Let's Revisit | When Secrets Surface: The Hidden Impact of Consumer DNA Testing

A review of research on DNA discoveries

I’m bringing this post back (with some updates!) in honor of Black Friday here in the US. It’s that time of year when genetic ancestry tests go on sale. During January and February, a unique phenomenon called "Sibling Season" unfolds in the donor conception community as holiday DNA testing kits given as gifts begin revealing unexpected family connections.

Learn about the experience from a DCP here and check out this helpful support post if you or someone you know has a DNA surprise.

---

Abraham Verghese's The Covenant of Water resonated deeply with me as I reviewed research about the phenomenon of DNA discoveries. While some family secrets arise from attempts to “protect”, Verghese observes that "in their revealing, as in their keeping, secrets can tear a family apart."

One source estimated that by 2019, over 26 million people worldwide had taken at-home ancestry tests. A 2022 survey found that 21% of American adults (or one in five) had taken DNA tests. At this volume, unexpected discoveries occur. A study of 23,196 people who used these tests found that 3% of users learned that someone they believed to be their biological parent was not. Common scenarios include misattributed paternity, where the biological father is someone other than the presumed father, often due to circumstances like infidelity, sperm donation, or adoption. Less frequently, cases of misattributed maternity arise, such as through hospital mix-ups or egg donation. Additionally, DNA testing may reveal previously unknown genetic connections, such as half-siblings, cousins, or other relatives. Researchers are exploring the profound effects of unexpected DNA discoveries on individuals and families.

Why People Test

Research on direct-to-consumer genetic testing reveals complex motivations, experiences, and impacts for those who pursue genetic heritage understanding. People initiate testing primarily for identity exploration and connection, often seeking to fill gaps in family history, verify family stories, or understand ancestral origins (Hazel et al., 2021). This motivation is particularly strong among adoptees, those with unknown parentage, and individuals with limited family connections (Grethel et al., 2022).

The search process itself can be emotionally intense and transformative, with individuals experiencing powerful emotions from shock and surprise at unexpected findings to anxiety during investigation (Grethel et al., 2022). Nearly two-thirds of genealogical researchers experience strong emotional distress during their investigations, with younger female researchers being particularly vulnerable, especially when uncovering family secrets or evidence of historical trauma (Moore, 2023).

Zadeh et al. (2024) revealed key themes in how donor-conceived young adults make decisions about DNA testing.

• "Ruptures" emerged as a primary consideration, with some participants actively avoiding testing to prevent disruptions to family relationships, while others pursued testing despite potential upheaval. This finding aligns with similar observations by Newton et al. (2024) regarding concerns about family system impacts.

• "Disclosures" significantly influenced decision-making, particularly around managing information with family members. This theme resonates with findings from both Becker et al. (2024) and Avni et al. (2023) regarding the complexities of sharing testing decisions with parents and managing potential revelations to genetic relatives.

• "Webs" described how participants navigated connections between different information sources and relationships. Zadeh found that some used multiple testing platforms to maximize connection possibilities, while others deliberately limited engagement. This connects to Newton et al.'s (2024) findings about the interconnected nature of digital and relational aspects of DNA testing.

• "Temporalities" revealed varied timing in testing decisions. Some participants sought immediate testing while others deliberately waited or chose not to test. This temporal aspect of decision-making supports Avni et al.'s (2023) findings that timing and readiness significantly impact psychological outcomes.

Key factors influencing decisions about testing included previous knowledge of donor conception, family relationship quality, and emotional preparedness (Zadeh, 2024). The research emphasized that testing decisions were deeply embedded in participants' broader life contexts, similar to findings from Newton et al. (2024) about the importance of personal and family circumstances in shaping DNA testing experiences. Importantly, Zadeh (2024) found that choosing not to test didn't necessarily indicate a lack of interest - many participants had carefully considered their decision and had specific reasons for waiting or abstaining.

On the flip side, Nordqvist et al (2025) found that responses to DNA matches in donor conception families exist on a continuum from enthusiastic embrace to complete rejection, with reactions heavily influenced by existing family dynamics and beliefs about whether genetic connections automatically create family bonds.

The Burden of Knowledge

Donor-conceived people (DCP) who discover genetic relatives through DNA testing might take on complex gatekeeping responsibilities in managing information flow (Zadeh, 2024). People feel responsible for protecting new discoverees from potential trauma, particularly when matches may be unaware of their donor conception status (Lawton, 2024; Zadeh, 2024). This protective role involves carefully controlling the timing and method of disclosure, acting as an intermediary between family members, and managing sensitive information that could disrupt multiple lives (Lawton, 2024). Many DCP report feeling burdened by knowing information that could significantly impact others' lives and family systems (Zadeh, 2024). This gatekeeping role also creates significant emotional strain as DCP balance others' right to know against potential harm, navigate ethical dilemmas about withholding information, and manage guilt about knowing secrets that affect others (Lawton, 2024; Grethel, 2024).

Impact on Identity

Research by Newton et al. (2024) reveals three key stages in how DNA testing discoveries affect identity formation, particularly for donor-conceived people.

1. "Realising and reordering the family tree": This initial stage involves processing immediate shock and feelings of deception upon discovery. Individuals engage in retrospective analysis, piecing together past clues and experiences. They begin rewriting their personal narratives and reconsidering their place within family structures, fundamentally reassessing their life story and identity.

2. "Reflecting on resemblance": This stage extends beyond physical appearance to deeper questions of identity and belonging. When seeing photos of genetic relatives, individuals might experience powerful recognition moments while simultaneously processing how newfound similarities affect their self-understanding and relationships with their raising family. Resemblance serves dual roles: as tangible evidence of genetic connections and as a catalyst for complex emotions about identity and belonging.

3. "Re-evaluating relationships": In this stage, individuals navigate the complex terrain between existing and potential new family bonds. They face decisions about contact with newly discovered relatives while managing boundaries and balancing loyalties. The digital age adds complexity, with social media and DNA platforms creating new opportunities for connection but also privacy challenges.

These stages aren't isolated but interconnected, creating an ongoing process of meaning-making and relationship navigation. The experience profoundly affects identity as individuals integrate new information that challenges their existing self-perception or cultural identity (Grethel et al., 2022). This process occurs across both physical and digital spaces, and its impacts continue to evolve as people integrate new information into their personal narratives.

Grethel et al. (2024) found that throughout this process, individuals must balance protecting family members' feelings with their own need for truth, manage varying levels of support from friends, and cope with the long-term impacts on their identity and medical history. While people eventually share their discovery with at least some family members and often find relief in understanding their true origins, they often face persistent challenges, including stigma, isolation, and the need to navigate disclosure decisions repeatedly in new situations.

Multiple studies highlight the particularly complex impact of DNA discoveries on relationships with mothers. Becker et al. (2024) found that mothers often responded with denial and evasion when confronted with DNA discoveries. This aligns with Avni et al.'s (2023) finding that the mother's reaction was the most significant factor affecting psychological outcomes. Many participants reported strained relationships with their mothers both before and after discovery, suggesting that secret-keeping may have already impacted the relationship dynamic before the truth was known.

Support Needs and System Implications

Research demonstrates that the discovery of unexpected DNA results often leaves individuals grappling with profound emotional, psychological, and relational challenges, underscoring the need for support systems. Its impacts evolve over time. Individual experiences vary significantly—while some find it enlightening, others experience deep disruption. This variability highlights the need for personalized support throughout the testing process (Schuman, 2024) and continued learning about how different populations process and cope with results.

Both professional counseling and peer support networks are crucial, particularly for processing unexpected discoveries and navigating family dynamics (Hazel et al., 2021; Grethel et al., 2022). However, as Careau et al. (2025) highlight, existing support resources often fall short of addressing the unique complexities of these experiences. Mental health professionals frequently lack training specific to the misattributed parentage context, leaving some individuals feeling invalidated or misunderstood.

Peer support networks, such as those facilitated through online forums and social media groups, have emerged as vital resources for many. These spaces offer individuals a chance to connect with others who share similar experiences, providing validation, advice, and emotional relief. However, even these groups have limitations. Careau et al. (2025) describe participants who report feeling overwhelmed by the intensity of shared stories or triggered by content that mirrors their own struggles. The need for moderation, boundaries, and tailored content within peer support environments is critical to ensuring that they remain beneficial rather than distressing.

To address these gaps, specialized training for mental health providers and the development of structured peer-support programs are essential. Clinicians should receive education on the psychosocial implications of DNA testing and the specific needs of NPE individuals, while peer groups would benefit from the inclusion of trained facilitators who can guide discussions and provide additional resources. Such measures could significantly enhance the support available to those navigating the life-altering impacts of unexpected genetic discoveries.

The inadequacy of current support infrastructure reflects broader systemic failures in how medical professionals approach DNA surprises. Wenzel et al. (2025) argue that genetic secrets are experiencing a “righteously deserved demise” in the age of accessible DNA testing, yet medical organizations’ guidance has not kept pace with this reality. Their critique of major medical organizations, including the American Society of Human Genetics, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, and National Society of Genetic Counselors, reveals that current recommendations either endorse or permit non-disclosure of misattributed paternity, despite lacking empirical evidence of non-disclosure’s benefits and contradicting the American Medical Association’s code of ethics regarding truthful information sharing. The shift toward transparency that Wenzel et al. advocate represents a recognition of the need to focus on developing intentional, effective disclosure methods rather than perpetuating the outdated disclosure-versus-anonymity debate.

The Last Word

Verghese's observation that secrets can tear families apart "in their revealing, as in their keeping" is urgently relevant in our digital age. Parents of DCP who fear normalizing donor conception might consider that unplanned discoveries often prove far more destabilizing than carefully planned conversations. After all, in both Verghese's novel and real-world families, it's often not the truth itself that causes the deepest wounds but the silence that precedes its revelation.

References

Avni, C., Sinai, D., Blasbalg, U., & Toren, P. (2023). Discovering your presumed father is not your biological father: Psychiatric ramifications of independently uncovered non-paternity events resulting from direct-to-consumer DNA testing. Psychiatry Research, 323, 115142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115142

Becker, J., Abrams, L. J., Weil, J., & Youngblom, J. (2024). Experiences of individuals receiving "Not Parent Expected" results through direct-to-consumer genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 00, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1977

Careau, J., Larmuseau, M. H. D., Drumsta, R., & Whitley, R. (2025). “I’m trying to figure out who the hell I am”: Examining the psychosocial and mental health experience of individuals learning “Not Parent Expected” news from a direct-to-consumer DNA ancestry test. BMC Psychiatry, 25(9). DOI: 10.1186/s12888-024-06380-0

Grethel, M., Ross, L., Obadia, J., & Freeman, R. (2024). Disclosure dilemma: Revealing biological paternity to family and others after unexpected direct-to-consumer genetic results. Family Relations, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.13088

Grethel, M., Lewis, J., Freeman, R., & Stone, C. (2022). Discovery of unexpected paternity after direct-to-consumer DNA testing and its impact on identity. Family Relations, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12752

Hazel, J. W., Hammack-Aviran, C., Brelsford, K. M., Malin, B. A., Beskow, L. M., & Clayton, E. W. (2021). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Prospective users' attitudes toward information about ancestry and biological relationships. PLoS ONE, 16(11), e0260340. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260340

Lawton, B. L., Pyott, L. C., Deyerin, K. R., & Foeman, A. K. (2024). Experiences of misattributed parentage communities: Impacts of discovering new familial kinships. Journal of Family History, 49(1), 75-97. https://doi.org/10.1177/03631990231156176

Moore, S. M. (2023). Family History Research and Distressing Emotions. Genealogy, 7(2), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy7020026

Newton, G., Kirby, E., Carah, N., & Wilson Gray, R. (2024). On the sensations of direct-to-consumer DNA testing: realisations, resemblance and relationships. Emotions and Society. https://doi.org/10.1332/26316897Y2024D000000045

Nordqvist, P., Gilman, L., Redhead, C., Fox, M., Hudson, N., MacCallum, F., & Frith, L. (2025). Relational dynamite: Engagements with kinship at the interface of donor conception and DNA testing. Social Science & Medicine, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.11835

Schuman, O., Beit, C., Robinson, J. O., Brooks, W. B., McGuire, A. L., & Guerrini, C. (2024). “The truth should not be hidden”: Experiences and recommendations of individuals making NPE discoveries through genetic genealogy databases. Genetics in Medicine, 26(10), 101210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2024.101210

Wenzel, R., Daniel, G., Girard, J., Wood, L., & Sturges, E. (2025). Misattributed paternity discovery: A critique of medical organizations’ recommendations. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 112(3), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.01.006

Zadeh, S. (2024). Direct-to-consumer DNA testing: the perspectives and experiences of donor conceived young adults in the UK. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 49(1), 103969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.103969