Associations Among Adolescents’ Cyber-Specific Beliefs and Information Management Strategies

Abstract

The current study investigated associations among adolescents’ reports of harmfulness and family decision-making beliefs regarding potentially problematic cyber behaviors (e.g., talking to strangers online), cyber-specific information management strategies (disclosure, secrecy, concealment), and family rules regarding adolescents’ use of information and communication technology (ICT). The sample consisted of 159 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years (M = 14.45, SD = 1.72, 59% female, 80% Caucasian). Youth were more likely to disclose their ICT behavior when they recognized the harm associated with cyber risks and viewed their family as less restrictive about ICT activities. Age differences indicated that older adolescents’ ICT beliefs were more strongly related to their information management strategies, whereas families’ ICT rules were more predictive of cyber disclosure for younger adolescents. Results demonstrate that both adolescents’ conceptualization of ICT risks and families’ ICT-specific rules contribute to adolescents’ choice of information management strategies regarding ICT behaviors.

Keywords

adolescents parenting communication parental control technology information management strategies social cognitive domain theory adolescent disclosure Internet

Technological advances have facilitated instant social connectivity and an environment in which communication can occur in a matter of seconds. Today’s youth are developing in a world in which very few individuals live a day without communicating through information and communication technology (ICT); consequently, the nature of social relationships has begun to transform (Shapiro & Margolin, 2014). Most adolescents in the United States report they have access to a computer (87%) and a cell phone (88%; Lenhart, 2015). In addition, a large number of youth use mobile devices such as cell phones and tablets to access the Internet, and adolescents report text messaging as their primary method of communicating with friends (Lenhart, 2015; Lenhart, Smith, Anderson, Duggan, & Perrin, 2015). Despite its many benefits such as the ease of communication and greater access to information, adolescents’ ICT use involves a host of potential risks, including cyberbullying, sexting (sending messages with sexual content via text message or e-mail), and communicating with strangers on the Internet (Valcke, De Wever, Van Keer, & Schellens, 2011; Williams & Merten, 2011; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2007; Ybarra, Mitchell, & Korchmaros, 2011).

One factor shown to protect against problematic ICT behavior is adolescents’ communication with parents about their online activities (Law, Shapka, & Olson, 2010). This finding is consistent with a burgeoning body of research that indicates adolescent disclosure is strongly associated with both increased parental knowledge and decreased adolescent problem behavior, whereas adolescents keeping information a secret is more strongly associated with increases in problematic behaviors over and above parents’ own monitoring efforts (Cumsille, Darling, & Martinez, 2010; Frijns, Keijsers, Branje, & Meeus, 2010; Kerr, Stattin, & Burk, 2010; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Based on recent literature promoting the positive effects of adolescent disclosure (Keijsers, Branje, VanderValk, & Meeus, 2010; Kerr et al., 2010; Law et al., 2010; Metzger et al., 2013), identifying predictors of disclosure about ICT behaviors may be an important step toward protecting youth from problematic ICT use. One important way parents may influence adolescents’ ICT-specific disclosure is through parenting practices such as the rules they set regarding adolescents’ ICT use, as previous findings indicate direct links between parental rules and adolescent disclosure and secrecy (Darling, Cumsille, Caldwell, & Dowdy, 2006; Metzger et al., 2013). Alternatively, the way adolescents conceptualize ICT behaviors, including the harm youth ascribe to risky ICT behaviors and whether youth believe they should have autonomous decision-making control over ICT use, may be an important adolescent-driven predictor of youths’ ICT-specific communication with parents (Smetana, Metzger, Gettman, & Campione-Barr, 2006). The primary goal of the present study was to investigate potential predictors of adolescent disclosure and secretive information management strategies concerning their ICT-related behaviors.

Adolescent disclosure is one strategy adolescents use to manage the amount of information parents know about a variety of their behaviors, including peer relationships, substance use, and school-related issues (Smetana, 2008). Findings consistently point to numerous benefits associated with adolescents’ willing disclosure of information to their parents without being asked, including reduced engagement in problematic, delinquent, and health risk behaviors (Keijsers, Branje, VanderValk, et al., 2010; Keijsers, Frijns, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). Similarly, adolescents who talked to their parents about their Internet behaviors sent fewer aggressive online messages (Law et al., 2010). However, previous research has not distinguished ICT-specific disclosure from secrecy or other strategies adolescents may use to manage information about ICT behaviors. Adolescents are aware of the potential consequences of sharing information with their parents about some of their activities and anticipate parental disapproval or loss of privileges (Smetana, Villalobos, Tasopoulos-Chan, Gettman, & Campione-Barr, 2009). Because of this knowledge, adolescents may actively strive to keep some of their activities secret from parents. Therefore, youth may freely disclose about some issues while keeping other behaviors and activities secret (Agatston, Kowalski, & Limber, 2007; Darling et al., 2006; Laird & Marrero, 2010; Smetana et al., 2006). Previous research has found that secrecy is only moderately correlated with disclosure, and secrecy may be more strongly linked to adolescent problem behavior than disclosure (Frijns et al., 2010; Laird & Marrero, 2010).

ICT (i.e., cell phones) allows adolescents to engage in a variety of additional concealment information management strategies to keep information about their online and cell phone behaviors from parents. A large percentage of adolescents’ cell phone use may occur outside of the home where parents’ ability to directly monitor their adolescents’ activities is diminished and youths’ opportunities to conceal information is enhanced. For instance, adolescents can delete text messages or e-mails from electronic devices to keep them secret from their parents. In addition, many social networking sites (e.g., Facebook) allow users to manage who can view certain posted information and conceal pictures and posted messages from specific individuals such as parents (Madden et al., 2013). Therefore, ICT may provide youth unique means of actively hiding information about their activities from parents.

Parents recognize the potential dangers that accompany adolescents’ increased use of communication technology and attempt to protect their children by setting rules about ICT-related activities, as well as tracking websites accessed on computers (Fletcher & Blair, 2014, Khurana, Bleakley, Jorday, & Romer, 2015; Law et al., 2010; Sorbring, 2014). In general, parenting research has found positive associations between parental rules and adolescent disclosure, with adolescents disclosing more with increased family rules (Darling et al., 2006). Similarly, adolescents’ perceptions of family rules about ICT use may affect the strategies adolescents employ to share information about their ICT behaviors and may be linked to increased disclosure. However, research also indicates that excessive family rules may elicit negative reactions from adolescents, including higher levels of secretive adolescent information management (Hawk et al., 2012; Hawk, Hale, Raaijmakers, & Meeus, 2008; Metzger et al., 2013; Smetana, 2000; Tilton-Weaver et al., 2010). Similarly, families with high levels of ICT-specific family rules may have adolescents who want to avoid parental disapproval, avoid punishment, or feel that their parents should not be controlling their ICT behaviors, leading these adolescents to keep information from their parents (Metzger et al., 2013).

In addition to family rules, adolescents’ conceptualization of ICT behaviors may be an important predictor of adolescent ICT-related disclosure and secrecy. Research from a social domain perspective has investigated different types of social cognitive beliefs that relate to adolescents’ behaviors and information management strategies, such as the legitimacy of parental authority and harmfulness judgments (Darling et al., 2006; Metzger & Smetana, 2009; Nucci, Guerra, & Lee, 1991; Smetana et al., 2006). Adolescent legitimacy beliefs are the extent to which youth believe parental rules about a behavior are appropriate (Smetana, 2000; Smetana & Daddis, 2002). Research indicates that adolescents are more likely to disclose information to their parents when they believe that their parents have legitimate authority over a behavior and think their parents have the right to know about adolescents’ engagement in the activity (Darling et al., 2006; Smetana et al., 2006). In contrast, adolescents are more secretive when they believe that they should be making their own decisions about a behavior (Darling et al., 2006). Adolescents are also less likely to engage in a behavior when they believe that the behavior will cause harm to themselves (Nucci et al., 1991). Moreover, when youth believe an activity may result in harm to themselves, they report feeling more obligated to share information with their parents and report higher levels of actual disclosure (Smetana et al., 2006; Smetana et al., 2009). Likewise, ICT-specific legitimacy and harmfulness beliefs may be associated with more adolescent disclosure and less secrecy and concealment about ICT behaviors. Similar to previous findings, adolescents may disclose more when they believe ICT behaviors are potentially harmful, but disclose less, keep more secrets, and conceal more about their ICT behaviors when they believe they should have personal decision-making control over cyber activities.

Patterns of disclosure and secrecy change as youth move from early to late adolescence. In general, older adolescents freely disclose less information and engage in more secretive information management strategies than early adolescents (Keijsers & Poulin, 2013). Though not addressed in previous research, it is likely that similar age-related decreases in disclosure and increases in secrecy occur for adolescents’ ICT-related behavior. However, it is also possible that associations between ICT beliefs and information management may differ for older and younger adolescents. As adolescents grow older, they begin to seek more personal decision-making control over certain behaviors and are less likely to believe that parents have legitimate authority to enforce rules about those behaviors (Smetana, 2000). Therefore, family rules regarding ICT use may be associated with more secretive information management for older adolescents because they desire more autonomy and feel that parents’ rules are unwarranted, whereas younger adolescents may view parental rules more favorably and disclose more with increased ICT rules. In addition, younger adolescents may rely on parental ICT rules to provide guidelines with regard to when and what ICT behaviors they should disclose to their parents. Older adolescents may instead rely on their own conceptualizations of ICT activities and may disclose more when they believe potentially risky ICT behaviors are harmful (Smetana & Daddis, 2002). Therefore, older adolescents’ social cognitive ICT beliefs may be more strongly associated with information management strategies, whereas parenting behaviors (i.e., rules) may be more important for younger adolescents.

Family rules about ICT activities may also moderate associations between adolescents’ ICT-specific beliefs and information management strategies. Research suggests that parents who are highly restrictive make more decisions regarding their adolescents’ behaviors, which diminishes autonomous, adolescent decision making (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Daddis, 2004). Families who are less restrictive with fewer rules may allow more autonomous behavior and decision-making control including decisions about what information will be shared with parents. Increased autonomous decision making may expand the role of adolescents’ own reasoning and conceptualization when they are making choices regarding whether to disclose information or keep it secret from parents. Therefore, adolescents’ harmfulness beliefs and perceptions of parents’ decision making as legitimate would be expected to be more strongly related to adolescents’ ICT-specific information management strategies when parents have fewer rules concerning ICT behaviors (Smetana et al., 2004). In contrast, adolescents from families with high levels of rules may rely less on their own reasoning because abiding by parents’ rules is more important. These adolescents from more restrictive families may fear parental disapproval and show positive associations between family rules and disclosure but show weaker associations between harmfulness beliefs and information management strategies.

Present Study

The current study explored parent (family rules) and adolescent-driven (harmfulness beliefs, decision-making beliefs) predictors of ICT-specific information management strategies. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that increased adolescent harmfulness beliefs would be associated with more disclosure and less secrecy and concealment. Adolescents who believe they should have more autonomy over ICT decisions were expected to disclose less and engage in more secrecy and concealment. In addition, it was expected that adolescents’ perceptions of family ICT rules would be associated with increased adolescent disclosure and less secrecy. However, adolescent age and family rules were also examined as potential moderators, and based on previous research, it was expected that associations between ICT beliefs and ICT information management would be stronger for youth in families whose parents had fewer ICT rules. It was also expected that associations between ICT beliefs and information management would be stronger for older compared with younger adolescents. Based on previous findings that girls typically disclose more than boys (Keijsers, Branje, Frijns, Finkenauer, & Meeus, 2010; Tasopoulos-Chan, Smetana, & Yau, 2009), the present study included adolescent gender as a control variable.

Method

Participants

As part of a larger parent-adolescent communication study, 161 adolescents were recruited through a local pediatrics clinic, local youth organizations, high schools, and churches in and around a mid-Atlantic town. The local pediatrics clinic mailed parent information letters and recruitment flyers to parents of adolescents. In addition, graduate and undergraduate research assistants distributed parental information letters and recruitment flyers in high school classrooms and at school and community-related events. Participants received monetary compensation for their participation. Two adolescents reported no use of the Internet or cell phones. Because the present study was focused on adolescents’ cyber behavior and cyber-related information management, these two youths were removed from analyses. The two removed adolescents were both 12 years old, significantly younger than the mean age of the analytic sample, t(158) = 17.54, p < .001. The analytic sample consisted of 159 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years (M = 14.45, SD = 1.72, 59% female). Participants were primarily Caucasian/White (81%), 9% reported biracial, 3% African American/Black, 3% reported Hispanic/Latino, 2% reported Asian American/Pacific Islander, and 4% other. One participant reported Native American ethnicity. Nineteen percent of adolescents’ parents completed high school, 48% completed a college or technical school degree, and 29% of adolescents’ parents completed a graduate degree. This sample is comparable to the distribution of family education for the community from which the sample was recruited (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

Procedure

Data were primarily collected in families’ homes (71.4%), though some families (28.6%) chose to participate at a university research lab or in a public place, such as a church or library. No study variables differed as a function of location. Parents gave informed consent for themselves and permission for their adolescent, while adolescents gave informed assent. After participating in a brief discussion task, adolescents and parents completed questionnaires in separate rooms with research team members present to answer questions. Adolescents were given the option of having the survey read to them. Research assistants read the full survey to 12 (7.5%) of the adolescents and partially read to 4 (2.5%); however, these adolescents did not significantly differ on any study variables.

Measures

Information and Communication Technology Use

Adolescents’ reported how many hours (none, less than 1, 1-2, 3-5, 6+) they spent utilizing the Internet and their cell phones in an average weekday and weekend. A technology use variable was created by averaging responses to seven Internet and cell phone items (α = .81).

ICT Harmfulness Beliefs

A modified version of Nucci et al.’s (1991) Social Values Inventory was utilized to assess adolescents’ beliefs about the amount of harm involved with engaging in four problematic ICT behaviors (e.g., talking to people you do not know online). Adolescents’ reported their harmfulness beliefs on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not harmful at all) to 5 (extremely harmful). An ICT-specific harmfulness scale was created by averaging the four items with higher scores indicating more harm (α = .72).

ICT Decision-Making Beliefs

Adolescents’ perceptions of parents’ decision-making authority regarding ICT behaviors (e.g., how long I am allowed to be online) were measured through a modified version of Hasebe, Nucci, and Nucci’s (2004) ideal control index from the parental authority index. Adolescents responded to five ICT-behavior items (e.g., how long I am allowed to be online) that asked who in their family should make decisions regarding adolescents’ ICT behaviors. Responses were given on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (my parent should decide without me) to 5 (I should decide by myself) and were averaged to create a scale score (α = .82). Higher scores indicated beliefs that favored personal ICT decision-making control and lower scores indicated beliefs that favored parental control of ICT decisions.

ICT Disclosure/Secrecy

Adolescents reported how often they discussed their ICT-related behavior (three items) with parents without being asked, as well as how often they kept those Internet/cell phone behaviors secret (three items, e.g., types of text messages you send on your phone). One item’s wording differed between disclosure (the types of pictures and comments you post on social networking sites) and secrecy (if you post suggestive or racy pictures and comments on social networking sites) to facilitate adolescents’ thoughts about how frequently they keep problematic messages secret. Responses were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Consistent with previous disclosure/secrecy measures (Tasopoulos-Chan et al., 2009), adolescents were also given the option to report that they did not engage in the Internet/cell phone behavior (I don’t do this). For the adolescent disclosure items, 26% of the sample reported that they do not post pictures and comments on social networking sites, 20% reported they do not talk to people online, and 21% reported they do not send text messages on their cell phone. For ICT secrecy items, 65% of the sample reported that they do not post risky pictures and comments on social networking sites, 19% reported they do not talk to people online, and 8% reported they do not send text messages on their cell phone. When adolescents indicated they do not engage in a specific behavior, that item was denoted as missing for computational purposes. Adolescent disclosure and secrecy scale scores were then computed by averaging across completed items. Alpha reliability coefficients were computed for completed ICT disclosure (α = .81) and ICT secrecy (α = .78) items.

ICT Concealment

Twelve items were developed for the present study to measure the extent to which adolescents actively hide their social networking site and cell phone information from their parents (i.e., who you text message, the content of your text messages). Adolescents were asked “Do you hide any of the following information from your parents” and “Do you hide any of the following from your parents on social networking sites such as Facebook?” Participants checked “yes” or “no” for each behavior, and the items for which adolescents checked “yes” were summed to create a scale score representing concealment of ICT activities (Kuder–Richardson coefficient of reliability [KR-20] = .89).

Family ICT rules

Adolescents reported the extent to which their family had rules about adolescents’ engagement in ICT-related behaviors. Similar to previous research (Smetana, 2000; Smetana & Daddis, 2002), five items assessed family rules regarding ICT use (e.g., who teens talk to online) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (no rules) to 5 (firm, clear rules). Mean scores were computed with higher scores indicating more rules regarding ICT behaviors (α = .80).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics for key study variables can be found in Table 1. Correlations among all study variables are presented in Table 2. Increased harmfulness beliefs were moderately associated with more parent-driven decision-making beliefs, more adolescent ICT disclosure, and less ICT concealment. Increased autonomous decision-making beliefs were associated with less adolescent disclosure and more concealment. In addition, family ICT rules were positively associated with harmfulness beliefs, parent-driven decision-making beliefs and disclosure, but adolescent secrecy was unrelated to adolescents’ harmfulness and decision-making beliefs. Due to minimal scale level missing data (<1%), the full sample was used in structural equation models with missingness assessed via full information maximum likelihood estimation.

Table 1.
Means and Standard Deviations for Key Variables by Adolescent Age and Family ICT Rules.

Overall (N = 159) Adolescent age
ICT rules

Younger (N = 84) Older (N = 75) Low (N = 83) High (N = 76)

Adolescent ICT use 3.17 (0.84) 2.97 (0.83) 3.40 (0.80) 3.27 (0.86) 3.06 (0.82)

Harmfulness beliefs 4.41 (0.70) 4.61 (0.55) 4.18 (0.77) 4.25 (0.73) 4.58 (0.61)

Decision-making beliefs 3.55 (0.97) 3.17 (0.96) 3.98 (0.79) 3.90 (0.84) 3.17 (0.97)

ICT disclosure 2.61 (1.31) 2.95 (1.32) 2.24 (1.20) 2.11 (1.09) 3.13 (1.33)

ICT secrecy 2.45 (1.24) 2.39 (1.25) 2.49 (1.23) 2.50 (1.16) 2.37 (1.32)

ICT concealment 1.73 (2.74) 0.79 (1.60) 2.79 (3.32) 2.31 (3.02) 1.09 (2.26)

Note. ICT = information and communication technology.

Table 2.
Correlations Between Key Study Variables.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Adolescent age .02 .27 −.38 −.29 .42 −.29 .05 .34

2. Adolescent gender — .28** .07 .17* .07 .12 .08 −.06

3. Adolescent ICT use — −.11 −.07 .24** −.11 .16* .33

4. Family ICT rules — .40 −.41 .50 −.08 −.28

5. Harmfulness beliefs — −.21 .31 −.11 −.45

6. Decision-making beliefs — −.52 .07 .29

7. ICT disclosure — −.06 −.29

8. ICT secrecy — .29

9. ICT concealment —

Note. ICT = information and communication technology.

*
p < .05. **p < .01.

ICT-Specific Beliefs and Information Management

Structural equation models in SPSS AMOS 20 tested associations between ICT-specific beliefs, family ICT rules, and information management strategies. Adolescents’ ICT harmfulness and decision-making beliefs, and family ICT rules were modeled as predictors of ICT-specific information management strategies (disclosure, secrecy, cyber concealment; Figure 1). Adolescents’ age, gender, and ICT use were included as control variables. The proposed model provided a poor fit to the data, χ²(18) = 148.80, p < .001, minimum discrepancy/degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) = 8.27, comparative-fit index (CFI) = .47, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .21, 90% confidence interval (CI) = [.18, .25]. To improve model fit, nonsignificant parameters were trimmed and several variables were allowed to covary. Age and gender were removed from the model due to nonsignificant associations with adolescents’ information management strategies. Adolescents’ ICT secrecy was also removed from the model due to nonsignificant associations with harmfulness beliefs, decision-making beliefs, and family ICT rules. Adolescents’ harmfulness and decision-making beliefs were allowed to covary. Family ICT rules were allowed to covary with both harmfulness and decision-making beliefs, and technology use was allowed to covary with ICT decision-making beliefs. The final model provided a significantly better fit to the data, Δχ²(11) = 139.06, p < .001, χ²(7) = 9.76, p = .20, CMIN/DF = 1.39, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = [.00, .12]. Results indicated that increased ICT-specific harmfulness beliefs were associated with decreased concealment (β = −.43, p < .001) and more autonomous decision-making beliefs were associated with decreased disclosure (β = −.37, p < .001). Adolescent-reported family ICT rules were associated with higher levels of adolescent ICT disclosure (β = .34, p < .001). Additionally, increased ICT use was associated with keeping information from parents through ICT concealment (β = .31, p < .001).

Figure 1.
Proposed model: Adolescents’ ICT-specific beliefs and parental ICT rules predicting adolescents’ ICT disclosure, secrecy, and concealment behaviors.

Moderator Analyses

Separate multigroup analyses were performed to assess the extent to which associations between adolescents’ social cognitive beliefs regarding ICT behaviors and ICT-specific information management strategies differed as a function of adolescent age (younger vs. older) and family ICT rules (low vs. high rules).

Age Differences

After controlling for ICT use, a model that freely estimated younger and older adolescents’ structural paths provided a good fit to the data, χ²(20) = 18.55, p = .55, CMIN/DF = 0.93, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = [.00, .06]. The unconstrained model provided a significantly better fit than a model that constrained younger and older adolescents’ structural paths to be equal, Δχ²(7) = 34.38, p < .001), indicating age differences in the structural weights. Nonsignificant parameters and adolescent gender were trimmed from the model. Post hoc investigation of critical ratios revealed significant age group differences in multiple structural paths. Increased ICT-specific harmfulness beliefs were associated with less concealment, and this negative association was significantly stronger for older (β = −.41, p < .001) compared with younger adolescents (β = −.23, p = .03, critical ratio [CR] = −2.13). Older adolescents’ beliefs that they should make their own ICT decisions were associated with less disclosure (β = −.51, p < .001, CR = −2.98) and more secrecy (β = .25, p = .02, CR = 2.85), these associations were not significant for younger adolescents. Increased ICT use was associated with more concealment for older (β = .35, p < .001, CR = 2.30) but not younger adolescents. Finally, higher levels of family ICT rules were associated with more disclosure for younger (β = .56, p < .001, CR = −3.87) but not older adolescents. Figure 2 presents standardized regression weights for significant paths by age group.

Figure 2.
Standardized estimates for significant associations between adolescents’ ICT beliefs and ICT-specific information management by age.

Family ICT Rules

A multigroup model comparing structural paths for families that were low versus high on family ICT rules indicated that the unconstrained model provided a significantly better fit, χ²(10) = 7.87, p = .64, CMIN/DF = 0.79, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00, 90% CI = [.00, .07], than a model that constrained the structural paths to be equal, Δχ²(6) = 26.13, p < .001. Nonsignificant parameters, adolescent gender, and ICT secrecy were trimmed from the model. Increased harmfulness beliefs were more strongly associated with fewer concealment behaviors for adolescents whose parents had fewer rules (β = −.51, p < .001) compared with youth with more restrictive parents (β = −.20, p = .04, CR = 2.54). Increased age was associated with more concealment (β = .37, p < .001) and less disclosure (β = −.22, p = .04) for youth with highly restrictive parents. In contrast, for youth whose parents had fewer ICT rules, age was associated with increased disclosure (β = .30, p < .01, CR. = −3.43) and age was not associated concealment (β = −.06, p = .52, CR = 2.76). Standardized regression weights for significant paths for low versus high family ICT rules are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3.
Standardized estimates for significant paths between adolescents’ ICT beliefs and ICT-specific information management by family ICT rules.

Discussion

Adolescents’ increased use of ICT has amplified their vulnerability to dangers associated with using the Internet and cell phones (Liau, Khoo, & Ang, 2005). Previous research suggests that adolescents’ disclosure reduces engagement in problematic behaviors (Kerr et al., 2010; Law et al., 2010) and adolescents’ beliefs about engaging in various behaviors are predictive of decisions to share information with parents (Smetana et al., 2006). The current study’s results contribute to both the adolescent disclosure and ICT-specific parenting literatures by suggesting that adolescents’ conceptualization of ICT risks may influence their decisions to share information about their online activities with parents. However, associations between youths’ ICT-specific beliefs and ICT-specific information management strategies varied for younger versus older youth and also differed for adolescents whose parents were more or less restrictive (i.e., family ICT rules) about their adolescents’ online activities. ICT-specific beliefs were more predictive of older adolescents’ information management, whereas family ICT rules were more strongly associated with younger adolescents’ disclosure. Finally, ICT beliefs were more strongly associated with positive information management strategies for adolescents who perceived their families as less restrictive.

Consistent with previous research on other categories of adolescent behavior, adolescents were more likely to share information about their ICT use and less likely to actively conceal their ICT activities when they recognized the harmful nature or risks involved with engaging in such behaviors (Smetana et al., 2009). These findings suggest that adolescents weigh the potential risks involved with ICT behaviors and share more information with their parents when they recognize such risks. In addition, adolescents’ beliefs favoring greater parent decision making predicted more youth ICT disclosure and less secrecy, while adolescents were less likely to disclose when they believed their parents did not have legitimate authority over ICT-related behaviors. This is consistent with previous social domain research indicating that adolescents’ disclose less about activities that they believe are a matter of personal prerogative and choice and not subject to parental authority (Smetana et al., 2006). These results support the importance of adolescents’ own cognitive processes in their decisions about whether to disclose ICT information to parents, over and above parental behaviors.

Important age differences emerged in the current findings indicating that younger adolescents’ information management strategies may be more heavily influenced by family rules about cyber behaviors, whereas beliefs about ICT behavior may be more important for older adolescents’ information management strategies. Younger adolescents disclosed more when their family had more rules about ICT use, but this association was not present for older adolescents. Younger youth may have less experience with technology use and accept parents’ authority over ICT activities, which promotes following parental rules when making decisions on whether to disclose information to their parents about their ICT activities (Smetana, 2000). In contrast, older adolescents may have more experience with ICT activities, seek more autonomy, and believe that ICT use is outside of parents’ legitimate jurisdiction (Smetana, 2000; Smetana et al., 2004). Older youths’ harm beliefs were more strongly related to lower levels of cyber concealment, whereas older adolescents’ beliefs that they should make their own ICT decisions were related to more problematic information management including less disclosure and more secrecy. Older adolescents’ increased social–cognitive abilities (Smetana & Villalobos, 2009) and decision-making autonomy (Smetana et al., 2004) may lead them to rely more on their own conceptualization of the activities rather than parental behavioral control when making decisions about whether to share information about their ICT-related activities. Older adolescents make more autonomous ICT decisions and are at greater risk for engaging in problematic ICT behaviors (Lenhart et al., 2015), and increased dangers may be especially problematic for older youth who do not recognize the potential harm involved with cyber activity, which leads these late adolescents to keep their ICT activities secret from their parents.

Family ICT-specific rules also moderated associations between youths’ ICT beliefs and information management. Youth’s ICT beliefs were more strongly associated with information management strategies when adolescents were from families with fewer ICT-specific rules. More restrictive parents may provide external motivation for choosing specific information management strategies: consequences for rule violation and fear of parental interference/punishment. These external motivations may reduce the impact that adolescents’ own beliefs have on their choice of management strategy. Interestingly, and consistent with previous research, increased rules may actually decrease older adolescents’ willingness to share their ICT-related behaviors. Although older adolescents disclosed less overall, older adolescents engaged in increased levels of disclosure when they were from less restrictive families but concealed more of their ICT behaviors when they were from highly restrictive families. Previous research has shown that adolescent communication is best facilitated when parents make age appropriate adjustments to their parenting behaviors such as decreasing rules or restrictions for older adolescents (Crouter & Head, 2002; Metzger et al., 2013; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). The present study’s findings suggest that greater restrictions may not be an effective strategy for promoting discussions regarding older adolescents’ online behaviors.

The present findings must be interpreted in light of potential weaknesses. First, our sample size was somewhat small compared with the number of parameters estimated in our models and may have limited our ability to detect significant effects. However, our pattern of findings is consistent with theory and the pattern of associations in our models was also consistent with the bivariate associations, which indicates our findings were not capitalizing on suppression. The cross-sectional design of our study limits discussion of directionality. While the present study examined the effects of adolescents’ ICT beliefs on their information management, it is possible that adolescents’ ICT-related conceptualizations develop from their engagement in different forms of information management. A high percentage of adolescents’ parents had post–high school education, which could limit generalizability to less well-educated populations. However, based on U.S. census data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014), our sample’s education levels were only slightly higher than the county from which participants were recruited. Additionally, we were unable to test whether families in our sample were representative of families in the community with regard to parent–adolescent relationship qualities. Future research should consider including parent–adolescent relationship measures such as parent–adolescent conflict and parental trust. The present study’s goal was to assess adolescents’ ICT-related social cognitive beliefs and information management while controlling for their families’ ICT rules; however, researchers should examine other family process variables that may influence adolescents’ developing ICT-specific beliefs. Future research may also benefit from investigating the effects adolescents’ experiences with problematic ICT use may have on associations between ICT beliefs and information management strategies. Finally, one item differed in wording between adolescent disclosure and secrecy scales (i.e., posting suggestive pictures and comments on social networking sites), which may lead to the large percentage of adolescents reporting, “I don’t do this” for the secrecy item. However, sensitivity analyses indicated no substantial differences between models in which the secrecy scale included the item versus a secrecy scale with the item removed.

Despite these limitations, this study was, to our knowledge, the first to demonstrate the importance of adolescents’ conceptualizations of ICT behaviors (harmfulness, family decision-making beliefs) in influencing their ICT-specific information management strategies. When youth recognize the potential harm involved with risky cyber behaviors they disclose more and conceal less ICT information, and such beliefs may be especially important for predicting information management for older adolescents and teens whose parents have fewer ICT rules. Although parents’ hope to deter problematic ICT use by setting rules regarding adolescents’ online behaviors, excessive rules decreased adolescents’ use of their own beliefs about problematic ICT use when choosing to divulge information to their parents. These findings contribute to a large body of research documenting the importance of adolescents’ developing conceptualizations of different social behaviors and the family processes that facilitate crucial adolescent-initiated parent–adolescent communication. Future research should explore these associations utilizing longitudinal data, which will allow investigations of directionality and a better understanding of communication processes. In addition, researchers should examine other family processes that may facilitate protective cyber-specific information management strategies such as the content of parent–adolescent conversations about ICT risks and the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship.

As societal ICT use continues to rise and adolescents spend increasing amounts of time utilizing communication technologies, the risks associated with adolescents’ ICT use will also continue. The present findings suggest that it may be especially important for parents, teachers, and practitioners to communicate the dangers involved with adolescents’ ICT-related activities, such as the legal consequences of sexting, rather than restricting youths’ ICT use. Providing older adolescents’ ICT-related decision-making autonomy while ensuring these youth understand the harmful nature of risky ICT behaviors may increase the likelihood that they will initiate conversations about their own communication technology use and may protect against ICT risks. Furthermore, the present study’s findings can be used by practitioners to educate parents about the way their adolescent children think about ICT risks and encourage parents to talk about the risks involved with ICT use rather than simply enforcing family rules about ICT-related behaviors. Our findings also encourage practitioners working with families to evaluate adolescents’ perceptions of the risks involved with ICT use as some adolescents’ may be less aware of or may downplay the potential harm involved with ICT behaviors. Professionals working with adolescents’ and their families can evaluate the extent to which youth need additional education regarding potential ICT risks, and such education may, in turn, promote effective ICT-related family communication.

	Overall (N = 159)	Adolescent age	ICT rules
Adolescent ICT use	3.17 (0.84)	2.97 (0.83)	3.40 (0.80)	3.27 (0.86)	3.06 (0.82)
Harmfulness beliefs	4.41 (0.70)	4.61 (0.55)	4.18 (0.77)	4.25 (0.73)	4.58 (0.61)
Decision-making beliefs	3.55 (0.97)	3.17 (0.96)	3.98 (0.79)	3.90 (0.84)	3.17 (0.97)
ICT disclosure	2.61 (1.31)	2.95 (1.32)	2.24 (1.20)	2.11 (1.09)	3.13 (1.33)
ICT secrecy	2.45 (1.24)	2.39 (1.25)	2.49 (1.23)	2.50 (1.16)	2.37 (1.32)
ICT concealment	1.73 (2.74)	0.79 (1.60)	2.79 (3.32)	2.31 (3.02)	1.09 (2.26)

	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Adolescent age	.02	.27**	−.38**	−.29**	.42**	−.29**	.05	.34**
2. Adolescent gender	—	.28**	.07	.17*	.07	.12	.08	−.06
3. Adolescent ICT use		—	−.11	−.07	.24**	−.11	.16*	.33**
4. Family ICT rules			—	.40**	−.41**	.50**	−.08	−.28**
5. Harmfulness beliefs				—	−.21**	.31**	−.11	−.45**
6. Decision-making beliefs					—	−.52**	.07	.29**
7. ICT disclosure						—	−.06	−.29**
8. ICT secrecy							—	.29**
9. ICT concealment								—

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported via internal funding through West Virginia University.

References

Agatston

P. W.

Kowalski

Limber

(2007). Students’ perspectives on cyber bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S59-S60. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.003

Crouter

A. C.

Head

M. R.

(2002). Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Volume 3: Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 461-483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cumsille

Darling

Martinez

M. L.

(2010). Shading the truth: Adolescents’ decisions to avoid issues, disclose, or lie to parents. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 285-296. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.10.008

Darling

Cumsille

Caldwell

L. L.

Dowdy

(2006). Predictors of adolescents’ disclosure to parents and perceived parental knowledge: Between- and within-person differences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 667-678. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9058-1

Fletcher

A. C.

Blair

B. L.

(2014). Maternal authority regarding early adolescents’ social technology use. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 54-74. doi:10.1177/0192513X12467753

Frijns

Keijsers

Branje

Meeus

(2010). What parents don’t know and how it may affect their children: Qualifying the disclosure–adjustment link. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 261-270. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.010

Hasebe

Nucci

M. S.

(2004). Parental control of the personal domain and adolescent symptoms of psychopathology: A cross-national study in the United States and Japan. Child Development, 75, 815-828. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00708.x

Hawk

S. T.

Hale

W. W.

III Raaijmakers

Q. A. W.

Meeus

(2008). Adolescents’ perceptions of privacy invasion in reaction to parental solicitation and control. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28, 583-608. doi:10.1177/0272431608317611

Hawk

S. T.

Keijsers

Frijns

Hale

Branje

Meeus

(2012). “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for”: Parental privacy invasion predicts reduced parental knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1286-1298. doi:10.1037/a0029484

10.

Keijsers

Branje

S. J. T.

Frijns

Finkenauer

Meeus

(2010). Gender differences in keeping secrets from parents in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 46, 293-298. doi:10.1037/a0018115

11.

Keijsers

Branje

S. J. T.

VanderValk

I. E.

Meeus

(2010). Reciprocal effects between parental solicitation, parental control, adolescent disclosure, and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 88-113. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00631.x

12.

Keijsers

Frijns

Branje

S. T.

Meeus

(2009). Developmental links of adolescent disclosure, parental solicitation, and control with delinquency: Moderation by parental support. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1314-1327. doi:10.1037/a0016693

13.

Keijsers

Poulin

(2013). Developmental changes in parent–child communication throughout adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2301-2308. doi:10.1037/a0032217

14.

Kerr

Stattin

Burk

W. J.

(2010). A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 39-64. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00623.x

15.

Khurana

Bleakley

Jorday

A. B.

Romer

(2015). The protective effects of parental monitoring and internet restriction on adolescents’ risk of online harassment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1039-1047. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4

16.

Laird

R. D.

Marrero

M. D.

(2010). Information management and behavior problems: Is concealing misbehavior necessarily a sign of trouble? Journal of Adolescence, 33, 297-308. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.018

17.

Law

D. M.

Shapka

J. D.

Olson

B. F.

(2010). To control or not to control? Parenting behaviours and adolescent online aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1651-1656. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.013

18.

Lenhart

(2015). Teen, social media and technology overview. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015

19.

Lenhart

Smith

Anderson

Duggan

Perrin

(2015). Teens, technology and friendships. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/06/teens-technology-and-friendships/

20.

Liau

A. K.

Khoo

Ang

P. H.

(2005). Factors influencing adolescent engagement in risky Internet behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8, 513-520. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.513

21.

Madden

Lenhart

Cortesi

Gasser

Dugan

Smith

Beaton

(2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-Social-Media-And-Privacy.aspx

22.

Metzger

Smetana

J. G.

(2009). Adolescent civic and political engagement: Associations between domain-specific judgments and behavior. Child Development, 80, 433-441. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01270.x

23.

Metzger

Wakschlag

L. S.

Anderson

Darfler

Price

Flores

Mermelstein

(2013). Information management strategies within conversations about cigarette smoking: Parenting correlates and longitudinal associations with teen smoking. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1565-1578. doi:10.1037/a0030720

24.

Nucci

L. P.

Guerra

Lee

(1991). Adolescent judgments of the personal, prudential, and normative aspects of drug usage. Developmental Psychology, 27, 841-848.

25.

Shapiro

L. A. S.

Margolin

(2014). Growing up wired: Social networking sites and adolescent psychosocial development. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 17, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10567-013-0135-1

26.

Smetana

J. G.

(2000). Middle-class African American adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority and parenting practices: A longitudinal investigation. Child Development, 71, 1672-1686. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00257

27.

Smetana

J. G.

(2008). “It’s 10 o’clock: Do you know where your children are?” Recent advances in understanding parental monitoring and adolescents’ information management. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 19-25. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00036.x

28.

Smetana

J. G.

Campione-Barr

Daddis

(2004). Longitudinal development of family decision making: Defining healthy behavioral autonomy for middle-class African American adolescents. Child Development, 75, 1418-1434. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00749.x

29.

Smetana

J. G.

Daddis

(2002). Domain-specific antecedents of parental psychological control and monitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child Development, 73, 563-580. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00424

30.

Smetana

J. G.

Metzger

Gettman

D. C.

Campione-Barr

(2006). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent–parent relationships. Child Development, 77, 201-217. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00865.x

31.

Smetana

J. G.

Villalobos

(2009). Social cognitive development in adolescence. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Volume 1: Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 187-228). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

32.

Smetana

J. G.

Villalobos

Tasopoulos-Chan

Gettman

D. C.

Campione-Barr

(2009). Early and middle adolescents’ disclosure to parents about activities in different domains. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 693-713. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.06.010

33.

Sorbring

(2014). Parents’ concerns about their teenage children’s internet use. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 75-96. doi:10.1177/0192513X12467754

34.

Stattin

Kerr

(2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072-1085. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00210

35.

Tasopoulos-Chan

Smetana

J. G.

Yau

J. P.

(2009). How much do I tell thee? Strategies for managing information to parents among American adolescents from Chinese, Mexican and European backgrounds. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 364-374. doi:10.1037/a0015816

36.

Tilton-Weaver

Kerr

Pakalniskeine

Tokic

Salihovic

Stattin

(2010). Open up or close down: How do parental reactions affect youth information management? Journal of Adolescence, 33, 333-346. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.07.011

37.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Quickfacts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov

38.

Valcke

M. M.

De Wever

B. B.

Van Keer

H. H.

Schellens

T. T.

(2011). Long-term study of safe internet use of young children. Computers & Education, 57, 1292-1305. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.010

39.

Williams

A. L.

Merten

M. J.

(2011). iFamily: Internet and social media technology in the family context. Family and Consumer Sciences, 40, 150-170. doi:10.1111/j.1552-3934.2011.02101.x

40.

Ybarra

M. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2007). Prevalence and frequency of Internet harassment instigation: Implications for adolescent health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 189-195. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.03.005

41.

Ybarra

M. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

Korchmaros

J. D.

(2011). National trends in exposure to and experiences of violence on the Internet among children. Pediatrics, 128, e1376-e1386. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-011

	Overall (N = 159)	Adolescent age		ICT rules
	Overall (N = 159)	Younger (N = 84)	Older (N = 75)	Low (N = 83)	High (N = 76)
Adolescent ICT use	3.17 (0.84)	2.97 (0.83)	3.40 (0.80)	3.27 (0.86)	3.06 (0.82)
Harmfulness beliefs	4.41 (0.70)	4.61 (0.55)	4.18 (0.77)	4.25 (0.73)	4.58 (0.61)
Decision-making beliefs	3.55 (0.97)	3.17 (0.96)	3.98 (0.79)	3.90 (0.84)	3.17 (0.97)
ICT disclosure	2.61 (1.31)	2.95 (1.32)	2.24 (1.20)	2.11 (1.09)	3.13 (1.33)
ICT secrecy	2.45 (1.24)	2.39 (1.25)	2.49 (1.23)	2.50 (1.16)	2.37 (1.32)
ICT concealment	1.73 (2.74)	0.79 (1.60)	2.79 (3.32)	2.31 (3.02)	1.09 (2.26)