Wendy M. Rote and Judith G. Smetana Adolescent Acceptance versus Use of Information Management Strategies: Associations with Adjustment and Parent-Teen Relationships Wendy M. Rote and Judith G. Smetana

Disclosure & Secrecy Adolescent disclosure & secrecy more strongly linked with outcomes than parental monitoring strategies (Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Kerr et al., 2010) ↑Disclosure/↓Secrecy  ↓problem behavior ↓ depression ↑parent-teen relationship quality (Frijns et al., 2010; Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr et al., 2010; Smetana et al., 2006) However, there are multiple strategies for managing information, many of which have elements of both disclosure and secrecy. And although these strategies can be grouped into disclosing versus concealing strategies There is also reason to consider them separately. They differ in the frequency, situations, and justifications for their use and in their links with parenting and adolescent adjustment.

Information Management Strategies Multiple strategies for managing information Tell all, Tell only if asked, Avoid the subject, Omit important details, Lie (Darling et al., 2006; Marshall et al., 2005; Smetana et al., 2009) Can be grouped into disclosing vs. concealing strategies (Laird & Marerro, 2010) But may also be considered separately Strategies differ in: Frequency, situations, & justifications of use Links with parenting and teen adjustment (Bakken & Brown, 2010; Darling et al., 2006; Smetana et al., 2009; Tasopoulos-Chan et al., 2009) However, there are multiple strategies for managing information, many of which have elements of both disclosure and secrecy. And although these strategies can be grouped into disclosing versus concealing strategies There is also reason to consider them separately. They differ in the frequency, situations, and justifications for their use and in their links with parenting and adolescent adjustment.

Acceptance of Strategies Little attention to teens beliefs about strategy use Lying generally unacceptable (Jensen et al., 2004; Perkins & Turiel, 2007) Teens distinguish between lying and acts of omission (Marshall et al., 2005) Tell if asked > Avoid > Omit > Lie (this data set; Rote & Smetana, 2012) Reason acceptance may matter: Not subject to same pragmatic constraints as strategy use Particularly reflective of problematic attitudes? Links with adjustment relatively unexamined Acceptance of lying  ↑ deviance, ↓ family cohesion Not examined for other strategies or longitudinally (Jensen et al., 2004)

Potential Domain Differences Adolescents and parents distinguish between Personal issues (acts that are not right or wrong, but personal choice) Prudential issues (acts that threaten the actor’s safety or health) (Social Domain Theory; Smetana et al., 2006; Turiel, 1983) Prudential > Personal Subject to parental authority Obligatory to disclose Unacceptable to lie about (Perkins & Turiel, 2007; Smetana & Asquith, 1994) Unknown if domain moderates links with strategy acceptance Domain moderation of strategy use links inconsistent

Sex differences Adolescent sex Parent sex Inconsistent teen sex differences in: Strategy acceptance (Jensen et al., 2004; Keltikangas-Jarvinen & Linedman, 1997; Perkins & Turiel, 2007) strategy use – family relationships links (Jensen et al., 2004; Keijsers et al., 2009; 2010; Kerr et al. 2010) Parent sex Teen relationships differ with mothers and fathers (Collins & Russell, 1991) Strategy use & acceptability usually examined towards “parents” (e.g. Jensen et al., 2004; Kerr et al., 2010; Laird & Marerro, 2010; Perkins & Turiel, 2007)

Purpose Examine reciprocal associations among teen strategy acceptance, teen adjustment, & parent- teen relationship quality Controlling for actual strategy use Looking at potential moderators Domain Teen & parent sex

Sample 174 mid-adolescents (M = 15.7 years; SD = .63) 83 male/91 female Primarily Caucasian (74%), 2-parent families (74%) Recruited from 2 suburban high-schools in Northeastern U.S. Measured again 1 year later 3% attrition

Measures Strategy use (0,1) Strategy acceptability (1=definitely wrong, 5 = definitely ok) 4 Strategies (Lie, Omit details, Avoid the topic, Tell only if asked) 3 personal & 3 prudential issues Strategy use (0,1) 5 strategies (Lie, Omit details, Avoid the topic, Tell only if asked, Tell all) Primary strategy for 9 issues (5 personal & 4 prudential) Relationship Quality (NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985) Positive support (6 items: companionship & affection subscales) Negative interactions (6 items: conflict & antagonism subscales) Adjustment Problem Behavior: 10-item PBS (Mason et al., 1996) Depression: 20-item CES-D (Radloff, 1997) Pers – having a crush on someone; pru – drinking alcohol Networks of relationships inventory PBS – problem behavior scale CES-D - Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

Model Tested Analyzed separately for each strategy Multigroup comparisons for: Domain, Teen Sex, Parent Sex Wave 1 Wave 2 Problem Behavior Neg Interactions Strategy Acceptance Strategy Use Depressed Mood Positive Support This is the model analyzed for all strategies However, when I present the results, I will only show the significant cross-lag paths. The autoregressive paths were all significant, but are omitted for clarity.

Lying Model Sig domain difference: Δχ2 (18) = 36.22, p < .01 Personal: χ2(12) = 11.44, p > .05; CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 Prudential: χ2(12) = 13.04, p > .05; CFI =.997, RMSEA =.022 Problem Behavior Neg Interactions Accept: Lie Lie Depressed Mood Positive Support -.14+ .26** .21** .18** .16** 14** .27** -.15* .14+ .13* 14** .27** -.15* .13* .14+ .16** .11+

Omitting Model Sig teen sex difference: Δχ2 (18) = 32.03, p < .05 Male : χ2(12) = 19.26, p >.05, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .085 Female: χ2(12) = 16.05, p >.05, CFI = . 98 RMSEA =.061 Problem Behavior Neg Interactions Accept: Omit Omit Depressed Mood Positive Support .20 + .18+ .20+ -.18+ 21* .32** .20+ -.18+ 21* .32** .23* .15* -.22** -.17**

Avoidance Model χ2(12) = 11.13, p >.05; CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 Problem Behavior Neg Interactions Accept: Avoid Avoid Depressed Mood Positive Support 16* -.16* .18** .23** .29** .15*

Tell Only if Asked Model χ2(12) = 17.61, p >.05; CFI = .99, RMSEA = .052 Problem Behavior Neg Interactions Accept: Tell If Asked Tell if asked Depressed Mood Positive Support Accept: Tell if Asked Tell if Asked 30** -.17** -.16**

Conclusions – Links with Relationships Acceptance of concealment strategies (lie, omit, avoid)  poorer relationships Links mainly from acceptance than to acceptance More robust for ↑negative interactions than ↓positive support Parents trying to confront negative teen attitudes rather than withdrawing? Strategy use may sometimes avoid conflict, but acceptance consistently creates it! Links with↓ positive support sig. for girls (not boys) and personal (not prudential ) issues Stronger secrecy - parental support link for girls (Keijsers et al., 2010) Voluntary nature of personal disclosure linked with relationship trust (Smetana et al., 2006, 2009).

Conclusions – Links with Adjustment Acceptance of concealment strategies (lie, omit, avoid)  poorer adjustment Links mainly from acceptance than to acceptance Attitudes predict behavior more than the reverse? More robust for problem behavior than depression Consistent with findings for strategy use (Frijns et al., 2010; Laird & Marrero, 2010) ↑ depression only for acceptance of lying about prudential issues Most unacceptable concealment; acceptance indicates broader set of issues?

Conclusions – Strategy Differences Strongest differences between Tell only if Asked and Concealment strategies Consistent with Laird et al.’s (2010; 2012) work Acceptance of telling only if asked not as negative as other strategies, but not beneficial either Teens focusing more on “non-disclosure” aspects when judging acceptability; but “disclosure” aspects more salient for use?

Conclusions – Overall Domain differences may be more important for amount of strategy acceptability, than correlates Strategy Acceptance more robustly linked with adjustment and relationship quality than strategy use! Caveat: different measurement approaches Acceptance may indeed “tap” problematic teen attitudes better than actual behavior (which is more subject to pragmatic constraints) Cognition matters!!

Thank You!