Privacy rules for revealing one’s undocumented status to nonfamily members: Exploring the perspectives of undocumented youth of Mexican origin

Abstract

Based on the theory of communication privacy management, we explored: (a) undocumented immigrant youth’s privacy rules for managing their undocumented status disclosures to nonfamily members, and (b) responses to disclosures by recipients and undocumented youth. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 undocumented youth (10th–12th grades) who immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico. Youth managed their undocumented status with nonfamily members using criteria related to support activation, protection, acceptance, and a sense of empowerment. When disclosed, most recipients responded by providing emotional support and advice. Youth felt positively toward recipient reactions that were nonjudgmental. Lastly, most participating youth felt better after revealing their undocumented status because the youth learned that the recipient was in a similar situation or because the youth experienced catharsis. Our results show the extent to which preexisting privacy management research applies to an understudied, marginalized group and provides new insights on privacy management.

Keywords

Disclose immigrants Latino privacy undocumented

The current political climate in the U.S., the recent rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and the latest separation of over 2000 migrant children from their parents further reflect a long-standing dehumanization of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. Indeed, the U.S. continues to ostracize and disparage undocumented immigrants by threatening deportation, criminalizing undocumented immigrants, and limiting undocumented immigrants’ access to resources (De Genova, 2004, 2013; Jefferies & Dabach, 2014). Politicians, negative media coverage, and harsh immigration laws perpetuate the inequities that undocumented immigrants face (De Genova, 2013). Such stigmatization and systematic oppression has led many undocumented immigrants to fear deportation for self and significant others, as well as to experience severe financial strain, limited opportunities to pursue a higher education, inadequate prospects for stable employment, restricted access to health care, and isolation (Abrego & Gonzales, 2010; Kam, Pérez Torres, & Steuber Fazio, 2018b; Vargas Bustamante et al., 2012).

The stigmatization and subjugation of undocumented immigrants has led to what Jefferies (2014) calls a “Circle of Silence” in which undocumented immigrants only feel comfortable discussing their situation, questions, or concerns with other undocumented immigrants. Given the systematic barriers that undocumented immigrants face, past research has emphasized the importance of having a supportive social network, including family, friends, teachers, school counselors, and other adult figures (Gonzales, Suárez-Orozco, & Dedios-Sanguineti, 2013; Kam et al., 2018b). However, we know very little about the extent to which undocumented immigrant youth garner support from people outside the family, and if they do, how they manage discussing their undocumented status, a highly personal and sensitive issue, with nonfamily members (Kam, Gasiorek, Pines, & Steuber Fazio, 2018a). Addressing this gap is particularly important, given the systematic oppression and dehumanization that undocumented immigrants face, which force them into silence. They experience a tension between needing to access resources because of the inequities that are imposed on them, while also needing to keep their status private to protect themselves from harm (Jefferies, 2014).

The theory of Communication Privacy Management (CPM; Petronio, 1991) can be particularly useful in focusing our attention on the circumstances under which immigrant youth may withhold or disclose their undocumented status to nonfamily members. In particular, CPM suggests that people create boundaries that define who has access to certain personal information, and they establish rules regarding when such boundaries can be reshaped (Petronio, Sargent, Andea, Reganis, & Cichocki, 2004). Thus far, limited research has been conducted to examine the extent to which past theorizing on privacy management applies to undocumented youth. Moreover, we know little about when their privacy boundaries can be permeable and what kinds of privacy rules undocumented youth have for nonfamily members (Kam et al., 2018a; Scranton, T. Afifi, W. Afifi, & Gangi, 2016). These gaps in knowledge are crucial to address if we are to understand how to inform the creation of additional resources for undocumented youth. To address these gaps, we draw from CPM (Petronio, 1991, 2010). We utilize 30 semi-structured interviews with undocumented immigrant youth (10th–12th grades) of Mexican origin to extend our understanding of: (a) their privacy rules for revealing or withholding their undocumented status to someone outside the family, (b) how others respond to immigrant youth’s undocumented disclosures, and (c) how undocumented immigrant youth feel afterward.

For this study, we focus specifically on undocumented high school students of Mexican origin for several reasons. First, heterogeneity exists among undocumented immigrant youth with respect to nationality, culture, socioeconomic status, media coverage, and many other factors (Kam et al., 2018a). Thus, we take a within-group approach to exploring privacy management among undocumented immigrant youth by concentrating on one nationality. Second, although many nationalities warrant attention, 2014 Pew Research Center data indicate that Mexican-origin immigrants constitute the largest undocumented immigrant population in the U.S.; approximately 52% of undocumented immigrants are from Mexico (Gonzalez-Barrera & Krogstad, 2017). Third, the “illegality” of immigrants is a socially constructed idea rooted in racism and often associated with Mexican immigrants (De Genova, 2004). Lastly, we concentrate on high school because it is a period in which adolescents undergo significant psychological and physical developmental changes, as they approach emerging adulthood. Questions about what they will do post high school might be salient, particularly for undocumented immigrant youth who face substantial barriers to pursuing a higher education and well-paying, stable employment (Gonzales, 2011; Kam et al., 2018b). High school might be a period in which seeking assistance outside the family becomes necessary for some undocumented immigrant youth (Dabach, 2015; Jefferies, 2014).

Privacy management among undocumented immigrant youth

Drawing from past theorizing and research on communication privacy management, we identify several factors that might motivate immigrant youth to discuss their undocumented status with people outside their family. Numerous theoretical perspectives and concepts exist to explain privacy management, but we focus on a theory that might be particularly applicable to undocumented immigrant youth’s experiences: the theory of Communication Privacy Management (CPM; Petronio, 2013). Below, we describe the main tenets of the theory and how it might inform undocumented immigrant youth’s experiences with privacy management.

The theory of communication privacy management

CPM uses a boundary metaphor to outline two major privacy spheres that families navigate (Petronio, 2002). The first is the interior privacy boundary, and it refers to how readily immediate family members share private information with one another inside the family unit. Interior boundaries can form between spouses, siblings, or parent–child dyads. For example, Gonzales (2011) noted that many of the immigrant youth in his study did not learn of their undocumented status until their teens, particularly when they were in high school filling out college applications. This finding exemplifies CPM’s interior boundaries, such that some parents formed interior boundaries around their child’s undocumented status that excluded their child until a certain age that required the boundaries to shift.

Our article attends more readily to the second sphere, the exterior privacy boundary. Exterior privacy boundaries pertain to how readily a family unit shares private details with nonfamily members. There is often an understanding among family members about how permeable this boundary is with people outside their nuclear unit, and family members work to maintain this boundary collectively (Brockhage & Phillips, 2016; Owlett, Richards, Wilson, DeFreese, & Roberts, 2015; Steuber & Solomon, 2011). The exterior privacy sphere helps maintain a shared understanding of the general privacy preferences for a family; however, individuals constantly make decisions about revealing or concealing specific features of private information (Bute, Brann, & Hernandez, 2017; Romo, Thompson, & Donovan, 2017; Steuber & McLaren, 2015). According to CPM, these decisions are governed by privacy rules. Children and newly integrated members of families are socialized to understand privacy rules, which are the parameters around managing shared information (Child & Petronio, 2011; Petronio, 2002, 2010).

Petronio (2002, 2010) argued that we acquire our preferences for privacy through socialization, but that events or situations can trigger a change in the parameters around how to manage information. Namely, people use a risk–benefit ratio as criteria when developing privacy rules. Individuals weigh the benefits of disclosure, such as social acceptance, relationship development, or clarification as positive outcomes of sharing; however, there are security, stigma, relational, and face risks associated with sharing private information as well (Afifi & Steuber, 2009; Greene, 2009; Petronio, 2002). Risk assessments with private information are largely predicated on peoples’ needs and desires. For example, when one is motivated to enhance a relationship, establish similarity, or garner resources they might be more inclined to take the risks associated with revelation. Based on CPM, we examine the variant factors that might impact the privacy rules surrounding information related to one’s undocumented status.

Privacy rules for revealing one’s undocumented status

Prior research suggests that exterior family privacy boundaries are high for undocumented immigrant families, but undocumented youth also maintain strict privacy rules in their individual interactions. Although undocumented immigrant youth face significant stressors, many hesitate to discuss their undocumented status or to seek support outside their family for fear of deportation and discrimination (Jefferies, 2014; Kam et al., 2018a, 2018b). The decision to reveal one’s undocumented status to people outside the family is an individual choice and not a choice we advocate for in all situations. Yet, there are some instances that require undocumented immigrant youth to seek assistance outside the family, while trying to maintain their family’s safety (Jefferies, 2014; Jefferies & Dabach, 2014; Viramontez Anguiano & Lopez, 2013). Indeed, Gonzales, Suárez-Orozco, and Dedios-Sanguineti (2013) argued “By keeping their undocumented status a secret to peers and even romantic partners, as well as potential mentors and advocates, undocumented youth both disengage from critical networks of support and opt out of activities and potential opportunities” (p. 1177). Although not all school administrators are allies to undocumented students and their families, Jefferies also observed in his study involving a Boston high school that the “Circle of Silence” led to the spread of misinformation among undocumented immigrants whose children attended the high school. Yet, upon learning of some undocumented students’ experiences, the high school had an immigration specialist provide monthly information sessions to counteract misinformation among undocumented immigrants.

The risks can be incredibly high for revealing one’s undocumented status to anyone outside the family, and we do not advocate for revelation of this private information. Research suggests, however, that there are some instances when immigrant youth might experience or perceive some benefits from discussing their undocumented status with nonfamily members (Gonzales et al., 2013; Jefferies, 2014; Kam et al., 2018a). For example, ally teachers who learn of their students’ undocumented status can be more aware of the systematic barriers that can hinder their students’ academic abilities such as having to miss class to seek legal assistance or from fear of deportation (Jefferies & Dabach, 2014). Furthermore, Dabach (2015) argued that breaking the norms of silence can lead to activism, and in turn, challenge the mistreatment of undocumented immigrants. Accordingly, to best explore the privacy rules around their undocumented status, we use a CPM framework to examine what factors might be perceived as beneficial enough to risk the disclosure of their undocumented status to nonfamily members:

RQ1: What perceived benefits or risks might inform Mexican immigrant youth’s privacy rules regarding their undocumented status?

As an extension, we also document how recipients respond to such disclosures and how undocumented immigrant youth feel afterward. To date, several qualitative studies have referenced instances when undocumented immigrants garnered encouragement and assistance from people outside their family (e.g., friends, teachers, school counselors), which implies that disclosure was necessary in such cases (Gonzales, 2010; Jefferies, 2014; Viramontez Anguiano & Lopez, 2013). Nonetheless, limited research has taken a systematic approach to studying privacy management, in particular, among undocumented immigrants (for exceptions, see Kam et al., 2018a; Scranton et al., 2016). Thus, we have scant knowledge of immigrant youth’s privacy rules for and consequences of revealing their undocumented status to nonfamily members. To address this gap, we developed the following research question:

RQ2: For Mexican-origin immigrant youth who have discussed their undocumented status with someone outside the family, (a) how did that person(s) respond, and (b) how did the youth feel afterward?

Method

The interview data are part of a larger study on stress, resilience, and thriving among immigrant students. The larger study includes three waves of survey data with immigrant students attending one of three high schools within a district. The data were collected using three-month intervals (fall, winter, and spring) during the 2015–2016 academic year. The interview data were collected the following academic year in fall 2016 and ended around a month prior to the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections.

Recruitment procedures

Upon receiving approval from the university’s institutional review board, the first author e-mailed a summary of the study and mailed information packets to principals at schools with student populations consisting of at least 50% Latina/o. One high school district volunteered to participate in the study. Across the three high schools within the district, there were approximately 7,000 total students enrolled (immigrant and nonimmigrant, Latina/o and non-Latina/o). For feasibility, the school district sent information letters to parents of 700 immigrant students informing them that their child would complete a survey three times during the academic year and that they would be asked questions about their immigration experiences.¹ Although the district consisted of over 700 immigrant students, the district’s staff selected 700 based on recency of migration (i.e., the most recent immigrants selected first until a sample size of 700 was reached). Across the academic year, a total of 648 immigrant students were surveyed (some were absent on the survey dates), and among that sample, 550 were Latina/o. Because the focus of this study involves highly sensitive data, we purposefully exclude information about the school district and its location to protect students’ confidentiality.

When completing the survey, students reported their documentation status (assent was obtained at each wave). Approximately 58.6% of the 550 Latina/o immigrant students reported that they were undocumented, 29% documented, and 12.4% previously undocumented. For the interview phase in fall 2016, the first author created a list of students to interview, using the survey data. The first author selected only 9th–11th grade students from the 2015-2016 survey data because the 12th grade students had graduated by fall 2016. Thus, the fall 2016 interview sample included 10th–12th grade students who were in 9th–11th grades the previous year (2015-2016 academic year) when they participated in the survey portion of the study. In addition, the first author selected students from one of the high schools because that school had the largest immigrant population and generalizability was not a goal of this qualitative study. Two sets of interviews were to be conducted: (a) one with students reflecting on their experiences living in a country separate from one of their parents, and (b) another with students who reflected on their experiences being undocumented. The first author created two lists of students based on their immigration experience. The first author provided the lists to the school district’s migrant education program director, but the director was not informed of which list corresponded to which immigration experience. The lists had arbitrarily assigned labels (i.e., Topic 1 or Topic 2), and the lists have since been destroyed.

Information letters were sent to parents of the selected students. The letters stated that their child would be invited to participate in an interview during a class period and that their child would be asked about “their experiences living in one country, while a parent(s) lives in another country, and/or fear surrounding deportation.” Parents were given the opportunity to leave a message on an answering machine to withdraw their child from the study. Students also were given the opportunity to decline participation in the study. They were told that participation was voluntary, and they could decline participation without any negative repercussions. All study documents and the voice mail message were provided in Spanish and English. One child was withdrawn from the study. The first author then randomly selected 30 students from the undocumented list to participate in the present interview study.

Participants

Following recruitment, 30 undocumented students completed an interview. According to school-reported data, the average age was 16.3 years old (SD = 0.92; ages 14–18 years). More specifically, 37.9% were in 10th grade, 41.4% in 11th grade, and 20.7% in 12th grade. Among the 30 students, 55% were female, and 96% participated in the school’s free-cost lunch program. The 30 students were all from Mexico, and the average time spent in the U.S. was 8.9 years (SD = 3.64; 23% lived in the U.S. for 5 years or less, 46.6% between 6 and 10 years, 23% between 11 and 15 years, and 7.4% did not answer the question). All 30 students self-reported that they had at least one parent who was undocumented, 21% reported that all of their siblings were undocumented, 50% had some documented siblings and others that were undocumented, and 28% had all documented siblings.

Data collection

Before collecting data, interviewers went through 4 weeks of training with the first author by reading qualitative studies, practicing the interview protocol each week, meeting to discuss feedback on their practice interviews, and identifying ways to improve. From the end of September to the beginning of October 2016, two bilingual Mexican-origin graduate students, one bilingual Mexican-origin undergraduate student, and one bilingual Mexican-heritage undergraduate student conducted the interviews. The interviewers conducted individual interviews in an empty classroom at the high school during a class period. Students who did not want to participate could choose to remain in their class as usual instead of going to the designated classroom where the interviews took place. For those students who wanted to participate in the interview study, each interviewer began the conversation by reviewing the assent form with the student and explaining the voluntary and confidential nature of the interview. Students learned that they could ask questions, skip questions, or quit the interview at any time without penalty. Prior to each conversation, each participating student gave the interviewer permission to audio record their conversation, and each student chose a pseudonym. The interviewers provided each student with US$10 cash and a snack at the end of the interview.

Utilizing a semi-structured interview protocol, interviewers started the discussion by asking students to talk about something fun they did with their family recently in an attempt to establish rapport. Interviewers then asked about challenging experiences related to immigration and then more focused questions about challenges related to being undocumented. Interviewers then asked about undocumented students’ disclosures outside their family, “Have you talked to anyone outside of your family (e.g., teacher, friend, school counselor, etc.) about your family’s situation?” Additional questions included:

What motivated you to talk to this person about your situation? Why did you talk to this person about your situation? What did you say to that person? Try to describe it word for word like a movie script. How did the person respond? What happened afterward? Are you glad you shared that information? Do you feel like sharing that information helped in any way?

For participants who did not talk about their undocumented status with anyone outside the family, interviewers asked a series of questions:

What might motivate you to talk to someone outside your family about your situation? Why would you talk to anyone about your situation? What might be some good things that could (or did) come from talking to someone outside of your family about your documentation situation? What might be some bad things that could (or did) come from talking to someone outside of your family about your documentation situation?

For each question, interviewers asked additional probing questions (e.g., “What does that look like…?,” “What does that mean for you…?,” “Can you give me an example…?,” “Can you elaborate…?,” and “What happened when…?”).

The 30 interviews lasted between 30 and 60 min. Interviewers wrote reflection memos after each interview was conducted. The research team met each week to reflect upon the interview process, brainstorm probing strategies, and make minor revisions to the interview protocol. English–Spanish bilingual research assistants transcribed the audio recordings verbatim and double-checked the transcripts for accuracy. Eight interviews were in Spanish.

Data analysis

To begin the data analysis process, the first author who is non-Latina and only fluent in English read all 22 of the English transcripts to create a codebook with a list of categories, definitions, and examples. She coded the data using Krueger’s (1998) frequency, extensiveness, and intensity. As she read the transcripts, she highlighted statements based on “the amount of times they surfaced (frequency), the representation of an issue across different units (extensiveness), and the depth of feeling with which the view was expressed in the discourse (intensity)” (Steuber & Solomon, 2008, p. 838). When she highlighted statements, she also wrote several words that described the idea or experience. As she read more examples of the idea or experience, she clarified her definition of the category to capture those examples. The third author who emigrated from Mexico and who is fluent in Spanish independently read the eight Spanish transcripts and added to the first author’s list of categories. The first author then trained two bilingual Latina/o undergraduate research assistants to code the transcribed interviews. The first author randomly selected six interviews for the research assistants to independently categorize each week for 5 weeks.² Weekly team meetings occurred to discuss the categories, challenges, and any new observations. They settled discrepancies by revisiting the interview transcripts and discussing the disagreement until they reached consensus. This process was repeated until all 30 interview transcripts were coded. The purpose of this first round of coding was to establish and strengthen the codebook, so that the categories had clear definitions and examples. Based on the coding that was completed in this first round, the authors made new copies of the interviews and highlighted the text that should be coded based on the first round of coding. Afterward, the first author trained two bilingual Latina coders. Each week, the first author randomly selected six interviews for the research assistants to independently code. Weekly team meetings occurred to discuss the categories, challenges, and any new observations. They settled discrepancies by revisiting the interview transcripts and discussing the disagreement until they reached consensus. When the Spanish interviews were discussed, the third author led the discussions with the first author in attendance. The purpose of this second round of coding was to assign categories to the text and to confirm or challenge the first author’s read of the data. Following Steuber and Solomon (2008), the authors merged common categories to form overarching themes and then chose exemplary quotes to demonstrate the themes.

Results

Among the 22 English interviews, 16 talked to a friend(s), 5 talked to a teacher, 1 talked to a school counselor, and 3 had not talked to nonfamily members about being undocumented. With respect to the eight Spanish interviews, four disclosed to a friend(s), one to a school counselor, one hinted that she was undocumented to a leader of an organization, and three had not talked to nonfamily members about their undocumented status.

Privacy rules for revealing or not revealing one’s undocumented status (RQ1)

The first research question asked about factors impacting Mexican-origin immigrant youth’s privacy rules for discussing their undocumented status with nonfamily members. We found four main themes that undocumented youth used to manage their privacy rules related to their status: (a) support activation, (b) protection, (c) acceptance, and (d) empowerment. The four themes represented factors that youth considered when deciding whether to disclose their undocumented status to nonfamily members or to withhold such information.

One of the main reasons governing how Mexican-origin immigrant youth discussed their undocumented status with someone outside the family was related to support activation. They desired to seek help, comfort, advice, or other forms of assistance from the recipient (n = 18). In particular, some youth reported that they would talk to someone outside their family about their undocumented status for emotional support. For example, one youth stated that she would talk to someone outside the family about her undocumented status because they could comfort her (#18, female). Other youth referred to seeking informational support to become documented, “Well, my dad has a lot of friends, and that helps too…By helping us, by like showing their way [that] they got documents…what was their story, [what] they did to get another path, telling us about it, so we could do it” (#2, p. 20, male). Similarly, another youth said, “If I’m looking for someone to help me with my papers, they [teachers]…could give me the names of people with their numbers…if my mom needs help for the papers…someone that’s really good like a professional to try and solve that” (#3, pp. 19–20, female). Another form of informational support that motivated disclosure was related to attending college following high school. Some youth reported that they might disclose their undocumented status to teachers or school counselors to receive college guidance.

A second privacy rule criteria related to the protection of private information (n = 32). The protection theme showcased trust when participating youth felt safe sharing with a person, as well as a concern for concealment when they sensed a person might be likely to share their undocumented status in harmful ways. Specifically, trust developed because youth had established a close relationship with the recipient, had known the recipient for a long period of time, or did not believe the recipient would share their private information with others (e.g., “I trust them [friends]. I knew them for several years, and I trust them ‘cause they trust me too in a way,” #6, p. 18, female). For example, one youth stated that her best friend and teacher, “have always been there for me. My teacher sees that I’m doing really bad and stuff. She encourages me to do better…. She’s just really nice…. I got really close to her” (#18, p. 22, female). For youth who disclosed their undocumented status to others, the disclosure often occurred in a private setting between friends or with a teacher or school counselor. For example, one youth stated

What I liked about him [teacher], he didn’t tell everybody, like “oh this and that happened.” He just told me—that was after school—and he was just like, “Stay for a minute,” and then it was just between us two. It was just a conversation between us two. Nobody was involved. (#22, p. 33, male)

Similarly, another youth shared her undocumented status with her teacher. When asked what motivated her to share with that teacher, she replied that the teacher “told me they’d be there if anything happened…he was kind of a second dad to me, so I felt comfortable talking to him about it. And, I told him. I let him know what would be going on” (#30, p. 20, female).

Alternately, the theme of protection also emerged when participating youth were reluctant to share their information because they feared the recipient would tell others, which would lead to negative consequences such as getting in trouble or being detained or deported (“They’ll call immigration on me or something,” #16, p. 21, female; “They would tell immigration,” #11, p. 22, male). Similarly, a male youth expressed hesitation about speaking to nonfamily members about his undocumented status because, “No, pues tal vez pues si, si te caen mal esos, si para ellos te caen mal. Pues, tal vez te puedan deportar y eso no?” [No, well maybe if you do not like them if, if they think you do not like them. Well, maybe they can deport you and that, no?] (#12, p. 25, male). Furthermore, another youth stated, “Umm, a veces sobre la escuela a veces no me gusta porque siento que me van a, van a meter a otras personas sobre la situación” [Umm, sometimes regarding school, sometimes I do not like it (discussing documentation status at school), because I feel that they are going to, going to involve other people in the situation] (#14, p. 20, female). Another youth also expressed fear of the recipient telling others, “Tal vez puede ser de que la persona que le has contado, pues, tal vez no le caes tan bien, y pues, puede informar con otras personas, y pues, tal vez esas personas te pueden hacer daño y todo” [It could be that the person you are telling, well, maybe they do not like you, and well, he/she can inform other people, and well, maybe those people can harm you] (#7, p. 13, female).

The third theme for privacy rule criteria was acceptance (n = 18). Participating youth considered whether they could relate to and be accepted by other people or if they would experience rejection because of their undocumented status. Relating to others was a catalyst for revelation, and often entailed them having been in a similar situation (i.e., undocumented, formerly undocumented, had undocumented family members) or being of their same ethnic background (“Pues, yo creo que somos como igual” [Well, I think that we are kind of the same], #21, p. 11, male). For example, some youth stated, “They [friends] might be able to help us. Probably they’ve been through the same situation too, and share what they did” (#2, p. 22, male); “Pues, que el me hable sobre sus problemas también de su familia y yo también le voy a contar a el” [Well, that he talks to me about his problems also about his family, and I will also tell him] (#8, p. 15, male); and “They [friends] could either relate ‘cause they have all faced the same thing” (#6, p. 18, female). Another student stressed shared race/ethnicity stating, “I feel like she [teacher] was more closer to me. ‘Cause she did seem Mexican, and I feel more comfortable talking to her than some other, like, White person” (#25, p. 11, male). Similarly, another student emphasized immigration status, “Well, I told her that I wasn’t from here, and she said she wasn’t from here either,” and when asked what motivated him to talk about his undocumented status with his friend, the youth stated, “If she, like, she wasn’t from here, she would probably understand” (#28, pp. 16–17, male).

Alternatively, a criteria of acceptance was represented in privacy rules when participating youth feared they would be rejected instead of welcomed. Specifically, undocumented youth were concerned that the recipient would turn their backs on them, treat them differently upon learning of their undocumented status, or discriminate against them (e.g., “Instead of like helping you, they just back away and not help you at all,” #3, p. 19, female; “They don’t approve of you not having papers and might as well defriend you,” #9, p. 14, female; “They’d see you different,” #18, p. 23, female; “More bullying,” #20, p. 24, female). In particular, one youth stated that “They maybe just not, like, talk to me or be the same way they were with me before. Maybe if they talked to me a lot, they might not talk to me anymore that much…they can maybe judge me and make fun of me for something like that” (#26, p. 15, 19, female).

Although not as common as the other motivational factors, several youth reported a theme of intensity in terms of feeling a sense of empowerment when reflecting on whether they would share their undocumented status with someone outside the family (n = 3). More specifically, they described not being afraid of discussing their undocumented status with others because there was nothing wrong with being undocumented. For example, one female youth had told her friend about her undocumented status, and when asked if she would tell others, she said:

I don’t really have a specific person but I could tell anybody. I wouldn’t actually care ‘cause it’s nothing bad. Yeah, nothing bad about it, and if they tell somebody else, well, it doesn’t really matter. ‘Cause there’s nothing wrong with it. We’re like all the same. We’re people, and it [being undocumented] doesn’t change anything unless you’re really mean and treat them bad or racist like that, but it doesn’t really matter other than that. It’s good. (#4, p. 19, female)

Similarly, another female youth stated:

I don’t mind sharing it with anybody…I mean if I tell you I don’t have papers, and you change your attitude towards me, then I might as well not talk to you anymore because you are being like, you’re discriminating someone just for a piece of paper you don’t have. It’s dumb in a way to do that. (#9, p. 13, female)

Lastly, after telling a teacher about his undocumented status, a male youth said, “I’m not afraid if people find out I’m undocumented. I wouldn’t really care ‘cause I know I am. I can’t hide it…. If people know, then they know. I don’t hide it” (#22, p. 33, male). Again, empowerment was not often mentioned by our sample, but it was an important experience that some youth emphasized.

Responses to undocumented disclosures (RQ2)

Recipients’ responses to the disclosures (RQ2a)

The second research question asked how people outside the family responded when Mexican-origin immigrant youth discussed their undocumented status (RQ2a) and how the youth felt about the process (RQ2b). With regard to RQ2a, we found several different responses: (a) emotional support, (b) advice giving, and (c) no judgment. With respect to emotional support (n = 16), recipients responded to youth’s disclosures by promoting strength (e.g., “stay strong,” #13, p. 10, male), hope and optimism (e.g., “Being there, telling me that nothing bad is gonna happen,” #6, p. 20, female; “Bueno pues tengo el apoyo de me familia al igual que mis amigos también me dicen que si lo puedo hacer y pues eso me ayuda seguir adelante” [Well I have my family’s support and my friends tell me that I can do it and well that helps me keep moving forward], #7, p. 7, female), as well as by conveying understanding (e.g., “She understands. She’s, like, ‘I know it’s rough, but you know, just got to get through it’,” #3, p. 17, female; “O pues somos igual así porque los dos nacimos allá porque no tenemos papeles y así no mas dicen.” [Oh, well, we are the same because both of us were born over there because we do not have documents and they just say that.], #17, p. 12, male). Recipients also provided emotional support by relating to undocumented youth (e.g., “I know what you’re going through,” #3, p. 17, female). For example, one youth stated, “Well I told them like, ‘Look, I wasn’t born here. Out of all my family, I was the only one born in Mexico, and I’m not documented’, and like, they could relate to that too” (#6, p. 16, female). Similarly, another youth stated, “I remember telling the other person [friend] something about me being undocumented, and I think the other person related” (#26, p. 13, female). In addition to relating to the recipient, one male described how he wrote a class assignment about his fears around being undocumented. In response, his teacher provided him with hope and optimism:

It was for an essay, and I just wrote everything I had in mind, like,…not being able to go to college ‘cause you’re undocumented and this and that, or not having the money to go…My teacher, he took it seriously, believe he did, and he just talked to me. He said, ‘You shouldn’t have that fear about the money ‘cause there’s always financial aids, scholarships, and stuff.’ He said, ‘You don’t worry about that.’ (#22, p. 25, male)

In this situation, the teacher tried to alleviate the youth’s negative emotions by assuring him that college might be a possibility in the future, thereby providing hope. Similarly, a female youth described how her friend provided hope, “Well my friend just told me like to not worry about it to like just try to be good in school because like maybe like, the school might like find a way to help me to get my paper too” (#24, p. 30, female). Although this last statement includes advice giving (“try to be good in school”), it is also coupled with hope (“the school might find a way to help”).

In addition to emotional support, recipients engaged in advice giving (n = 12) by offering suggestions for how to manage the stressors associated with the youth’s undocumented status. Several undocumented youth reported being told to concentrate on their education and work hard. For example, one undocumented youth talked to her friend about wanting to acquire documents, and her friend replied, “We should pay attention more to our education, like, getting good grades and graduating here in order to go to college” (#3, p. 18, female). Similarly, another female also talked to her friends about obtaining documents, “Me aconsejan que tengo que conseguir [documentos] tengo que seguir hablando de eso con mis papas y tengo que [hacer] que me ayuden que me apoyen y agarrarlos [documentos].” [They advise me that to obtain [documents] I have to continue talking about that to my parents, and I have to get them to help me and support me and get them [documents] (#5, p. 20, female). Most of the advice offered was about applying to college and staying focused on school, but one youth also reported that a school counselor told him to see a lawyer to obtain papers (#13).

Lastly, some youth who disclosed their undocumented status noted that recipients did not treat them differently (i.e., no judgment; n = 8). Youth talked about friends, teachers, or school counselors not treating them differently or seeing them differently upon learning of their undocumented status (e.g., “They didn’t care…they didn’t judge me…they’ll just treat me like anybody else,” #16, p. 20, 22, 23, female; “…hay amigos que a ellos no les importa y pues aun siguen estando allí contigo.” [There are friends who don’t care, and they continue to be there with you], #7, p. 10, female). After youth talked about being undocumented, some youth noted that nothing happened, and nothing changed. For example, one male youth described his teachers who knew about his undocumented status:

I expect to be bullied, but it never happened. It happened to people I know, but to me it didn’t. I felt that I was really close to all the people around me no matter what my status was. That was one of the greatest things that happened to me because I didn’t feel worried or stressed about all this stuff. I was accepted for who I was. So, I feel safe and happy about that. (#29, p. 11, male)

In addition to feeling that no one treated them differently, some youth focused specifically on discrimination and racism. For example, one female youth disclosed to her friends and said, “We get along good. And then we talk about our families and all that, but it’s good. They’re not racist or anything like that. They’re nice, and they don’t care about we’re undocumented or not” (#4, p. 14, female). Similarly, another female youth described her friend, “because she doesn’t care if you’re documented or being undocumented. You are human. It’s okay if you do or don’t, if you’re black or white” (#9, p. 12, female). Several undocumented youth associated undocumented status with race, acknowledging that the two identities were intertwined. When asked how her friend learned about her undocumented status, one female youth stated, “Because of the color of my skin she did think I had papers, but then I said ‘no,’ and then she said ‘oh, I thought you did. You look like you are from here” (#9, p. 13, female).

Undocumented youth’s feelings after disclosing (RQ2b)

Finally, in response to RQ2b, we sought to understand how Mexican-origin immigrant youth who have discussed their undocumented status with people outside the family felt afterward. Most youth who shared their undocumented status reported feeling better afterward. Youth felt more hopeful; were less worried and felt less down; felt like they could continue on despite the challenges of being undocumented; and felt more confident than they had prior to disclosing. They felt better because: (a) the recipient was in a similar situation and (b) catharsis.

First, some youth reported that they felt better after disclosing because the recipient was in a similar situation (n = 8; “I didn’t feel like I was the only one…I’m not like, ‘oh, I’m the only one undocumented,” #16, p. 20, female). For example, one male youth talked to a teacher about his undocumented status, and the youth recalled:

It’s a good memory I have of him. Yeah, ‘cause his family, they had the same struggles too, well, not him but his parents. Yeah, it was good being in his class, and then I got to meet his parents, not his mom. But, I got to meet his dad. And then my dad started talking to his dad too, so it was a good. Me being in his class was a good thing for me I believe, and that conversation was a good thing for us too ‘cause his parents were able to relate to our parents. (#22, p. 27, male)

Similarly, another male youth stated that he felt good after disclosing his undocumented status because he learned that others around him were in similar situations:

I’m glad ‘cause then I know who is around me and who is of the same status I am. And it’s helpful to know that there are people who are undocumented and have the same feelings and thoughts of what is happening…it’s helpful to know other people that are undocumented. (#29, p. 12, male)

Overall, most undocumented youth who talked to someone outside their family about their undocumented status reported that they felt good about the conversation because the recipient related to them in some way. They took comfort in knowing there were others around them who also were undocumented.

Another reason why some undocumented youth felt better after disclosing was because they felt a sense of catharsis (n = 9; “Me siento mejor” [I feel better], # 14, p. 19, female). For example, one female youth stated:

Well, it’s good ‘cause it’s a relief to be telling someone that you’re undocumented, like, a person, to a teacher, or a counselor or someone, whoever. It feels really good to be saying this out loud…it’s like a relief actually saying something to someone like to actually tell it. (#6, p. 17, female)

Similarly, a female youth expressed feeling relieved after she disclosed to her friends, “Me siento bien, me siento como que conforme así con ellas, saber que ellas no piensan mal de ti y todo” [I feel good. I feel like satisfied with them, knowing that they don’t think bad of you and everything] (#7, p. 10, female). Furthermore, one male youth expressed his sense of catharsis when disclosing to others, and even went on to reveal that disclosing to the interviewer also caused him to feel catharsis, “Si a veces por ejemplo ahorita me siento así como aliviado este con confianza pues de hablar de lo que yo quiera” [Yes, sometimes, for example right now I feel like relieved with trust to talk about anything that I want] (#15, p. 34, male).

Limited communication about being undocumented

One finding that emerged outside our research questions was that many undocumented youth reported engaging in limited communication overall with nonfamily members about their undocumented status (n = 24). Their discussions with nonfamily members about being undocumented were infrequent or nonexistent. If they were to talk to a nonfamily member, they were most likely to choose a friend, followed by a teacher, and then a school counselor. When asked, “Do you talk about being undocumented with your friends, teachers, school counselors, or anyone else outside the family?,” youth would often respond with “No” or “No, not really.” Upon being asked to elaborate, some youth said they would be more likely to talk about their undocumented status with a friend, but even then, the conversations were infrequent or brief (e.g., “If it comes to like a point where it’s like right there, I speak to my friends, but otherwise, it’s rare that I usually do,” #3, p. 16, female; “Only to my friend. That’s pretty much it,” #4, p. 17, female; “Mostly I talk about it a little with my friends,” #10, p. 10, female).

When asked why they rarely talk about their undocumented status, one youth said, “It just doesn’t come up in every day conversations. It just wouldn’t come up,” #9, p. 10, female; and another youth reported, “It just never, like, comes up…I’m not thinking about it unless they ask me,” (#27, p. 15, male). In addition to their undocumented status not being at the forefront of their thoughts, other youth stated that they rarely talked about their undocumented status because they did not like to discuss it. For example, when asked if he talks about his undocumented status to friends, one youth replied, “Not really because I don’t like talking about it all the time” (#23, p. 21, male), which another youth reiterated, “I just don’t like talking about this stuff” (#28, p. 13, male).

Lastly, some youth reported that their undocumented status came up with friends only when they were joking around; such references to their undocumented status did not emerge as serious conversations (n = 4). Instead, they might talk briefly about their undocumented status as a way to make fun of each other as friends. For example, when asked if they have talked to someone outside their family about their undocumented status, one male youth stated:

Yeah, my friends, my teammates, we sometimes joke around…when we do just joke around, like, about the presidential candidates, like Trump’s become president. We’re like, ‘If he does become president, look around at all these people, beaners [derogatory term referring to Mexicans]. Yeah, we just mess around like that. ‘Cause we are, like, beaners and stuff. We are Mexicans, and yeah, we just mess around like that. (#22, p. 25, male)

Similarly, another male youth gave an example, “I tell them [friends] la migra [immigration authorities] are gonna come get me or when Trump wins, I’m gonna leave…They just laugh ‘cause they are not from here either” (#28, p. 15, male). These examples suggest that some youth might use humor and teasing to talk about their undocumented status with friends, but one commonality between these examples is shared identity. The male youth could joke about their undocumented status because their friends were either of the same ethnic background, immigration status, or undocumented.

Discussion

Because of the stigmatization and inequities that undocumented immigrants face, revealing one’s undocumented status to nonfamily members can be dangerous, yet it also can be necessary at times to garner support (Gonzales et al., 2013). To shed light on undocumented youth’s privacy rules for sharing their status with nonfamily members, 30 undocumented Mexican-origin youth were interviewed to identify: (a) their privacy rules for revealing their undocumented status to nonfamily members, (b) how the recipients responded to such revelations, and (c) how the youth felt afterward. The findings make several theoretical contributions to privacy management, and they offer insights that can be useful when providing resources to undocumented immigrant youth and their families.

The permeability of exterior privacy boundaries

Privacy rules are predicated around the balancing of an individual’s desire for connection and an assessment of the risk or costs of revealing the private information. In our study, undocumented Mexican-origin youth loosened the parameters for privacy when they perceived the opportunity to garner support, build trust with another person, or attend to identity issues such as feeling relatable and empowered (RQ1). Their privacy rules were more conservative when they perceived they should prioritize protecting their family, were concerned about recipients sharing the information with others, or perceived a risk of rejection. These themes align with the premise of CPM (Petronio, 2002, 2010) and suggest that individuals’ decisions about sharing or concealing their immigration status is a fluid process that can be impacted by characteristics of the recipient (i.e., their ability to protect the information or be a support provider), identity concerns (i.e., relatability, empowerment, and acceptance), and concerns about their individual and family relationships.

By exploring undocumented status as a privacy management issue (Petronio, 2002, 2010) rather than a disclosure issue (i.e., Afifi & Steuber, 2009; Greene, 2009), we attend to the various ways individuals and families can co-own shared information across time. Our focus was on the children in the families, but their privacy management decisions were contingent upon risk assessments and characteristics of both themselves and their family. Caughlin and colleagues (Caughlin, Afifi, Carpenter-Theune, & Miller, 2005) discussed an evaluation risk—concern that disclosing will lead the recipient to disapprove of or negatively judge the discloser. We found that some youth were discouraged from talking to someone outside their family because they did not sense acceptance and instead feared rejection (e.g., negatively evaluated, discriminated against). Our finding also is consistent with Gonzales (2010) in which some immigrant high school students did not talk to their friends or teachers about their undocumented status because they did not want others to perceive them in a negative light. In addition to an evaluation risk, individuals might be less likely to share private information out of defense (i.e., concern that disclosing will lead the recipient to use the information against the discloser; Caughlin et al., 2005). We found evidence of defense risk such that some undocumented youth did not want to confide in someone outside their family because the recipient might tell on them. This result is similar to Jefferies (2014) who found that immigrant high school students were afraid to discuss their undocumented status with people outside the family because they feared deportation.

With regard to theory, future research on immigrant youth disclosures about their undocumented status should attend to privacy turbulence and coordination in families (Petronio, 2010) and assess whether they feel pressure from any family members to manage information around their undocumented status in ways that align with their parents. Research also suggests that discordant preferences for privacy and family members that disclose in mismatched ways about co-owned, private information can have negative relational implications (Steuber & Solomon, 2011). Taken together, next steps should explore whether discrepancies in privacy rules across family members exacerbate their and inhibit their accessibility to resources.

Another important finding worth noting is that many undocumented youth reported infrequently discussing their undocumented status with nonfamily members because the topic did not come up or they did not like discussing their status. Some reported that when they did discuss their undocumented status, they referred to it while joking. This finding might be indicative of what Dabach (2015) referred to as “norms of silence” and Jefferies (2014) referred to as the “Circle of Silence.” Dabach (2015) observed that students rarely discussed their undocumented status with teachers, and teachers were afraid to broach this topic in class. Similarly, Jefferies found that undocumented students and their families rarely talked to the school and instead relied primarily on other undocumented immigrants. Although such silence is understandable, given the stigmatization and mistreatment that undocumented immigrants often face, Jefferies and Dabach noted that such silence could result in undocumented immigrants being further excluded from accessing resources. In addition, maintaining “norms of silence” can hinder efforts to advocate for undocumented immigrants and change the long-standing systematic oppression placed on them.

Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations that warrant further investigation. First, only Mexican-origin undocumented youth were interviewed, but undocumented youth are heterogeneous. Their privacy rules and reactions to recipient responses might differ when we consider cultural variations by nationality, motivations for immigrating to the U.S., time spent in the U.S., socioeconomic status, and developmental stage (high school students versus young adults versus adults in midlife). Thus, this area of research would benefit from taking into account a number of factors that might lead to different findings. Second, this study’s data were collected prior to the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections, the rescission of the DACA program, and the recent separation of migrant children from their parents. It is possible that such events have led to increased fear and uncertainty that made undocumented youth even less likely to disclose to nonfamily members. Alternatively, such events could have led to increased disclosure to garner support from, for example, friends, teachers, and school counselors. Conducting research on undocumented immigrants can be challenging when immigration policies and news coverage can quickly change; therefore, a longitudinal approach to studying this topic would be beneficial.

Theoretical and practical contributions

Despite this study’s limitations, it is one of the few studies to take a systematic approach to understanding communication privacy management among undocumented youth. One of the most noteworthy findings of our study is the significant role that identity played in privacy management. Privacy rules relaxed because of perceived acceptance with the recipient and undocumented immigrant youth’s sense empowerment. Moreover, undocumented immigrant youth felt better after revealing their status to nonfamily members: (a) when those nonfamily members did not judge them negatively and (b) when those nonfamily members had similar experiences. Lastly, identity emerged as a salient process again when our participating immigrant youth reported joking with friends about their undocumented status—a communicative exchange that occurred among friends who were either undocumented or of the same ethnic background. Both of these reasons for feeling better after disclosing are rooted in undocumented immigrant youth’s desire to have their identity supported in positive ways.

Thus, our findings inform the theorizing of communication privacy management by highlighting the importance of shared identity, having a positive self-concept, and identity validation. They also provide practical insights such that friends, teachers, school counselors, trained family therapists, and community-based organizations might take into account when trying to provide assistance to undocumented youth. To encourage youth to seek support and access certain resources, social network members might consider establishing trust and relatability, as well as provide youth with a sense of empowerment. Creating a safe space also is crucial to address concerns over telling others about the undocumented youth’s status and fear of rejection. Lastly, being aware that many of the privacy management decisions and feelings following disclosure are rooted in undocumented youth’s sense of self and shared identity can be fruitful in creating a supportive environment for disclosure and support. Thus, efforts should be made to validate undocumented youth’s sense of self and establish shared identity or commonalities. Again, we do not advocate for undocumented-status disclosure in all situations, but in instances where undocumented youth can access support or certain resources, this study sheds light on their privacy management process.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Maria Larios-Horton and her staff, as well as the authors’ research assistants, Debora Pérez Torres, Andrea Reyes, Mariangelica Valle, Aime Casillas, Monica Veliz, Luis Mechado, Rachyl Pines, Jessica Berman, Shanna Benji, Nicholas Turton, Kathlyn Skolnik, and Hannah Gunter. The authors also thank the teachers and students who contributed to this study.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Institute for Social Behavioral and Economic Research (ISBER) Social Science Research Grant Program and the Academic Senate Doctor Pearl Chase Grant for Local Community Development, Conservation, or Historic Preservation Research Projects at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Both grants were awarded to the first author.

Open research statement

For our manuscript, Privacy Rules for Revealing One’s Undocumented Status to Nonfamily Members: Exploring the Perspectives of Undocumented Youth of Mexican Origin, the study was not preregistered. Given the sensitive nature of the data, the data and materials have not been made available. The data can be obtained after receiving approval by the first author’s university institutional review board and the requester’s university institutional review board by emailing: jkam@comm.ucsb.edu. The materials can be provided upon request by emailing: jkam@comm.ucsb.edu.

Notes

References

Abrego

L. J.

Gonzales

R. G.

(2010). Blocked paths, uncertain futures: The postsecondary education and labor market prospects of undocumented Latino youth. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15, 144–157. doi:10.1080/10824661003635168

Afifi

Steuber

K. R.

(2009). The revelation risk model (RRM): Factors that predict the revelation of secrets and the strategies used to reveal them. Communication Monographs, 76, 144–176. doi:10.1080/03637750902828412

Brockhage

Phillips

K. E

. (2016). (Re)Negotiating our relationships: How contradictions emerge in sibling privacy boundaries. Southern Journal of Communication, 81, 17–91. doi:10.1080/1041794X.2015.1095231

Bute

J. J.

Brann

Hernandez

. (2017). Exploring societal-level privacy rules for talking about miscarriage. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Published online first. doi:10.1177/0265407517731828

Caughlin

J. P.

Afifi

W. A.

Carpenter-Theune

K. E.

Miller

L. E.

(2005). Reasons for, and consequences of, revealing personal secrets in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 12, 43–59. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00101.x

Child

J. T.

Petronio

(2011). Unpacking the paradoxes of privacy in CMC relationships: The challenges of blogging and relational communication on the internet. In Wright

K. B.

Webb

L. M.

(Eds.), Computer-mediated communication in personal relationships (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Dabach

D. B

. (2015). “My student was apprehended by immigration”: A civics teacher’s breach of silence in a mixed-citizenship classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 85, 383–412. doi:10.17763/0017-8055.85.3.383

De Genova

(2004). The legal production of Mexican/migrant “illegality.” Latino Studies, 2, 160–185. doi:10.1057/palgrave.lst.8600085

De Genova

(2013). Spectacles of migrant “illegality”: The scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36, 1180–1198. doi:10.1080/01419870.2013.783710

10.

Gonzales

R. G.

(2010). On the wrong side of the tracks: Understanding the effects of school structure and social capital in the educational pursuits of undocumented immigrant students. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 469–485. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2010.518039

11.

Gonzales

R. G.

(2011). Learning to be illegal: Undocumented youth and shifting legal contexts in the transition to adulthood. American Sociological Review, 76, 602–619. doi:10.1177/0003122411411901

12.

Gonzales

R. G.

Suárez-Orozco

Dedios-Sanguineti

M. C.

(2013). No place to belong: Contextualizing concepts of mental health among undocumented immigrant youth in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 1174–1199. doi:10.1177/0002764213487349

13.

Gonzalez-Barrera

Krogstad

J. M.

(2017, March 2). What we know about illegal immigration from Mexico. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/02/what-we-know-about-illegal-immigration-from-mexico/

14.

Greene

(2009). The so-called right to privacy. UC Davis School of Law Review, 43, 715.

15.

Jefferies

(2014). Fear of deportation in high school: Implications for breaking the circle of silence surrounding migration status. Journal of Latinos and Education, 13, 278–295. doi:10.1080/15348431.2014.887469

16.

Jefferies

Dabach

D. B.

(2014). Breaking the silence: Facing undocumented issues in teacher practice. Association of Mexican American Educators Journal, 8, 83–93.

17.

Kam

J. A.

Gasiorek

Pines

Steuber Fazio

(2018a). Latina/o adolescents’ family undocumented-status disclosures directed at school counselors: A latent transition analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65, 267. doi:10.1037/cou0000259

18.

Kam

J. A.

Pérez Torres

Steuber Fazio

K. R.

(2018b). Identifying individual- and family-level coping strategies for undocumented youth of Mexican origin. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 641–664. doi:10.1080/00909882.2018.1528373

19.

Krueger

R. A.

(1998). Analyzing and reporting focus group results: Focus group kit 6. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Owlett

J. S.

Richards

K. A.

Wilson

S. R.

DeFreese

J. D.

Roberts

(2015). Privacy management in the military family during deployment: Adolescents’ perspectives. Journal of Family Communication, 15, 141–158. doi:10.1080/15267431.2015.1013105

21.

Petronio

(1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 4, 311–335. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1991.tb00023.x

22.

Petronio

(2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

23.

Petronio

(2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 175–196. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x

24.

Petronio

(2013). Brief status report on communication privacy management theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 6–14. doi:10.1080/15267431.2013.743426

25.

Petronio

Sargent

Andea

Reganis

Cichocki

(2004). Family and friends as healthcare advocates: Dilemmas of confidentiality and privacy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 33–52. doi:10.1177/0265407504039838

26.

Romo

L. K.

Thompson

C. M.

Donovan

(2017). College drinkers’ privacy management surrounding alcohol posts on social networking sites. Communication Studies, 68, 173–189. doi:10.1080/10510974.2017.1280067

27.

Scranton

Afifi

Gangi

. (2016). Networks of passing: Experiences of undocumented Latin American immigrants’ identity negotiation. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 45, 449–469. doi:10.1080/1745729.2016.1217913

28.

Steuber

K. R.

McLaren

R. M.

(2015). Privacy recalibration in personal relationships: Rule usage before and after an incident of privacy turbulence. Communication Quarterly, 63, 345–364. doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1039717

29.

Steuber

K. R.

Solomon

D. H.

(2008). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and infertility: A qualitative study of discourse within online forums. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 831–855. doi:10.1177/0265407508096698

30.

Steuber

K. R.

Solomon

D. H.

(2011). Factors that predict married partners’ disclosures about infertility to social network members. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39, 250–270. doi:10.1080/00909882.2011.585401

31.

Vargas Bustamante

Fang

Garza

Carter-Pokras

Wallace

S. P.

Rizzo

J. A.

Ortega

A. N.

(2012). Variations in healthcare access and utilization among Mexican immigrants: The role of documentation status. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 14, 146–155. doi:10.1007/s10903-010-9406-9

32.

Viramontez Anguiano

R. P.

Lopez

(2013, June). Understanding migration and immigration as a global crisis and strength within the family science curriculum: The case of the United States. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Family Science Association, Annapolis, MD.