It starts with a familiar phrase—half warning, half invitation: “Don’t tell anyone, but…” Frequently whispered in confidence, that simple preface may actually do the opposite of what it intends.
According to new research, the very act of signaling secrecy can set off a powerful social dynamic that doesn’t just spread information, but creates hierarchies, shapes identities, and keeps conversations alive indefinitely.
A new empirical study led by Dr. David M. Bergman at the Swedish Defense University, published in Frontiers in Psychology, suggests that secrecy is far more than just hidden information. Instead, it operates as a social currency that people actively use to signal status, control access, and define who belongs on the inside and who remains on the outside.
The research centers on what scientists call the “secrecy paradox”—a contradiction embedded in human communication.
“The paradoxical nature of secrecy in social settings often emerges from the contradictory demands to both withhold information and signal access to it,” Dr. Bergman writes. “Understanding secrecy in these settings requires moving beyond questions of what is hidden—the secret itself—to examine how secrecy operates as a resource through communicative practices for creating and maintaining social order.”
The Secrecy Paradox: The Power of Knowing—Without Telling
Dr. Bergman analyzed more than 16 years of online discussions centered on the rumored existence of a secret Swedish Cold War bunker known as the “Riksbunker.”
Rather than focusing on whether the bunker exists, Dr. Bergman examined how people talked about it—specifically, how secrecy itself shaped the conversation.
Across more than 7,600 posts and nearly one million words, users consistently engaged in a kind of social performance: hinting that they possessed insider knowledge, while carefully avoiding revealing it.
This behavior wasn’t random. It followed recognizable patterns, which the study describes as six recurring “discourses,” including hinting, gatekeeping, and in-group signaling. Together, these behaviors created a highly stratified social structure in which a small number of users dominated the conversation and controlled the flow of information.
In fact, just 20 users were responsible for nearly half of all posts, underscoring the discussion’s highly centralized nature.
Secrecy as Social Currency
According to Dr. Bergman’s research, secrecy isn’t just about hiding information. It’s about showing that you have it. This distinction is significant.
In many cases, participants gained status not by revealing secrets, but by implying they knew something others didn’t. Vague statements like “those who know, know,” “I can’t get into details here,” or references to private messages signaled insider status without risking exposure. This coincides with a deeper social function of secrecy.
“Social status is not only dependent on having access to specific information but also requires making others aware that the individual is concealing that information from them,” Dr. Bergman writes. “Being recognised as having access to information that others do not can give a strong sense of power and increased social status, but only insofar as that possession is made visible.”
Building Hierarchies Out of Thin Air
Over time, these behaviors produced a clear social hierarchy within online communities.
Core users, those who posted frequently and were widely cited, became de facto authorities. Peripheral users communicated with them, often seeking validation or access to higher-status circles. Meanwhile, specialized contributors focused on niche aspects of the discussion but remained less connected overall.
The study’s network analysis shows a tightly structured discussion dominated by a small group of influential participants, with users forming distinct clusters around these central figures. Rather than flowing freely, information—and the status tied to it—moves through these controlled channels, strengthening the authority of core contributors and limiting broader access within the community.
The result is a self-reinforcing system. Those at the top maintain their position by controlling access to knowledge, while others strive to join them by demonstrating insight or loyalty.
The Secrecy Paradox That Keeps Conversations Alive
Perhaps the most intriguing finding is that the secrecy paradox doesn’t break these systems. It sustains them.
In theory, disclosing a secret should destroy its value. However, in practice, people carefully manage how much they reveal, balancing disclosure with concealment to maximize their social standing.
The study describes this as a kind of practical resolution to the paradox. Individuals reveal just enough to signal expertise, but not enough to eliminate the exclusivity of their knowledge. This sensitive balance allows discussions to continue indefinitely.
“The more valuable the secret is perceived to be, the greater incentive to restrict it—thus reinforcing the paradox in a self-sustainable way,” Dr. Bergman writes. “Since value depends on scarcity, holders of information have a stronger incentive not to fully reveal it since full disclosure would destroy its currency and thereby their current or potential social status.”
Effectively, this creates a self-sustaining cycle in which full disclosure is never achieved.
Even if someone were to reveal everything, the system could adapt. Other participants might dismiss the information, claim it’s incomplete, or assert that the “real” secrets remain hidden—consequently preserving the hierarchy.
Why We Can’t Help Ourselves
The study also taps into a more profound psychological truth: humans are naturally inclined to share secrets, even when they know they shouldn’t.
Previous research shows that emotionally charged information is especially likely to spread, and that simply labeling something as secret can increase its assumed value—and its likelihood of being shared.
This helps explain why statements like “don’t tell anyone” often have the opposite effect. They don’t just convey information—they signal importance.
While the study centers on a niche online forum, its implications go far beyond discussions about hidden bunkers.
The same dynamics can be seen in everything from workplace gossip to intelligence communities, online subcultures, and even social media influencers who tease “exclusive” information.
In each case, secrecy shapes relationships and status, not merely as a barrier to information. Importantly, the researchers argue that secrecy should not be viewed merely as a byproduct of communication, but as a central organizing force.
A World Founded on What We Don’t Say
Ultimately, in an era when information is often assumed to be freely available, the findings offer a counterintuitive insight. What remains hidden may matter more than what is revealed.
Whether in online forums, intelligence circles, or everyday conversations, secrecy continues to shape how people connect, compete, and define themselves. Perhaps, most paradoxically of all, the more we try to discover secrets, the more we may be helping to preserve them.
“Altogether, this puts a somewhat new perspective on the secrecy paradox,” Dr. Bergman writes. “The findings of the current study indicate that the secrecy paradox has the capacity to function not only as a contributing factor but as an emergent social practice to how communicative discourse, identities, and norms are formed.”
Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan. Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com