furthermore, because secrecy has been identified as especially problematic in families with alcoholism, the present study compares secrecy for adult children of alcoholics (COAs) relative to other dysfunctional but non-COA families. As stated, it has been assumed, but not empirically assessed, that COA families differ on secrecy from dysfunctional families. Based on the available literature, I hypothesize that COA families will report more secrecy than other dysfunctional families. Children in alcoholic homes quickly learn not to disclose family secrets (Bingham & Bargar, 1985). To do so could lead to grave consequences, such as parental disapproval and punishment, peer rejection, and Farnily Secrecy 10 the potential destruction of the family's public image. Thus secrets are kept in order to rnaintain the family integrity and protect the family from outsiders.
Jahn (1995) examined the relationship between family secrecy and later adult psychological functioning in two groups: adult children of alcoholics (adult
COAs), and non-COAs. In comparing the two groups, recruited from the community, she found that the adult COAs reported a greater number of secretive events, a more negative family environment, and a greater extent of perceived secrecy in the family during childhood. As adults, they reported lower self-esteem, a greater extent of internalized shame, and more current emotional distress than did the non-COAs.
These findings are consistent with previous research on children of alcoholics. Since alcoholism carries with it a powerful social stigma, alcoholism becomes a very closely guarded secret that must be maintained at ail costs
(Bingham & Bargar, 1985). Maçon (1 993) reports that addictions, especially alcoholism, are the second most frequently expressed family secret (afier those of a sexual nature) in various workshops she conducts on family shame. It has also been noted that children of alcoholics face a nurnber of challenges, including difficulties with intimacy, fear of rejection/abandonment, and feelings of shame, to name only a few (Hardwick, Hansen, & Bairnsfather, 1995). Many of these difficulties appear to stem from the covert nature of alcoholism itself. For example, because parental alcoholism is kept a secret, children are made partners in the family's denial that the parent is drinking (Robinson & Rhodin,
1998). The presence of denial increases the family's resistance to seeking Family Secrecy 11 treatment and increases the shame and guilt involved in admitting that there is a
problem with alcoholism in the family (Bingham & Bargar, 1985).
Jahn (1995) posed the question, however, of whether the increased
emotional distress of individuals who had experienced greater family secrecy
was reflective of parental alcoholism in particular, or of family dysfunction more
generally. As mentioned, there are few studies that compare adult children of
alcoholics with adult children from other dysfunctional families. Of those that do,
none addresses family secrecy explicitly. Furthermore, the results Vary
dramatically with the topic examined. For example, Baker and Williamson (1989)
found that adult children of alcoholics were similar to adult children of other
dysfunctional parents particularly with respect to depression and penonality
disorders. In a very different focus, Hardwick et al. (1995) found the adult
children of alcoholics had more difficulty than did adult children from
dysfunctional homes in developing functional reality testing skills. The authors
saw these results as suggesting there may be some unique quality in the family
environment of COAs that diminishes the adult children's capacity to cope with
reality in an optimal matter, perhaps due to the role of denial in the family.
Thus Jahn (1995) suggested that the addition of a third participant group,
namely adult children of dysfunctional but not alcoholic parents, might provide a
clearer picture of whether the adult adjustment difficulties experienced by
individuals from families with greater amounts of family secrecy was due to
parental alcoholism specifically, or to family dysfunction more generally. This is a central question addressed by the present study. Although limited to reports of Famiiy Secrecy 12 university students, the design of the present study will potentially provide
evidence for or against the argument that the adult adjustment of adult children of
alcoholics is uniquely different from the adult adjustment of children from
dysfunctional families. Furthermore, if the adult adjustment of children of alcoholics is found to be different from that of the other children from other dysfunctional homes, this rnay encourage further research on the differences between the groups, as well as have implications in terms of specialized intervention with, and treatment for, COAs compared to other groups.
In addition to identifying possible group differences in secrecy and other variables (e.g., shame, guilt) that are expected to differ in normal, dysfunctional, and COA groups, the present study addresses the relationships among present variables. Specifically, I address the question of how family secrecy, as the central variable under investigation, relates to shame, guilt, adult attachment, and fear of intimacy. Regardless of group membership (family of origin = normal, dysfunctional, or COA), it is hypothesized that the more secrets in a family, the poorer the outcome for other specified variables.
Family secrets are expected to correlate positively with reported shame, and to relate differently to adaptive guilt (regret, reparation - negative correlation) versus emotionally distressing guilt (repeated mistakes, hurtful behaviour - positive correlation). Many farnily secrets violate social noms (e.g., addictions, sexual abuse) and thus may be expected to be sources of shame (Irnber-Black,
1993). Secret-holders may experience anxiety in their fear of disclosure, in their discornfort when relevant topics are discussed, and in their attempts to deceive Family Secrecy 13 or distort information. These anxious feelings could perpetuate feelings of shame and guilt, as secret-holders are unable to reveal or explain these feelings to others (Karpel, 1980).
Family secrecy is also expected to positively correlate with maladaptive adult attachrnent dimensions, for example, finding it difficult to depend on others
(distrust), experiencing anxiety that a partner witl not continue to be loving
(anxiety), or finding it difficult to become close to others (distant) (Collins & Read,
1990). As noted, when information within a family is threatening, barriers rnay be erected to keep that information from leaking out (Brown-Smith, 1998). Usually, this involves a public presentation of the family that is tailored for social acceptance. The success of this presentation generally depends on deception, as family members strive to keep outsiders uninformed. The us-versus-them mentality that results may be so pervasive that it is difficult for the farnily members to let go of this idea in order to depend on or to trust others outside of the family. This may result in attachment difficulties in the adult relationships of children from families with an increased number of secrets.
Finally, family secrecy is aiso expected to relate positively to fear of intimacy. As noted, when al1 the members of a family know a secret, the secret serves to strengthen the boundary between the family and the outside world. In extreme cases, it may make bonding between family members and persons outside of the family virtually impossible if they feel they can neither reveal the secret nor become involved emotionally without revealing the secret (Karpel. Family Secrecy 14 1980). Thus the presence of many family secrets may lead individuals from that family to fear becoming very close to someone outside of the family.
Surnmary of Hypotheses
Set 1: Group Differences on Dependent Measures
COA families will report more family secrets than dysfunctional families,
who, in turn, will report more family secrets than normal families.
COA families will report less within-family discussion of secrets than
dysfunctional families, who, in turn, will report less within-family discussion
of secrets than normal families.
COA families will report less outside-family discussion of secrets than
dysfunctional families, who, in turn, will report less outside-family
discussion of secrets than normal families.
COA families will report more shame than dysfunctional families, who, in
turn, will report more shame than normal families.
COA families will report more negative and less positive guilt than
dysfunctional farnilies, who, in turn, will report more negative and less
positive guilt than normal families.
COA families will report more maladaptive attachment scores than
dysfunctional families, who, in turn, will report more maladaptive
attachment scores than normal families.
GOA families will report more fear of intimacy than dysfunctional families,
who, in turn, will report more fear of intimacy than normal families. Family Secrecy 15 Set 2: Reiationshi~sAmona Variables
1. Number of family secrets will be nagatively correlated with within-family
discussion of secrets.
2. Number of family secrets will be negatively correlated with outside-family
discussion of secrets.
3. Number of family secrets will be positively correlated with shame.
4. Number of family secrets will be positively correlated with negative guilt.
5. Number of famiiy secrets will be positively correlated with maladaptive
attachment scores.
6. Number of family secrets will be positively correlated with fear of intimacy.
Method
Participants
lnformed consent was obtained from 175 (57 males, 118 females) Simon
Fraser University undergraduate students. They anonymously completed questionnaires in exchange for course credit. Participants ranged in age from 17 to 33 years (M=19.37, SD=2.35); 39% were Caucasians, 41% were Asian-
Canadians, 1% were African-Canadians, 6% were Indo-Canadians, 1% were
Native Canadians, 6% were non-Canadian residents, and 6% had some other ethnic background.
Procedure
All participants completed the questionnaires described below in group sessions, iasting about 50 minutes. The questionnaires were presented in the same fixed order. An experimenter was present the entire session to hand out Family Secrecy 16 materials and to answer any questions regarding questionnaire items.
Participants were debriefed at the end of the session and were thanked for their participation.
De~endentMeasures
Self-report Family lnventory (SFI). The SFI (Beavers, & Harnpson, 1990) is an index of family members' perceptions of their familyJsfunctioning (Hadley,
Holloway & Mallinckrodt, 1993). The questionnaire consists of 36 items that are rated on a 5-point scale that ranges from 1 ("fits Our family very well") to 5 ("does not fit our farnily"). The items form five subscales: family health (e.g., 'Weal1 have a Say in family plans"), conflict (e.g., 'We accept each other's friends"), cohesion (e.g., "Our happiest times are at home"), leadership (e.g., "One person controls and leads our family"), and expressiveness (e.g., "Family members pay attention to each other's feelings"). Scores frorn these subscales are combined into an overall mean score of farnily dysfunction. The established cut-off score of
3 distinguishes functional from dysfunctional families.
Psychometric data on this questionnaire indicate acceptable interna1 consistency, ranging from .84 to .88 for the SFI subscales. Test-retest correlations for the subscales across 30- and 90-day periods ranged from .44
(Leadership) to .85 (Health). Evidence of concurrent validity has been provided by significant correlations (.62)of SFI scores with observational ratings of families (Beavers et al., 1990).
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale II.The Fami l y
Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES II; Olson, Portner, & Family Secrecy 17 Lavee, 1985) measures two primary dimensions of family relations functioning.
The Family Adaptability scale includes 10 items such as %hildren have a Say in their discipline" and 'We shift household responsibilities from person to person."
The Family Cohesion scale includes 10 items such as "Family members ask each other for help" and We approve of each other's friends." A 5-point response format is used, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). The
Family Adaptability and the Family Cohesion scale are then combined to obtain a
Family Type score, which is a measure of family psychological health, ranging from 1 "Extreme" to 8 "Balanced."
Psychometric data reported on this questionnaire indicate acceptable test- retest reliability of .83 for cohesion and .80 for adaptability, as well as good intemal consistency (cohesion, r = .87;adaptability, r = .78).The correlation between the two scales, cohesion and adaptability, range from .25-.65 (Olson,
1992).
Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST). The Children of Alcoholics
Screening Test (Jones, 1983) is a 30-item scale used to identify self-reported children of alcoholics (COAs). The items, such as "Have you ever thought that one of your parents had a drinking problem?" or "Have you ever lost sIeep because of a parent's drinking?" are answered 'tes" or ccnoy',and measure individual's attitudes, feelings, perceptions, and experiences related to their parents' drin king behaviour. Higher scores indicate a greater likelihood of parental alcoholism, and the established score of 6 distinguishes COAs from non-COA groups. Family Secrecy 18 Psychometric data reported on this questionnaire indicate a high
Spearman-Brown split-half reliability coefficient of 0.98 (Jones, 1983).
Discriminant validity for the CAST has been demonstrated with an adult psychiatric population (Stanley & el-Guebaly, 1991 ) and in cornparisons of alternatively diagnosed and matched controls of children (Jones, 1983).
Family Secrecy Scale (FSS). This self-report instrument (Jahn, 1995) concerns experiences and events in families that may be kept secret. On the questionnaire, participants are presented with 36 such experiences, such as addictions, abuse, affairs, and mental disorden. Three responses are requested for each event, including: whether this event occurred in the participant's family, to what extent this event was discussed within the family (from 1 'hot at all" to 5
"very much'!), and whether the participants discussed it outside of the family.
Higher scores indicate more discussion.
No psychometric data have been reported for this instrument. However, it is currently the only measure available for evaluating aspects of family secrecy.
Test of Self-Conscious Affect. The Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA:
Tangney, Wagner, & Gramzow, 1989) is a self-report questionnaire that includes
10 negative scenarios (e.g.,"You break something at work and then hide il') and
5 positive scenarios (e.g., "For several days you put off making a difficult phone call. At the last minute you make the cal1 and are able to manipulate the conversation so that al1 goes well.") Each scenario is followed by a number of alternative responses representing brief descriptions of shame, guilt, and other related self-conscious emotions with respect to the specific context (e.g., for Family Secrecy 19 shame, "You would feel like you wanted to hiden;for guilt, "You would think, '1
should have recognized the problems and done a better job'"). Participants are
asked to try to imagine themselves in a situation, and then to indicate how likely
they would be to react in a particular way, using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 (not likely) to 5 (very likely). Responses are coded for guilt-proneness and
shame-proneness. Scales for alpha pride and beta pride are also included on this
test, but were not used in the present study.
In a previous sample, Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher and Gramzow (1992)
reported test-retest reliability of the TOSCA as .85 for shame and .74 for guilt.
Estimates of intemal consistency for the shame and guilt scores were .76 and
.66,respectively.
Personal Feelings Questionnaire. The Pe rsonal Feelings Questionnaire
(PFQ: Harder & Lewis, 1987) measures shame and guilt. Participants are given a
list of feelings, and asked to indicate how-commoneach feeling is for them, using a 4-point response format ranging from O (never experience the feelings) to 4
(experience the feeling continuously or alrnost continuously). The shame scale includesl O items such as "embarrassment" and "feeling humiliated." The guilt scale includes 6 items such as "intense guilt" and "remorse."
Psychometric data reported on this questionnaire indicate satisfactory concurrent validity with other established measures of shame and guilt, such as the TOSCA (shame scale: .50;guilt scale: .27) (Tangney, Burggraf, & Wagner,
1995). The correlations between the two scales, shame and guilt, range from .35 to 53,consistent with previous research (Harder, 1990). Family Secrecy 20 Adult Attachment Scale. The Aduit Attachment Scale (Collins 8 Read,
1990) is an 1bitem scale that assesses the attachrnent system in adults. The
Depend scale (called the Distrust scale for this study) includes 6 items such as "1 find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others." The Anxiety scale includes 6 items such as "1 often worry that my partner does not really love me." The Close scale (called the Distant scale in this study) includes 6 items such as ''1 am nervous when anyone gets too close." Participants rate the extent to which each statement describes their feelings on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at al1 characteristic of me) to 5 (very characteristic of me).
Collins and Read (1990) report satisfactory interna1 consistency for the
Depend, Anxiety, and Close items as .75, .72,and .69, respectively. Test-retest reliabilities for Close, Depend, and Anxiety were reasonably good over a 2-month period: .68, .71, and 52, respectively. Consistent with the moderate interfactor correlations found, there was a moderate relation between .the Close and
Depend composites (r = .38)and weak relations between Anxiety and Close (r =
-.08) and Anxiety and Depend (r = -.24).
Fear of lntimacy Scale. The Fear of lntimacy Scale (FIS: Descutner &
Thelen, 1991) assesses anxiety about close, dating relationships. This 35-item scale assesses fear of intimacy even for participants who are not presently involved in a relationship. Participants are asked to respond to statements such as "1 would feel uncornfortable expressing rny true feelings to X or "1 would be afraid that I might not always feel close to X," imagining themselves to be in a close relationship, with "X referring to the person in the close relationship with Family Secrecy 21 them. Items are rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at al1 characteristic of me) to
5 (extremely characteristic of me).
Psychometric data on this questionnaire indicate acceptable test-retest reliability of .89 (Descutner & Thelen, 1991) and high interna1 consistency (.92).
The FIS was also found to have a significant positive relationship with the
Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (r = .48), and significant negative relationships with measures of self-disclosure (r = -.52) and social intimacy (r = -58).
gr ou^ Assianment
Participants were assigned to a "normal" or non-dysfunctional family
(n=l18) and a "dysfunctional" family (n=27) group based on their scores on the
Self-report Family lnventory (SFI). According to previously established procedures (Beavers & Hampton, 1990), participants with a rnean score below 3 were assigned to the normal family group (present sample: M=2.25, SD=0.40); participants with a mean score of 3 or greater were assigned to the dysfunctional family group (present sample: M=3.36, SD=0.43).
In order to differentiate children of alcoholics from the other groups in this study, 30 participants were identifled as a "children of alcoholics" group, based on their scores on the Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST). According to a previously established procedure (Jones, 1983), participants with a score of
6 or more were assigned to this group.
Thus participants with a mean score of 3 or greater on the Self-report
Family lnventory were generally assigned to the dysfunctional family group. If, however, participants had a mean score of 6 or greater on the Children of Family Secrecy 22 Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST), they were assigned to the Children of
Alcoholics group, regardless of their mean score on the Self-report Family inventory.
Surprisingly, there were only a few participants (N=8) who qualified for both the "dysfuncîional family" and the "children of alcoholics" group. These participants had elevated mean scores on both the Self-report Family lnventory
(M=3.43, SD=0.41) and the Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (M=13.38,
SD=7.69). These 8 participants were included in the Children of Alcoholics group.
As will be presented in the Results section, it is notable that the large majority
(n=22) of the children of alcoholics group met criteria for the "normal" or non- dysfunctional family group.
Results
The first set of results concerns group differences on dependent measures for participants from normal versus dysfunctional families, and for participants from dysfuncîional families versus adult children of alcoholics (COAs). The second set of results concerns relationships among variables, regardless of group membership. Finally, the third set of results concerns factors that predict to number of family secrets.
Results for Set 1 are based on 2-way Group by Sex ANOVAs with or without repeated rneasures. Only one effect was found for gender. Therefore, gender effects are not reported in the results below except for in this one case.
It is notable in the present study that the majority of COAs (n = 30) did not report family dysfunction. Instead, only a small nurnber reported family Farnily Secrecy 23 dysfunction (n = 8), with the greater part of the COAs reporting normative family functioning (n = 22). To gain a clearer understanding of this surprisingly small group of COA-dysfunctionals, the present analyses also include cornparisons of group differences between this group and the original dysfunctional group (non-
COA) .
Set 1: Group Differences on De~endentMeasures
The original assignment of perçons ta "normal" and "dysfunctional" groups was based on the Self-report Family lnventory (SFI). This grouping, using farnily psychological health as the dependent measure (FACES II), was supported by
results showing a significant main effect for group, E (1, 173) = 57.91, Q = .00, in a Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA. Means and standard deviations on al1 dependent measures for the normal (non-dysfunctional) and dysfunctional families are presented in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, mean scores on the FACES II were
lower for the dysfunctional group (M=2.28, SD=0.81) than for the non- dysfunctional group (M=4.35, SD=1.22, as expected). There was no main or
interaction effects for gender.
Similar analyses were applied to assess hypotheses regarding
dysfunctional versus COA families. Descriptive data (means and standard
deviations) are presented in Table 1 for dysfunctional families, total COA families
combined, as well as separate columns for COA-dysfunctional and COA- functional families. Results that follow address findings for participants f rom
normal versus dysfunctional families, findings for participants from dysfunctional Family Secrecy 24 versus COA families, as well as findings for participants from dysfunctional families versus COAs also in a dysfunctional family.
Table 1: Mean and (standard deviation) scores for dependent measures
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Normal Dysfunctional COA total COA normal COA dysf. n=118 n=27 n=30 n=22 n=8 Discussion: 35.59 29.74 40.60 41.86 37.13 Within 1 (12.98) 1 (1 1.40) (12.1 2) (11.1 8) (14.67) Fami ly Discussion: 24.29 27.41 Outside 1 (12.50) 1 (12.22) Fami l y Number of 3.26 4.67 Family (2.75) Secrets
Tosca (8.21 )
Shame - 16.21 20.00 PFQ (5.48) (5.32)
Guilt - 58.36 56.59 Tosca (6.08) (7.85)
Guilt - PFQ 10.29 11.74 (3.56) (8.07)
I Attachment 15.86 17.78 (Distrust) (5.1 0) (5.49)
Attachment 1 14.1 1 18.63 (Anxiety) 1 (4.51)
Attachrnent 14.02 15.67 (Distant) (4.1 8) (4.49)
1 Fear of 79.89 89.00 lntimacy (18.23) (1 6.74)
Family 4.35 2.28 Health (1.22) (0.81) (FACES II) Family Secrecy 25 Hvpotheses 1- 3: Familv Secrets
Normal versus dvsfunctional families. The three hypotheses regarding group differences for family secrets were not supported. First, present findings from a Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA on number of family secrets showed no group differences, E (1, 173) = 2.88, Q = .09.As well, no significant effects were found for the remaining variables, from a Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA with repeated measures (2 = discussion of secrets Within and Outside family), E (1,
173), = .31, e = .58.
It is unknown how the present groups compare statistically to groups from previous studies using this particular secrecy measure. This is due to the fact that only one other study was found that used this measure, and the author of that study did not report the means and standard deviations for her groups (Jahn,
1995).
Dvsfunctional versus GOA (total) families. The three hypotheses regarding family secrets were not supported. First, present findings from a Group (2) by
Sex (2) ANOVA on nurnber of family secrets showed no group differences, E (1,
173) = 0.09,Q = -76.As well, no significant effects were found for the remaining variables in a Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA with repeated measures (2 =
discussion of secrets Within and Outside of family), (1, 173) = .95, = .34.
Dvsfunctional versus COA dvsfunctional. Present inferential statistics are
limited by the small number of perçons (n = 8) in the COA dysfunctional group.
Although the COA dysfunctional group did have a higher mean number of
secrets, as shown in Table 1, these differences were not significant, as shown by Family Secrecy 26 a Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA on number of family secrets, E (1, 173) = 57,g =
.46. Nor were there group differences in a Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA with repeated measures (2 = discussion of secrets Within and Outside of family), (1,
173) = .21,~=.65.
A summary of present findings for the dysfunctional COAs and the dysfunctional group indicates only one significant difference between these two groups - maladaptive attachment. Nevertheless. the large majority of COAs reported their farnily functioning as normal. If the COA group cornes from predominately normal families, we would expect that the COA group would be more similar to the normal group than to the dysfunctional group. Although the present results included statistical comparison of dysfunctional versus COA dysfunctional participants, it is still valuable to consider the remaining data descriptively (Table 1). Given that the COA group can be divided into normal families (n = 22) and dysfunctional families (n = 8). we may get a clearer picture of whether it is the dysfunctional COAs that are driving the entire group of COAs to look more like dysfunctional farnilies than normals. If this is the case, then we would expect the normal COAs to resemble the normal family group, whereas we would expect the dysfunctional COAs to resemble the dysfunctional grou p.
It has just been shown that there are no reported differences between the dysfunctional COAs and the dysfunctional group on variables of family secrecy.
When examining Table 1 descriptive data for just the normal COAs their data, too, are closer to the dysfunctional than to the normal group means. The dysfunctional GOAs still report the greatest number of family secrets overall, the Family Secrecy 27 normal group reports the least, and the mean of COAs from functional farnilies falls midway between the two. With regard to discussion of family secrets, descriptive data in Table 1 suggest that the normal COAs appear more like the dysfunctional than the normal group. Somewhat in contrast, for outside-family discussion, the ineans for the normal COAs appear more like the normal group, whereas the dysfunctional COAs resemble the dysfunctional group.
In summary, descriptive data have been examined merely for suggestive purposes in the interest of future studies in this area. However, present findings indicate family secrets are statistically similar for al1 groups examined: normal, dysfunctional and COA families.
Hv~othesis4: Shame
Normal versus dvsfunctional families. Hypothesis 4 was supported for shame, given present findings of a significant main effect for group, in a Group
(2) by Sex (2) ANOVA with repeated measures using the two sharne scores
(TOSCA, PFQ) as the dependent measures, (1, 173) = 5.12, Q = .03.
Present findings for these variables also show a significant main effect for gender, (1, 173) = 6.1 5, p = .01. Females' shame scores on both measures were significantly higher than males'.
Dvsfunctional versus COA (total) families. Hypothesis 4 was not supported for shame. No group differences were found in a Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA with repeated measures using the two shame scores (TOSCA, PFQ) as the dependent measures, (1, 173) = 2.83,g = .IO.Mean scores were not higher, as had been expected, for children of aIcoholic families than for children from Famiiy Secrecy 28 dysfunctional families. Rather, the scores for the dysfunctional group were slightly higher.
Dvsfunctional versus COA dvsfunctional. There were no group differences for COAs compared to others in the dysfunctional group, as shown by a Group
(2) by Sex (2) ANOVA with repeated measures using the two shame scores as the dependent measures, (1, 173) = .77, g = .39.The mean scores of the dysfunctional group were slightly higher than those of the COA group (see Table
1)- Thus, overall, the dysfunctional COAs resembled the dysfunctional group on reported shame. In contrast, when examining the descriptive data in Table 1 for just the normal COAs, their data are closer to the normal group means on reported shame (see Table l), at least on the Tosca measure of shame. In fact, the normal COAs report the least amount of shame overall on this measure.
In surnrnary, individuals from dysfunctional families scored statistically higher on shame than did individuals from normal families, with COAs sconng slightly (non-significantly) lower than others in the dysfunctional group.
Hvpothesis 5: Guilt
Normal versus dvsfunctional families. Hypothesis 5 was not supported for either of the two guilt measures used. Present findings indicated no group differences for the PFQ, a guilt measure focused on negatively experienced emotions, (1, 173) = 2.1 0, g = .15. Nor was there a group difference for the
TOSCA, a guilt measure focused on positive outcornes of guilt, E (1, 173) = 1.39,
Q = .24. Although not significant, mean scores for negative guilt followed the Farnily Secrecy 29 expected pattern, with scores for the dysfunctional group higher than scores for the non-dysfunctional group, as shown in Table 1.
There was a significant main effect for gender on the TOSCA, (1, 173) =
5.1 3, e = .03, with fernale participants reporting more guilt than male participants.
This gender effect accords with previous research using the TOSCA (Tangney et al., 1988).
Dvsfunctional versus COA (total) families. Hypothesis 5 was not supported for either of the two guilt measures used. No group differences were found in a
Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA for the PFQ (negative guilt measure), E (1, 173) = 1.31, e = .26.Nor was there a group difference for the TOSCA, a measure of positive guilt, (1, 173) = .Il,Q = .75. Thus mean scores were not higher for negative guilt, as had been expected, for children of alcoholic families than for children from dysfunctional families. However,.the scores were in the expected direction, with the children of alcoholics indicating slightly higher levels of negative guilt.
Dvsfunctional versus COA dvsfunctional. No group differences were found for COAs compared to others in the dysfunctional group, as shown by a Group
(2) by Sex (2) ANOVA for the PFQ (negative guilt), E (1, 173) = .80,Q = .38, or for the TOSCA (positive guilt), (1, 173) = .003, p = .96.The mean score for negative guilt was slightly higher for the COA group than for the dysfunctional group (see Table 1).
Thus the dysfunctional COA group resembles the dysfunctional group on a measure of negative guilt. However, when examining Table 1 descriptive data Family Secrecy 30 for just the normal COAs, their data are closer to the normal group than to the dysfunctional group means. Whereas the dysfunctional COAs report the greatest amount of negative guilt overall, the normal COAs report the least.
In summary, present findings regarding guilt are statistically similar for al1
groups examined, with the dysfunctional family group scoring only slightly (non-
significantly) higher than the normal family group, and the COA family group
scoring only slightly (non-significantly) higher than the dysfunctional family group.
Hy~othesis6: Adult Attachment
Normal versus dvsfunctional families. Hypothesis 6 was supported for
adult attachrnent. Maladaptive attachment scores for the dysfunctional groups
were significantly higher than for the normal group (see Table 1). There was a
significant main effect for group, using the 3 attachment scores (Distrust, Anxiety,
and Distant) as repeated measures in a Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA, (1, 173)
= 11.55, e = .O01 .
Dvsfunctional versus COA (total) families. Hypothesis 6 was not supported
for adult attachment. Instead, maladapiive attachment scores for the
dysfunctional groups were significantly higher than for the children of alcoholics
group (see Table 1). There was a significant main effect for group, using the 3
attachment scores (distrust, anxiety, and distant) as repeated measures in a
Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA, E (1, 173) = 9.29,g = ,004.
Dvsfunctional versus COA dvsfunctional. There was a significant main
effect for COAs compared to others in the dysfunctional group, using the 3
attachment scores (Distrust, Anxiety, and Distant) as repeated measures in a Farnily Secrecy 3 1 Group (2) by Sex (2) ANOVA, (1, 173) = 5.1 7, g = .03.As shown in Table 1, the dysfunctional group had higher mean scores than the COA group on two of the attachment scores (Distrust, Anxiety), but not on the third (Distant).
Thus the dysfunctional COAs do not resemble the dysfunctional group on two of the three attachment scores. When examining Table 1 descriptive data for just the normal COAs, their data are closer to the normal than to the dysfunctional group means. In the case of Anxiety, the dysfunctional COAs also appear to resemble the normal group more than the dysfunctional group.
In summary, individuals from dysfunctional families scored statistically higher on maladaptive attachment scores than did individuals from normal families and individuals from COA families.
Hv~othesis7: Fear of intimacv
Normal versus dvsfunctional families. Hypothesis 7 was not supported for fear of intimacy. No group differences were found in a Group (2) by Sex (2)
ANOVA, E (1, 173) = 3.73, g = 0.56. Although not significant, mean scores followed the expected pattern, with scores for the dysfunctional group higher than scores for the non-dysfunctional group, as shown in Table 1.
Dvsfunctional versus COA (total) families. Hypothesis 7 was not supported for fear of intimacy. No group differences were found in a Group (2) by Sex (2)
ANOVA, F (1, 173) = 1.18, e = .28.Mean scores were not higher, as had been expected, for children of alcoholic families than for children from dysfunctional families. Instead, scores for the dysfunctional group were slightly higher (see
Table 1). Family Secrecy 32 Dvsfunctional versus COA dvsfunctional. No group differences were found for COAs compared to others in the dysfunctional group, as shown by a Group
(2) by Sex (2) ANOVA, (1, 173) = .36,g = 56. Mean scores for the COA group were slightly higher than for the dysfunctional group (see Table 1).
Thus the dysfunctional COA group resembles the dysfunctional group in terms of fear of intimacy, and, in fact, reported the highest mean over al1 groups.
When examining Table 1 descriptive data for just the normal COAs, however, their data are closer to the normal than to the dysfunctional group means.
In summary, present findings regarding fear of intimacy are statistically similar for al1 groups examined.
Set 2: Relationshi~sAmona Variables
Relationships among variables were assessed using Pearson's product- moment correlations. Correlations presented in Table 2 concern the particular variables of interest in this study. Specifically, it was expected that having more family secrets would relate to less family discussion of secrets, more shame, more negative guilt, more maladaptive attachment, and to greater fear of intimacy. Family Secrecy 33 Table 2. Correlations with Number of Family Secrets
Discussion - Within family
1 Discussion - Outside family .47*"
Shame - TOSCA .21**
1 1 Guilt - PFQ .27*** I Attachment (Distrust) .25**
Attachment (Anxiety) 1 5*a
Attachment (Distant) .O9 1 Fear of Intimacy
* p c .os; ** p < .O1 ; **' p < .O01 All correlations are two-tailed a Not significant after Bonferroni's correction
Hvpotheses 1-2: Familv Discussion of Secrets
Findings regarding number of family secrets and for discussion of family secrets both within the family and outside the family were contrary to hypotheses
1 and 2. A significant positive correlation was obtained for number of family secrets and within-family discussion, 1 (173) = .50,Q c .001. This correlation remained significant when outside-family discussion was controlled for, lpartiai(l 72) = .31, g < .001. A significant positive correlation was also obtained for number of family secrets and outside-family discussion, 1 (173) = .47, g < .001. Family Secrecy 34 This correlation remained significant when within-family discussion was
controlled for, ~~~~~~(172)= .23, g < -01. Thus, individuals from families with more
secrets are not less likely to discuss these secrets. In contrast, they are more
likely to discuss them. Furthermore, this finding occurred for discussion of
secrets both within and outside the family. Even when one source of discussion
of secrets (within or outside the family) was partialed from the remaining
correlation, the relationship still held: more discussion occurred for persons from
families with more secrets.
Hv~othesis3: Shame
Hypothesis 3 was supported. Present findings showed significant
correlations between number of family secrets and shame, using two different measures of shame, the TOSCA, 1 (173) = .21, g = .01,and the Personal
Feelings Questionnaire, 1 (1 73) = .17, = .02. Thus, more shame is reported when more family secrets occur. This finding was obtained across two different shame measures (based on scenarios, and based on specific feelings).
However, it is important to note that when discussion of secrets within the family was controlled for, the correlation between number of family secrets and the TOSCA measure of shame was no longer significant, 1~~~~~~(l72)= .13,g =
.Il.Similarly, when discussion of secrets outside the family was controlled for, the correlation between number of secrets and the Persona1 Feelings
Questionnaire was no longer significant, = .IO, g = .18. This finding suggests that discussion of secrets nay help to decrease the expected links for shame with having family secrets. Family Secrecy 35 Hvoothesis 4: Guilt
Hypothesis 4 was supported. Present findings showed a significant correlation between number of family secrets and negative guilt on the Personal
Feelings Questionnaire, 1 (173) = .27, g < .001.This correlation rernained significant when both within-family and outside-family discussion was controlled for, lpartia1(l 72) = .19, e < .Os. No relationship was expected or found between positive guilt (TOSCA) and number of family secrets. Thus, the greater the number of family secrets, the greater the negative guilt experienced.
Present findings suggest that the experience of negative guilt remains significantly related to family secrets, regardless of whether such secrets are discussed. These findings contrast with present results for shame, reported above. Whereas discussion of secrets moderates the relation of family secrecy and shame, it does not have this ameliorating effect for guilt.
Hv~othesis5: Attachment
Hypothesis 5 was partially supported. Present findings supported the expected significant correlation of number of family secrets and the Distrust
("cannot depend on others") attachment score, _r (173) = .25,g = .001.
There was some indication number of family secrets also related to the Anxiety
("worry about relationships") attachment score (see Table 2). However, the obtained correlation failed to reach statisticai significance after Bonferroni's correction was applied (p < .02).Correlations for number of family secrets and the Distant ("nervous about closeness") attachment score were not significant
(see Table 2). Family Secrecy 36 In summary, persons with greater numbers of family secrets reported more distrust of (or inability to depend on) others. They also tended to report more Anxious attachment, but not significantly so. In contrast, number of farnily secrets showed no relationship to reports of nervousness of closeness, or
Distant, attachment. Considered together. these findings indicate that family secrecy does relate to some dimensions of insecure attachment. That such secrecy does not CO-varywith Distant attachment may suggest that secrets tend to bind persons together (for good or ill), as has been suggested in the previous
Iiterature.
Hv~othesis6: Fear of lntimacv
Hypothesis 6 was not supported. Present findings showed a non- significant correlation for number of family secrets and fear of intimacy, 1 (173) =
.08, g = .30.This finding also seems interpretable in light of the just reported nuIl findings for secrecy and distant attachment.
In general, for al1 correlations examined, results indicate support for 5 of
10 relationships. On the remaining 5 associations, relating to discussion of secrets, intimacy and attachment, persons with a greater number of family secrets did not show poorer scores, as was expected.
Set 3: Predictors to Secrecv
The Number of Family Secrets variable in the current study had many expected correlations with other variables. A multiple regression was conducted in order to assess which of these variables would best predict to number of family Family Secrecy 37 secrets. The data for this variable were analyzed with an exploratory linear regression analysis using SPSS statistical software.
For this analysis, with Number of Family Secrets as the dependent variable, the variables that correlated significantly with number of family secrets were entered simultaneously as independent variables (Le., Within-Family
Discussion, Outside-Family Discussion, Tosca Shame, PFQ Shame, PFQ Guilt, and Distrust). Table 3 displays the regression results. Present variables accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in number of family secrets
(R~= .3S). Furthermore, a clear pattern emerged regarding the most prominent predictors. Of the six variables entered, only Within-Family Discussion, Distrust, and Outside-Family Discussion accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in Number of Family Secrets. Focusing upon these three variables, the reported inability to depend on others (Distrust) seems to accompany the discussion surrounding family secrets in predicting to number of such secrets.
Table 3. Regression Results Predicting to Number of Family Secrets. lndependent B Std. Beta -t sig . variables Error Within-Famiiy Disc. 7.298E-02 .O21 .292 -3.1 91 .O0 1
Outside-Family Disc. 6.327E-02 .O20 258 3.531 .O02
Tosca Shame 2.234E-02 .O30 .O57 .754 .452
PFQ Shame -6.044E-02 .O53 -.l09 -1 .140 .256
PFQ Guilt .141 .O81 157 1.743 .O83
Distrust 138 .O43 .216 3.170 .O02
--Note. N = 175. Model @ = ,356, = 14.474, p = .O00 Family Secrecy 38 Discussion
The present study makes a number of contributions to the existing
literature concerning family secrecy by extending the range of target groups and
variables examined with reference to a university student population. Present
results regarding secrecy (number and discussion of secrets) will be discussed
first, under the headings below, in ternis of the target groups examined. Next,
obtained group differences will be discussed on measures pertaining to adult
adjustment, such as shame, guilt, adult attachment, and fear of intimacy.
Following this, the relationships of family secrecy to sharne, guilt, adult
attachment, and fear of intimacy will be discussed. Finally, predictors to the
number of secrets variable will be discussed. Present findings in these main
areas will be discussed relative to hypothesized expectations presented in the
introduction and in light of previous research. The implications of present findings
for future research will also be discussed when relevant, as will the limitations of the present study and further suggestions for future research deriving from it.
Before discussing each of the main findings, it is important to recognize that, although lirnited to a university sarnple, present participants reported a full
range of family functioning. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the sarnple (n = 118, or approximately 67%) reported normal functioning. Dysfunctionality (but not family alcoholism) was reported by 27 individuals, or approximately 15% of the sample.
Family alcoholism was reported by 30 individuals, or approximately 17% of the sample. The present study thus provides an indication of the extent of Family Secrecy 39 dysfunctionality and alcoholism in an otherwise sornewhat privileged group of educated participants.
Similarly noteworthy is the finding that, despite reported family alcoholism, only a small nurnber of COAs reported family dysfunction (n = 8). Thus it appears that the rnajority of COAs within this university population benefit from othennrise normative family functioning, as presentiy measured. This finding is important in order to redress any overgeneralizations that may confound COA status and dysfunctionality, as has often been apparent in the previous literature. Because this is one of the few studies to independently assess COA and dysfunctionality relative to other variables, its findings should provoke further research on how
COA status relates differently to other variables depending upon whether it is linked to families described as normal or dysfunctional. For example, it has been suggested in the literature that COAs suffer the burden of secrecy more than do normal adults (Bingham & Bargar, 1985; Black, 1982; Jahn, 1995; Krestan &
Bepko, 1993). Is this an accurate conclusion for most COAs or only for COAs from dysfunctional families? The findings discussed below help to address such questions. 1 begin by considering differences between normal and dysfunctional families on the variables measured.
Normal versus dvsfunctional families
Present results for both number of secrets and discussion of secrets
(within and outside the family) did not support expected group differences. Firstly, the results of the present investigation indicate that number of family secrets do not significantly differ between normal and dysfunctional families. This finding did Family Secrecy 40 not support our hypothesis, based upon a previous study, which found that participants who experienced a greater number of secretive events in their families reported a more negative family environment as children (Jahn, 1995).
In that study, participants who reported a more positive environment in their family of origin (e.g., less punitive childhood experiences) also reported that their families experienced fewer secretive events. Reasons for this difference in findings between studies seem due to differences in identifying study target groups. Although the present design was in accord with Jahn's aim to compare non-COA families with COA families, the focus of the present study was broader, in that a dysfunctional, non-COA group was included. This group was included in the present study in order to address the question of whether the increased emotional distress reported by the adult COAs in Jahn's study was reflective of parental alcoholism in particular, or of family dysfunction more generally. Thus it is possible that differences between the dysfunctional group in the present study
(no family alcoholism) and the dysfunctional group in Jahn's study (COAs included) were one reason why Jahn's results were not similar to the results of the present study.
Jahn's study also differed from the present study in that rather than reporting on a more global measure of family dysfunction, participants reported a more limited range of punitive childhood experiences, such as physical punishment, negative family atmosphere, and perception of discipline (Jahn,
1995). Thus the measures of family functioning in Jahn's study and in the present study were quite dissimilar, which may have contributed to very different Family Secrecy 41 classifications of what a "dysfunctionalnfamily was in each of the two studies.
This, in tum, may be another reason why Jahn's results were not replicated in the current study. Perhaps using a broader measure of family dysfunction, as done in this study, (e.g., the Self-Report Family lnventory (SFI); Beavers & Hampson,
1990) would have yielded similar results in Jahn's study. Rather than only measuring three variables associated with family dysfunction, as was the case with the farnily measure in Jahn's study (physical punishment, negative family atmosphere, and perception of discipline), a measure like the SFI allows measurement of a very broad range of family functioning, including family health, conflict, cohesion, leadership, and expressiveness. A broader measure may thus allow for a clearer, more comprehensive view of family dysfunction.
A final reason why the present results differed from Jahn's results may be due to substantial differences in the samples used. Whereas the present study was conducted with a university sample of a relatively young age (M = 19 years),
Jahn's study was drawn from a significantly older non-student sample (M = 42 years), 35% of which were recruited from a Protestant church-based singles group. In addition to this, Jahn's sample included a lower percentage of male participants (1 9%) than did the present study (33%). In addition to underlining the fact that these two samples cannot be directly compared, the characteristics of these two samples also suggest the need for more research across diverse samples.
In addition to number of family secrets, the amount of discussion (within and outside the family) of family secrets was also assessed. Mason (1993) notes Family Secrecy 42 that it is not always the secret itself that determines if the secret becomes
"growth-inhibiting," but the family process around the event or experience. If a family has a relatively open system (members being free to comment on what happened), they are less likely to run into trouble. However, if a family is very closed (as we might expect from a dysfunctional family), they may be more likely to be loyal to a "don't talk" type of rule, or to hide family secrets. Thus in the present study, it was deemed important to evaluate the discussion of family secrets both within and outside the family.
However, similar to group difference findings regarding number of secrets, present results did not support the expected group differences for discussion of secrets. lnconsistent with Mason's (1993) suggestion, individuals from dysfunctional families did not report less discussion of secrets (either within or outside of the family) than did the individuals from normal families.
Two factors seem important to consider regarding this finding. First of all, it is possible that, due to the present univenity sample population used, levels of functioning were better than in previous samples studied. When the present study was compared to a previous study of individuals from dysfunctional families
(with only 35% of participants from a college sarnple, Hadley et. al, 1993), the present sample reported notably lower family dysfunction scores (i.e., higher functioning), particularly in regard to family health and farnily conflict. These differences are especially striking in light of the fact that both studies used the exact same measure of family dysfunction. the Self-Report Family lnventory (SFI;
Beavers & Hampson, 1990). Thus those families classified as dysfunctional in Farnily Secrecy 43 the present study might not be as severely dysfunctional as might have been the case from a community sample.
A second factor to consider is a finding by Vangelisti and Caughlin (1997) that family members who were more satisfied with their family relationships tended to be the least likely to reveal their secrets. Whereas Mason (1993) suggested that a more closed, dysfunctional family would be more likely to hide family secrets and to withhold information, Vangelisti and Caughlin (1997) suggest that members who are particularly happy with their family relationships may feel a greater sense of unity and trust toward other family members, and are thus more reluctant to share family secrets with outsiders. In contrast, they argue that individuals less happy with their families may be more likely to disclose family secrets, as they are not as invested in the family's harmony.
Family satisfaction was not a variable considered in the present study, but it is possible, based on Vangelisti and Caughlin's work, that it plays a potentially major role in the discussion of family secrets. In the present study I only measured whether or not participants considered their family to be dysfunctional, and did not measure participants' feelings or opinions about the farnily, despite the dysfunction. It is possible that although present participants reported some dysfunction within their family, they were not dissatisfied with their family in general. Thus they rnay feel a strong sense of unity with their family, and so not be any more likely to disclose farnily secrets than participants from normal familias. Future research could examine this possibility more fully by including a rneasure of farnily satisfaction along with a measure of family dysfunction. Family Secrecy 44 In addition to family secrecy variables, group differences on reported shame were also assessed. As hypothesized, individuals from dysfunctional families did report higher shame scores on both shame measures than did individuals from normal families, although the two groups did not differ on reported guilt scores. Shame and guilt have many important differences between them, and these differences can have significant implications both for psychological adjustment and for social behaviour (Tangney, 1998).
Consistent with previous writings about shame, present results suggest that being a part of a dysfunctional family may have serious consequences for an individual's negative self evaluation. Lewis (1971 ; as cited in Tangney, 1998) explains that the experience of shame is directly about the self, which is the focus of negative evaluation. She describes shame as an "acutely painful emotion" that is typically accompanied by a sense of shrinking or of "being small," and by a sense of worthlessness and powerlessness. Because shame is about the self and is internalized deep within the individual, the possibility of repair may be very difficult. With reference to the present issues, other work suggests that an individual's sense of shame is often linked to some cther family member's behaviour, for example, to violations of the moral code (Mason, 1993). We expect that this would similarly apply to behaviours requiring secrets to be maintained.
In contrast to shame's global focus on the self, guilt typically focuses in a more limited way on one's misdeeds. Furthermore, something appropriate can often be done to rernediate guilt. Mason (1993) notes that within guilt lies a way Family Secrecy 45 back, or a way to repair. In contrast, shame leaves one feeling helpless andlor
angry at being diminished. Following Lewis (1971), the experience of guilt is
described as generally less painful and devastating than is shame because an
individual's primary concern in guilt is with a particular behaviour, somewhat apart from the self. Nevertheless, guilt can still involve a sense of tension,
remorse, and regret over the thing done. Whereas guilt is about what an
individual does, shame is about who the individual is, in this case as part of a dysfunctional family.
Two measures of guilt were included in the present study in order to contrast the positive, reparative function of guilt (TOSCA: Tangney, Wagner, &
Gramzow, 1989) with negative guilt feelings (PFQ: Harder & Lewis, 1987).
Present findings, however, did not support the expected group differences for positive or for negative guilt. Perhaps guilt, by being focused more on an individual's misdeeds than on an individual's self-concept, does not play as large a role as shame in distinguishing dysfunctional from other families. lndividuals generally become part of a dysfunctional family through little or no fault of their own, and not by their own behaviours. There is little in the way of repair or change that can be done, particularly by a child. Even if children feel guilty about aspects of their family, they are typically unable to remediate the situation. This inability, in turn, may serve to increase an individual's negative evaluation of self
(i.e., shame). Thus, in a dysfunctional family, feelings of shame may predominate. Family Secrecy 46 Expectations regarding adult attachment were supported in the present study for the three adult attachment dimensions examined (Distrust, Anxiety, and
Distant). In general, individuals f rom dysfundional families reported higher maladaptive adult attachment scores than did individuals from normal families, as was hypothesized. This finding is consistent with the interpretation that normative expectations of caregiver availability and emotional responsiveness are likely to be violated within a dysfunctional family, due perhaps to conflict, or to a general sense of chaos. The resulting insecure attachment style is thought to continue into adulthood, leaving the individual with attachment insecurities or difficulties
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Following my thinking regarding attachment, I expected that individuals from dysfunctional families would also report more fear of intimacy than would those from normal families. However, the present study offers different findings for attachment and fear of intimacy. Despite differences found for attachment, no differences were found between the dysfunctional and the normal group on fear of intimacy. The difference between these two variables may have to do with the type of relationship considered. Whereas the adult attachment measure was fairly general in terms of referring to any relationship, the fear of intimacy measure specifically requested that participants imagine a close, dating relationship when completing the measure. Thus family dysfunction may not operate as a hindrance to close, one-to-one relationships, but rather to relationships in a more general sense. In retrospect, it is possible that generally competent university students from a dysfunctional family will even seek out Family Secrecy 47 intimate reiationships outside the family. Further study on farnily dysfunction and adult relationships will help to clarify whether this suggestion is reasonable.
Dvsfunctional versus COA (total) families
Are adult children of alcoholics uniquely different from the adult children of dysfunctional families? As presented in the introduction, this study represents one of the few attempts to examine this question empirically.
Present findings demonstrate that individuals from dysfunctional and from
COA families report similar scores on al! but the adult attachment dimensions.
These findings were in contrast to expectations that the two groups would significantly differ on al1 measures, rather than just on adult attachment.
However, COAs do not report significantly more family secrets than do adult children of dysfunctional homes, nor do they report being less likely to discuss these secrets within and outside of the family. It can be noted, however, that these scores are similar for the normal group as well. Also, COAs do not report more sharne, guilt, or fear of intimacy than do adult children from dysfunctional homes.
In the present study, the only reported difference between the COAs and the adult children of dysfunctional families concerned adult attachment style.
However, this comparison did not follow the expected pattern. It was hypothesized that the COA group would report higher scores on the Distrust,
Anxiety, and Distant dimensions. Instead, the adult children of dysfunctional families reported higher scores on each of these three dimensions of maladaptive adult attachment. Family Secrecy 48 Present nuil findings may lend support to the idea that the experience of
COAs in their family of origin is not somehow unique, or different from the experience of children from dysfunctional families. The particular secret of alcoholism within a family may not exert a special, specific influence on children within a family beyond the influence of dysfunction in general. If present results, based on a university student sample, can be generalized across wider samples, they suggest a more positive picture of functioning for COAs on present variables than has been assumed. Such a conclusion is not intended to draw attention away from the needs of COAs, but rather to help researchers focus more specifically on variables for which COAs may be at risk.
Although, as noted, the literature is relatively undecided on whether COAs form a unique group, there is a small, but expanding body of literature in support of the idea that COAs may not be unique compared to other children of dysfunctional families. For example, the results of one study of 184 young women (aged 25-35 years) from a university cornmunity sample indicated that daughters of alcohol-abusing parents were no more distressed than were daughters of other distressed parents (Giunta & Compas, 1994). In another study, Hadley et al. (1 993) found that COAs and adult children of dysfunctional families were not significantly different in family dysfunction, object relations deficits, self-expression, and problems with compulsive behaviour. These authors concluded by suggesting that the degree of family dysfunction was more predictive of adult adjustment problems than was the presence of alcohol abuse.
As already noted, present findings suggest that COAs may not necessarily come Family Secrecy 49 from dysfunctional homes. This was the case for the majority of the present university sample, and it seems worth investigating in other, more general samples that include a focus on COAs.
As with the previous literature examined, it is possible that family dysfunction in general is more predictive of adult difficulties than is alcohol abuse considered alone. Disturbances in attachment, and ability to trust others have been reported in other studies of dysfunctional families, especially in cases in which the dysfunction involves sexual abuse (Hadley et al., 1994). Since alcoholism is often not the only problem a family is facing, perhaps a combination of dysfunctional factors leads to difficulties with adult attachment.
Dvsf unctional versus COA dvsfunctional families
Are COAs dysfunctional? As noted, a surprising finding of this study was the discovery that the majority of individuals from alcoholic families did not actually report their families as being dysfunctional. Of the 30 COAs who participated in the study, only 8 reported their families as being dysfunctional.
This is an interesting finding in light of previous research, which has often assumed any type of addiction within the family as indicative of 'dysfunction'.
One explanation for the present, more optimistic finding may involve the actual participant population used. Although several previous studies on families have utilized a university population (e.g., Giunta & Compas, 1994; Williams &
Corrigan, 1992), the fact remains that a university population may still be rather select, with an over-representation of "normal" or well-adjusted individuals. This appears to be particularly true of the present sample. Farnily Secrecy 50 When compared to two previous studies of family alcoholism and dysfunction, the present sample reported a higher percentage of 'normals" (67%; no alcoholism or family dysfunction) than did the other studies (50%, Giunta 8
Compas, 1994; 55%, Williams & Corrigan, 1992). However, rates of family alcoholism itself was similar across these three studies: 17%, 14%, and 1474, respectively. Thus the differences between the samples appear to lie in the amount of family dysfunction reported. These differences could be due to variations in the samples used; although each were drawn from a university sample, one sample was drawn from a private religious university (Williams &
Corrigan, 1992), while the other was drawn solely from a fernale population at a public, non-religious university (Giunta & Compas, 1994).
Another factor that may contribute to present differences is the age of the population. Perhaps individuals who are no longer living with their families have managed to distance themselves from family difficulties, or else have learned to deal with the alcoholism in such a manner that it no longer affects them adversely. However, this suggestion appears unlikely in the context of the present sample, whose age (M = 19 years) is younger than in previous studies
(M = 28, Giunta & Compas, 1994; M = 26, Williams & Corrigan, 1992).
Finally, it is possible that, for some individuals, alcoholism was no longer a part of the family, in that a parent had recovered, or the parents had separated. It seems useful for further research in this area to include measures that explicitly assess these factors. Family Secrecy 51 In light of the small sample size of the COA-dsyfunctional group, the present findings must be interpreted cautiously. Nevertheless, our expectations were made regarding this group and our choice of group cornparisons followed from this. Present findings demonstrate that individuals from dysfunctional and from COA-dysfunctional groups report similar scores on al1 but the adult attachment dimensions. COA-dysfunctionals do not report significantly more family secrets than do adult children of dysfunctional homes, nor do they report being less likely to discuss these secrets within and outside of the family. COA- dysfunctionals also do not report more shame, guilt, or fear of intimacy than do adult children from dysfunctional homes. Thus the particular secret of alcoholism within these families does not appear to exert a specific influence on the variables examined beyond that attributable to general family dysfunction.
The only reported difference between the COA-dysfunctional group and the adult children of dysfunctional families concerned adult attachment style. This cornparison did not follow the expected pattern. It was hypothesized that the
COA-dysfunctional group would report higher scores on al1 insecure attachrnent variables assessed: the Distrust, Anxiety, and Distant dimensions. Instead, the adult children of dysfunctional families reported higher scores on two of these three dimensions of maladaptive adult attachment. Given that previous research in this area has not considered a dysfunctional and a "comorbid" dysfunctional
(Le., family dysfunction and family alcoholism) grouping, it is unclear why the dysfunctional group would report more maladaptive attachment than the comorbid group. One possible reason is the very small comorbid group (n = 8) in Family Secrecy 52 the present sarnple. Future research could help to answer this question by first noting whether these results are replicated with a larger sample size, and then by focusing more specifically on adult relationships, using the same group breakdown.
Present nuIl findings on the majority of the variables examined appear to lend further support to the idea that the particular secret of alcoholism within a family does not exert a special, specific influence on children within a dysfunctional family. However, as noted previously, the majority of the COA group (n = 22) reported themselves as having a normal family, despite reported family alcoholism. This is interesting in light of the fact that in spite of this majority, the present COA group appears to resemble the dysfunctional family group more closely than it resembles the normal family group.
One reason for this finding may involve the small group of dysfunctional family COA within the total COA group. It may be that this group (n = 8), comorbid for both family dysfunction and family alcoholism, is very dysfunctional, and is thus pulling the rest of the GOA group to also resernble the dysfunctional family group. One way to examine this suggestion is to break the COA group down into a normal COA and a dysfunctional COA group as presented in our results section. If the dysfunctional COA group is responsible for causing the total
COA group to resemble the dysfunctional group, we would expect that removing the influence of this small group would then show that the remaining normal
COAs actually resemble the normal family group, rather than the dysfunctional family group. Famiiy Secrecy 53 As noted in present results, when the dysfunctional COA group was
considered separately from the COA group, the dysfunctional COA group
strongly resembled the dysfunctional family group in rnost variables. However, when the normal COA group is considered separately from the COA group, the
normal COA group actually resernbles the normal family group in most variables
(looking at the data descriptively; see Table 1). As noted by these data,these families do not seem to be very dysfunctional, despite family alcoholisrn.
These findings lend further support to the idea that it rnay be more correct to attribute the differences noted between groups in the present study to family dysfunction, rather than to family alcoholism. Indeed, family alcoholism does not appear to add any extra influence in regard to adult adjustment. lnstead the key variable appears to be whether individuals report dysfunctional, as opposed to normal, functioning in their family of origin.
Relationshi~samona - Variables
The present study also addressed the relationships among variables, regardless of group membership. In particular, family secrecy was examined in its relationship to shame, guilt, adult attachment, and fear of intimacy.
In contrast to hypotheses, number of family secrets was related to an increased propensity to discuss secrets both within and outside of the family, rather than to the expected decrease. If a secret is something that involves information that is withheld from others, then this finding begs the question of whether the secrets reported were actually "secrets" per se. For if they were Family Secrecy 54 ?nie" secrets, we would expect individuals to be less likely, rather than more
Iikely, to discuss them.
Once again, there are several factors to consider, beginning with the
university sample used in this study. It is possible that this sample was
composed of many well-adjusted individuals who rnay be more likely to bring
these secrets, or family difficulties, out into the open. As social noms change
and individuals become more accustomed to discussing formerly secret, or taboo
matters, they rnay be becoming more likely to reveal secrets. There is also the
prevalence of psychotherapy and self-help avenues to consider, most of which
would extol the virtues of sharing a family secret with a caring other, rather than
withholding the secret within the self. Finally, the media itself rnay play an
important role. Since the advent of television, individuals have begun to learn
about other people's secrets (e.g., documentaries, talk shows), which rnay have
prompted these individuals to think about their own secrets in a very different way (Irnber-Black, 1998). In this type of atmosphere, the formerly unquestioned shame and secrecy previously attached to issues such as cancer, adoption,
homosexuality, mental illness, or "illegitimate" births rnay begin to fall away,
leaving individuals more likely to discuss family secrets.
Another factor to consider rnay be the measurement instrument used to assess discussion of family secrets. As Jahn (1995) notes, this quantitative measurement of discussion rnay need to be supplemented by the addition of a more qualitative dimension in order to address the possibility that discussion which results in escalating negative feelings rnay be worse than no discussion at Family Secrecy 55 all. Also, discussion that is effective may also be more efficient, so that less time is spent discussing. In other words, quality discussion might be associated with low discussion. Thus, an important issue for future study is the quality of the discussion that takes place, rather than simply the quantity of discussion.
In accordance with expectations, more shame was reported when more family secrets occurred. This finding was obtained across two different shame measures. The first shame measure was a scenario-based self-report questionnaire, which required participants to imagine themselves in the presented situation, and then to indicate how likely they would be to react in a particular way. The second shame measure gave participants a list of feelings, on which they indicated how common each feeling was to them. Both of these measures positively correlated with number of farnily secrets.
Secrecy is often linked to shame, particularly in the family therapy literature. Mason (1993) notes:
While growing up, many of us came to believe that the word "secret" had a
negative meaning as we learned about the painful truth enveloped in
secrecy. For many, family privacy had long been the hiding place for
shameful secrets. Yet we have learned that one person's "right to privacy"
is often another person's victimization and shame (p. 30).
Despite the widely accepted ccnnection between secrecy and shame, there is little empirical research on the actual relationship between the two. There have been some studies looking at shame in families with a particular secret, such as alcoholism or eating disorders, but only one study was found that Family Secrecy 56 compared family secrecy in general with shame. This study, by Jahn (1995). found that participants who experienced a greater number of secretive events in their families reported more internalization of painful levels of shame emotions as adults. Thus the present study provides further support for this conclusion by obtaining consistent results across two additional shame measures.
However, it is important to note that when within-family discussion of secrets was controlled for in the present sampte, the positive relationship between number of family secrets and the scenario-based shame questionnaire was no longer significant. Similarlÿ, when outside-family discussion of secrets was controlled for, the positive relationship between number of family secrets and the feelings-checklist shame questionnaire was no longer significant. Thus it may be that number of secrets had a positive relationship with sharne only because number of secrets is so strongly related to another variable that relates to shame, namely discussion of secrets. Discussion of secrets may thus help to decrease the expected links for shame with having family secrets.
As is the case with shame, guilt is often assumed to be related to secrecy, but with little, if any, ernpirical research to support this assumption. In the present study, two differing measures of guilt were used. The first rneasure, the same scenario-based measure used to evaluate shame, operationalizes guilt proneness as a cross-situationally consistent tendency to express high degrees of regret, remorse, apology, and reparation (Ferguson & Stegge, 1998). The guilt responses in this measure are situationally appropriate reactions that irnmediately rectify the wrong done and increase others' trust in the perpetrator's Family Secrecy 57 willingness and ability to commit to rules of conduct in relationships. These guilt responses have been found to be highly related to various indices of adjustment.
In the present study, this type of guilt was termed "positive" or adaptive guilt. It was hypothesized that secrecy would not correlate with this type of guilt, but rather, with the measure of negative guilt.
The second measure, the same checklist measure used to evaluate shame, gives an assessment of a more negative type of guilt. High guilt scores on this measure likely reflect a blend of repeated mistakes, hurtful behaviours, and perhaps critical life events or unusually severe incidents (Ferguson &
Stegge, 1998). Harder (1995) reviews a series of studies in which he finds that this guilt scale, when partialed for shame indices, correlates positively with depression, self-derogation, public self-consciousness, the global severity index, and total syrnptom indices from the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised, as well as more specific indices from the SCL-90-R, such as somaticization, interpersonal sensitivity, hostility-anger, and psychoticism.
In accordance with expectations, more negative guilt was reported when more family secrets occurred. In contrast, no relationship was found between positive, or more adaptive guilt and secrecy. This finding underlines the possibly negative effects of secrecy on an individual. Although, as suggested, guilt often serves a very adaptive function, this does not appear to be the case when considering family secrets. Karpel (1980) suggests that those who know the secret becorne anxious as they constantly fear disclosure and constantly have to guard the direction of conversations, and those who are kept out of the secret Family Secrecy 58 become anxious as they experience the interpersonal tension that surrounds events. Thus, those who "know but aren't allowed to know" a secret (as often occurs in family secrets that are not permitted to be discussed) often describe feeling burdened by an unexplainable sense of guilt. The present study lends empirical support to this idea.
The remaining hypotheses in the present study involve the relationship of number of family secrets to attachment and intimacy. These hypotheses were not completely supported. Of the three maladaptive attachment scores, only the
Distrust dimension was positively correlated with number of family secrets. This finding suggests that individuals from families with many secrets may find it difficult to depend on others or to feei that others are available when needed
(Collins & Read, 1990). This may be due to the very nature of secrecy. which demands concealment of certain information. If an individual is prevented frorn speaking about a source of concern for them, it is likely that they will develop a sense that others are not available to them. Similarly, they may be unable to depend on others because depending on others often involves being able to disclose to others.
Number of family secrets was not significantly related to the Anxiety (worry about relationships) or to the Distant (nervousness about closeness) dimensions of maladaptive adult attachment. The Anxiety dimension did reach significance before a correction was applied, however, so it is possible that, if present findings are generalizable to a larger sample, these two variables would relate significantly. The present finding suggests that individuals from families with Family Secrecy 59 many secrets believe others to be less altruistic and more likely to conform to social pressures. In relationships, these individuals would be likely to worry about possibilities such as being abandoned, or that their partner did not really love them (Collins & Read, 1990).
As noted, number of family secrets was not related to the Distant dimension of maladaptive adult attachment. Sirnilarly, number of family secrets was not found to be related to fear of intimacy. These findings suggest that individuals from families with many secrets do not find it difficult to get close to others, nor do they express being uncomfortable with intimacy. This finding is sornewhat surprising in light of the positive correlation found between number of secrets and the Distrust attachrnent dimension. If an individual finds it difficult to depend on others or to feel that others are available to hirn or her, it is logical to assume that they would also have difficulty in becoming close to, or intimate with, others. Indeed, these two attachment scales have even been found to be moderately (r=.38) related (Collins & Read, 1990).
Nevertheless, the present study distinguishes between the two scales in their relation to number of farnily secrets. Perhaps the difference has to do with the type of relationship considered. On the Distrust scale, participants rnay have been considering any relationships in their lives. Alternatively, on the Distant scale, participants rnay have focused their considerations on love partners in particular. This is definitely the case on the fear of intimacy measure, which requested participants to specifically imagine that they were in a close, dating relationship. Thus it is possible that number of family secrets is a hindrance to Family Secrecy 60 the way individuals view al1 relationships in a rather generâl sense, while this effect is absent in more personal, one-to-one relationships. This is, however, but one suggestion. Perhaps further study focusing more specifically on family secrecy and adult relationships will help to clarify these distinctions.
Predictors to Secrecv
Of the six variables (Le., Within-Family Discussion, Outside-Family
Discussion, Tosca Shame, PFQ Shame, PFQ Guilt, and Distrust) significantly correlated with Number of Family Secrets, only Within- and Outside-Family
Discussion and Distrust accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in
Number of Family Secrets.
The moderately large effect for Within- and Outside-Family Discussion was not unexpected, given that these two variables corne from the same measure used to determine Number of Family Secrets and have the strongest correlations with Number of Family Secrets. Perhaps the most interesting finding, then, is that only Distrust, among other significant correlates, contributed significantly to the prediction of Number of Family Secrets. It thus may be that
Distrust, or the feeling of not being able to depend on others, is particularly relevant when considering the amount of secrets within a family. As previously noted, secrecy may prevent individuals from depending on others due to the need for things to remain concealed. Depending on others often involves being able to confide in them, and since secrecy prevents this, individuals holding secrets may feel that others are not available to them. Alternately, individuals Family Secrecy 61 who feel they can't depend on others may have a tendency to keep more secrets.
Conclusions
There are several limitations to the present study. As noted, the use of a university sample may have provided somewhat more elevated reports of functioning than a community sample would have. However, although the percentage of normal families in the present study was somewhat higher than has been found in other samples, the percentage of family alcoholism was close to, and even slightly higher than, other similar samples. Another possible limitation of the present study is the measurement instrument used to assess discussion of family secrets. The instrument is currently the only one of its kind available. However, as noted, it may be beneficial to supplement this solely quantitative measurement with a more qualitative dimension in order to obtain a clearer picture of the quality of discussion that takes place, rather than simply the quantity.
In spite of these limitations, this study provides a nurnber of contributions and clarifications to the existing fiterature concerning family secrecy. Perhaps the rnost significant contribution is the support for the idea that the experience of
COAs in their family of origin is not somehow unique from the experience of children from dysfunctional families. First of all, further research with a cornmunity sample may serve to generalize these findings across a wider sample. Secondly, research could be done with other groups with a "specific" dysfunction (e.g., adult children of abusive families) in order to determine if it is Family Secrecy 62 also more beneficial to treat these other groups as unique, or to develop interventions and treatment programs with a broader, more generalized focus on family dysfunction. This may be particularly beneficial in light of the fact that many dysfunctional families include a range of difficulties, as opposed to one specific, circumscribed problem (Imber-Black, 1998). Farnily Secrecy 63 References
Baker, J., & Williamson, D. (1989). Psychological profiles of adult children of alcoholics in search of therapy. Counsellino Psvcholoav-- Quarterlv. 2.451 -457.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991 ). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personalitv and Social
Psvcholoav, 61,226-244.
Beavers, W.R., & Hampson, R.B. (1990). Successful families: Assessment and intervention. New York: Norton.
Bingham, A., & Bargar, J. (1985). Children of alcoholic families: A group treatment approach for latency age children. Journal of Psvchosocial Nursinq,
-23(12), 13-15.
Black, C. (1982). lt will never ha~oento me! Denver: M.A.C.
Bok, S. (1983). Secrets: On ethics of concealment and revelation. New
York: Pantheon.
Brown-Smith, N. (1998). Family secrets. Journal of Familv Issues. 19 (1),
20-42.
Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personalitv and Social
Psvcholoav. 58(4), 644-663.
Derlega, V.J., Metts, S.M., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S.T. (1993). Self disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Descutner, C.J., & Thelen, M.H. (1991). Development and validation of a
Fear-of-lntimacy Scale. Psvcholoqical Assessment, 3,218-225. Family Secrecy 44 Ferguson, T.J., & Stegge, H. (1998). Measuring guilt in children: A rose by any other name still has thorns. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guiit and children (pp. 19-74).
Toronto: Academic Press.
Giunta, C., & Compas, BE. (1994). Adult daughters of alcoholics: Are they unique? Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 55,600-606.
Hadley, J.A., Holloway, EL., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1993). Common aspects of object relations and self-representations in offspring from disparate dysfunctional families. Journal of Counselino Psvcholow. 40(3), 348-356.
Harder, D.W. (1 990). Additional construct validity for the Harder Penonal
Feelings Questionnaire measure of shame and guilt proneness. Psvcholoaical
Reoorts, 67,288-290.
Harder, D.W. (1995). Shame and guilt assessment, and relationships of shame- and guilt-proneness to psychopathology. In J. P. Tangney and
K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The ~svcholoavof sharne. auilt, embarrassment, and ride (pp. 368-392). New York: Guildford Press.
Harder, D.W., & Lewis, S.J. (1 987). The assessment of shame and guilt.
In J.N. Butcher & C.D. Speilberger (Eds.), Advances in personalitv assessment:
Vol. 6. (pp. 89-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hardwick, C.J., Hansen, N.D., & Bairnsfather, L. (1995). Are adult children of alcoholics unique? A study of object relations and reality testing. The
International Journal of the Addictions, 30(5), 525-539.
Imber-Black, E. (1 993). Secrets in families and family theraov. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company. Farnily Secrecy 65 Imber-Black, E. (1998). The secret Iife of families: Tnith-tellina. orivacv. and reconciliation in a tell-al1 societv. Toronto: Bantam Books.
Jahn, M.F. (1995). Family secrets and family environment: Their relation to later adult functioning. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterlv, 13(2), 70-80.
Jones, J.W. (1 983). The Children of Alcoholics Screenina Test and test manual. Chicago: Camelot Unlimited.
Joseph, D.I., & Onek, J. (1999). Confidentiality in psychiatry. In S. Bloch,
P. Chodoff, & S.A. Green (Eds.), Psvchiatric ethics (pp. 105-140). Oxford:
University Press.
Karpel, M .A. (1980). Family secrets. Familv Process. 19(3), 295-306.
Krestan, J., & Bepko, C. (1 993). On lies, secrets, and silence: The multiple levels of denial in addictive families. In E. Imber-Black (Ed.), Secrets in Families and Familv Theraov, pp. 141-159. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Mason, M. (1993). Shame: Reservoir for family secrets. In E. Imber-Black
(Ed.), Secrets in families and familv therapv (pp. 29-43). New York: W. W. Norton
& Company.
Olson, D.H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1 985). Familv ada~tabilitvand cohesion scales II. Unpublished manuscript available from first author, Family
Social Science Department, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 551 117.
Robinson, B.E., & Rhoden, J.L. (1998). Workino with children of alcoholics: The oractitioner's handbook. London, ON: Sage Publications. Family Secrecy 66 Stanley, D., & el-Guebaly, N. (1991 ). Psychometric evaluation of the
Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST) in a psychiatrie sample.
International Journal of Addictions. 26,657-668.
Tangney, J.P. (1998). How does guilt differ frorn shame? In J. Bybee
(Ed.), Guilt and children, pp. 1-17. Toronto: Academic Press.
Tangney, J.P., 8urggraf, S.A., & Wagner, P.E. (1995). Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness, and psychological symptorns. In J.P. Tangney and K.W. Fischer
(Eds.), Self-conscious emotions: The ~svcholoavof shame. auilt, embarrassment. and mide (pp. 343-367). New York: Guildford Press.
Tangney, J.P., Wagner, P.E., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992).
Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Penonalitv and Social Psvcholo~v.62,669-675.
Tangney, J.P., Wagner, P.E., & Gramzow, R. (1 989). The Test of Self-
Conscious Affect. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Vangelisti, A.L. (1994). Family secrets: Forms, functions, and correlates.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 11 , 1 13-1 35.
Vangelisti, A.L., & Caughlin, J.P. (1997). Revealing family secrets: The influence of topic, function, and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships. 14(5), 679-705.
Williams, O.B., & Corrigan, P.W. (1992). The differential effects of parental alcoholism and mental illness on their adult children. Journal of Clinical
Psvcholoav. 48(3), 406-414. Family Secrecy 67 Wood, B., & Talrnon, M. (1 983). Family boundarïes in transition: A search or alternatives. Familv Process. 22,347-357.