1 / 19

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

davida
Download Presentation

Wendy M. Rote and Judith G. Smetana

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


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

  2. 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)

  3. 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)

  4. 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)

  5. 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

  6. Sex differences • Adolescent 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)

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Measures • 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)

  10. Problem Behavior Problem Behavior Depressed Mood Depressed Mood Strategy Acceptance Strategy Acceptance Strategy Use Strategy Use Positive Support Positive Support Neg Interactions Neg Interactions Model Tested • Analyzed separately for each strategy • Multigroup comparisons for: Domain, Teen Sex, Parent Sex Wave 1 Wave 2

  11. Problem Behavior Problem Behavior Depressed Mood Depressed Mood Accept: Lie Accept: Lie Lie Lie Positive Support Positive Support Neg Interactions Neg Interactions 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 14** 14** .26** .21** .13* .13* -.14+ .16** .16** .14+ .14+ -.15* -.15* .11+ .18** .27** .27**

  12. 21* 21* Problem Behavior Problem Behavior Depressed Mood Depressed Mood Accept: Omit Accept: Omit Omit Omit Positive Support Positive Support .32** .32** Neg Interactions Neg Interactions 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 .18+ .20+ .20+ .20 + -.22** -.18+ -.18+ .15* .23* -.17**

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

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

  15. 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).

  16. 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?

  17. 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?

  18. 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!!

  19. Thank You!

More Related