1. Evaluating Information Management Strategies: Parent Versus Teen Justifications Wendy M. Rote and Judith G. Smetana University of Rochester Strategy Evaluation Justifications Open-ended survey question: Tell us WHY you think it is wrong (or acceptable) to sometimes…about your activities Lie to your parents Avoid talking to your parents Leave out important details when talking to your parents Tell your parents only if they ask Reworded for parents Justifications dummy-coded into 10 categories informed by social domain theory (Smetana, 2006) and examination of responses Inter-rater reliability (Cohens kappa) =.81 Proportion scores calculated to control for number of categories used Score = category used (0,1)/ # categories used Methods Adolescents information management is associated with adolescent adjustment and parent-adolescent relationship quality (Kerr et al., 2010; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) Multiple strategies (lie, avoid, omit details, tell only if asked) for managing information from parents. They differ in: Frequency of & justifications for use (Laird & Marrero, 2010; Smetana et al., 2009) Associations with adjustment & relationship quality (Laird & Marerro, 2010; Smetana et al., 2009; Tasopoulos-Chan et al., 2009) Amount they violate relational and conventional norms (Buller & Burgoon, 1994) Teens judge information management strategies to be more acceptable than do parents (Rote & Smetana, 2011) Teens and parents acceptance of information management varies by strategy No research has examined WHY Possible reasons for differences: Strategies vary in deceptiveness Lying is most deceptive; telling only if asked is least deceptive (Buller & Burgoon, 1994; Laird & Marerro, 2010) Parents and teens focus on different issues when evaluating teen behavior (personal autonomy vs. conventions) (Smetana, 1989) Introduction 1. Determine reasons why parents and teens judge strategy use to be (un)acceptable 2. Compare parents and teens justifications for their evaluations across multiple strategies Objectives 204 late adolescents (98 males), M = 17.0 years, SD =.80 73 11 th graders, 94 12 th graders, 37 college freshman/ H.S. grads 73% White, 8% Asian, 6% Black, 2% Hispanic, 11% Multi-ethnic/Other 199 mothers & 128 fathers (M = 47.5 yrs, 50.2 yrs; SD = 5.9, 5.0) Mostly college educated Participants This study contributed to our understanding of adolescents strategies for managing information with parents by focusing on adolescents and parents reasons for viewing different strategies as acceptable or unacceptable. The types of reasons adolescents and mothers employed to justify their evaluations of teens strategy use paralleled findings regarding reasoning about legitimate parental authority. That is, for all but the least deceptive form of concealment (telling only if asked) teens focused more on personal autonomy than did parents, and they used personal reasons more than other justifications regardless of strategy. Mothers also justified teens strategy use by focusing on personal justifications, but this was primarily for less deceptive forms of concealment (e.g., tell only if asked, avoidance). In contrast, for all but the most deceptive form of concealment (lying), mothers focused more on conventions than did teens, although they did not use this reason more often than other justifications. Thus, although their reasoning about adolescents information management is similar, parents express more concern with conventions, whereas teens are more concerned with extending their personal autonomy over a wider range of behaviors. Mothers were especially likely to use prescriptive statements regarding the (un)acceptability of lying. As these reasons focus on the (un)acceptability of a strategy regardless of situation, they invoke the notion that lying is generalizably wrong (a moral concern; Smetana, 2006 ). That mothers moralize lying is consistent with the fact that lying is more deceptive than other strategies and consequently, is more likely to cause psychological harm to others or relationships (Buller & Burgoon, 1994). It is also consistent with mothers tendency to focus more than teens on the consequences of concealment for others or relationships. Mothers and teens focused on parenting when justifying the acceptability of telling only if asked, but this reason was not used often for other strategies. As telling only if asked is at the intersection of parental solicitation and teen disclosure (Laird & Marerro, 2010), it is not surprising both parents and teens focus more on parenting for this strategy. When evaluating moderate forms of concealment like omitting information and avoidance, both adolescents and mothers compared them more to other strategies or situations. Thus, they were more relativistic in evaluating the (un)acceptability of avoidance and omitting information than lying or telling only if asked. Although research has shown consistent sex differences in disclosure and less consistently, in concealment (Stattin & Kerr, 2000; Smetana et al., 2006), it is notable that we found no sex differences in the justifications that adolescents and their mothers give for strategy acceptability. Interestingly, we also found no differences in mothers and fathers justifications, which why we focused here on results for mothers. Overall, these results highlight parents and teens attempts to allow adolescents autonomy while maintaining a strong parent-adolescent relationship and protecting teens welfare. Future research should examine the associations between acceptability justifications and acceptability ratings or strategy use and whether justifications interact with either of these variables when predicting teen adjustment and family relationships. Discussion Buller, D. B. & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Weimann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 191-223). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Burk, W. J. (2010). A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 39-64. Laird, R. D., & Marrero, M. D. (2010). Information management and behavior problems: Is concealing misbehavior necessarily a sign of trouble? Journal of Adolescence, 33, 297-308. Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children's moral and social judgments. In M. Killen, & J. G. Smetana (Ed.), Handbook of Moral Development (pp. 19-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smetana, J. G. (1989). Adolescents' and parents' reasoning about actual family conflict. Child Development, 60, 1052-1067. Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., Gettman, D. C., & Campione-Barr, N. (2006). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent-parent relationships. Child Development, 77, 201-217. Smetana, J. G., Villalobos, M., Tasopoulos-Chan, M., Gettman, D. C., & Campione-Barr, N. (2009). Early and middle adolescents' disclosure to parents about activities in different domains. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 693-713. Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072-1085. Rote, W. M. & Smetana, J. G. (2011). Parents' and teens' evaluations of information management strategies. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Montreal, Quebec. Tasopoulos-Chan, M., Smetana, J. G., & Yau, J. P. (2009). How much do I tell thee? Strategies for managing information to parents among American adolescents from Chinese, Mexican, and European backgrounds. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 364-374. References Interactions by Strategy Results Justification Categories JustificationDefinitionExample Comparison of domains/ strategies Acceptability depends on the type of behavior being hidden or how it is concealed Im not concerned with who he has a crush on, but do care about drinking and drugs You arent lying if you dont say anything Prescriptive statements Emphasis on the (un)acceptability of act regardless of circumstances. Its never right to lie its fine to only say things once youre asked Personal Jurisdiction Individuals right to privacy/control; the inconsequential nature of behavior because its my life I have a right to my privacy as long as Im not doing anything harmful to myself my parents dont need to know Consequences for Teen Possible negative or positive consequences for the teen Your parents can prevent something bad from happening if they know what their children are doing so I dont get in trouble for doing something wrong Consequences for others/ relationships Impact of strategy use on others or relationships Because it can be a danger to people around you Avoid confrontations Limits the communication between parent and teen Parenting behavior/ expectations The role of parenting behavior or expectations in promoting strategy use or determining its acceptability If a parent overreacts it is acceptable or at least understandable It is my responsibility as a parent to ask....It's not her responsibility to tell me everything she does Conventions/ Human nature Acceptability based on social laws, norms, or beliefs about human nature Drinking and use of marijuana are illegal Has more independence and privacy as an young adult at college Human nature that teens lie and experiment in life *Unelaborated/ Uncodable cusz surprise gifts Two additional categories (Legitimate parental authority, Pragmatic issues) endorsed < 10% of time; not included in analyses. Justification ANOVAs (highest order effects listed) 2 (mom* vs. teen) x 4 (strategy) x 7 (justification) x 2 (teen sex) x 3 (teen grade) repeated measures ANOVA No significant effects of teen sex or teen grade Significant 3-way interaction: Family member x Strategy x Justification F(18, 3366) = 4.44, p <.001 Separate 2 (mom* vs. teen) x 4 (justification) repeated measures ANOVAs for each strategy Significant Family member x Justification interactions for each strategy (ps <.01) Results * mothers vs. fathers – ns teen mom Starred and listed comparisons are significant at Bonferroni-corrected p <.05; + p <.10 + * * * * Not included in analyses * * Proportion Used * * Teens: 2 > 7 3 > 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 6 > 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10 10 > 7 Mothers: 3 > 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 5 > 2 6 > 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 Mothers: 1 > 2 3 > 2, 9 4 > 2 Teens: 1 > 2, 6, 7 3 > all others 4 > 2, 6, 7 5 > 7 Mothers: 3 > 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 4 > 1 Teens: 1 > 7 3 > all others 4 > 7 6 > 7 Teens: 2 > 1, 7 3 > all others 5 > 1, 6, 7 6 > 1, 6, 7 Mothers: 2 > 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 3 > 1 5 > 1 6 > 1, 7 7 > 1 * All significance tests adjusted using Greenhouse-Geisser correction for lack of sphericity