1. 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

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)
However, there are multiple strategies for managing information, many of which have elements of both disclosure and secrecy.
And although these strategies can be grouped into disclosing versus concealing strategies
There is also reason to consider them separately. They differ in the frequency, situations, and justifications for their use and in their links with parenting and adolescent adjustment.

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)
However, there are multiple strategies for managing information, many of which have elements of both disclosure and secrecy.
And although these strategies can be grouped into disclosing versus concealing strategies
There is also reason to consider them separately. They differ in the frequency, situations, and justifications for their use and in their links with parenting and adolescent adjustment.

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 Parent 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 use (0,1)
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)
Pers – having a crush on someone; pru – drinking alcohol
Networks of relationships inventory
PBS – problem behavior scale
CES-D - Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

10. Model Tested Analyzed separately for each strategy
Multigroup comparisons for: Domain, Teen Sex, Parent Sex
Wave 1
Wave 2
Problem Behavior
Neg Interactions
Strategy Acceptance
Strategy Use
Depressed Mood
Positive Support
This is the model analyzed for all strategies
However, when I present the results, I will only show the significant cross-lag paths. The autoregressive paths were all significant, but are omitted for clarity.

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

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

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

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

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!