Wendy M. Rote and Judith G. Smetana

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!