ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to examine the patterning of adolescents' strategy choice when discussing issues with parents in a sample of 1678 Chilean 11-19 year olds (mean age=14.9). Adolescents reported whether they fully disclosed, partially disclosed, avoided the issue, or lied for six core areas that bridged personal autonomy and safety concerns. Five patterns were identified: two in which adolescents were likely to either share information about all issues or lie about them and three in which adolescents used a combination of strategies that included sharing some information while concealing other. Membership in the full disclosure class was highest among middle class youth and those who reported the highest obedience, legitimacy beliefs, parental agreement, maternal warmth and knowledge, and the fewest problem behaviors. Interestingly, adolescents in the Lie class reported both the highest level of parental monitoring and low maternal knowledge.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
1
Running head: Adolescents´ Pattern of Responses to Disagreements
Shading the Truth: The Patterning of Adolescents’ Decisions to Avoid Issues, Disclose, or Lie to
Parents
Patricio Cumsille
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Nancy Darling
Oberlin College
M. Loreto Martínez
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
2
Abstract
The patterning of adolescents’ strategy choice when discussing issues with parents was examined
in a sample of 1678 Chilean 11-19 year olds (mean age=14.9). Adolescents reported whether
they fully disclosed, partially disclosed, avoided the issue, or lied for six core areas of parental
concern, including substance use and peer activities. Five patterns were identified: three in
which adolescents were likely to lie, avoid, or fully disclose across all issues, and two
characterized by a combination of avoidance with either full or partial disclosure and low
likelihood of lying. Membership in the full disclosure class was highest among middle class
youth and those who reported the highest obedience, legitimacy beliefs, parental agreement,
maternal warmth and knowledge, and the fewest problem behaviors. Interestingly, adolescents
in the Lie class also report the highest level of parental monitoring.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
3
Shading the Truth: The Patterning of Adolescents’ Decisions to Avoid Issues, Disclose, or Lie to
Parents
Adolescence is a liminal period between childhood and adulthood characterized by
increasing time spent outside the home and direct adult supervision, increasingly intimate
relationships outside the family, and the expansion of areas both adolescents and their parents
deem to be private (Smetana, 2008). Each of these factors makes it less likely that parents will
have direct information about what their adolescents are doing, thinking about, and feeling
(Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, & McHale, 2005). Normative behavioral changes make it likely that
as children become adolescents, they will have greater opportunities for exposure to alcohol use,
premature sexual behavior, or minor delinquency. Adolescents’ greater mobility and limited
experience recognizing potentially dangerous situations or the consequences of decisions also
increase individual adolescents’ potential risk exposure (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). Parents
recognition of this potential risk may increase parents’ desire to monitor their adolescents’
behavior, a strategy aimed to increase the likelihood that adolescents will make autonomous
decisions consistent with their parents’ values. Thus, adolescence is a period when parents may
feel a greater desire for information at the same time that less direct information is available to
them, and both they and their adolescents believe that greater adolescent privacy and autonomy
are appropriate. Adolescents’ decisions about sharing information with their parents are at the
crux of this developmental transition. The goal of this paper is to describe individual differences
in adolescents’ choices to share information or keep it from parents. We focus on individual
differences in the patterning of information sharing across issues parents may wish to monitor
because of their potential for adolescent risk and decision-making, but adolescents may wish to
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
4
keep private to assert psychological or behavioral autonomy. These include four areas related to
peers - adult supervision, where the adolescent goes with friends, time to come home, and
spending time with people parents don’t approve of – as well as smoking and alcohol use. In
addition, differences in the patterning of information sharing were examined as a function of age,
gender, and socioeconomic status (SES) and the characteristics of adolescents and parents
associated with each.
We use Smetana´s social domain theory to classify issues that are sources of parent-
adolescent disagreement, and that are particularly amenable to adolescent concealment. SHORT
EXPLANATION OF SMETANA´S CLASSIFICATION. TALK ABOUT MULTIFACTED
ISSUESS.
The vast majority of adolescents report withholding some information from parents
(Darling, Cumsille, Caldwell, & Dowdy, 2006; Smetana, Metzger, Gettman, & Campione-Barr,
2006), particularly in relation to moral or personal issues. In judging the acceptability of lying in
hypothetical situations (Perkins & Turiel, 2007), most adolescents often considered it to be
acceptable to continue to engage in a disapproved activity and lie to parents to keep them from
knowing about their activities. Adolescents were most likely to say lying was acceptable about
parent-adolescent disagreements when receiving parental directives against their moral
judgement, which included scenarios of parents urging adolescents to behave in a prejudiced or
physically aggressive manner, and in the personal domain, which included dating someone the
parent did not like and joining a club the parent thought a waste of time. They were less
approving of lying to parents about prudential issues (not doing homework or riding a
motorcycle). Adolescents tended to justify the acceptability of lying on their belief that parents
were exerting illegitimate control over the issue in question and describe this as a way of
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
5
asserting control in a situation of unequal power. Older adolescents were more accepting than
younger adolescents of lying in the personal and prudential domains. These findings are
consistent with adolescents’ reports of their behaviors in real life situations. For example,
adolescents believe they were obliged to share information with parents, particularly about
prudential issues (Smetana et al., 2006). Adolescents’ beliefs that they were obliged to obey
parents with regards to a particular issue increased the likelihood of adolescents’ disclosure
(Darling et al., 2006), while the belief that the parent had legitimate authority over an issue
reduced the likelihood of lying (Darling, Cumsille, Peña-Alampay, & Coatsworth, in press).
Although some have argued that concealing information from parents is a necessary part
of the development of healthy autonomy, relatively greater concealment and low levels of
disclosure are symptomatic of poorer quality parent-child relationships or increased adolescent
risk (Finkenauer, Engels, & Meeus, 2002). Youths who are more involved in problem behavior,
agree less with parents (Darling et al., in press), and are more manipulative, lie more in general
and are particularly likely to tell self-serving lies (Kashy & DePaulo, 1996). Adolescents are
less likely to keep information from parents who are more accepting and more behaviorally
controlling (Smetana et al., 2006) and from parents who are authoritative (Darling et al., 2006).
These findings were consistent among youths in Chile, the Philippines, and the United States
(Darling et al., in press), although parental warmth was a relatively more important and
monitoring a relatively less important predictor for young people in the US. Relatively high
levels of lying and low levels of spontaneous disclosure predict greater parent distrust (Kerr,
Stattin, & Trost, 1999). Although there is relatively low agreement between adolescents and
mothers of when their adolescent is lying and when they are not (Darling & Dowdy, in press),
parents’ perception of adolescents’ concealment of information is associated with lower trust
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
6
(Darling & Dowdy, in press) and poorer quality parenting (Finkenauer, Frijns, Engels, &
Kerkhof, 2005).
The extent to which adolescents share information with parents is a complicated behavior
to assess both conceptually and methodologically. For example, voluntary disclosure of
information includes openly sharing information about the adolescents’ day to day life (e.g., Kerr
et al., 1999). Lying refers to presenting information as true that they know to be false. For
example, an adolescent who tells a parent they were not assigned homework, when they, in fact,
were, is lying (Buller & Burgoon, 1994). However, adolescents who do not tell their parents
about their day at school may be actively hiding information from them to deliberately mislead
them - a form of lying – or they may simply not choose to share information they deem to be
private unless the parent asks. Researchers interested in adolescents’ decisions to share
information with parents and their use of deception have measured the extent of voluntary
disclosure and non-disclosure or lying globally (e.g., Finkenauer, Engels, & Baumeister, 2005;
Frijns, Finkenauer, Vermulst, & Engels, 2005; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Kerr et al., 1999) as well as
at the specific issue level (e.g., Darling et al., 2006; Darling et al., in press; Smetana et al., 2006).
Each strategy has different advantages and disadvantages. Global assessment makes it easier to
differentiate between adolescents and families, but makes it difficult to differentiate between
different types of concealment and disclosure. On the other hand, investigations focused at the
issue level tend to provide greater detail about adolescents’ decision making about methods and
motivations for disclosure, partial disclosure, and lying, but are less powerful in gaining a sense
of the differences between different adolescents or the consequences of those differences.
This paper uses latent class analysis (LCA, Lanza, Collins, Lemmon & Schafer, 2008) to
describe individual differences in adolescents’ choices to fully disclose, partially disclose, avoid
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
7
a discussion, or lie when discussing six core issues with their parents. Use of this technique thus
allows us to examine individual differences in all four strategy choices simultaneously across six
core issues.
Adolescence in Chile
The adolescence period in Chile has evolved rapidly over the last two decades as a
consequence of political and socio-cultural changes, prompted in part by outside media
influences from Europe, the United States and other Latin American countries (Instituto
Nacional de la Juventud, 1999). The transition from an authoritarian military regime to a
democratic system in 1990, combined with rapid economic growth that has led to the emergence
of individualistic values, have resulted in a sharp rejection of authoritarian values and in the
liberalization of social and sexual norms (Martínez, Cumsille & Thibaut, 2006). Across all
social classes, younger Chileans espouse more individualistic values than older cohorts, although
the society remains highly family oriented (Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarollo
(PNUD), 2002).
Chilean parents are less likely to enforce strict rules or to use power-assertive parenting
techniques than were their own parents (Martínez et al., 2006). Over 85% of Chilean youths
think of themselves as different from the adult generation both in how they think and how they
act (Martínez et al., 2006). Although Chilean youths espouse beliefs about legitimacy of
parental authority similar to those in the United States and the Philippines, Chilean youths are
less likely than Filipino or US youths to (a) believe their parents have the right to govern their
behavior (particularly with regards to prudential areas, such alcohol use or time to come home),
(b) to believe that they are obliged to obey parents when they disagree, or (c) to agree with
parents (Darling et al., 2005).
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
8
Based on previous research on how legitimacy of parental authority is organized by
social domain (Cumsille, Darling, Flaherty & Martínez, 2006), we hypothesis that adolescents
would organize their answer to disagreement with parents by domains. Specifically, we expect
to observe that responses would organize into different classes, ranging from disclosure to all
issues to concealment of all issues in which adolescents and parents disagree. We also expect a
combination of strategies based on the specific domain of the issues, and this strategy to be the
most prevalent. Finally, we expect age to be a predictor of class membership, with younger
adolescents more likely to belong to the complete disclosure class, and adolescent positive
adjustment (less problem behavior) associated to full disclosure.
Method
Participants
Participants in the study were adolescents participating in a longitudinal study of
parenting, adolescent risk behaviors, and resilience in Chile. Adolescents were recruited in seven
schools from three counties in Santiago, Chile (92% of 14-17 year old Chileans are enrolled in
school, Martínez, Cumsille, & Thibaut, 2006). Chilean schools are typically organized from
grades 1st-8th and from 9th-12th, so 6th and 7th graders in the sample experienced a transition from
primary to secondary school during the study’s duration. Schools were selected to represent the
diversity of socio-economic status (SES) observed in the Chilean educational system and
included two private, one subsidized private, and four public schools, thus over-sampling for
lower SES students. The study followed the same adolescents for a period of 3 years, with
measurements every six months. For the present study, we used adolescent’s responses to the
third measurement period (N=2631). While longitudinal data was available, we decided to work
with only one wave of measurement as a first step in conducting this complex type of analysis,
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
9
and we chose to analyze the third wave of measurement because it was the firs measurement that
included all the variables needed for the analysis.
Out of the 2631 participants, we selected adolescents who reported some level of
disagreement with parents about at least 1 of six selected issues (see instrument section).
Adolescents reported their level of agreement with parents on a likert type scale, with anchor
points “high disagreement” (1) to “No disagreement” (5). Most adolescents did not disagree
with their parents (34%) or disagreed about 1 or 2 issues (38%). Because we were interested in
adolescents strategies to deal with disagreement with parents, we needed to select adolescents
that have some level of disagreement with parents. Consequently, any adolescent reporting some
level of disagreement with the parents (2) on at least one of the issues was selected in the sample
(N=1678). Across the six issues, level of disagreement ranged for a low of 16% (where you go
with friends) and a high of 40% (drinking alcohol) of some level of disagreement with their
parents. The final sample had a mean age of 14.86 years (SD = 1.99, range 11 to 19), slightly
younger than the adolescents not selected (15.04 years, p < 0.034), and had the same gender
distribution as the original sample, where women were overrepresented (56%). Compared with
adolescents that reported no disagreement with their parents, adolescents in the final sample
reported lower levels of obedience (p = .000), maternal warmth and support (p = .000) and
knowledge (p = .000), and higher levels of behavioral problems (p = .000), alcohol (p = .000)
and drug use (p = .003). On average, adolescents selected in the sample also reported fewer
maternal attempts to know about their whereabouts ((p = .007) and lower parental legitimacy (p
= .000). These differences suggest that our sample, comprised of adolescents who disagree with
their parents, was more problematic than adolescents that report no disagreement with their
parents.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
10
According to the classification available from the Chilean Ministry of Education
(Ministerio de Educación, República de Chile, 2007) the schools where the sample was drawn
from was 29% middle-low SES, 45% middle SES and 26% middle-high SES. Overall, 17% of
mothers and 14% of fathers in the sample completed primary education or less, 17% of mothers
and 15% of fathers had some high school, 32% of mothers and 30% of fathers completed high
school, and 34% of the mothers and 41% of the fathers had at least some college. By
comparison, in 2002, the average years of schooling for adults in Santiago was 10.6 years,
equivalent to some high school (Ministerio de Educación, República de Chile, 2002). Sixty-eight
percent of the adolescents lived with both biological parents, 19% lived only with their mother,
7% lived with mother and stepfather, and the rest lived in different family arrangements (e.g.,
only father, other relatives).
Unlike many other Latin-American countries, Chile is quite ethnically homogeneous, and
no information about ethnicity was collected for the present study.
Measures
Adolescents´ responses to disagreements
This study used items selected from a larger questionnaire measuring adolescents’ beliefs
about the legitimacy of parental authority, adolescents’ obligation to obey, and parent-adolescent
conflict (Cumsille, Darling, Flaherty & Martínez, 2006; Darling, Cumsille, Peña-Alampay &
Coatsworth, in press). We selected six indicators of latent class membership to represent mixed
and prudential issues that are frequent sources of parent-adolescent conflict. These items
included: hanging around with friends your parents think are problematic, being with friends
when adults are not around, where you go with your friends, what time you should get home at
nights, smoking and drinking. For each issue, adolescents were asked to select the alternative
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
11
that better described their behavior when they disagreed with parents. The four possible answers
were: tell all, avoid the subject, tell part and lie. Table 1 presents the proportion of adolescents
who responded to each item with each behavior.
Predictors of latent class membership
Adolescent and mother-related predictors of class membership were used. Adolescent
alcohol use and problem behavior was measured by six items (e.g., cheating in exams, skipping
classes, Cronbach’s alpha=.79), maternal warmth/support (e.g., I know she is going to be there
for me if I need her, I can count on her, she really loves me, Cronbach’s alpha=.88) and maternal
knowledge (e.g., who your friends are, what you do in your free time, where you go most
afternoons, Cronbach’s alpha=.74) were measured by six items each. Agreement with parents
(Cronbach’s alpha=.80), obedience to parental rules (Cronbach’s alpha=.92) and parental
legitimacy (Cronbach’s alpha=.85) were each measured by answer to the same seventeen items
(e.g., smoking, drinking, dressing).
Procedure
Adolescents were recruited in their schools, with the approval of county educational
authorities (for municipal schools) and school principals. In accordance with Chilean research
regulations, passive parental consent and active adolescent assent was obtained. Questionnaires
were administered by trained upper-level psychology students and were answered by students in
their classrooms. Participants received a candy snack as a thank you for completing the
questionnaires.
Plan of Analysis
Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to analyze the patterning of adolescents’ disclosure
to parents, using the adolescents´ answers to the six items previously described. The goal of
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
12
LCA is to identify distinct response patterns that can parsimoniously explain overall variability
in the responses of the population across individual questions. For example, LCA could be used
to distinguish between a pattern of responses in which adolescents reports fully disclosing about
all issues from one in which adolescents report fully disclosing about smoking and drinking and
partially disclosing about peer related issues. LCA is similar to cluster analysis in that it can be
used to identify individuals who respond similarly across different items. Thus LCA will derive
latent classes of individuals based on the patterns of responses that include information about the
likelihood of using each disclosure strategy for each of the core issues. Differences in the
correlates of different response patterns can then be identified.
LCA is conceptually similar to factor analysis in that it assumes a latent variable
underlies the relationship among measured responses. It differs from factor analysis in that the
latent variable is assumed to be respondents’ membership in a categorical class rather than a
linear dimension along which respondents vary. The latent class model relies on two additional
assumptions. First, latent classes are assumed to be mutually exclusive and exhaustive: everyone
in a population is assumed to be a member of one and only one class. In addition, individual
members of a latent class are assumed to be homogeneous: differences between individuals in
particular latent class are attributed to measurement error. By definition, all individuals within a
given class have the same probability of making a particular response to a specific item. Given a
particular set of observed responses in a population, LCA can be used to test a series of
hypotheses about the number of classes (i.e., response patterns) within the population. Given a
set number of latent classes, probabilistic response patterns of individuals within each latent class
are empirically derived. In other words, the number of classes is specified by the investigator,
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
13
but both the pattern of responses characteristic of each class and the proportion of individuals
assigned to each class is derived by LCA from the observed data.
Two types of parameters are estimated in the latent class model. The conditional
response probability is calculated for each measured item by latent class. The conditional
response probability refers to the probability that a member of a given class will respond to an
issue in a particular way. In this analysis, where adolescents responded to the question of what
they usually do when they disagree with their parents (tell them all the details they would want to
know, avoid the issue, tell them part, or lie), the conditional response probability refers to the
likelihood of choosing any given responses to that item. This likelihood is compared to the
likelihood based on chance (25%) The latent class proportion is the percent of a population in a
given latent class. Model selection in latent class models is the same as in other categorical data
models. Pearson's c2 or the likelihood ratio statistic (G2) are used to summarize the difference
between observed and expected frequencies. Authors also recommend to the use of the Akaike
Information Criteria (AIC), Bayes Information Criteria (BIC) and the interpretability of the
classes for model selection (Lanza, Collins, Lemmon & Schafer, 2008). For accessible
descriptions of LCA please see Flaherty (2002), Lanza and Collins (2008), or Lanza, Flaherty,
and Collins (2003). See also Cumsille, Darling, Flaherty and Martínez (2006) for an application
of LCA with adolescent data.
The analyses proceeded in three steps. First, a series of 5 models were fitted to the data,
with the number of latent classes specified varying from 2 to 6. This is a common strategy when
selecting latent class models where the number of classes is unknown (Lanza, Flaherty &
Collins, 2003), and the optimum number has to be estimated. Second, we ran a set of nested
models to test for differences in item response probabilities and latent class proportions
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
14
separately by gender and by SES. For each grouping variable, the model for the sample as a
whole was rerun as a multiple group analysis with and without equality constraints in the item
response probabilities by group to test for measurement invariance across groups, and G2
differences were used to test for significance. Next, latent class membership was predicted by
age, problem behavior, maternal warmth and support, maternal knowledge, obedience and
legitimacy of parental authority. Finally, a series of post-hoc analyses were performed
examining mean differences in each predictor for adolescents assigned to each class. All
analyses were performed using Proc LCA, a new SAS procedure to estimate latent class models
(Lanza & Collins, 2008; Lanza et al, 2007), using an EM algorithm to handle parameter
estimation and missing data (Hyatt & Collins, 1998; Lanza et al, 2007). For specifics of the
implementation of these methods in SAS see Lanza, Collins, Lemmon and Schafer (2007).
Finally, item level missing data were handle using full-information maximum likelihood in Proc
LCA (Lanza, Collins, Lemmon & Schafer, 2007).
Results
Identification of patterns behaviors when disagreeing
A series of five baseline LCA models were calculated specifying from 2 to 6 latent
classes. Summary statistics for each model are presented in Table 2. While AIC seems to favor
the model with 6 classes, BIC favors the model with 5 classes. Researchers suggest that
interpretability of classes should also be considered in model selection (Lanza, Collins, Lemmon
& Schafer, 2007). Considering that BIC favors parsimony and looking at interpretability of
solutions, the five class model was selected. Item response probabilities for the 5 class model are
illustrated in Figure 1. In Figure 1, response probabilities for each item are graphed separately
for each latent class. The height of each bar represents the probability of endorsing each
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
15
response (Tell All, Avoid, Tell Part, and Lie) for each item. With four possible responses, one
would expect people answering at random to have a 25% probability of choosing each response.
This response probability of .25 is indicated on each graph. The farther a bar raises or dips from
the 0.25 line, the more closely the item response is linked to status: response probabilities close
to 0.25 indicate responses that are not closely related to a particular status, and are therefore not
distinctive characteristics of that status.
Five classes were identified. In two classes, Tell All and Avoid, adolescents had over an
80% probability of reporting that response across all six issues and were unlikely to report any
other disclosure strategy. Similarly, the Lie class was characterized by a relatively high
likelihood of reporting lying to parents about each issue (approximately 50%) and a somewhat
decreased likelihood of reporting avoidance or partial disclosure. Adolescents in the latent class
labeled Tell Part and Avoid were characterized by being relatively unlikely to report either full
disclosure or lying. Instead they reported using a combined strategy of either avoidance or
partial disclosure, with the choice between them varying by issue. For example, adolescents in
this group were more likely to use partial disclosure when reporting on time to come home,
where they go with friends, and being with friends when no adults were around, and more likely
to report avoidance when discussing smoking. The Tell All and Avoid class also reported using a
mixed strategy that varied across issues, although they were unlikely to report lying. While
relatively likely to report full disclosure, particularly for time to come home, smoking, and
alcohol use, they also had an elevated probability of using avoidance when reporting on
disagreements involving problematic friends or being with friends when no adults were present.
The percentages of the population estimated to belong to each class (latent class
proportions) are presented in Figure 2. It is estimated that members of the Tell All and Avoid
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
16
class are most common, followed by members of the Tell All class. Members of the Avoid and
Lie class are the least numerous.
Analysis by Gender and SES
Two separate set of analyses were performed in which differences in results of the LCA
analyses were tested for invariance across gender and across SES.
In order to examine gender differences in classes, we first ran a model grouping the
sample by gender without restrictions and then tested for the invariance of item response
probabilities for each status across gender. Strictly speaking, there was no invariance in item
response probabilities across gender (ΔG2 = 136.19, Δdf =90, p = .0012, ΔAIC = -43.81, ΔBIC =
-532.09). However, an examination of the response probabilities for each class by gender
indicated that there were small differences in the magnitude of the probabilities across gender for
some classes, but no differences in the pattern of responses. Specifically, the small differences
were observed in the Tell All and Avoid and Tell part and Avoid classes. Conceptually, the
classes retained their interpretation across genders. Expected class proportions were also similar
across genders.
An identical approach was taken to test for invariance across three SES groups: low,
middle, and high. Results indicate that item response probabilities were invariant across SES
status (ΔG2 = 189.1, Δdf =180, p = .306, ΔAIC = 170.9, ΔBIC = 1147.47). Importantly, however,
the proportion of the population estimated to belong in each class differs by SES status and is
presented in Figure 3. Most strikingly, the proportion of high SES adolescents estimated to be in
the Tell All class is notably higher than in the middle or low SES groups. There was a
concomitant decrease in the proportion of high SES adolescents estimate to belong to the Tell
Part and Avoid class. Fewer low SES adolescents were estimated to belong to the Avoid class.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
17
Predictors of class membership
Multinomial logistic regression was used to predict the membership status of each
individual’s in the Tell All class from characteristics of the adolescent (age, problem behavior,
obedience, and beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority) and their perceptions of their
mothers (maternal support and maternal knowledge). Correlation among predictors are
presented in Table 3. Because both the predictors and the class membership vary by SES, SES
was entered as a control variable. Odds ratios are reported in Table 4. Results indicate that high
SES adolescents were more likely than middle or low SES adolescents to be in the Tell All class,
controlling for other predictors. The only exception was that high and low SES adolescents were
equally likely to be in the Avoid class compared to the Tell All class. There were no significant
differences between medium and low SES in the probability to belong to each class (p < .05).
Controlling for SES, the probability of being in the Tell All class was highest for younger
adolescents, those low in problem behavior, and those who reported their mothers were more
knowledgeable. Maternal warmth, obedience, and legitimacy beliefs did not predict membership
in the Tell All class, net of the effect of the other predictors.
In order to further clarify these relationships, each adolescent was classified in one of the
five classed based on their posterior probabilities. Posterior probabilities are estimated in LCA
models and represent the probability that an individual belong to each class based on the
individual pattern of responses. Using a more conservative approach—selecting only individuals
with a posterior probability of 75% or higher of belonging to a particular class-- yielded results
virtually identical to those reported. Mean age, problem behavior, maternal warmth and
knowledge, obedience and legitimacy were calculated for adolescents using class membership
and SES as factors in a two-way MANOVA (5x2), followed by post hoc comparisons.. None of
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
18
the interactions between class and SES were significant (p > .05), suggesting that class effect did
not vary by SES. Contrasts were calculated between each pair of classes using Tukey-Kramer
adjustment. Results are reported in Table 5. There were no age differences by classes (p >.05).
Across variables, adolescents classified in the lie class showed a consistent pattern of reporting
lower agreement, maternal warmth, maternal knowledge and legitimacy beliefs and higher
problem behavior, although not all differences with other classes were statistically significant.
Adolescent classified in the Tell All class showed a pattern of high agreement, obedience,
maternal knowledge, maternal warmth, and legitimacy and low problem behavior and maternal
monitoring. Higher maternal knowledge and lower parental monitoring in the Tell All class is
consistent with adolescent providing information spontaneously and with higher levels of
agreement and obedience. There are three classes in which avoidance is a frequently used
strategy and the likelihood of lying is low. Each shows a consistent pattern in which positive
adolescent outcomes fall in an intermediate position between adolescents in the Tell All and Lie
classes. The groups differ somewhat in their similarity to the Tell All and Lie classes.
Adolescents in the Tell All and Avoid class resemble more the Tell All class than do adolescents
in other classes. In contrast, it is adolescents in the Tell Part and Avoid class who are most
similar to those in the Lie class. Mean differences between the Tell All and Lie classes
represented effect sizes that ranged from low/medium (d = 0.32, for monitoring) to large (d =
1.16, for problem behavior), according to Cohen´s standards (Cohen, 1992).
Discussion
Previous research on adolescents’ choice of which disclosure strategy to use when they
disagree with parents has focused on between-family differences in the extent of adolescent lying
or disclosure (e.g., Finkenauer, Frijns et al., 2005; Jensen, Arnett, Feldman, & Cauffman, 2004;
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
19
Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000) or on processes underlying adolescents’ choice of
disclosure strategies (e.g., Darling et al., 2006; Darling et al., in press; Darling & Dowdy, in
press; Smetana et al., 2006). Although there are many strengths to these approaches, they have
been limited in two key ways. First, research focusing on between-family differences and the
consequences of lying has generally failed to distinguish between different types of non-
disclosure, for example, between avoiding an issue, partial disclosure of information while
failing to disclose information the listener will react negatively to, or overt lying. Second,
research focusing on adolescents’ choice of disclosure strategy has generally been done at the
issue level and has thus failed to take into account overall patterns in the choice of disclosure
strategies that distinguish one adolescent from another. Thus this type of research has tended to
look separately at the predictors of disclosure, of lying, of avoidance, and of partial disclosure.
The goal of the current paper was to examine between-family differences in adolescents’
disclosure strategies while simultaneously distinguishing between different strategy choices.
Importantly, previous research has taken what has been called a ‘variable centered’ approach to
understanding disclosure, focusing on estimating the covariation of variables by aggregated
across individuals (Magnusson & Stattin, 1998). The current project takes a ‘person-centered’
approach, using latent class analysis to identify patterns of covariation within individuals. Five
distinct patterns were identified that captured differences in adolescents’ choice of disclosure
strategy when dealing with six areas of parent-adolescent disagreement relevant to understanding
behavioral risk. In three of the empirically derived patterns, adolescents were likely to report
using a single strategy across the issues: full disclosure (Tell All), avoiding the issue (Avoid) or
lying (Lie). Two additional classes evinced patterns of mixed strategy use, both of which
included low likelihood of lying and elevated likelihood of avoiding the issue (Tell All and Avoid
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
20
and Tell Part and Avoid). These patterns were generally robust across gender and social class.
In the sample as a whole, it was estimated that the Tell All & Avoid pattern was most frequent
and the Avoid pattern least common. Among high SES youths, however, the Tell All pattern was
most common.
Differences in class membership were associated with characteristics of the adolescent
and their perceptions of their mothers in predictable ways. Consistent with the previous
literature, adolescents showing the Tell All pattern tended to report the highest levels of positive
attributes in themselves (obedience, legitimacy beliefs, agreement) or their mothers (maternal
warmth and knowledge) and the fewest problem behaviors. Adolescents belonging to the Tell
All class also reported the lowest parental monitoring, suggesting a pattern where parents are
seen to monitor less in light of their adolescent spontaneous disclosure. Those in the Lie class
showed the opposite trend, with low levels of positive attributes and high levels of problem
behavior. Interestingly, adolescents in this group also report the highest level of parental
monitoring. Adolescents in the three classes that included heightened likelihood of using
avoidance and decreased likelihood of lying reported intermediate levels of positive and negative
attributes, with rank order depending upon the specific attribute examined. Age was not
associated with class membership. When entered as simultaneous predictors of membership in
the Tell All class, age, problem behavior, maternal knowledge, and SES discriminated between
adolescents. Taken together, these results indicate that adolescents who show different patterns
in the disclosure strategies also differ in how they perceive their mothers’ parenting, in their
beliefs and agreement, and in their involvement in problem behavior. In addition, it is important
to note that adolescents in classes who differ in beliefs, behavior, and reports of maternal
behavior do not necessarily differ along use of any single strategy, such as likelihood of choosing
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
21
to fully disclose or to lie. It is the overall patterning of strategy choices that discriminates
between them.
Previous research has documented the association of the frequency of lying with more
positive attitudes towards deviance, lower endorsement of parental legitimacy and obligation to
obey, lower maternal warmth and parent-adolescent agreement, and fewer rules (Darling et al.,
2006; Darling et al., in press; Darling & Dowdy, in press; Finkenauer, Frijns et al., 2005; Jensen
et al., 2004; Smetana et al., 2006). Lying, however, is a very nuanced construct that includes
many shades of gray. Some researchers (e.g., Finkenauer et al., 2002) have argued that non-
disclosure to parents is a necessary part of the development of mature autonomy. On the other
hand, self-silencing due to fear of a negative reaction from the listener has been associated with
depression in adolescent romantic relationships (Harper, Dickson, & Welsh, 2006) and may
function similarly in the context of parent-adolescent disagreement. Research on false-self
behavior (e.g., Harter, Marold, Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996) may provide a useful theoretical
framework for thinking about disclosure, non-disclosure motivated by the desire for privacy and
autonomy, and non-disclosure motivated by fear of negative evaluations or punishment. Both
the predictors and consequences of non-disclosure may differ in important ways depending upon
the motivations for choice of disclosure or disclosure strategy. For example, choosing not to
disclose because one feels the need to hide one’s true self and choosing not to disclose in order to
express autonomy would seem to be very different processes associated with different family
dynamics and potentially associated with different developmental consequences. This remains,
however, an empirical question.
One challenge in moving towards a better understanding of these processes is how to
operationalize concealment or the choice of disclosure strategies. The issues involved are
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
22
complex. For example, for any individual issue, adolescents may choose to fully disclose, to
avoid the issue, to share partial information but not disclose key elements that might evoke a
negative reaction from parents, or to lie. In order to create an index of individual differences in
disclosure strategies across the many issues that adolescents negotiate with their parents, strategy
choice must be aggregated across issues. When constructs differ along a single dimension, this
is fairly simple. For example, we can measure agreement by asking adolescents to report how
much they agree with parents about 20 issues and calculating a mean score. However, it is not
clear whether different disclosure strategies differ along a single dimension. For example, lying
evokes distrust and relationship dissatisfaction (Darling & Dowdy, in press; Finkenauer, Frijns et
al., 2005) and is associated with less parental knowledge, less parental involvement, and less
parental acceptance. One might argue that lying is thus the most negative form of non-disclosure
and is clearly at the opposite pole from full disclosure. But what of other strategies? Is sharing
partial information with parents, which may give them the false impression that the adolescent
has fully disclosed, more problematic than avoiding sharing any information? Alternatively, is
sharing partial information less problematic than avoidance because it offers vigilant parents the
opportunity to ask for more information, thus facilitating monitoring, discussion, and greater
disclosure? Are both avoidance and partial disclosure simply other forms of lying that should be
classed together? Or does motivation for strategy choice determine whether the behavior
functions as a lie? These are important empirical questions that need to be addressed.
Because latent class analysis allows differentiation between individuals who have
different patterns across different issues, it is potentially useful in moving this work forward.
The results of a latent class analysis identify individuals who are similar in both their likelihood
of using particular strategies (the ‘amount’ of lying, for example) while simultaneously modeling
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
23
the use of multiple strategies (e.g., people who are likely to disclose and avoid, but unlikely to
lie). It thus allows researchers to make qualitative distinctions that take into account multiple
dimensions of behavior. The predictors and correlates of these qualitative differences can then
be investigated. For example, results of the current analyses suggest that adolescents who show
elevated likelihood of lying have significantly higher levels of problem behaviors than those in
all other classes, while at the same time reporting the highest level of monitoring. This suggests
that adolescents who choose to lie differ from those who choose other forms of non-disclosure.
Those in the Tell All and Avoid class, who fully disclose when disagreeing with parents about
some prudential issues (e.g. drinking), but are equally likely to avoid discussing more social
issues (where they go with friends or being without adult supervision), have relatively low levels
of problem behavior. They differ, however, from adolescents in the other two classes
characterized by elevated levels of avoidance and depressed levels of lying. Using separate
measures of lying, avoidance, and disclosure aggregated across issues and using these measures
to predict problem behavior would not provide the same level of insight. First, simultaneous
entry of multiple measures assumes independence, and testing statistical interactions between the
variables offers limited statistical power and can be complex when interactions between all
potential strategies are considered. In addition, if one has a fixed number of issues and a fixed
number of strategies, one cannot simultaneously enter measures of all the strategies because of
problems of singularity. Given a choice of four potential strategies for 20 items, once the
selection strategy is calculated for three variables, the value of the fourth variable is fixed. This
problem confounds interpretation of the results of such analyses. LCA avoids these problems by
empirically deriving categorical variables that capture different patterns of multiple strategies.
The current study is limited by the cross-sectional nature and the single-source data. In
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
24
addition, because the data are collected in only a single country, the extent to which the results of
these analyses will generalize is unclear. Research on parent-adolescent agreement suggests that
Chilean youths report lower levels of agreement than either Filipino or US adolescents (results
available from author). Once agreement, beliefs and parenting are controlled for, however,
Chilean youths are more likely to fully disclose than youths from the US. When they chose not
to disclose, Chilean youths were also somewhat less likely than youths from the US to lie than to
use avoidance or partial disclosure. Chilean youths lied more than youths from the Philippines
(Darling et al., in press). In general, however, differences in disclosure and its correlates
differed in degree, rather than in kind. It is important for future research to validate and extend
the current findings to other countries. In particular, a review of the literature makes it evident
that normative beliefs about disclosure, autonomy, the right of parents to monitor adolescent
activities, and adolescents’ obligation to disclose information differ in different parts of the
world (e.g., Darling, Cumsille, & Peña-Alampay, 2005; Darling et al., in press; Finkenauer,
Frijns et al., 2005; Persson, Stattin, & Kerr, 2004) and are likely to vary within countries as well.
Three important aspects of culture provide a context for understanding adolescents’ decisions to
share information: the development of autonomy and its appropriate expression, adolescent risk,
and parenting norms (see Chao & Tseng, 2002, for an excellent discussion of how Asian and US
parents see their roles). Differences in norms about adolescent privacy and appropriate topics of
parent-adolescent discussion, the prevalence of problem behavior in the peer group, and the
acceptability of ‘white’ lies in social contexts may well contribute to differences in the extent,
form and consequences of disclosure. Research on parental monitoring and knowledge and
adolescent disclosure has consistently ignored these cultural differences. Given research in the
US suggesting variability in the correlates of parental control depending upon environmental
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
25
risk, including peer problem behavior (Mason, Cauce, Gonzales, & Hiraga, 1996), it seems
plausible that the predictors, correlates, and consequences of adolescents’ decisions to share
information will vary depending upon the context in which it occurs.
LCA offers a promising approach to understanding the nuances of adolescents’ decisions
to share different aspects of their lives with parents, open themselves to parental monitoring and
regulation, and express their developing autonomy. By respecting individual differences in the
interrelationship of different facets of the disclosure process, such pattern-focused techniques
allow researchers one more tool in understanding multi-faceted processes. These results
illustrate that adolescents who show different patterns in their choice of whether and how they
disclose to parents differ in other important ways, including problem behavior, even though they
are all equally unlikely to lie and to fully disclose. These nuanced distinctions seem particularly
important as the field moves from understanding these processes in the contexts of parental
monitoring, parent-adolescent conflict and adolescent problem behavior and into the context of
autonomy development and the negotiation of privacy.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
26
References
Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication. In
J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication. LEA's
communication series. (pp. 191-223). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Chao, R., & Tseng, V. (2002). Parenting of Asians. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of
parenting: Vol. 4: Social conditions and applied parenting (2nd ed., pp. 59-93). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In N.
Eisenberg, W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3,
Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.). (pp. 1003-1067). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley & Sons.
Crouter, A. C., Bumpus, M. F., Davis, K. D., & McHale, S. M. (2005). How do parents learn
about adolescents' experiences? Implications for parental knowledge and adolescent risky
behavior. Child Development, 76(4), 869-882.
Cumsille, P., Darling, N., Flaherty, B. P., & Martínez, M. L. (2006). Chilean adolescents' beliefs
about the legitimacy of parental authority: Individual and age-related differences.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 30(2), 97-106.
Darling, N., Cumsille, P., Caldwell, L. L., & Dowdy, B. (2006). Predictors of adolescents'
disclosure strategies and perceptions of parental knowledge. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 35(4), 667-678.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
27
Darling, N., Cumsille, P., & Peña-Alampay, L. (2005). Rules, legitimacy of parental authority,
and obligation to obey in Chile, the Philippines, and the United States. New Directions
for Child and Adolescent Development, 108(Summer), 47-60.
Darling, N., Cumsille, P., Peña-Alampay, L., & Coatsworth, J. D. (in press). Individual and
Issue-specific Differences in Parental Knowledge and Adolescent Disclosure in Chile, the
Philippines, and the United States. Journal of Research on Adolescence.
Darling, N., & Dowdy, B. (in press). Trust, but verify: Knowledge, disclosure and trust in parent-
adolescent relationships. In K. J. Rotenberg (Ed.), Trust and trustworthiness during
childhood and adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2005). Parenting behaviour and
adolescent behavioural and emotional problems: The role of self-control. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(1), 58-69.
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Meeus, W. (2002). Keeping secrets from parents:
Advantages and disadvantages of secrecy in adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 31, 123-136.
Finkenauer, C., Frijns, T., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Kerkhof, P. (2005). Perceiving concealment in
relationships between parents and adolescents: Links with parental behavior. Personal
Relationships, 12, 387–406.
Flaherty, B. P. (2002). Assessing reliability of categorical substance use measures with latent
class analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 68(Suppl1), S7-S20.
Frijns, T., Finkenauer, C., Vermulst, A. A., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2005). Keeping Secrets From
Parents: Longitudinal Associations of Secrecy in Adolescence. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34(2), 137-148.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
28
Harper, M. S., Dickson, J. W., & Welsh, D. P. (2006). Self-Silencing and Rejection Sensitivity in
Adolescent Romantic Relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(3), 459-467.
Harter, S., Marold, D. B., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of
perceived parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child Development,
67(2), 360-374.
Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (2004). The right to do wrong: Lying
to parents among adolescents and emerging adults. Journal of Youth & Adolescence,
33(2), 101-112.
Kashy, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1996). Who lies? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70(5), 1037-1051.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of
adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring.
Developmental Psychology, 36(3), 366-380.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (1999). To know you is to trust you: Parents' trust is rooted in
child disclosure of information. Journal of Adolescence, 22(6), 737-752.
Lanza, S. T., & Collins, L. M. (2008). A new SAS procedure for latent transition analysis:
Transitions in dating and sexual risk behavior. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 446-
456.
Lanza, S. T., Collins, L. M., Lemmon, D. R., & Schafer, J. L. (2007). PROC LCA: A SAS
procedure for latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 671-694.
Lanza, S. T., Flaherty, B. P., & Collins, L. M. (2003). Latent class and latent transition analysis.
In J. A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in
psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 663-685).
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
29
Magnusson, D., & Stattin, H. (1998). Person-context interaction theories. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology. Theoretical models of human development (Vol. 1, pp.
685-759). New York: J. Wiley.
Martínez, M. L., Cumsille, P., & Thibaut, C. (2006). Chile. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), International
Enyclopedia of Adolescence (Vol. 2, pp. 167-178). Oxford: Routledge
Mason, C. A., Cauce, A. M., Gonzales, N., & Hiraga, Y. (1996). Neither too sweet nor too sour:
Problem peers, maternal control, and problem behavior in African American adolescents.
Child Development, 67(5), 2115-2130.
Perkins, S. A., & Turiel, E. (2007). To lie or not to lie: To whom and under what circumstances.
Child Development, 78(2), 609-621.
Persson, S., Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2004). Adolescents' conceptions of family democracy: Does
their own behaviour play a role? Special Issue: Social cognition in adolescence: It's
developmental significance., 1(4), 317-330.
Smetana, J. G. (2008). “It’s 10 o’clock: Do you know where your children are?”: Recent
advances in understanding parental monitoring and adolescent disclosure Child
Development Perspectives, 2(1), 19-25.
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.
Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development,
71(4), 1072-1085.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
30
Author´s Note
This study was funded by Grants 1010933 and 1070852 from Fondo de Desarrollo Científico y
Tecnológico, Fondecyt, Chile.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patricio Cumsille, Escuela de
Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Vicuña Mackenna #4860, Santiago, Chile.
Electronic mail may be sent to pcumsill@uc.cl.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
31
Table 1
Percentage of students who chose each response to the question “What do you usually do
when you disagree with your parents?” and descriptive statistics for each predictor
(N =1678)
Issue
Tell All
Avoid
Tell
Part
Lie
Missing
Hanging around people your parents
think are problematic
41
30
14
12
3
Be with friends when adults are not
around
41
29
16
10
4
Where you go with friends
41
25
18
11
5
What time you should get home at
nights
44
25
16
10
5
Smoking
49
25
08
14
4
Drinking
50
23
12
11
4
Predictors
Mean
SD
Min
Max
Alcohol and prob. Behavior
16.83
8.12
3
42
Maternal warmth and support
29.59
6.86
3
35
Maternal knowledge
14.75
3.58
3
18
Agreement with parents
53.91
12.23
4
81
Obedience
42.52
12.87
2
68
Legitimacy of parental authority
8.97
4.48
0
17
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
32
Table 2
Comparison of Models
Number of classes
Likelihood-ratio G2
dfs
AIC
2
3759.24
4058
3833.24
3
2996.66
4039
3108.66
4
2670.36
4020
2820.36
5
2484.01
4001
2672.01
6
2410.21
3982
2636.21
Note: Boldface font indicate selected model.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
33
Table 3
Correlation among predictors
Age
Problem
Behavior
Maternal
Warmth
Maternal
knowledge
Obedience
Age
Problem Behavior
0,45
Maternal Warmth
0,00
-0,13
Maternal knowledge
-0,09
-0,36
0,46
Obedience
-0,17
-0,39
0,26
0,40
Legitimacy of
parental authority
-0,18
-0,26
0,16
0,26
0,43
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
34
Table 4
Results of Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Class Membership from Adolescent
and Perceived Maternal Characteristics. Reported parameters are odds ratios of belonging to each
class compared to membership in the Tell All class
Class
Predictor
Tell AllA
Avoid
Lie
Tell all
Avoid
Tell Part &
Avoid
Age**
--
.851
.687
.903
.896
Problem Behavior**
--
1.067
1.197
1.041
1.095
Obedience
--
.993
.972
.984
.979
Legitimacy of parental authority
--
.963
.974
.998
1.002
Maternal warmth and support
--
.964
.947
.953
.946
Maternal knowledge**
--
.793
.784
.830
.798
SES high vs low*
--
1.025
.554
.555
.588
SES med vs low
--
2.075
1.062
1.115
1.018
SES high vs med*B
--
.494
.521
.498
.577
N=1630 * p < .05, ** p < .01
A Dashes indicate the reference class.
B Parameter estimates are reported for an analysis in which SES was assessed using two dummy variables for
which the low SES group served as the reference category. The reported parameter estimate comparing high
v. medium SES is reported for informational purposes and is from a separate analysis identical in all other
respects except for the reference class (med SES).
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
35
Table 5 OLD
Mean Differences in Adolescent and Maternal Characteristics by Class Membership
Classes
Predictor
Tell All
(N=325)
Lie
(N=146)
Avoid
(N=152)
Tell All &
Avoid
(N=391)
Tell Part &
Avoid
(161)
Adolescent Characteristics
Age
14.55
14.91
14.82
14.55
15.05
Agreement
56.39ª
50.01b
53.76ªb
55.29ac
52.46bc
Obedience
47.39ª
37.38c
42.64b
43.95b
41.45bc
Prob. behavior
13.53ª
22.93c
16.46b
15.29a
18.67b
Legitimacy beliefs
9.94ª
7.50b
8.92ab
9.11a
8.66ab
Maternal Characteristics
monitoring
8.71ª
9.87b
9.15ab
9.22ab
9.75b
knowledge
16.08ª
13.85b
14.78b
15.22c
14.56bc
warmth
31.53ª
28.42b
29.54b
30.19a
28.88b
Note. Reported means are based on calculated raw scores for all adolescents assigned to each class based
on posterior probabilities >.75. Within rows, means with different superscripts are significantly different
(p < .01). All significance tests control for SES.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
36
Table 5 NEW
Mean Differences in Adolescent and Maternal Characteristics by Class Membership
Classes
Predictor
4
Tell All
(N=407)
2
Lie
(N=231)
1
Avoid
(N=187)
3
Tell All &
Avoid
(N=542)
5
Tell Part &
Avoid
(N=263)
Adolescent Characteristics
Age
14.66
15.01
14.85
14.81
15.11
Agreement
56.54ª
50.17b
53.37ªb
54.92ac
52.21bc
Obedience
47.51ª
37.76c
42.91b
42.78b
40.79bc
Prob. behavior
13.49ª
22.30c
16.90bd
16.05ad
18.73b
Legitimacy beliefs
9.92ª
7.97b
8.88abc
9.19ac
8.66bc
Maternal Characteristics
monitoring
8.82ac
9.81b
9.26bc
9.27bc
9.50bc
knowledge
16.05ª
13.89c
14.76bd
15.16b
14.37cd
warmth
31.34ª
28.45b
29.91abc
30.28ac
29.30bc
Note. Reported means are based on calculated raw scores for all adolescents assigned to each class based
on their posterior probabilities. Within rows, means with different superscripts are significantly different
(p < .01). All significance tests control for SES.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
37
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Item response probabilities by class.
Figure 2. Percentage of the population estimated to belong to each class.
Figure 3. Percentage of the population estimated to belong to each class by SES.
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
38
Tell All
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TELLALL AVOID TELLPART LIE
Strategy
Likelihood of Endorsement
Avoid
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TELLALL AVOID TELLPART LIE
Strategy
Likelihood of Endorsement
Lie
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TELLALL AVOID TELLPART LIE
Strategy
Likelihood of Endorsement
Tell part and Avoid
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TELLALL AVOID TELLPART LIE
Strategy
Likelihood of Endorsement
Tell All and Avoid
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TELLALL AVOID TELLPART LIE
Strategy
Likelihood of Endorsement
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
39
Tell All
Avoid
Lie
Tell All &
Avoid
Tell Part &
Avoid
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Class
Percentage
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Percent in Class
Tell All
21,19
20,46
30,63
Avoid
7,8
13,3
11,42
Lie
15,55
14,46
12,61
Part & avoid
18,27
17,67
15,27
Tell & avoid
37,18
34,11
30,07
Low SES
Middle SES
High SES
Adolescents’ Responses to Disagreement
41
... Yet, overall, adolescents disclosed more about their social media use than they kept secrets, which is consistent with how much adolescents disclose and keep secret about their offline activities (Laird et al., 2013). Other types of concealment that are less effortful than secrecy, such as partial disclosure (i.e., sharing some information and leaving out other information) or avoiding discussion of the issue, may be more common (Cumsille et al., 2010). ...
... For example, while more than half of adolescents (almost) never told their parents about what they do on social media, one in ten often did. Such between-person differences are also found concerning parent-adolescent communication of offline activities (Cumsille et al., 2010;Darling et al., 2006Darling et al., , 2009. In the parenting literature, it has been demonstrated that the extent of parent-adolescent communication also differs within adolescents (Darling et al., 2006(Darling et al., , 2009Smetana et al., 2010;Villarreal & Nelson, 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Adolescents spend a substantial portion of their time using social media. Yet, there is a lack of understanding regarding how often parents and adolescents communicate about this social media use. To address this gap, we developed the Parent-Adolescent Communication about Adolescents’ Social Media Use Scale (PACAS). In a first data wave, among 388 Dutch adolescents (13–15 years; 54% girls), exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses distinguished four scales: parental solicitation, adolescent disclosure, adolescent secrecy, and parental knowledge. All four scales had strong internal reliability and correlated in the expected directions. We re-established the validity and internal reliability and obtained test-retest reliability in a second wave, in which 330 adolescents were surveyed again. The findings show that parents and adolescents infrequently communicate about social media. Parental knowledge about adolescents’ social media use strongly depends on the communication efforts of both parties. Altogether, the PACAS provides a valuable tool to explore the dynamics of parent-adolescent communication about social media.
... Most adolescents engage in withholding information from their parents (Darling et al. 2006), and a wide range of strategies has been identified and reported that adolescents use strategically to withhold information (Darling et al. 2009). Adolescents have been found to leave out information, avoid, use partial disclosure, acts of omission, and deception to withhold information from their parents (Cumsille, Darling, and Martínez 2010). Strategies preferred by adolescents are those that are less evasive like waiting for parents to ask, or omitting details, over more evasive strategies like lying and keeping secrets (Laird and Marrero 2010). ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Although prior research has examined adolescents' resistance to parental control, the dyadic level of analysis has been overlooked. This study attended to how a Canadian sample of parents and adolescents engaged in resisting one another by observing moment‐to‐moment actions as they discussed the upcoming transition to high school. Methods A secondary analysis of data collected from 2010 to 2012 using the Action‐Project Method was conducted. The sample of 27 parent‐adolescent dyads (23 mothers; 4 fathers); 13 boys, 14 girls (Mean youth age = 13.3) was recruited from two urban centers. Videorecorded self‐directed conversations were immediately followed by open‐ended video recall interviews. A novel way of analyzing data at the dyadic level of analysis was developed based on critical reflexive thematic analysis guided by social constructionist theory. Results Resistance was observed at least once in 23 of the 27 conversations (total = 97, range = 0−9, Mean = 3.63, SD = 2.69). Four distinct themes were developed: Reminding of and then defending the “constant battle” lines, Cautious avoidance, the Nudging match, and No point anymore and minimal responses. Dyads varied in frequency and number of themes in their conversations with 78.56% engaging in more than one theme. Most differences came to a trickling of resistance wherein members did not agree but continued to interact without extending the resistance further. Conclusions A dyad‐centric approach to analysis was useful for observing how parents and adolescents engaged in resistance together. Our findings suggest that resistance can be seen as a dyadic concept that reflects a personalized relationship history that has implications for parent and youth identity development.
Chapter
Delve into the ideal resource for theory and research on parental monitoring and adolescents' disclosure and concealment from parents. This handbook presents ground-breaking research exploring how adolescents respond to parents' attempts to control and manage their activities and feelings. The chapters highlight how adolescents' responses are as important for their mental health and behaviour as parents' attempts to regulate them. Examining responsive, intrusive, and invasive parenting behaviours, the volume addresses modern challenges like monitoring in the digital age and medical decision-making. It covers cutting-edge research on diverse cultures and groups including Latinx, Turkish, Chinese, LGBTQ+, and chronically ill youth. The internationally recognized contributors offer insights from different theoretical perspectives and describe novel methodological approaches, focusing on variations across different developmental stages, contexts, and cultures.
Chapter
Delve into the ideal resource for theory and research on parental monitoring and adolescents' disclosure and concealment from parents. This handbook presents ground-breaking research exploring how adolescents respond to parents' attempts to control and manage their activities and feelings. The chapters highlight how adolescents' responses are as important for their mental health and behaviour as parents' attempts to regulate them. Examining responsive, intrusive, and invasive parenting behaviours, the volume addresses modern challenges like monitoring in the digital age and medical decision-making. It covers cutting-edge research on diverse cultures and groups including Latinx, Turkish, Chinese, LGBTQ+, and chronically ill youth. The internationally recognized contributors offer insights from different theoretical perspectives and describe novel methodological approaches, focusing on variations across different developmental stages, contexts, and cultures.
Chapter
Delve into the ideal resource for theory and research on parental monitoring and adolescents' disclosure and concealment from parents. This handbook presents ground-breaking research exploring how adolescents respond to parents' attempts to control and manage their activities and feelings. The chapters highlight how adolescents' responses are as important for their mental health and behaviour as parents' attempts to regulate them. Examining responsive, intrusive, and invasive parenting behaviours, the volume addresses modern challenges like monitoring in the digital age and medical decision-making. It covers cutting-edge research on diverse cultures and groups including Latinx, Turkish, Chinese, LGBTQ+, and chronically ill youth. The internationally recognized contributors offer insights from different theoretical perspectives and describe novel methodological approaches, focusing on variations across different developmental stages, contexts, and cultures.
Chapter
Delve into the ideal resource for theory and research on parental monitoring and adolescents' disclosure and concealment from parents. This handbook presents ground-breaking research exploring how adolescents respond to parents' attempts to control and manage their activities and feelings. The chapters highlight how adolescents' responses are as important for their mental health and behaviour as parents' attempts to regulate them. Examining responsive, intrusive, and invasive parenting behaviours, the volume addresses modern challenges like monitoring in the digital age and medical decision-making. It covers cutting-edge research on diverse cultures and groups including Latinx, Turkish, Chinese, LGBTQ+, and chronically ill youth. The internationally recognized contributors offer insights from different theoretical perspectives and describe novel methodological approaches, focusing on variations across different developmental stages, contexts, and cultures.
Chapter
Delve into the ideal resource for theory and research on parental monitoring and adolescents' disclosure and concealment from parents. This handbook presents ground-breaking research exploring how adolescents respond to parents' attempts to control and manage their activities and feelings. The chapters highlight how adolescents' responses are as important for their mental health and behaviour as parents' attempts to regulate them. Examining responsive, intrusive, and invasive parenting behaviours, the volume addresses modern challenges like monitoring in the digital age and medical decision-making. It covers cutting-edge research on diverse cultures and groups including Latinx, Turkish, Chinese, LGBTQ+, and chronically ill youth. The internationally recognized contributors offer insights from different theoretical perspectives and describe novel methodological approaches, focusing on variations across different developmental stages, contexts, and cultures.
Chapter
Delve into the ideal resource for theory and research on parental monitoring and adolescents' disclosure and concealment from parents. This handbook presents ground-breaking research exploring how adolescents respond to parents' attempts to control and manage their activities and feelings. The chapters highlight how adolescents' responses are as important for their mental health and behaviour as parents' attempts to regulate them. Examining responsive, intrusive, and invasive parenting behaviours, the volume addresses modern challenges like monitoring in the digital age and medical decision-making. It covers cutting-edge research on diverse cultures and groups including Latinx, Turkish, Chinese, LGBTQ+, and chronically ill youth. The internationally recognized contributors offer insights from different theoretical perspectives and describe novel methodological approaches, focusing on variations across different developmental stages, contexts, and cultures.
Chapter
Delve into the ideal resource for theory and research on parental monitoring and adolescents' disclosure and concealment from parents. This handbook presents ground-breaking research exploring how adolescents respond to parents' attempts to control and manage their activities and feelings. The chapters highlight how adolescents' responses are as important for their mental health and behaviour as parents' attempts to regulate them. Examining responsive, intrusive, and invasive parenting behaviours, the volume addresses modern challenges like monitoring in the digital age and medical decision-making. It covers cutting-edge research on diverse cultures and groups including Latinx, Turkish, Chinese, LGBTQ+, and chronically ill youth. The internationally recognized contributors offer insights from different theoretical perspectives and describe novel methodological approaches, focusing on variations across different developmental stages, contexts, and cultures.
Method
Full-text available
A scale to measure three dimensions of parenting style: demandingness, supportiveness, and psychological autonomy-granting. Validated in the US.
Article
Full-text available
Much research on family democracy has started from the assumption that parents produce the democratic climate and adolescent behaviour is an outcome of it. In this study, we asked whether and how adolescent behaviour contributes to family democracy, using both parents' and adolescents' behaviours as predictors of family democracy. Participants were 1057 fifteen to sixteen year olds and their parents. Results showed that adolescents' conceptions of family democracy involve both their own and their parents' behaviour. When controlling for parents' behaviours, adolescents' behaviours added significantly to the prediction of democracy. Parents' warmth and the adolescents' openness to communication seem to be two major aspects of the democratic workings in the family. Hence, the democratic workings of the family cannot be described fully if adolescents' behaviour is ignored.
Article
Full-text available
proposed that deception is part of a communicator's strategic repertoire of message forms / strategic deception involves a rational, conscious message selection process where verbal and nonverbal messages are combined to create a false belief / deception frequently entails multiple motives / besides serving instrumental and identity objectives, deception may be designed to achieve such altruistic purposes as maintaining the interpersonal relationship, preserving the target's self-esteem, and minimizing interpersonal conflict (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
Communication privacy management theory: Significance for interpersonal communication Lauren was a 20-year-old college student who seemingly had everything. During her junior year, she was voted football Homecoming Queen, made exceptional marks in her classes, and had a “full ride” scholarship to the university she had always dreamed of attending. Life was good. However, during the summer between her junior and senior year of college, Lauren's dreams were altered. Immediately following her junior year, her college sweetheart broke off their romantic relationship. Surprised and broken hearted, Lauren began drinking and partying heavily, and found herself having a string of regrettable sexual encounters. At the beginning of the fall semester of her senior year, Lauren and her college sweetheart rekindled their relationship. Lauren was as happy as she had ever been. However, as she did every fall, Lauren donated blood during the university's blood drive. Four weeks after donating blood, Lauren was ...
Article
Individual and age-related differences in the patterning of adolescents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority were examined in a sample of 3425 Chilean adolescents (Mage = 15.0). During early, middle, and late adolescence, three analogous patterns of beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority were identified using latent class analysis (LCA). Youth in the Parental Control class ceded parents legitimate control over issues in the multi-faceted and prudential domains and were relatively likely to cede parental control over the personal domain. Those in the Shared Control class differentiated the prudential from other domains. Those in the Personal Control class denied parents legitimate authority over issues in all domains. Within analogous classes, younger adolescents were more likely to grant parents legitimate authority than older adolescents. Results are consistent with prior research documenting age-related differences, but raise important questions about the normative nature of age-related change in legitimacy beliefs. The advantages of studying sub-groups and variability in the patterning of legitimacy beliefs are discussed.
Article
This exploratory study examined late‐adolescents’ responses to parents’ direct requests for information about a topic that the adolescent was trying to avoid. Open‐ended questions from 119 participants were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. From this analysis, a total of 12 topic avoidant responses were found: deception, aggression, direct rejection, indirect rejection, assertiveness, disinterest, listening, terminating the conversation, discussing the topic, reassurance, crying, and discomfort. Consistent with Communication Boundary Management theory, this study revealed that when adolescents are faced with a parental privacy invasion, adolescents describe fortifying and renegotiating their boundaries, as well as creating boundary illusions. Implications for research on topic avoidance and Communication Boundary Management theory are discussed.