Construct · 6 fields · 14 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one name, six constructs Nearest construct by meaningsecretcompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to disclosure is secret.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
Information an issuer must make public because a statute says so. The Securities Act of 1933 requires a registration statement before a public offering and the Exchange Act of 1934 requires periodic reports afterward; §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 make it unlawful to misstate or omit a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. Easterbrook and Fischel asked in 1984 whether a mandatory system does anything a voluntary one would not, and answered that its best justification is the collective-action problem among firms, not investor protection as such. Dura Pharmaceuticals restated the private 10b-5 action's elements in 2005: a material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, a connection with a securities transaction, reliance, economic loss, and loss causation. Disclosure here is an obligation with a form, a deadline, and a fraud remedy for its breach, and it runs from an issuer to a market rather than to any particular person.[1][2][3]
Information one party to a case must hand to the other without being asked. Rule 26(a)(1) requires each civil litigant, early and unprompted, to identify the witnesses and documents it may use, compute its damages, and produce any insurance agreement; Rule 26(e) requires the party to supplement when it learns the disclosure was incomplete or wrong. Brady v. Maryland held in 1963 that a prosecutor who suppresses evidence favourable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment violates due process, whatever the prosecutor's good or bad faith. Disclosure here is an obligation owed to an adversary and a court in a specific proceeding, enforced by exclusion, sanction, or a new trial, and it turns on materiality to the case rather than to a market.[4][5]
Telling another person about oneself. Jourard made self-disclosure a research topic in the 1960s and argued in The Transparent Self that letting oneself be known is a condition of health, with a questionnaire asking how much a respondent had told particular people about particular topics. Altman and Taylor's social penetration theory of 1973 modelled relationships as disclosure widening in breadth and deepening in intimacy over time. Collins and Miller's 1994 meta-analysis confirmed three effects: people who disclose are liked more, people disclose more to those they like, and disclosing to someone makes the discloser like them more. Miller, Berg, and Archer's 1983 Self-Disclosure Index measures the disposition in ten items. Disclosure here is voluntary, reciprocal, and relational, and its criterion is liking or intimacy rather than compliance.[6][7][8]
A clinician telling a patient what happened, including when what happened was a mistake. Gallagher and colleagues ran focus groups with patients and physicians in 2003 and found the two sides wanted different things: patients wanted to be told that an error occurred, what it was, why, and what would be done to prevent it, while physicians agreed errors should be disclosed but chose their words to avoid saying so, fearing litigation and loss of confidence. Open disclosure policies in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have since made the conversation a professional duty with a script: acknowledge, apologise, explain, and follow up. Disclosure here is a clinical act owed to one patient by one clinician, judged by candour and its effect on trust, and it has no filing and no adversary.[9]
Information a firm chooses to release beyond what the rules require, modelled as a decision. Verrecchia showed in 1983 that a manager with private information and a proprietary cost of releasing it discloses only above a threshold, so silence is informative but not fully so. Dye showed in 1985 that if investors are unsure whether the manager has any information at all, non-disclosure can be sustained, breaking the unravelling argument under which everything would be revealed. Healy and Palepu reviewed the empirical literature in 2001: firms disclose to reduce information asymmetry and the cost of capital, and analysts, auditors, and regulators serve as intermediaries. Disclosure here is an equilibrium choice by an informed party, and the interesting quantity is what stays undisclosed.[10][11][12]
Telling a vendor, and eventually the public, that a piece of software can be attacked. Arora, Telang, and Xu modelled the problem in 2008 as a trade-off: immediate publication forces a quick patch but exposes users, indefinite secrecy protects users only if the vendor acts, and a social planner sets a deadline that depends on the vendor's costs and the number of users. ISO/IEC 29147 standardised the process (receive the report, acknowledge it, coordinate a fix, publish an advisory) and gave the term coordinated vulnerability disclosure its current meaning, replacing the older and more loaded responsible disclosure. Disclosure here is a timed release to an audience that includes attackers, and the construct is the schedule, not the content.[13][14]
Next
Combine items across the disclosure scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct