Associations Between Observed Parent-Child Interactions and Adolescent Information Management

Wendy M. Rote and Judith Smetana University of Rochester

Information Management•Disclosure Sorting Task (Smetana et al., 2009)•22 Behaviors

• 4 prudential, 11 multifaceted, 7 personal

•Teens Rated:• Disclosure frequency (1: never tell – 5: always tell)

• Only for behaviors in which they engaged• Use of different non-disclosure strategies(0, 1)

• Avoid, Omit, Lie• Proportion scores for strategies calculated for each

domain

Parent-Adolescent Interaction•Discussing Disagreement Task (Smetana et al., 1991)•8 minutes

• 3 min.: decide together on a conflict to discuss• 5 min.: work towards resolution

•Coding: mothers and teens separately rated on:• Communication behaviors

• 10 items from the Global Interaction Coding System (Smetana et al., 1991)

• Affect• 3 items from IFIRS (Melby & Conger, 2001)

• Interrater reliability α’s: .84 – 1.00

MethodsAdolescents’ disclosure to and secrecy from parents

have been found to predict parental knowledge and adolescent adjustment (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Adolescents also use multiple strategies, such as lying, omitting important information, and avoiding the subject, to manage information from parents (Darling et al., 2006). The use of these strategies varies by situations and adolescents ,and they are differentially linked with adolescent adjustment (Smetana et al., 2009; Tasopoulos-Chan et al., 2009). Demographic variables such as age and sex also influence adolescent information management, although the effects are not consistent (Smetana et al., 2006; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) 

Adolescents’ disclosure and use of non-disclosure strategies consistently are associated with supportive parenting behaviors (Smetana et al., 2006; Soenens et al., 2006) and parent-adolescent relationship quality (Smetana et al., 2009). Additionally, associations between parenting or relationship quality and adolescent information management depend on the domain of the behavior being disclosed, as defined within social domain theory (Smetana et al., 2006, 2009). So far, parenting and relationship quality have been assessed using questionnaires that rely on relatively global and subjective perceptions (Stone & Lemanek, 1990) that also vary depending on the informant (Smetana et al., 2009). In contrast, observations of family interactions provide an opportunity to examine associations between objective ratings of parent-adolescent interactions and adolescents’ different information management strategies, potentially contributing to our understanding of the family interaction patterns that facilitate disclosure to parents.

Introduction

 1. Define discrete parent-adolescent interaction factors using principal components analysis

 

2. Examine associations between observer rated parent-adolescent interaction factors and adolescent disclosure and non-disclosure strategies across multiple domains

 

3. Examine whether associations vary by gender and grade

Objectives

• 109 Adolescents• 52 7th grade, Mage = 12.74, SD= .47

• 28 males, 24 females• 57 10th grade, Mage = 15.68. SD = .45

• 27 males, 30 females • 109 mothers , Mage = 42.55, SD= 4.70• 89% Caucasian, 8% African American, 3% Other

Participants

Principal Components Analysis

We examined associations between observed mother-adolescent interactions and adolescent disclosure and non-disclosure strategies. 

Aim 1: Mother-Adolescent Observed InteractionsWe found six factors of observed mother-adolescent interactions: clear

communication (for both mothers and teens), hostility (for both mothers and teens), joint receptiveness, and joint support. Communication and receptiveness/support, have been distinguished in previous family interaction research (Smetana et al., 1991, 2000). However, it was surprising that both parent and adolescent behaviors loaded together on the receptiveness and support factors. 

Aim 2: Associations with Information ManagementCommunication: Adolescents may gain autonomy through negotiation or

non-disclosure (Darling et al., 2006; Smetana et al., 2006). Consistent with this, adolescents who communicated more clearly were less likely to avoid discussing prudential and multifaceted activities.  

Mothers’ clear communication both facilitated and inhibited full disclosure, depending on the domain. Mothers who communicated more clearly had teens who disclosed less, avoided discussions more, and lied more about personal issues, but also lied less about risky prudential behavior. Adolescents may interpret mothers’ clear communication about conflictive personal issues as intrusive or overly controlling, leading to reduced sharing (Kakihara & Tilton-Weaver, 2009).  

Receptiveness and Support: These were both associated with information management in the expected ways (that is, more disclosure, less non-disclosure). However, associations varied for different types of information management strategies and domains. 

Hostility: Teen hostility was linked with less, rather than more lying, although this effect varied by domain and grade. Thus, for 7 th graders, adolescent hostility may reflect a greater willingness to engage in conflict with parents over prudential behaviors, but for 10th graders, it may be part of a pattern of misbehavior where adolescents distract parents from prudential misdeeds with honesty about personal issues (Smetana et al., in press).

Mothers’ hostility was linked with teens omitting more about their prudential and multifaceted activities. Adolescents may withhold information about prudential and multifaceted activities due to fear of parental disapproval (Darling et al., 2006; Smetana et al., 2009) and previous negative parental reactions (Tilton-Weaver et al., 2009). 

Aim 3: Grade and Gender DifferencesModels differed by grade only for lying. Positive mother-adolescent

relationships appear to be more beneficial for increasing parents’ knowledge of deviant or risky behaviors in early than middle adolescence, although this may be because early adolescents are less involved risky behaviors (like drinking) that are of concern to parents. No significant sex differences were found. 

ConclusionsThis study shows that reliably rated, observed adolescent-parent

interactions are linked with adolescents’ disclosure and non-disclosure strategies and that these associations vary by domain. The findings contribute to the previous literature on correlates of disclosure and information management, which thus far has focused only perceptions of relationships. More process-oriented and longitudinal research will help us further understand these associations.

Discussion

 Darling, N., Cumsille, P., Caldwell, L. L., & Dowdy, B. (2006). Predictors of adolescents' disclosure to parents and perceived parental knowledge: between- and within-person and Adolescence, 35(4), 667-678.

Kakihara, F. & Tilton-Weaver, L. (2009). Adolescents’ interpretations of parental control: Differentiated by domain and types of control. Child Development, 80, 1722-1738

Smetana, J. G., Metzger, A., Gettman, D. C., & Campione-Barr, N. (2006). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent-parent relationships. Child Development, 77(1), 201-217.

Smetana, J. G., Villalobos, M., Rogge, R. D., & Tasopoulos-Chan, M. (in press). Keeping secrets from parents: Daily variations among poor, urban adolescents. Journal of Adolescence. Doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.04.003.

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.

Smetana, J. G., Yau, J., Restrepo, A., & Braeges, J. L. (1991). Adolescent-parent conflict in married and divorced families. Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 1000-1010.

Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Luyckx, K., & Goossens, L. (2006). Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 305-318.

Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072-1085.

Stone, W. L. & Lemanek, K. L. (1990). Developmental issues in children’s self-reports. In A. M. La Greca (1990). Through the eyes of the child: Obtaining self-reports from children and adolescents (pp. 18-56). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Tasopoulous-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.

Tilton-Weaver, L., Kakihara, F., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2009, April). Bidirectionality in parenting and youth adjustment: The role of negative parenting. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO.

Yau, J. P., Tasopoulos-Chan, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2009). Disclosure to parents about everyday activities among American adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Child Development, 80, 1481-1498.

References

Components (mother alpha/teen alpha)Item loadingsParent Teen

Mother Communication/Teen Communication (.89/.86)Clarity of expression .89 .87 Provides explanations .87 .79 Confidence in stating opinions .83 .85 Requests input of others .79 .73

Mother Hostility/Teen Hostility (.91/.86)Contempt .93 .94 Hostility .92 .82Angry Coercion .85 .86

Joint Receptiveness (.85)Understanding .87 .75Receptive to statements by others .80 .76

Joint Support (.88)Tolerates differences .72 .70Attempts resolution .69 .77Supportive .68 .62

Domain Definition Example ItemPrudential Affects safety of self If you drink beer or

wine when with friendsPersonal Not legitimately regulated

by others; only affects self

How you spend your allowance or money that you’ve earned

Multifaceted Mix of two domains (personal & conventional, personal & prudential)

If you spend time alone with boy/girlfriend

Multigroup AnalysesConstrained vs. unconstrained models compared•7th vs. 10th graders

•7th & 10th graders examined separately for lying model based on: Δχ2(21)= 29.7, p < .05•Grades combined for other models

•Girls vs. boys•No significant differences•Sexes combined for all models

Path Analyses •Fully identified, χ2 = 0, df = 0; only significant paths shown•Reduced models (sig. paths only) tested for adequate fit

•χ2 range: 7.8– 19.5, p range: .36 - .64•CFI range: .99 -1.0 ( > .90 = adequate fit)•RMSEA range: .00 - .035 (< .08 = adequate fit)

•Mother’s education (proxy for SES) included due to a sig. correlation with mother’s communication.

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .005, ****p < .001

Multifaceted Omitting

Prudential Omitting

Personal Omitting

M. Education

M. Hostility

T. Hostility

Receptiveness

Support

M. Communication

T. Communication

-.19*

.20†

.17†

.32* Multifaceted Disclosure

Prudential Disclosure

Personal Disclosure

M. Education

M. Hostility

T. Hostility

Receptiveness

Support

M. Communication

T. Communication

.24**

.21*

-.25 *

-.27*

-.26**

-.25*

Multifaceted Avoidance

Prudential Avoidance

Personal Avoidance

M. Education

M. Hostility

T. Hostility

Receptiveness

Support

M. Communication

T. Communication

-.21*

.23*

.20†

Disclosure Model

Avoidance Model

Omitting Information Model

Results

-.46***

.26†

-.60***

-.32†

-.33†

-.25 †

-.66***

-.35†

-.47*

-.37***

-.29*

-.31†

.46****

Lying Models7th Grade

10h Grade

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .005, ****p < .001

Multifaceted Lying

Prudential Lying

Personal Lying

M. Education

M. Hostility

T. Hostility

Receptiveness

Support

M. Communication

T. Communication

M. Education

M. Hostility

T. Hostility

Receptiveness

Support

M. Communication

T. Communication

Results

Multifaceted Lying

Prudential Lying

Personal Lying