evaluating information management strategies: parent versus teen justifications wendy m. rote and...

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 (Cohen’s kappa) = .81 •Proportion scores calculated to control for number of categories used •Score = category used (0,1)/ # categories used Methods 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 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 References Interactions by Strategy Results Justificatio n Definition Example Comparison of domains/ strategies Acceptability depends on the type of behavior being hidden or how it is concealed “I’m not concerned with who he has a crush on, but do care about drinking and drugs” “You aren’t lying if you don’t say anything” Prescriptive statements Emphasis on the (un)acceptability of act regardless of circumstances. “It’s never right to lie” “its fine to only say things once you’re asked” Personal Jurisdiction Individuals’ right to privacy/control; the inconsequential nature of behavior “because it’s my life I have a right to my privacy as long as I’m not doing anything harmful to myself my parents don’t 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 don’t get in trouble for doing something wrong” Consequences for others/ relationship s 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” *Unelaborate d/ 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 * * * * 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

Upload: noah-purcell

Post on 27-Mar-2015

227 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Evaluating Information Management Strategies: Parent Versus Teen Justifications Wendy M. Rote and Judith G. Smetana University of Rochester Strategy Evaluation

Evaluating Information Management Strategies: Parent Versus Teen JustificationsWendy 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 (Cohen’s kappa) = .81•Proportion scores calculated to control for number of categories used

•Score = category used (0,1)/ # categories used

Methods

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 11th graders, 94 12th 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

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 Definition Example

Comparison of domains/ strategies

Acceptability depends on the type of behavior being hidden or how it is concealed

“I’m not concerned with who he has a crush on, but do care about drinking and drugs” “You aren’t lying if you don’t say anything”

Prescriptive statements

Emphasis on the (un)acceptability of act regardless of circumstances.

“It’s never right to lie” “its fine to only say things once you’re asked”

Personal Jurisdiction

Individuals’ right to privacy/control; the inconsequential nature of behavior

“because it’s my life I have a right to my privacy as long as I’m not doing anything harmful to myself my parents don’t 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 don’t 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

**

**

Teens: 2 > 73 > 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 106 > 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 1010 > 7

Mothers: 3 > 1, 2, 4, 7, 105 > 26 > 1, 2, 4, 7, 10

Mothers: 1 > 23 > 2, 94 > 2

Teens: 1 > 2, 6, 73 > all others4 > 2, 6, 75 > 7

Mothers: 3 > 1, 2, 5, 6, 74 > 1

Teens: 1 > 73 > all others4 > 76 > 7

Teens: 2 > 1, 73 > all others5 > 1, 6, 76 > 1, 6, 7

Mothers: 2 > 1, 3, 4, 6, 73 > 15 > 16 > 1, 77 > 1

*

All significance tests adjusted using Greenhouse-Geisser correction for lack of sphericity