WORKING LIFE STRESS, REHABILITATION
COUNSELLING AND INCLUSION

‘‘To tell or not to tell?’’ Managing a

concealable identity in the workplace

Ross Flett*
School of Psychology, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

Abstract
The management of identities, particularly stigmatized identities, represents considerable

challenge. This article considers some of the issues around the decision to conceal or reveal a

stigmatized or potentially stigmatizing identity. The potential consequences of ‘‘telling or not

telling’’ are examined. There is a need for all individuals to monitor behaviours, attitudes, systems

and structures that convey disrespect, discrimination, and derogation towards those with a

stigmatized identity (concealed or otherwise).

Keywords: identity; stigma; workplace; disclosure; theory

The warp and weft of everyday working

life involves the management of multiple

identities and for the most part these

are seamlessly intertwined. We can at the

same time be friend, acquaintance, col-

league, worker, and boss. The notion of

social identity and the management of

multiple identities are well canvassed in

the psychological literature (e.g. Brook,

Garcia, & Fleming, 2008; Dutton,

Roberts, & Bednar, 2010; Gregg, 1995;

Settles, 2004). But at the same time

there may be other identities that we

wish to conceal (often because of

their potentially stigmatizing nature).

Goffman (1963) defines a stigma as an

attribute that prevents an individual

from being fully accepted in or con-

nected to the social world. Goffman

makes the distinction between stigmas

that are ‘‘discredited’’ versus those that

are ‘‘discreditable’’. The discredited are

those that are more obvious such as race,

physical disability while the discreditable

are those that can be hidden such as

sexual orientation, HIV/AIDS, mental

illness and so on. A non-exhaustive list

of stigmatised identities might include

*Correspondence to: Ross Flett, Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology, Massey University,

Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand. Email R.A.Flett@massey.ac.nz

Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion

#2012 R. Flett. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-

Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial

use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Citation: Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion. DOI: 10.3402/vgi.v3i0.16145

1
(page number not for citation purpose)

http://www.vulnerablegroupsandinclusion.net/index.php/vgi/article/view/16145


mental illness, HIV/AIDS, sexual orien-

tation, race, chronic illness (e.g. epilepsy,

arthritis), sexual assault, childhood sex-

ual abuse, and abortion (Chaudoir &

Fisher, 2010).

A central issue facing an individual

with these invisible, discreditable iden-

tities is ‘‘Do I tell or do I keep it to

myself?’’ The potential negative conse-

quences of revealing such an identity are

well documented (e.g. Pachankis, 2007;

Rose Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007).

The protection of vulnerable groups in

the workplace has received much legis-

lative and research attention in past

decades but as Bell (2007) notes, ‘‘After

more than two decades of diversity re-

search, four decades of antidiscrimina-

tion legislation, and extraordinary media

attention to diversity, discrimination and

exclusion in organizations persist’’ (p. 3).

The present article seeks firstly to

briefly review some research on examples

of concealable stigmatizing identities.

The aim is to bring to the foreground

the potential vulnerability of those

groups such that those who are con-

cerned with wellbeing in the workplace

might gain some additional insights and

understandings. Secondly, I review, from

a psychological perspective, research

concerned with documenting some of

the antecedents, contextual factors, and

consequences of the decision to disclose

a stigmatised concealable identity. Then

it considers a number of theoretical

models that have been advanced as

frameworks for organising and under-

standing this research, and highlight

some of the commonalities across these

models. Finally, drawing on some of the

research on the psychology of secrecy,

the current article makes a case that

sometimes it may in fact be ‘‘better’’ to

simply keep the identity secret.

As noted earlier, Goffman (1963)

defined stigma as some type of devalued

or unacceptable negative characteristic

that sets an individual apart from others,

creating what he referred to as a spoiled

identity. The stigmatising effects of men-

tal illness are extensive. Individuals are

disliked, feared, avoided, excluded and

seen as fundamentally ‘‘different’’ from

the wider society (e.g. Crabtree, Haslam,

Postmes, & Haslam, 2010). Workers

with mental illnesses worry about their

illnesses being ‘‘discovered’’. The direct

stigmatization effects of mental illness

are profound (Jones, 2011) and indirect

effects (stigma by association, or cour-

tesy stigma) have also been noted

(Parfene, Stewart, & King, 2009). Sim-

ply being a parent, sibling, caregiver, or

friend of a person with mental illness

may result in the same kinds of dis-

crimination, exclusion, and avoidance

experiences that are the reality for

members of the stigmatized group.

Sexual orientation has carried with it

a significant stigma (e.g. Herek, Gillis,

& Cogan, 2009). Whilst there has been

a considerable shift in societal attitudes

toward sexual orientation (Herek, 2010),

hate crimes and other crimes of violence

are not uncommon experiences for sex-

ual minority adults (Herek, 2009). Rose

Ragins et al. (2007) emphasise the on-

going importance of understanding the

fear of disclosure of a gay identity in the

workplace.

Among physical illnesses much has

been written about HIV/AIDS as a

widely recognised stigmatising physical

health condition (e.g. Munir, Leka,

& Griffiths, 2005; Neal, Lichtenstein, &

Brodsky, 2010; Phillips, Moneyham, &

R. Flett

2
(page number not for citation purpose)



Tavakoli, 2011; Rutledge, Whyte, Abell,

Brown, & Cesnales, 2011; Sengupta,

Banks, Jonas, Miles, & Smith, 2011;

Sowell & Phillips, 2010). Perhaps one

of the less high profile but equally

profound examples of a chronic physical

illness that is a stigmatized identity is

epilepsy (Munir et al., 2005). A study by

Smith et al. (2009) provides extensive

discussion of psychosocial factors asso-

ciated with stigma in adults with epilepsy

and noted that epilepsy and HIV/AIDS

have similar stigma levels. Bishop,

Stenhoff, Bradley, and Allen (2007)

showed that individuals with cancer in

remission, depression, history of heart

problems, mild mental retardation, or

spinal cord injury were seen by a sample

of employers and HR professionals as

more likely to get hired than a person

with epilepsy.

The overarching picture that emerges

here is of identities that individuals are

highly motivated to conceal for good

reasons*the psychological, social, emo-
tional and practical costs of such iden-

tities being revealed or discovered is

potentially very high. What then do we

know about the psychology behind the

management of such identities? How do

I decide when to tell? Who to tell? How

to tell? What are the consequences of

telling (or not telling)?

A number of models have been pro-

posed as a means of understanding the

dynamics of concealed identities. The

process model of the psychological

implications of concealing a stigma

(Pachankis, 2007) outlines some of the

cognitive, affective and behavioural im-

plications driving the disclosure decision.

He notes some important aspects of the

situation (salience of the stigma, the

threat/consequences of discovery) and

some of the self evaluative implications

such as identity ambivalence, reduced

self-efficacy and negative views of self

that underlie the decision to disclose,

and the consequences of the feedback

elicited by that disclosure decision.

Chaudoir and Fisher (2010) outline a

‘‘Disclosure Processes Model (DPM)’’

which is aimed at providing a framework

for understanding when and how disclo-

sure might be a positive experience that

is beneficial in terms of subsequent

wellbeing. They argue that there are

approach and avoidance motivations

that impact on the decision to disclose

(e.g. wanting more understanding, in-

timacy, greater acceptance versus trying

to avoid conflict, rejection, distancing

and so on). The model outlined by

Ragins (2008) emphasises the influence

of the extent of a disclosure decision on

what she calls ‘‘disclosure disconnects’’

(p. 194). She suggests the fact that there

can be a continuum of disclosure in both

work and non-work domains can lead to

‘‘disclosure disconnects’’. If I tell every-

one in my non-work environment about

my heretofore concealed identity but

decide to continue to keep it secret at

work then this ‘‘ . . . disclosure discon-
nect[s] may result in psychological stress

and conflict as individuals attempt to

manage an identity that is concealed to

various degrees across life settings’’

(p. 2008). Other models from the re-

search literature on secrecy provide some

additional insights into the kinds of

strategies people might use to reveal a

secret identity (e.g. The Revelation Risk

Model), (Afifi & Steuber, 2009), or why

such an identity might continue to

remain hidden (e.g. The Cycle of Con-

cealment Model), (Afifi & Steuber,

2010). It is beyond the scope of this

Managing a concealable identity in the workplace

3
(page number not for citation purpose)



article to provide a detailed critical

analysis of these and other relevant

models reported in the literature. At the

risk of stating the obvious, it is clear that

there is substantial psychological ‘‘work’’

involved in the maintenance of a con-

cealable stigmatized identity.

A useful distinction proposed by

Goffman and others is between ‘‘pas-

sing’’ and ‘‘revealing’’. Revealing is the

disclosure of the previously invisible

identity (often referred to in the sexual

orientation literature, as well as in pop-

ular parlance, as ‘‘coming out’’). The

emphasis in the literature is on revealing

as being ‘‘good’’ for an individual in a

normative sense. Everyday language re-

flects this view. People claim that it is

important for an individual ‘‘to get it off

your chest’’, ‘‘to clear the air’’, ‘‘to be

true to yourself ’’. The notion of self-

verification suggests that individuals find

it important for others to see them as

they see themselves (Chen, English, &

Peng, 2006; Gómez, Morales, Huici,

Gaviria, & Jiménez, 2007; Swann,

Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004). The positive

benefits of revealing suggest that ‘‘ . . .
considered together, disclosure is a

powerful behaviour that can shape

nearly every domain of people’s lives’’

(Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010, p. 3). On the

other hand, ‘‘revealing’’ may be some-

thing of a two-edged sword. Potential

negative consequences might include;

increases in discrimination, prejudice

and stigmatization experiences (Clair,

Beatty, & Maclean, 2005), increasingly

strained relationships with co-workers

(Jones, 2011), rejection, social avoidance

and disapproval (Mak, Ng, Mo, &

Chong, 2010), and more generally

experiences ranging from ‘‘ . . . social
isolation . . . to verbal harassment, job

discrimination, job loss, and even physi-

cal assault . . .’’ (Ragins, 2008, p. 201).
Clearly ‘‘revealing’’ must be a carefully

considered decision.

‘‘Passing’’ is, in simple terms, keeping

the identity hidden*‘‘passing’’ on any
opportunities that may arise to reveal the

identity. Goffman (1963, p. 74) notes

that ‘‘ . . . because of the great rewards in
being considered normal, almost all

persons who are in a position to pass

will do so on some occasion by intent’’.

There is evidence that management of a

concealed identity or multiple concealed

identities is both effortful and stressful

in terms of the need for emotion regula-

tion and suppression (to avoid intrusive

thoughts associated with the concealed

identity), creates a sense of cognitive

dissonance, and generally reduces well-

being and increases stress (Beals, Peplau,

& Gable, 2009; Hatzenbuehler, Nolen-

Hoeksema, & Dovidio, 2009). There is

some evidence, deriving from the pre-

occupation model of secrecy (Afifi &

Caughlin, 2006), that the process of

thought suppression*attempting to sup-
press any thoughts about one’s concealed

identity in order to avoid any inadvertent

‘‘slips of the tongue’’ that may result in

the identity being revealed, may in fact

increase the frequency of those thoughts,

a supposed ‘‘rebound effect’’ (Afifi &

Caughlin, 2006). In broad brush stroke

terms, the implicit message in the re-

search literature seems to be that, all

things considered, ‘‘revealing’’ may be a

‘‘better’’ strategy for the individual to

consider, depending on the target audi-

ence (Chaudoir & Quinn, 2010).

So, what to do? How does an indivi-

dual resolve what seems to be an intract-

able dilemma*‘‘do I tell’’ or, ‘‘do I not
tell?’’ There are no clear advantages to

R. Flett

4
(page number not for citation purpose)



either strategy. Perhaps the fundamental

question to ask oneself is ‘‘Does it bother

me?’’ If the answer to that question is

‘‘no’’ then don’t tell (Kelly & McKillop,

1996). If the answer is ‘‘yes’’ then the

decision making process becomes more

complex. Most of the models emphasise

some form of risk assessment process

(Afifi & Steuber, 2009; Chaudoir &

Fisher, 2010; Omarzu, 2000; Pachankis,

2007; Ragins, 2008). A pivotal factor

here is the assessment of the availability

of social support from the target for the

disclosure, and the general likelihood

that there will be a positive reaction to

the disclosure from that target. Afifi and

Steuber (2009) argue that feelings of

closeness to the target of disclosure

might reduce perceptions of risk. Other

writers emphasise the importance of

supportive relationships in general and

having a supportive confidant in parti-

cular (Beals et al., 2009; Chaudoir &

Fisher, 2010; Gignac & Cao, 2009;

Ragins, 2008). The expectation of a

hostile, angry, or aggressive reaction

from a potential disclosure target is likely

to perpetuate an ongoing ‘‘cycle of con-

cealment’’ (Afifi & Steuber, 2010). If a

potential confidant is assessed as being

discreet, non-judgemental, and able to

help (Kelly & McKillop, 1996) then

disclosure becomes more likely. The

stress buffering effects of such social

support are well documented (e.g.

Cohen & Wills, 1985) and may be an

important resource with which an

individual might confront any of the

post-disclosure turbulence that occurs.

Evidence suggests that workplace man-

agers have an important role to play here

in providing emotional and practical

support particularly for those disclosing

and coping with a chronic health condi-

tion in the workplace (Munir, Pryce,

Haslam, Leka, & Griffiths, 2006; Munir,

Randall, Yarker, & Nielsen, 2009).

On the other hand, keeping a conceal-

able identity concealed may simply be

the best decision. One must ask the

question ‘‘do other people really need

to know?’’ Kelly and McKillop (1996)

suggest that ‘‘ . . . Although confessions
may be ‘good for the soul’, given that

they can wreak havoc with one’s network

of friends and supporters, some things

truly are better left unsaid . . .’’ (p. 461).
Maintaining that boundary between

work and non-work through a lack of

disclosure may be important for the

equilibrium of the workplace (Phillips,

Rothbard, & Dumas, 2009). Significant

asymmetries in disclosure levels can ex-

acerbate status differences, cause dis-

comfort and embarrassment, and leave

individuals vulnerable to exploitation.

Having a ‘‘private sense of self ’’ contain-

ing information, thoughts, feelings,

desires that are known only to the in-

dividual is arguably a positive aspect of

ego development (Kelly & McKillop,

1996). It is important to try and un-

tangle these notions of ‘‘public’’ and

‘‘private’’, ‘‘individual’’ and ‘‘collective’’

when trying to understand identity.

What one thinks about oneself as a

member of a stigmatised group may be

quite different (and potentially much

more favourable) from one’s ratings of

how other people see that same group

(Ashburn-Nardo, 2010).

In summary, the decision to disclose a

concealable and stigmatized identity is

an important one that cannot be taken

lightly. At the same time one must be

careful to avoid gloomy and pessimistic

assumptions about a potential post-

disclosure life inevitably fraught with

Managing a concealable identity in the workplace

5
(page number not for citation purpose)



danger and difficulty. Quinn and

Chaudoir (2009) note that ‘‘ . . . some
people exhibit distress; others do not.

Some situations result in negative out-

comes; some do not . . . many people,
despite living in a culture that often

devalues them, can be happy, resilient,

and well adjusted’’ (p. 649). Stigmatized

individuals may indeed ‘‘ . . . flourish des-
pite others’ negative perceptions . . .’’
(Shelton, Alegre, & Son, 2010, p. 621).

The challenge for researchers involves

one of specificity; what kinds of disclo-

sures?, what types of people?, what types

of identities?, what kinds of circum-

stances?, lead to the most adaptive

outcomes. The theoretical models and

associated empirical research reviewed

here provides the roadmap for further

elaboration of the question ‘‘to tell or not

to tell?’’

To conclude, individuals are able to

manage multiple identities without major

dissonance (DeJordy, 2008) and can

successfully maintain a distinction be-

tween one’s working and non working

life without living in a constant state of

anxiety that their secret identity will be

discovered. There is not an inevitable

long term health cost associated with

concealing a private identity (even

though it may be a stigmatized one).

A study by Kelly and Yip (2006) con-

cluded that: ‘‘By demonstrating that

keeping a major secret is not linked to

greater symptomatology down the road,

perhaps the results from this study will

provide some comfort to those who feel

that they cannot reveal a personal secret’’

(p. 1366). The literature on resilience

and psychological flexibility (Kashdan

& Rottenberg, 2010; Newman, 2005;

Windle, 2011) indicates that people do

have, or with appropriate supports can

develop, the resources to ‘‘bounce back’’

from adversity. However one must be

cautious about sending a mixed mes-

sage here. All individuals in the work-

place and the wider community have the

fundamental and inalienable right to

be treated with dignity and respect. We

must be ever vigilant in monitoring

behaviours, attitudes, systems and struc-

tures that convey disrespect, discrimina-

tion, and derogation towards those with

a stigmatized identity (concealed or

otherwise). The research is clear about

the potential destructiveness of those

experiences in the lives of people living

with stigma and the research agenda

must be vigorous in the pursuit of under-

standings and insights into how preju-

dice and discrimination might best be

dismantled and overcome. These things

will take time. But, as noted above, as

well as elsewhere in the literature (Shih,

2004; Thoits, 2011), individuals with

concealed stigmatised identities can re-

veal them, can overcome the conse-

quences of that revelation, and lead

positive and optimistic lives. The re-

search agenda needs to be equally vig-

orous in developing understandings of

that process of empowerment.

REFERENCES

Afifi, T., & Steuber, K. (2009). The revelation

risk model (RRM): Factors that predict

the revelation of secrets and the strate-

gies used to reveal them. Communication

Monographs, 76(2), 144�176.
Afifi, T.D., & Steuber, K. (2010). The cycle of

concealment model. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 27(8), 1019�1034.
Afifi, W.A., & Caughlin, J.P. (2006). A close

look at revealing secrets and some con-

sequences that follow. Communication

Research, 33(6), 467�488.

R. Flett

6
(page number not for citation purpose)



Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2010). The importance of

implicit and explicit measures for under-

standing social stigma. Journal of Social

Issues, 66(3), 508�520.
Beals, K.P., Peplau, L.A., & Gable, S.L.

(2009). Stigma management and well-

being: The role of perceived social

support, emotional processing, and sup-

pression. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 35(7), 867�879.
Bell, M.P. (2007). Diversity in organizations.

Mason, OH: South-Western.

Bishop, M., Stenhoff, D.M., Bradley, K.D., &

Allen, C.A. (2007). The differential

effect of epilepsy labels on employer

perceptions: Report of a pilot study.

Epilepsy and Behavior, 11(3), 351�356.
Brook, A.T., Garcia, J., & Fleming, M. (2008).

The effects of multiple identities on psycho-

logical well-being. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 34(12), 1588�1600.
Chaudoir, S.R., & Fisher, J.D. (2010). The

disclosure processes model: Understand-

ing disclosure decision making and post-

disclosure outcomes among people living

with a concealable stigmatized identity.

Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236�256.
doi: 10.1037/a0018193

Chaudoir, S.R., & Quinn, D.M. (2010). Re-

vealing concealable stigmatized identities:

The impact of disclosure motivations and

positive first-disclosure experiences on

fear of disclosure and well-being. Journal

of Social Issues, 66(3), 570�584.
Chen, S., English, T., & Peng, K. (2006). Self-

verification and contextualized self-views.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

32(7), 930�942.
Clair, J.A., Beatty, J.E., & Maclean, T.L.

(2005). Out of sight but not out of

mind: Managing invisible social identities

in the workplace. Academy of Management

Review, 30(1), 78�95.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social

support, and the buffering hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310�357.
Crabtree, J.W., Haslam, S.A., Postmes, T., &

Haslam, C. (2010). Mental health sup-

port groups, stigma, and self-esteem:

positive and negative implications of

group identification. Journal of Social

Issues, 66(3), 553�569.

DeJordy, R. (2008). Just passing through:

Stigma, passing, and identity decoupling

in the work place. Group and Organization

Management, 33(5), 504�531. doi: 10.1177/
1059601108324879

Dutton, J.E., Roberts, L.M., & Bednar, J.

(2010). Pathways for positive identity

construction at work: four types of posi-

tive identity and the building of social

resources. Academy of Management Re-

view, 35(2), 265�293.
Gignac, M.A.M., & Cao, X. (2009). ‘‘Should

I tell my employer and coworkers I have

arthritis?’’ A longitudinal examination of

self-disclosure in the work place. Arthritis

Care and Research, 61(12), 1753�1761.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the

management of spoiled identity. New York,

NY: Simon & Schuster.

Gómez, A., Morales, J.F., Huici, C., Gaviria,

E., & Jiménez, J. (2007). When the world

understands me . . . and my alignment
with the group. From self-verification

to verification of one’s group identity.

International Journal of Psychology and

Psychological Therapy, 7(2), 213�236.
Gregg, G.S. (1995). Multiple identities and

the integration of personality. Journal of

Personality, 63(3), 617�641.
Hatzenbuehler, M.L., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., &

Dovidio, J. (2009). How does stigma ‘‘get

under the skin’’?: The mediating role

of emotion regulation: Research article.

Psychological Science, 20(10), 1282�1289.
Herek, G.M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-

related experiences among sexual minor-

ity adults in the united states: Prevalence

estimates from a national probability sample.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(1),

54�74.
Herek, G.M. (2010). Sexual orientation differ-

ences as deficits: Science and stigma

in the history of American psychology.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6),

693�699.
Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., & Cogan, J.C.

(2009). Internalized stigma among sexual

minority adults: Insights from a social

psychological perspective. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 32�43.
Jones, A.M. (2011). Disclosure of mental ill-

ness in the workplace: A literature review.

Managing a concealable identity in the workplace

7
(page number not for citation purpose)



American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilita-

tion, 14(3), 212�229.
Kashdan, T.B., & Rottenberg, J. (2010). Psy-

chological flexibility as a fundamental

aspect of health. Clinical Psychology Re-

view, 30(7), 865�878.
Kelly, A.E., & McKillop, K.J. (1996). Conse-

quences of revealing personal secrets.

Psychological Bulletin, 122(3), 450�465.
Kelly, A.E., & Yip, J.J. (2006). Is keeping a

secret or being a secretive person linked

to psychological symptoms? Journal of

Personality, 74(5), 1349�1369.
Mak, W.W.S., Ng, A.C., Mo, P.K.H., & Chong,

E.S.K. (2010). Coming out among les-

bians, gays, and bisexual individuals in

Hong Kong: Application of the theory of

planned behavior and the moderating

role of attitudinal ambivalence. Sex Roles,

63(3), 189�200.
Munir, F., Leka, S., & Griffiths, A. (2005).

Dealing with self-management of chronic

illness at work: Predictors for self-

disclosure. Social Science and Medicine,

60(6), 1397�1407. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.
2004.07.012

Munir, F., Pryce, J., Haslam, C., Leka, S., &

Griffiths, A. (2006). Gender differences

in managing chronic illness at work:

Exploring predictors for disclosure.

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,

25(3), 173�180.
Munir, F., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Nielsen,

K. (2009). The influence of employer

support on employee management of

chronic health conditions at work.

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation,

19(4), 333�344.
Neal, T.M.S., Lichtenstein, B., & Brodsky, S.L.

(2010). Clinical implications of stigma

in HIV/AIDS and other sexually trans-

mitted infections. International Journal of

STD and AIDS, 21(3), 158�160.
Newman, R. (2005). APA’s resilience initiative.

Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-

tice, 36(3), 227�229.
Omarzu, J. (2000). A disclosure decision

model: Determining how and when in-

dividuals will self-disclose. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 174�185.
Pachankis, J.E. (2007). The psychological

implications of concealing a stigma:

A cognitive-affective-behavioral model.

Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328�345.
Parfene, C., Stewart, T.L., & King, T.Z.

(2009). Epilepsy stigma and stigma by

association in the workplace. Epilepsy and

Behavior, 15(4), 461�466. doi: 10.1016/
j.yebeh.2009.05.011

Phillips, K.D., Moneyham, L., & Tavakoli, A.

(2011). Development of an instrument

to measure internalized stigma in those

with HIV/AIDS. Issues in Mental Health

Nursing, 32(6), 359�366.
Phillips, K.W., Rothbard, N.P., & Dumas, T.L.

(2009). To disclose or not to disclose?

Status distance and self-disclosure in di-

verse environments. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 34(4), 710�732.
Quinn, D.M., & Chaudoir, S.R. (2009). Living

with a concealable stigmatized identity:

The impact of anticipated stigma, cen-

trality, salience, and cultural stigma on

psychological distress and health. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4),

634�651.
Ragins, B.R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects:

Antecedents and consequences of dis-

closing invisible stigmas across life do-

mains. Academy of Management Review,

33(1), 194�215.
Rose Ragins, B., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J.M.

(2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear

and disclosure of sexual orientation at

work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4),

1103�1118. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.
4.1103

Rutledge, S.E., Whyte, J., Abell, N., Brown,

K.M., & Cesnales, N.I. (2011). Measur-

ing stigma among health care and social

service providers: The HIV/AIDS provi-

der stigma inventory. AIDS Patient Care

and STDs, 25(11), 673�682.
Sengupta, S., Banks, B., Jonas, D., Miles, M.S.,

& Smith, G.C. (2011). HIV interventions

to reduce HIV/AIDS stigma: A systema-

tic review. AIDS and Behavior, 15(6),

1075�1087.
Settles, I.H. (2004). When multiple identities

interfere: The role of identity centrality.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

30(4), 487�500.
Shelton, J.N., Alegre, J.M., & Son, D. (2010).

Social stigma and disadvantage: Current

R. Flett

8
(page number not for citation purpose)



themes and future prospects. Journal of

Social Issues, 66(3), 618�633.
Shih, M. (2004). Positive stigma: Examining

resilience and empowerment in overcom-

ing stigma. Annals of the American Acad-

emy of Political and Social Science, 591,

175�185.
Smith, G. Ferguson, P.L. Saunders, L.L.

Wagner, J.L. Wannamaker, B.B. &

Selassie, A.W. (2009). Psychosocial factors

associated with stigma in adults with

epilepsy. Epilepsy and Behavior, 16(3),

484�490. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.08.028
Sowell, R.L., & Phillips, K.D. (2010). Under-

standing and responding to HIV/AIDS

stigma and disclosure: An international

challenge for mental health nurses.

Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 31(6),

394�402.
Swann Jr, W.B., Polzer, J.T., Seyle, D.C., & Ko,

S.J. (2004). Finding value in diversity:

Verification of personal and social self-

views in diverse groupsm. Academy of

Management Review, 29(1), 9�27.
Thoits, P.A. (2011). Resisting the stigma of

mental illness. Social Psychology Quarterly,

74(1), 6�28.
Windle, G. (2011). What is resilience? A review

and concept analysis. Reviews in Clinical

Gerontology, 21(2), 152�169.

Managing a concealable identity in the workplace

9
(page number not for citation purpose)



MASSEY UNIVERSITY

MASSEY RESEARCH ONLINE http://mro.massey.ac.nz/

Massey Documents by Type Journal Articles

'To tell or not to tell?' Managing a
concealable identity in the workplace

Flett, R
2012

08/12/2020 - Downloaded from MASSEY RESEARCH ONLINE