Abstract
Despite decades of research on distress disclosure, existing scales inadequately capture the multifaceted nature of perceived disclosure risks, particularly in collectivist cultural contexts where concerns extend beyond the individual to family and relational obligations. This research proposes a scale that more fully addresses the social and relational vulnerabilities specific to distress disclosure. Three studies with Chinese adults (n = 1728) were conducted to establish and validate the 16-item multidimensional Distress Disclosure Risk Scale (DDRS-16), comprising three dimensions of perceived risk of distress disclosure: social judgment, disclosure vulnerability, and imposition. Incorporating collectivist values, the DDRS-16 offers a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of distress disclosure overlooked in existing scales developed exclusively from Western samples.
Distress disclosure—the self-revelation of personally troubling thoughts, experiences, and feelings—has well-documented benefits, including enhanced interpersonal relationships, increased social support, reduced feelings of loneliness, and improved psychological well-being (Cheung et al., 2015; Kahn et al., 2012; Sloan, 2010). Sharing emotional distress promotes intimacy by fostering empathy and encouraging mutual openness, thereby deepening long-term connections (Kahn et al., 2012). Conversely, habitually concealing distress can gradually erode trust and emotional closeness (Finkenauer et al., 2009). Because disclosure tends to enhance—and concealment tends to undermine—relationship quality, it is important to understand the perceived risks that discourage individuals from opening up.
Yet, distress disclosure is not without risks of adverse outcomes or social repercussions (Greenland et al., 2009). Individuals who perceive higher risk tend not to disclose their distress and would conceal their unpleasant feelings and emotions from others (Kahn et al., 2012; Vogel & Wester, 2003). While there have been attempts to quantify the subjective risk of distress disclosure (Greenland et al., 2009; Vogel & Wester, 2003), these scales commonly overemphasize risks to disclosers while neglecting potential negative impacts on recipients—such as embarrassment or discomfort—that can also influence individuals’ decisions to disclose distress (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Omarzu, 2000). Other scales addressing related constructs, such as support-seeking (Lim et al., 2013) or secret disclosure (Afifi & Steuber, 2009), consider perceived costs to self and others but cover only limited aspects of disclosure and do not address the distinct psychological, relational, and cultural dimensions characteristic of distress disclosure.
Existing scales have predominantly been created with Western populations in mind, which raises significant concerns about whether these tools are appropriate or broadly applicable across different cultures. Afifi and Cornejo (2020) argue that the issue extends beyond simply testing, replicating, or adapting Western-developed scales for non-Western contexts; it highlights a deeper problem of inadequate critical examination and a skewed perspective on the foundational processes of communication, which are dominated by Western viewpoints. The pervasive bias in communication theories, often tested exclusively within Western populations and grounded in Western ideals of individualism and independence (Afifi & Cornejo, 2020), leads to a tendency in the communication literature to neglect or minimize the unique cultural characteristics of non-Western societies essential for the development of communication theories (Miike, 2007).
This oversight is especially significant in the context of Chinese societies, where distress disclosure involves distinctive social risks shaped by cultural values and social structures. Within tightly knit guanxi (relationship) networks, personal struggles can quickly circulate within the community, potentially bringing stigma not only to the individual but also to their entire family (Chen et al., 2013). Influenced by Confucian values such as filial piety and “putting family first,” individuals often suppress emotional expression to avoid burdening others—especially elders—and to preserve family harmony, reputation, and social standing (Chen & Danish, 2010). “Putting family first” means that disclosure decisions are not based solely on individual readiness or personal needs but are negotiated within the broader interest of maintaining collective family honor (Chen et al., 2013; Chen & Danish, 2010). For example, family members may discourage open discussion of distress to protect the family’s social image, and disclosure is often carefully managed to avoid shame or loss of face that might affect relatives. This collective orientation contrasts with Western cultural ideals that typically prioritize individual emotional expression and autonomy in communication. Consequently, in Chinese families, communication about distress is navigated with sensitivity to relational obligations and social repercussions, making disclosure a complex decision influenced by both personal and familial considerations. The lack of a reliable measure of such concerns may result in a limited and superficial understanding of how perceived risks influence individuals’ decisions and behaviors regarding disclosing distress.
This research addresses three significant gaps in existing distress disclosure research. First, prior scales have treated perceived disclosure risk as unidimensional or conceptually conflated related risks; we propose a three-factor model distinguishing social judgment, disclosure vulnerability, and imposition risks. Second, existing measures emphasize risks to the discloser while largely neglecting recipient-focused concerns; we introduce ‘imposition’ as a theoretically grounded, empirically distinct dimension. Third, Western-developed scales fail to capture the cultural specificities of collectivist contexts, where disclosure decisions involve family reputation and relational harmony; we develop a culturally informed measure incorporating these dimensions. Through the rigorous three-study validation sequence reported below, the DDRS-16 offers researchers a multidimensional, culturally sensitive tool for understanding the nuanced barriers to distress disclosure.
Conceptual Background
Distress Disclosure
Distress disclosure has long been a key area of interest for scholars in interpersonal communication, particularly within the broader practice of self-disclosure, which involves intentionally revealing personal information that may be private or sensitive and unknown to the audience (Pearce & Sharp, 1973; Yeo, 2021). Researchers studying distress disclosure have primarily focused on individuals’ disclosure versus concealment of personally distressing information (Kahn et al., 2012; Kahn & Garrison, 2009). The concept of distress disclosure is similar and relevant to other disclosure constructs, including negative emotional expression, disclosure of taboo-related issues or sensitive topics, and self-revelation of specific experiences such as stigmatized and traumatic experiences (e.g., Bogen et al., 2021; Hemenover, 2003; Wells & Kline, 1987).
Through decades of research, scholars in psychology and communication have recognized the significance of self-disclosure in fostering interpersonal relationships and aiding in stress management (Gibbs et al., 2006; Zhang, 2017). It is believed that by openly sharing negative emotions and experiences, individuals can enhance their self-esteem, life satisfaction, and positive affect (Kahn et al., 2012; Kahn & Hessling, 2001). Studies have shown that distress disclosure is inversely related to depression, anxiety, negative affect, and intrusive thoughts (Kahn & Cantwell, 2017; Uysal et al., 2010). Beyond its impact on psychological well-being, psychologists like Kahn et al. (2001) have emphasized the role of distress disclosure in enhancing the likelihood of successful psychotherapeutic outcomes.
Subjective Risks of Disclosure
The self-revealing of psychological distress carries considerable risks—something that could cause a problem or loss—such as stigma, embarrassment, and rejection (Eisenberg et al., 2009). Disclosers may face additional harm if they are judged, misunderstood, or ignored (Harris et al., 1999). Baxter and Montgomery (1996) outlined four risks of disclosure: rejection by the recipient, loss of personal autonomy and integrity, diminished control or self-efficacy, and the chance of hurting or embarrassing the recipient. The disclosure decision model (DDM) posits that the disclosure process involves conscious decision making guided by the individual’s disclosure goals (Omarzu, 2000). If an individual chooses to disclose their personal information, the breadth and depth of the disclosure will be heavily influenced by their perceived disclosure risks, including social rejection, betrayal, and, more altruistically, causing discomfort for the recipient. Aligning with Baxter and Montgomery (1996), Omarzu (2000) suggests that when making disclosure decisions, individuals consider not only the risks to themselves but also to others (i.e., the recipients or audience).
Scholars have long highlighted the dilemma of distress disclosure, particularly the tradeoff between its benefits and risks (e.g., Greenland et al., 2009; Kahn et al., 2012). According to social exchange theory, individuals’ social behaviors are influenced by a subjective cost-benefit analysis, where they weigh the expected benefits and costs before engaging in social interactions. People engage in such activities when they believe the benefits either outweigh or equal the costs (Cook et al., 2013; Homans, 1974). Individuals will not self-disclose if they perceive that the risks of disclosure exceed the benefits (Cook et al., 2013). In a similar vein, privacy calculus theory posits that individuals decide whether to disclose or conceal personal and sensitive information based on the balance between perceived risks and expected benefits (Culnan & Armstrong, 1999). The theory suggests that individuals make rational evaluations of the risks and benefits before disclosing personal information. The concept of “privacy calculus” (Culnan & Armstrong, 1999, p. 106) underscores this trade-off between perceived risks and anticipated benefits, influencing the decision to self-disclose. People will choose to reveal personal and sensitive information only if they believe that the benefits of disclosure outweigh the potential risks.
Overall, self-disclosure theories posit a negative association between perceived disclosure risk and self-disclosure behaviors. These theories highlight the importance of disclosure risk perceptions in individuals’ disclosure decision-making. Therefore, the development of a reliable and valid multidimensional distress disclosure risk scale offers researchers opportunities to further examine the delineated negative association between perceived distress disclosure risk and distress disclosure behaviors. It also facilitates the advancement of self-disclosure theories by clarifying the relative importance and impact of different risk dimensions on self- and distress disclosure behaviors.
Existing Distress Disclosure Risk Measures
Prior research has developed several self-report scales specifically for measuring perceived distress disclosure risk (e.g., Greenland et al., 2009; Vogel & Wester, 2003). However, these scales present some issues concerning the components of perceived distress disclosure risk, warranting the development and validation of a new distress disclosure risk scale. A key shortcoming of some existing scales is the operationalization of perceived distress disclosure risk as a unidimensional construct. For instance, Vogel and Wester (2003) developed a 4-item distress disclosure risk expectation subscale to measure individuals’ anticipated risk and utility of disclosing personally distressing information to a counselor. This scale focuses on a single factor and gauges perceived distress disclosure as a unidimensional and bipolar construct, specifically as either risky or not. A potential limitation of such existing measures, is that they may overlook the multifaceted nature of perceived risks, thereby failing to capture the complex and nuanced dimensions individuals may associate with distress disclosure.
Furthermore, the existing multi-factor distress disclosure scale presented questionable facets of perceived distress disclosure risk, which warrants further investigation. Greenland et al. (2009) developed a three-dimensional scale to capture distinct components of subjective disclosure risks. The authors identified and named three risk-related factors: stigma, shame, and access and other people. Although the authors constructed three components of subjective distress disclosure risk based on item descriptions, two of these factors—shame and access and other people— mainly assess potential obstacles individuals may encounter when disclosing distress (e.g., “I would find it difficult to speak to this person privately”) rather than the actual perceived risk involved (e.g., receiving negative responses from the listener). The validity of the scale is also questionable because the authors did not assess the construct validity of the subscales.
Beyond these scale-specific limitations, broader existing measures related to self-disclosure and information revelation exhibit conceptual mismatches when applied to distress disclosure. Lim et al.’s (2013) intrapersonal and interpersonal costs of support seeking scale, for example, was developed to assess costs tied to instrumental support seeking, with an emphasis on concerns about self-image and perceived competence when seeking practical assistance. Distress disclosure, however, involves sharing vulnerable, emotionally charged experiences that evoke a wider range of psychological, relational, and social risks—dimensions largely absent from Lim et al.’s measure. Consequently, attempts to adapt this scale to distress disclosure contexts (e.g., Zhao et al., 2021, in social media disclosure) capture only a narrow subset of potential risks. Similarly, Afifi and Steuber’s (2009) risk revelation model (RRM) examines risks associated with revealing secrets, focusing on the decision-making process around disclosing discrete, concealed information. Within this framework, distress is conceptualized as a byproduct of secret withholding rather than the direct object of disclosure. Although the RRM accounts for intrapersonal, interpersonal, and relational risks centered on protecting oneself, one’s partner, and the relationship, it does not differentiate or fully capture the distinctive emotional and social vulnerabilities that characterize distress disclosure. Taken together, the shortcomings of existing measures highlight the need for a specialized, culturally sensitive scale that encapsulates the unique psychological and relational risks central to distress disclosure.
Identifying Core Dimensions: Integrating Theory and Experience
While existing theoretical frameworks highlight the multidimensional nature of disclosure risk, the specific dimensions that operationalize these abstract concerns in contemporary contexts, particularly for individuals navigating collectivist cultural values, remain underspecified in prior research.
Self-disclosure theories like the disclosure decision model (DDM; Omarzu, 2000) provide crucial theoretical grounding by proposing that disclosure involves conscious decision-making influenced by anticipated risks, including social rejection, betrayal, and—importantly—causing discomfort to the recipient. Omarzu’s framework emphasizes the multidimensional nature of risk and highlights that individuals consider both self-oriented and other-oriented concerns when making disclosure decisions. However, Omarzu’s framework remains somewhat abstract regarding the specific dimensions that individuals perceive and prioritize when making real-world disclosure decisions.
Therefore, to operationalize the theoretical concepts articulated by Omarzu into measurable dimensions relevant to contemporary contexts—particularly within collectivist cultural contexts where both individual and relational concerns are paramount—a two-phase approach was adopted. First, a review of theoretical frameworks and existing measurement scales was conducted to establish the conceptual foundation for understanding disclosure risk as involving concerns about potential harm to both discloser and recipient. Second, to identify the specific risk dimensions most salient to individuals in contemporary settings, a reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) was conducted on 116 user-generated posts from an anonymous Chinese social media platform in which individuals discussed reasons for not disclosing distress (see Study 1 method section for details).
Through coding and thematic interpretation, three primary thematic categories emerged from individuals’ own articulations of disclosure concerns: (1) Social judgment—concerns that revealing distressing information would lead to negative social evaluation, with particular emphasis on potential damage to family reputation and the collective concept of face (lian); (2) Disclosure vulnerability—fears of becoming exposed when expressing distress, including loss of control over private information, unauthorized dissemination to third parties, and concerns about being misunderstood or receiving inadequate support responses; and (3) Imposition—concerns about transferring negative emotions to others, causing burden, or creating emotional distress for the audience.
These empirically-grounded dimensions reflect both common concerns (e.g., judgment, misunderstanding) and culturally-specific concerns (e.g., family face) that individuals themselves identify as central to their disclosure decision-making. By grounding these dimensions in both established theory (Omarzu’s multidimensional conceptualization) and individuals’ lived experiences, the DDRS-16 offers a more transparent and empirically defensible operationalization of perceived distress disclosure risk. These dimensions are described in detail below.
Social Judgement
The first identified facet, social judgment, assesses the extent to which individuals are concerned that revealing personally distressing information could lead to negative social evaluations from others, such as ridicule or perceptions of weakness, potentially harming the disclosers’ and, by extension, their families’ dignity and reputation—that is, “face” or lian (Chen et al., 2013). Communication scholars suggest that people are inclined to avoid social judgment or damage to their social image during purposeful conversations (Brannon & Rauscher, 2019; Goldsmith, 2000). In Chinese culture, this concern extends beyond the individual to include the maintenance of familial reputation, as people to taught to safeguard their family’s honor in social settings (Dong & Lee, 2007). Behaviors that could tarnish the family’s face are therefore actively discouraged (Chen et al., 2013).
While existing self-disclosure risk scales like the Subjective Distress Disclosure Stigma Scale (Greenland et al., 2009) and Self-Protection in Secret Revelation (Afifi & Steuber, 2009) commonly include measures of social judgment-related risk, our newly developed social judgment subscale stands out for its unique consideration of the potential risk of social judgments that damage the family’s face, an aspect rarely explored in self-disclosure research, particularly in relation to distress disclosure.
Disclosure Vulnerability
The second facet, disclosure vulnerability, refers to the discloser’s fear of losing autonomy and control during the disclosure process. When revealing distress, individuals worry that sensitive information will be mishandled (shared with third parties or met with boundary-violating questions) or that their experience will be misunderstood and met with invalidating or dismissive responses. All of these concerns reflect a shared vulnerability: loss of agency over what happens to one’s disclosed information and experience once it enters the interpersonal space.
In collectivist cultures with strong privacy boundaries and emphasis on relational harmony, individuals carefully regulate personal disclosures, especially distressing content, to avoid disrupting group harmony (Liang et al., 2017). Although sharing is encouraged within close-knit circles, strong concerns persist about private information reaching those outside trusted groups, and communal values shape cautious self-disclosure and active boundary regulation to prevent unwanted access (Li et al., 2022; Liang et al., 2017). Disclosure vulnerability concerns in these contexts extend beyond individual privacy to encompass relational risks: individuals worry not only about personal exposure but also about how private information might be misinterpreted or mishandled within communal networks, potentially disrupting group harmony or damaging social standing. The concern about misunderstanding is particularly acute, reflecting the relational sensitivity of collectivist societies, where a recipient’s failure to comprehend one’s distress can damage relational closeness and trust more severely than in individualistic contexts, often leading individuals to suppress explicit expressions of distress and reinforce cycles of isolation (Clement et al., 2015).
In choosing to disclose their distress, individuals must consider the consequence of sharing ownership of their sensitive personal information with their audience (Petronio & Child, 2020). As a result, individuals must weigh the potential ramifications—such as unauthorized dissemination of sensitive details, probing questions that exceed their comfort level, or misinterpretation of their experience—before choosing to share their distressing information. Empirical work highlights how both privacy-related concerns and fear of being misunderstood greatly shape self-disclosure decisions (Ampong et al., 2018; Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010; Zhang et al., 2021). Therefore, individuals who perceive a higher risk of disclosure vulnerability are likely to disclose distressing personal information less frequently than those who do not.
Imposition
The third identified facet, imposition, assesses the extent to which individuals are concerned that disclosing negative feelings and experiences to an audience might cause troubles or burdens for that person, evoke negative emotions in them, or spread negativity to them. Collectivist cultures prioritize group harmony and interdependence, creating significant concern about burdening others when sharing distress (Butler et al., 2007). Research demonstrates that individuals from collectivist backgrounds engage in greater emotional suppression to maintain group welfare over personal expression (Huwaë & Schaafsma, 2018). This creates internal conflict between the need for emotional support and the cultural imperative to avoid imposing on others, leading to withdrawal from disclosures and help-seeking behaviors that could promote psychological well-being (Komissarouk & Nadler, 2014). Unlike the two other risk dimensions which focus on the adverse outcomes of sharing distress for those disclosing it, the imposition dimension specifically considers the potential negative consequences faced by individuals receiving such disclosures, highlight it as a risk for others.
Previous research has indicated that the perceived risk to others can play a pivotal role in individuals’ decisions regarding disclosure (Afifi & Steuber, 2009). The reluctance to impose on others is a key factor in why individuals choose not to share their distress (Issakainen, 2015; Yeo, 2021). It is expected that individuals who perceive high imposition risk would tend to conceal and not disclose their personally distressing information.
How the DDRS-16 Extends Existing Scales
The DDRS-16 extends existing distress disclosure risk scales by addressing three key gaps. First, it explicitly measures recipient-focused risks through the imposition dimension (concern about burdening others emotionally) which existing measures (Greenland et al., 2009; Vogel & Wester, 2003) overlook despite theoretical recognition of recipient impacts (Omarzu, 2000). Second, it integrates collectivist cultural values by capturing family reputation and face (lian) concerns in the social judgment dimension, extending beyond Western-developed scales that emphasize only individual stigma. Third, it offers enhanced conceptual clarity by cleanly separating disclosure vulnerability from other concerns, unlike Greenland et al.’s (2009) conflated shame and access dimensions, enabling more precise research on specific disclosure barriers.
Research Approach
To develop the multidimensional distress disclosure risk scale and examine its psychometric properties, the following steps were taken: generating initial item pool and establishing the distress disclosure risk scale with EFA (Study 1), verifying the factor structure with CFA and examining concurrent and construct validity (Study 2), and testing criterion-related validity (Study 3). All participants were recruited from the Credamo participant panel—a Chinese online survey system similar to Qualtrics (Cao et al., 2021). To prevent duplicate participation, each panel member was limited to responding to a single survey.
Study 1: Establishing Multidimensional Distress Disclosure Risk Scale
The purpose of Study 1 is to establish a multidimensional distress disclosure risk scale. To identify the appropriate number of factors and items that can efficiently capture the distinctive components of perceived distress disclosure risk, parallel analysis and multiple EFAs were performed.
Method
Creating Initial Items
The author first conducted an extensive review of the literature on self-disclosure, distress disclosure, and existing measurement scales assessing perceived risks associated with disclosing distress (Greenland et al., 2009; Lim et al., 2013; Vogel & Wester, 2003). Using insights from this review, we compiled an initial pool of items by incorporating concepts related to distress disclosure risk from the literature, and by extracting and modifying suitable items from the reviewed measurement scales.
To further augment this pool, additional items were crafted based on the codes and themes that emerged from a reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) of 116 posts on an anonymous Chinese social media platform, where users discussed why they chose not to disclose distressing information. RTA is a qualitative method used to identify and interpret patterns of meaning within textual data, allowing for a rich, nuanced understanding of the breadth of distress disclosure risks as experienced and articulated by individuals (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Following RTA, the author systematically reviewed and coded all user posts, focusing specifically on expressions of perceived risks and concerns related to distress disclosure. These initial codes were then interpreted and organized into broader thematic categories that captured diverse dimensions of risk—ranging from common worries such as burdening the listener to more unique concerns like being excessively questioned about the disclosed experience. These empirically grounded themes provided a concrete conceptual foundation for generating initial scale items that reflect both widely shared and more nuanced aspects of distress disclosure risk.
Dimensions, Items, and Loadings of 18-Item Distress Disclosure Risks Scale
Note. var = variance explained; The items of each factor were sorted by factor loadings based on the Principal Axis Factoring extraction method and Promax rotation method.
Participants
A total of 300 participants were recruited February 2022. More than half of the participants identified as cisgender women (59.67%) and 40.33% as cisgender men, aged between 19 and 60 years (Mean = 28.61, Median = 28, SD = 7.04), with the majority holding a bachelor’s degree or higher (90%). The participants were asked to complete an online questionnaire containing the 18 items created earlier. Before answering the questions, participants were first asked to think about a time when they disclosed personally distressing information (including distress thoughts, feelings, or experiences) to another person. For each statement, participants needed to indicate how much they agree or disagree based on that experience. Upon questionnaire completion, each participant received a reward of 3 RMB.
Analytic Procedure
The KMO value of the current data was .96 and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (X 2 = 7980.72, df = 820, p < .001), suggesting that the dataset was suitable for factor analysis (Carpenter, 2018; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Following this, scree test and parallel analysis were performed to determine the appropriate number of factors. The scree test produced a visual plot of eigenvalues, allowing researchers to identify the cutoff point or “elbow” where the line begins to flatten, indicating the number of factors to retain. Conversely, parallel analysis compared the eigenvalues from the dataset to those from a randomly ordered dataset, retaining only those factors with Eigenvalues larger than the random ones generated by statistical software (Carpenter, 2018). By examining the results of both methods, the optimal number of factors was determined. Next, EFA was performed using SPSS version 28 to establish the distress disclosure risk scale.
Results
The scree plot (Figure 1) showed a leveling off after three factors, suggesting they should be retained. Parallel analysis confirmed this, with random Eigenvalues exceeding actual ones from the four-factor solution onward. Thus, a three-factor solution was chosen as optimal. Hence, EFA was performed using principal axis factoring extraction and Promax rotation forced with a three-factor solution. Scree plot and parallel analysis
Factor 1 was labeled social judgment, which explained 20.91% of the variance. Factor 2 was labeled disclosure vulnerability, which explained 13.04% of the variance. Factor 3 was labeled as imposition, which explained 18.57% of the variance. All three subscales presented good internal consistency (Cronbach alphas ranging from .80 to .87; Table 1).
Study 2: Testing Factor Stability and Convergent, Discriminant, and Concurrent Validity
To confirm and further validate that the three-factor structure of the distress disclosure risk scale established using EFA remained stable, CFA was performed using another independent sample. The composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), and squared correlation coefficients between the three factors were examined to confirm that the three subscales presented satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity. To provide additional evidence of the multi-factor nature of the proposed scale, the three-factor model was compared with a single-factor competitive model that considers risk as a unidimensional construct (Peifer, 2018).
To test concurrent validity (Frey, 2018), the correlation coefficients between the three subscales and two existing measures of perceived distress disclosure risk were examined. The three subscales were expected to be positively correlated with distress disclosure risk expectation and subjective distress disclosure stigma.
Social judgment is positively associated with (a) distress disclosure risk expectation and (b) subjective distress disclosure stigma.
Disclosure vulnerability is positively associated with (a) distress disclosure risk expectation and (b) subjective distress disclosure stigma.
Imposition is positively associated with (a) distress disclosure risk expectation and (b) subjective distress disclosure stigma.
Method
Participants
A total of 400 participants were recruited February 2022. More than half of the participants identified as cisgender women (57%) and 43% as cisgender men, ranging from 18 to 65 years (Mean = 28.47, Median = 27, SD = 7.18). The majority of the participants held a bachelor’s degree or higher (91%). Participants were asked to complete an online survey. After completing the questionnaire, seven RMB were given to each participant as a reward.
Measures
Distress Disclosure Risk Scale
The 18-item distress disclosure risk scale developed from Study 1 was administered. The same instructions used in Study 1 were provided to participants prior to their completion of the items. Items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Distress Disclosure Risk Expectations
The 4-item distress disclosure risk expectation scale developed by Vogel and Wester (2003) was adapted to measure respondents’ anticipated risk of disclosing negative personal information to others. In the current study, the items were slightly revised by replacing the words “to a counselor” with “to other people.” All items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very). The four items were averaged, with higher scores representing a higher anticipated risk of distress disclosure (α = .82, M = 3.18, SD = 0.90).
Subjective Distress Disclosure Stigma
The 8-item subjective distress disclosure stigma subscale developed by Greenland and colleagues (2009) was adopted. Participants were asked to imagine that they were going to talk to someone about a distressing crisis. Following, they were asked to read and rate the eight items (including “This person would say that I should grow up.”) on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). After recoding all the reverse-scored items, the items were averaged, with higher scores representing higher subjective distress disclosure stigma (α = .81, M = 2.09, SD = 0.58).
Analytic Procedure
A CFA with a robust maximum likelihood estimator was conducted as it provides adjusted and more accurate model fit indices for ordinal data compared with the standard maximum likelihood estimator (Li, 2016). Following, another CFA was conducted by treating the distress disclosure risk scale as a unidimensional scale with only a single factor. The performances of the proposed three-factor model and the competing single-factor model were evaluated by comparing the model fit indices. Finally, Pearson product-moment correlations were performed to test the concurrent validity of the three distress disclosure risk subscales. All CFAs were conducted using the R lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012).
Results
Factor Stability
Standardized Factor Loadings Based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis on 18- and 16-Item Distress Disclosure Risk Scale
arefers to items not included in the confirmatory factor analysis; all factor loadings were significant with p < .001.
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed by examining the CR, AVE, and squared correlation coefficients of the measures. For convergent validity, a factor should have a CR larger than and an AVE larger than .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For discriminant validity, a factor should have an AVE larger than the squared correlation coefficients between all latent variables (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Squared Correlation Coefficients of the 18-Item Three-Factor Distress Disclosure Scale
Note. The on-diagonal and bold elements are values of AVE. The off-diagonal elements are the squared correlations among the latent variables.
Revision of the Disclosure Vulnerability Subscale
The poor convergent validity and discriminant validity of the disclosure vulnerability subscale urged the need for a revision of the items. A review of the disclosure vulnerability subscale standardized factor loadings revealed that two items presented low standardized loadings (close to and below.60, respectively; Table 2) and could be considered as poor items. To revise the subscale, the item with the lowest factor loading was initially removed, and another CFA was performed; however, the AVE for the subscale remained below the acceptable threshold. As a result, the second low-loading item was removed, and the performance of the revised model was reassessed.
Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Squared Correlation Coefficients of the 16-Item Three-Factor Distress Disclosure Scale
Note. The on-diagonal and bold elements are values of AVE. The off-diagonal elements are the squared correlations among the latent variables.
Although these two items demonstrated conceptual relevance to distress disclosure risks, their removal was justified on psychometric grounds. First, the creation of a separate two-item factor for the two items would violate fundamental principles of factor identification and stability. Psychometric literature consistently recommends that factors contain a minimum of three items to ensure adequate model identification and reliability (Carpenter, 2018). While two-item factors may be acceptable under specific conditions—when items demonstrate correlations of at least 0.70 (Carpenter, 2018)—the observed correlation of 0.63 between the two items fell below this critical threshold, indicating insufficient shared variance to justify a standalone factor.
Second, the deletion decision was guided by the principle that item removal should enhance overall measurement quality without sacrificing essential construct representation. The four remaining items in the disclosure vulnerability subscale demonstrated better psychometric properties and more clearly represented the core theoretical dimensions of the construct, thereby improving both the statistical fit and the conceptual clarity of the measurement model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Comparing the DDRS Three-Factor and Single-Factor Structural Models
A poor model fit was found for the single-factor structure, as indicated by low CFI (.74) and TLI (.70) values and high SRMR (.10) and RMSEA (.15) values. It provided evidence that the proposed three-factor structure of the 16-item DDRS performed better than the single-factor model.
Concurrent Validity
A CFA was conducted to examine the measurement model fit across five latent constructs: social judgment, disclosure vulnerability, imposition, distress disclosure risk expectation, and subjective distress disclosure stigma. Results indicated acceptable model fit: χ 2 = 821.56, df = 344, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .06, 90% CI 0.05, 0.06. All standardized factor loadings exceeded .60 (all p < .001), and all cross-loadings were below .30, indicating no evidence of problematic cross-loadings. The results of the correlation analysis revealed that social judgment, disclosure vulnerability, and imposition subscales were strongly and positively associated with the distress disclosure risk expectation scale (rs ranged from .52 to .56, ps <.001). While the social judgment subscale was strongly associated with the subjective distress disclosure stigma subscale (r = .56, p < .001), the subjective distress disclosure stigma scale presented only moderate associations with disclosure vulnerability (r = .36, p < .001) and imposition (r = .35, p < .001) subscales, respectively. In general, H1 to H3 were supported.
Study 3: Testing Criterion-Related Validity
To present adequate criterion-related validity, the three subscales of the distress disclosure risk scale should predict the related outcomes or behaviors of interest (Miller et al., 2011). Since these scales are designed to measure the risk stemming from distress disclosure, it is expected that all three subscales can predict individuals’ tendencies (Kahn & Hessling, 2001) as well as the frequency of distress disclosure. Given that scholars have proposed and documented the impact of situational factors on individuals’ distress disclosure decision-making (Masur, 2019; Zhang et al., 2021), along with demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, and income level), two situational factors—others’ distress disclosure and distressors—were controlled in the regression model where frequency of distress disclosure was treated as the dependent variable.
Social judgment is negatively associated with (a) distress disclosure tendency and (b) frequency of distress disclosure.
Disclosure vulnerability is negatively associated with (a) distress disclosure tendency and (b) frequency of distress disclosure.
Imposition is negatively associated with (a) distress disclosure tendency and (b) frequency of distress disclosure.
Method
Participants
A total of 1000 participants were recruited March 2022. Among the participants, 563 identified as cisgender women (56.3%) and 437 as cisgender men (43.7%). Their ages ranged from 18 to 59 years (Mean = 27.06, Median = 25, SD = 6.55). The majority of the participants held a bachelor’s degree or higher (88.60%). The median monthly income was 5001–8000 RMB. Participants were asked to complete an online survey and each participant was given 15 RMB as a reward.
Measures
Distress Disclosure Risk Scale
The distress disclosure risk scale validated by the responses from Study 2 was administered. The same instructions used in Study 1 and 2 were provided to participants prior to their completion of the items. Items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Frequency of Distress Disclosure
Participants were asked how frequently they disclosed their distress in the past 14 days to close relational others, distant others, strangers, and mental health professionals. The items were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently). The four items were averaged in which higher values represented a higher frequency of distress disclosure (M = 2.34, SD = 0.81).
Distressors
A list comprising fifteen distressing life events was adapted from prior research (Lüdtke et al., 2011; Zhang, 2017) to assess the frequency of distresses encountered and the intensity of distress perceived by the participants. The items contained various types of distressors related life events. Participants were asked if they had experienced the listed events in the past month. If this was the case, they were asked to evaluate how distressing each event was to them on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = did not occur/occurred but not distressing at all to 5 = occurred and extremely distressing. The items were averaged in which higher values indicated higher perceived life distress (α = .83, M = 1.75, SD = 0.53).
Exposure to Others’ Distress Disclosure
The frequency with which other people disclosed their distress to the participants was measured using a single item rated on five-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently), M = 2.97, SD = 1.06.
Distress Disclosure Tendency
The participants’ tendency to share their negative personal information was measured by the 12-item distress disclosure index (DDI; Kahn & Hessling, 2001). The DDI presented excellent reliability in the current data (α = .96, M = 3.80, SD = 0.92).
Analytic Procedure
To examine whether social judgment, disclosure vulnerability, and imposition predicted individuals’ tendency and frequency of disclosing distress, multiple regression analyses were conducted. CFA was conducted using the R lavaan package and the regression analyses were performed using SPSS version 28.
Results
The result of CFA using robust maximum likelihood estimator indicated an acceptable model fit of the three-factor structure, X 2 = 683.84, df = 101, p < .001; CFI = .93, TLI = .92, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .08 (90% CI [0.08, 0.09]). Additionally, all standardized factor loadings of the items from each subscale were significant with p-values <.001 and larger than .63. All the three subscales presented good internal validity (Social judgment: α = .87, AVE = .54, M = 1.96, SD = 0.76; Disclosure vulnerability: α = .84, AVE = .59, M = 3.11, SD = 1.08; Imposition: α = .92, AVE = .68, M = 2.86, SD = 1.03). Therefore, the three-factor structure of distress disclosure risk was also supported and all three subscales presented good internal validity.
The results of the multiple regression analysis indicated that all three dimensions significantly predicted distress disclosure tendency, even after controlling for age, gender, and income level (F = 131.79, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .45). However, the association between imposition (β = −.10, p < .01) and distress disclosure tendency was weaker than that between social judgment (β = −.30, p < .001) and disclosure vulnerability (β = −.33, p < .001). In general, H4a, H5a, and H6a were supported.
Distress disclosure frequency was only significantly associated with disclosure vulnerability (β = −.32, p < .001) and imposition (β = −.17, p < .001), but not social judgment (β = .03, p = .226), after controlling for age, gender, income level, distressors, and exposure to others’ distress disclosure (F = 150.41, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .55). H5b and 6b were supported, but H4b was rejected.
Discussion
This study enhances understanding of the perceived risks that discourage individuals from opening up by developing a multidimensional scale of perceived disclosure risk, offering valuable insight into the barriers that influence emotional expression and shape relationship dynamics. The results of the factor analyses and validation tests based on three independent datasets supported a 16-item Distress Disclosure Risk Scale (DDRS-16). The DDRS-16 has been found to be internally reliable and comprises three distinct subscales that capture different aspects of perceived risk: social judgment, disclosure vulnerability, and imposition. The social judgment subscale assesses the concern disclosers have about themselves and their families being viewed negatively by others after disclosing distressing information. The disclosure vulnerability subscale evaluates the concern of becoming exposed when expressing distress. The imposition subscale measures the concern about the possibility of transferring negative emotions and burdening the audience emotionally and physically with the distressing information shared. By utilizing the DDRS-16 with its three-factor structure, researchers can gain a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted influences on individuals’ decisions to disclose distress, considering the array of perceived risks involved in such disclosures. Additionally, this study enhances understanding of the perceived risks that discourage individuals from opening up by developing a multidimensional scale of perceived disclosure risk, offering valuable insight into the barriers that influence emotional expression and shape relationship dynamics.
The results indicate that the DDRS-16 displays sound psychometric and structural properties. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the subscales in Studies 2 and 3 were consistently high (≥.80), indicating acceptable reliability. Study 2’s concurrent validity evidence showed positive correlations with two established scales measuring distress disclosure risks—the Distress Disclosure Risk Expectation Scale (Vogel & Wester, 2003) and the Subjective Distress Disclosure Stigma Scale (Greenland et al., 2009). While the social judgment subscale, conceptually closer to stigma, showed a moderate correlation with the Subjective Distress Disclosure Stigma Scale, the other two subscales exhibited weak correlations. Study 2 also demonstrated construct validity, with the DDRS-16 subscales correlating with relevant theoretical variables and not with unrelated traits like conscientiousness. In Study 3, the examination of criterion-related validity revealed negative correlations between the distress disclosure risk factors and both the tendency and frequency of distress disclosures, and were significant predictors in the regression models for these behaviors.
Taken together, this research contributes to the scholarship on distress disclosure in at least three major ways. First, it enhances our understanding of the multifaceted nature of perceived distress disclosure risk by presenting a more thorough conceptualization of this construct. Previous studies on the link between anticipated risk and distress disclosure often treated perceived distress disclosure risk as a unidimensional factor (e.g., Vogel & Wester, 2003) or focused solely on a specific facet like anticipated negative evaluation (Zhao et al., 2021). Our findings emphasize the importance of recognizing perceived distress disclosure risk as inherently multidimensional when examining its relationship with individuals’ distress disclosure behaviors. This research introduces a validated tool for assessing three distinct components of perceived distress disclosure risk. The DDRS-16 not only enables researchers to evaluate the three dimensions of distress disclosure risk but also offers researchers an additional measurement tool to capture and investigate risks to others in distress disclosure and other communication contexts.
Second, the DDRS-16, based on Chinese samples, offers a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of distress disclosure that are often ignored in existing scales developed from Western samples. Specifically, it transcends the individualistic perspective evident in current distress disclosure risk measures, which primarily focus on self-oriented factors (Greenland et al., 2009; Vogel & Wester, 2003; Zhao et al., 2021), by incorporating collectivist values and considerations for others in assessing distress disclosure risk. It broadens the social judgment dimension to include concerns for family reputation and introduces imposition as a new risk dimension, representing the potential negative consequences for the audience of distress disclosure. This research also highlights imposition risk as a critical component of perceived distress disclosure risks. Notably, imposition risk was found to significantly predict both the tendency to disclose distress and actual disclosure behavior. This finding underscores the importance of considering risks to others in the decision-making process of distress disclosure. Overall, our findings call for greater attention and thorough examination of the different risk dimensions of distress disclosure in future studies.
Third, the DDRS-16 developed in this research offers a more nuanced and comprehensive tool compared to current measures of perceived distress disclosure risk. Researchers studying distress disclosure, particularly those examining the influence of risk on individuals’ decisions to reveal or conceal personal distress, and those looking to incorporate risk into theoretical models of disclosure, can directly apply the DDRS-16 in their studies. It offers researchers a robust means to delve into the complexities of distress disclosure decision-making.
Nevertheless, the development of DDRS-16 benefits Chinese communities by addressing cultural nuances that Western-developed scales often overlook. Unlike previous measures that focus on individualistic concerns, the DDRS-16 integrates collectivist values central to Chinese culture, particularly through its social judgment dimension, which considers risks to family reputation and “face.” This adaptation acknowledges that decisions about disclosing distress impact not just the individual but also familial honor, a vital consideration in Chinese society. Additionally, the scale’s imposition dimension reflects the cultural expectation of emotional restraint to maintain harmony and avoid burdening others. By providing a culturally informed tool that captures these collective risk perceptions, the DDRS-16 allows for a more accurate understanding of distress disclosure behaviors in Chinese communities. This improved understanding can guide the development of culturally sensitive mental health interventions, stigma reduction efforts, and communication strategies that resonate with Chinese cultural values. Furthermore, by validating culturally specific experiences of distress disclosure, the DDRS-16 may empower individuals within Chinese communities to navigate disclosure decisions more confidently and effectively.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
The DDRS-16 was developed and validated using exclusively Chinese adult samples. Most importantly, the applicability of this scale is appropriately bounded by the cultural context in which it was developed and tested. Specifically, the social judgment subscale incorporates items measuring concern for family reputation and the concept of ‘face’ (lian)—cultural values that are central to Chinese and other collectivist societies but are not equally salient in Western individualistic cultures that emphasize personal autonomy over family honor.
Future research is needed before applying the DDRS-16 across cultures. First, the scale is most directly suited to collectivist populations, especially Chinese adults and other East Asian groups in which relational obligations, family reputation, and collective identity strongly shape disclosure decisions. In these contexts, the DDRS-16 can be used without further adaptation or validation. Second, the disclosure vulnerability and imposition subscales may travel reasonably well across cultures because worries about being misunderstood or burdening others are widely shared human concerns, but they have not yet been tested in Western or other non-collectivist samples, so researchers should not assume they function identically without conducting formal measurement invariance tests. Finally, the social judgment subscale is unlikely to transfer smoothly to Western individualistic settings, because items about family face, collective honor, and family reputation may not be meaningful where individual autonomy and personal (rather than family) reputation are more central; using this subscale outside collectivist contexts would require careful item rewording to reflect local values, followed by invariance testing and full re-validation. More broadly, we caution against assuming that simple translation is enough for cross-cultural use of the DDRS, and instead encourage culturally informed adaptation studies that evaluate measurement invariance, item relevance, and construct equivalence before applying the scale beyond Chinese populations.
Conclusion
This research developed and validated the DDRS-16, a multidimensional instrument that addresses critical gaps in existing measures by emphasizing the social and relational vulnerabilities in distress disclosure decisions. Through three studies with 1,728 Chinese adults, the DDRS-16 demonstrated robust psychometric properties and established three distinct dimensions of perceived distress disclosure risk: social judgment, disclosure vulnerability, and imposition on others. By moving beyond the predominantly individualistic, Western-centric perspectives, this scale integrates collectivist values that highlight the social consequences of disclosure for others. As a culturally informed and comprehensive tool, the DDRS-16 enables more nuanced examinations of distress disclosure within collectivist cultural contexts, particularly Chinese communities where family reputation and relational harmony substantially influence emotional expression and enriches our understanding of the psychological and relational factors shaping individuals’ willingness to share or withhold personal distress.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author is deeply grateful to Dr. Crystal Jiang for her mentorship throughout this research.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Open Research Statement
As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: