Parental Invasive and Children's Defensive Behaviors at Home and Away at College

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Wright State University]On: 13 April 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 930579649]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721871

Parental Invasive and Children's Defensive Behaviors at Home and Awayat College: Mediated Communication and Privacy Boundary ManagementAndrew M. Ledbettera; Sarah Heissa; Kenny Sibala; Eimi Levb; Michele Battle-Fisherc; Natalie Shuberta

a School of Communication Studies, Ohio University, b Department of Communication and theDepartment of Health Promotion, School of Public Health at Tel Aviv University, Israel c Public Healthat Ohio State University,

Online publication date: 19 April 2010

To cite this Article Ledbetter, Andrew M. , Heiss, Sarah , Sibal, Kenny , Lev, Eimi , Battle-Fisher, Michele and Shubert,Natalie(2010) 'Parental Invasive and Children's Defensive Behaviors at Home and Away at College: MediatedCommunication and Privacy Boundary Management', Communication Studies, 61: 2, 184 — 204To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10510971003603960URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510971003603960

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721871

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510971003603960

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Parental Invasive and Children’sDefensive Behaviors at Home andAway at College: MediatedCommunication and PrivacyBoundary ManagementAndrew M. Ledbetter, Sarah Heiss, Kenny Sibal,Eimi Lev, Michele Battle-Fisher, & Natalie Shubert

Following recent discussion of close parent-undergraduate contact via mediated

communication, this manuscript reports an empirical study of parental invasive beha-

viors and children’s defensive behaviors. Results reveal patterns of parent=child boundary

management via mediated communication, including decreased frequency of invasive=defensive behaviors than in a similar study by Petronio (1994). Telephone invasion at

home was associated with invasions when away at college. Discussion of results considers

how technology choices might alter the character of parent-child boundary management.

Keywords: Boundary Management; Mediated Communication; Parent-Child

Communication

Andrew M. Ledbetter (PhD, University of Kansas, 2007) is an Assistant Professor in the School of

Communication Studies at Ohio University. Sarah Heiss (MA, Ohio University, 2007) and Kenny Sibal (MA,

Western Kentucky University, 2006) are doctoral students in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio

University. Eimi Lev (PhD, Ohio University, 2009) is a lecturer in the Department of Communication and

the Department of Health Promotion in the School of Public Health at Tel Aviv University, Israel. Michele

Battle-Fisher (MPH, Ohio State University, 2002) is a doctoral student in Public Health at Ohio State

University. Natalie Shubert (MA, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, 2006) is a doctoral student in the

School of Communication Studies at Ohio University. Correspondence to: Andrew M. Ledbetter, Ohio Univer-

sity School of Communication Studies, 43 West Union St., Lasher Hall 206, Athens, OH 45701, U.S.A. E-mail:

[email protected]

Communication Studies

Vol. 61, No. 2, April–June 2010, pp. 184–204

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2010 Central States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10510971003603960

Downloaded By: [Wright State University] At: 19:49 13 April 2011

Among the myriad types of distance-related relational transitions, perhaps few are so

developmentally consequential as when children leave the parental home. For those

who relocate to a residential college, this move frequently renegotiates the level of

independence within the parent-child relationship yet also stimulates role ambiguity

regarding whether sons and daughters are considered children or adults (Arnett,

1994). The communicative behavior of parents and children during this renegotia-

tion has long been a subject of research attention (Cooney, 2000; Golish, 2000;

Greene, & Boxer, 1986; Hoffman, 1984; Noller, 1995; Parke & Sawin, 1979; Pecchioni,

Wright, & Nussbaum, 2005). Moreover, the transition from childhood to adulthood

is often associated with the establishment of different communication patterns that

arise from the changing roles of parents and children, where the child begins to learn

about important problem-solving and decision-making techniques (Noller, 1995).

Recently, a growing chorus of university administrators and practitioners question

whether new communication technologies, such as mobile phone and Internet-based

communication, prevent undergraduate students from learning life skills important

for well-being in adulthood (Merriman, 2007). This concern highlights parental tech-

nology use to monitor children in a manner that unnecessarily invades the under-

graduate’s privacy.

This manuscript reports an investigation that refines and extends Petronio’s

(1994) typology of invasive=defensive behaviors in light of recent technological

advances (Mayer, 2003). After inductively deriving a typology via qualitative thematic

analysis, we employed content analysis to compare the relative frequency of such

behaviors when students are at home and away at college. As such, our hope is that

the investigation holds promise for advancing the theoretical map of invasive and

defensive behaviors, and that the investigation offers practical suggestions for under-

graduates, their parents, and university officials who communicate with them.

Theoretical Background

Privacy Management in the Parent-Child Relationship

Petronio’s (2002) communication privacy management theory (CPM) is a useful

framework for understanding the communicative management of privacy between

parents and their children. Building from Altman and Taylor’s (1973) work in social

penetration theory, Petronio (2002) reframes self-disclosure research ‘‘by arguing

that disclosure is meaningful only in relationship to privacy’’ (Petronio, 2002,

p. 14). Petronio (2002) casts CPM as a dialectical theory; though CPM’s dialectical

approach is not fully compatible with that of Baxter and Montgomery’s (1996) theory

of relational dialectics, Petronio (2002) nevertheless highlights the simultaneous

desire for disclosure and privacy in the process of relational maintenance (whereas

early relational maintenance research focused almost exclusively on disclosure). What

is of theoretical and practical interest, then, is explaining how individuals communi-

cate in ways that coordinate the concealing and revealing of private information.

Toward this end, CPM uses a boundary metaphor to explain how people think about

Parental Invasive Behaviors 185


their private information: ‘‘In this theory, privacy is defined as the feeling that one

has the right to own private information, either personally or collectively; conse-

quently, boundaries mark ownership lines for individuals’’ (Petronio, 2002, p. 6).

To share private information is to admit the recipient inside the boundary, such that

boundary coordination becomes the responsibility of both people. Petronio (2002)

explains this as a form of information ownership, such that ‘‘when we are told private

information by others, we enter into a contract of responsibility to be co-owners of

the information’’ (Petronio, 2002, p. 10).

Attendant with such co-ownership are rules regarding what constitutes appropri-

ate disclosure of information to third parties. Yet Petronio (2002) argues that privacy

rules differ considerably across individuals, with privacy rules developed via mechan-

isms ‘‘such as cultural expectations, gender, motivation, context of the situation, and

risk-benefit ratio’’ (Petronio, 2002, p. 23). For each person, over time ‘‘rules can

become routinized’’ such that they function as ‘‘a stable factor in guiding privacy

judgments’’ (p. 27). Among the several mechanisms that people learn privacy rule

orientations, Petronio (2002) identifies the family as a particularly influential source.

More specifically, Petronio (2002) notes that different families may possess different

privacy rule orientations:

Families often develop privacy rule orientations over time. Family members mightconstruct all their rules to reflect their value of openness and reinforce this orien-tation for all family members. Thus, each member is expected to tell any problemsor issues he or she faces to other family members. On the other hand, other familiesmight have restricted orientation rules about disclosure and be more private. Forthese families, the members construct rules that limit the disclosure to one another,insisting that each member should solve his or her own problems without talkingabout them to other family members. (Petronio, 2002, pp. 79–80)

Children’s privacy rules are not static but rather develop considerably across the

course of childhood. Petronio (2002) especially notes that adolescence necessarily

involves fluctuation of privacy boundaries (with attendant boundary renegotiation),

as the adolescent ‘‘[develops] a separate identity apart from his or her family’’ (p. 74).

The formation of this separate identity may include adoption of new privacy rules:

As children reach a point where they are considered independent, they may beginto form an individual set of criteria or rules for privacy regulation over informationthat is considered personally private. These rules may differ from family privacyorientations. . . . The other family members may see this divergence from a generalorientation to private information as a challenge. (Petronio, 2002, p. 165)

In other words, a young adult child’s formation of new privacy rules may generate

boundary turbulence, or events where ‘‘[boundary] coordination does not . . . functionin a synchronized way’’ (Petronio, 2002, p. 12). When such turbulence occurs,

Petronio (2002) predicts that ‘‘individuals attempt to correct the problem and

integrate new information into the rule system so that adjustments may be made

to achieve coordination’’ (Petronio, 2002, p. 33). A chief goal of this investigation

186 A. M. Ledbetter et al.


is to identify both parental invasive behaviors that generate boundary turbulence and

children’s defensive behaviors that attempt to restore stable privacy boundaries.

Moreover, though Petronio (2002) advances a deep and coherent theory of privacy

management, she also acknowledges the theory’s relative youth, locating it in a period

of ‘‘middlescence,’’ or ‘‘stage of theory building where much is in place and many of

the conceptual blocks are identified, yet the way they fit together shift and change

rendering the connections temporarily ambiguous’’ (Petronio, 2004, p. 200). Though

a considerable body of empirical research employs CPM (e.g., Afifi, Olson, &

Armstrong, 2005), such research generally uses the theory as an explanatory mech-

anism for particular communication phenomena rather than subjecting the theory’s

propositions to formal empirical test. Though this manuscript does not advance

formal quantitative measures ultimately necessary for such tests, a secondary goal

is for these results to inform future measure development for heuristic theoretical

and methodological advancement.

Parental Invasive Behaviors and New Communication Technology

Because expectations regarding children’s privacy change throughout the course of

child development (McKenney, 1998; Parke & Sawin, 1979; Petronio, 2002), privacy

invasions may occur frequently within parent-child relationships. To date, the most

comprehensive assessment of parental invasive behaviors is Petronio’s (1994) series of

four empirical studies examining such behaviors and subsequent children’s defensive

behaviors designed to restore the violated privacy boundary. Petronio (1994) notes

that the college years are a time when parental expectations of their children’s privacy

can be particularly unclear. Although undergraduates view their college years as a

time of increasing independence, ‘‘parents may contradict these expectations by

invading the children’s privacy boundaries’’ when the child returns home or when

away at college (Petronio, 1994, p. 244). Therefore, parental invasive behaviors

‘‘may send a message to college-aged children that indicates the reluctance of parents

to let go’’ (p. 245).

Beyond identifying several discrete parental invasive and children’s defensive beha-

viors, Petronio (1994) differentiates these regarding their level of directness (for par-

ental invasive behaviors, direct and subversive invasions; for children’s defensive

behaviors, evasive and confrontational strategies). Without devaluing the utility of this

approach, recent concerns of university administrators (Merriman, 2007; White,

2005), along with theoretical developments in the field of online communication

(Wellman et al., 2003), suggest that the time is ripe to revisit Petronio’s (1994)

typology with new technological developments, which can help family members

gather information about each other and increase the complexities surrounding priv-

acy management, in mind (Caughlin & Petronio, 2004). Scholars note that new tech-

nology facilitates privacy invasions via the rapid and recordable nature of such

communication (e.g., Spears & Lea, 1994). Recent evidence, moreover, suggests that

new communication technologies create new opportunities for boundary violations

and coordination between parents and children (see Caughlin & Petronio, 2004).



Ling and Yttri (2002), for instance, note that the individualized nature of mobile

phones (especially as contrasted with landline phones) facilitates teenage communi-

cation outside the purview of parents. Thus, mobile phones enable the child to pre-

vent parents from achieving co-ownership of their private information. Yet, Ling and

Yttri (2002) further note that mobile phones provide parents with more opportu-

nities to violate children’s boundaries by enabling them to call and, perhaps, to exert

control over their child at any time regardless of the child’s location. Ling and Yttri’s

findings illuminate the dual nature of the mobile phone vis-a-vis children’s boundary

coordination: Such technology permits greater boundary control in some respects

but simultaneously facilitates boundary turbulence.

Such privacy management patterns are not unique to mobile phones but transcend

various new technologies (e.g., instant messenger, Boneva et al., 2006; social network-

ing sites; Lenhart & Madden, 2007). Mayer (2003) argues that technological surveil-

lance within the family ‘‘is likely to be motivated by concern over another’s safety’’

(p. 435); thus, such behavior may pit one family member’s need for privacy against

another family member’s need for information. These tensions can be especially sali-

ent during college, as the degree of children’s independence is frequently a locus of

parent-child conflict (Renk et al., 2006). Overall, then, the widespread use of new

communication technology strongly suggests revisiting Petronio’s (1994) typology.

Thus, we addressed the following research questions:

RQ1: In what ways do parents use communication technologies to engage ininvasive behaviors toward their young adult children?

RQ2: In what ways do young adult children use communication technologies todefend themselves against parental invasive behaviors?

RQ3: What are the relative frequencies of different types of parental invasivebehaviors?

RQ4: What are the relative frequencies of different types of young adult children’sdefensive actions?

Invasive/Defensive Behaviors and Distance

Thus far, we have noted that developmental changes, coupled with the ease of access

facilitated by new communication technologies, may generate boundary turbulence.

For college students who live away from home, the geographical distance from

parents may also necessitate boundary renegotiation (Cooney, 2000). As Larose

and Boivin (1998) note, the transition to college introduces unique stressors because

distance from parents necessitates adoption of new life patterns: ‘‘In a short period of

time, adolescents may leave home, move into an apartment or dormitory without

adult supervision, learn to manage their own affairs, and assume adult responsibil-

ities’’ (p. 3). Likewise, Flanagan, Schulenberg, and Fuligni (1993), in an investigation

of college residential status, note the potential for tension when students return home

to visit: ‘‘Students who resided at college said they had more conflict with their par-

ents during semester breaks when they lived at home’’ (p. 183). One might expect,

then, that distance strongly influences the creation and maintenance of privacy



boundaries within the parent-child relationship. Thus, we addressed the following

research questions targeted at understanding how parental invasive and children’s

defensive behaviors at home might be associated with such behaviors when away

at college, as well as the associations among invasions and defenses in both contexts:

RQ5: Are parental invasive behaviors at home associated with their invasivebehaviors when away at college?

RQ6: Are children’s defensive behaviors at home associated with their defensivebehaviors when away at college?

RQ7: What children’s defensive behaviors are associated with parental invasivebehaviors when at home?

RQ8: What children’s defensive behaviors are associated with parental invasivebehaviors when away at college?

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 455 participants recruited from communication studies

courses at a large Midwestern university. Participants received a minimal amount

of extra or course credit (less than 2% of course grade) for their participation. Most

participants were female (n¼ 271; 59.6%) and predominantly reported a white=Caucasian ethnic identity (n¼ 395; 86.8%), with ages ranging from 18 to 39 years

(M¼ 20.4, SD¼ 2.0).

Procedures

Participants completed an online survey, including a series of four open-ended ques-

tions derived from Petronio’s (1994) previous research on parental invasive behaviors

and the defensive behaviors of undergraduates. As one goal of this study was to ident-

ify the role of mediated communication technologies in such invasive and defensive

behaviors, these four questions addressed such behaviors when at home and when

away at college (i.e., ‘‘In what ways do=does your parent=s invade your privacy whenyou are [away at college = at home]?’’; ‘‘In what ways do you try to defend against

these privacy invasions when you are [away at college = at home]?’’). If the partici-

pant resided at home while attending college, he or she was asked to simply indicate

this for the questions addressing behaviors that occurred when at college (n¼ 24;

5.3%); data for such participants were removed from all analyses examining beha-

viors occurring while away at college.

Thematic analysis

Using Petronio’s (1994) previous typology and recent concerns about mediated

invasions (e.g., Merriman, 2007) as sensitizing theoretical concepts, two research

team members (a male faculty member and a female graduate student) inductively

derived two separate typologies via thematic analysis (Owen, 1984). First, both team



members separately read the entire data set and developed an initial list of themes

occurring in the data. Owen’s criteria of repetition (i.e., same words) and recurrence

(i.e., same meanings) as well as theoretical coherence of the thematic list guided this

phase of analysis. Next, both team members compared their list of themes. Both lists

were similar and differences were resolved through discussion. The final typology

consisted of four supercategories of invasive (Table 1) and defensive (Table 2)

behaviors, with additional subcategories further delineating specific subtypes.

Table 1 Typology of Parental Invasive Behaviors

Invasion Type Home Frequency

Spatial Invasions

Enter a room unannounced ‘‘She goes in my room without a thought;’’ ‘‘Walk into room

without knocking.’’

Search personal belongings ‘‘Searching my wallet if they could find anything they forbid;’’

‘‘Look through my pockets when they do my laundry.’’

Request to come

home to visit

‘‘[They] often want me to come home and spend time with them;’’

‘‘They constantly are trying to get me to come home . . .’’

Eavesdrop on conversations ‘‘Listening to me talk with friends when we are at the house;’’ ‘‘They

interrupt [sic] me when my friends are over.’’

Telephone Invasions

Investigate calling behavior ‘‘Look through my phone;’’ ‘‘They . . . check my phone bill.’’

Unwelcome phone calls ‘‘They tend to always worry about where I am and call a lot;’’

‘‘They call daily to bug me about what I did today and what I am

going to do.’’

Eavesdrop on telephone

conversations

‘‘Listen when on the phone;’’ ‘‘She’ll listen to me talking on the

phone. . . . She’ll turn the TV down.’’

Computer Invasions

Reading blogs=social

networking sites

‘‘Get on Facebook;’’ ‘‘My mom would sometimes try to read my

online blog.’’

Checking online accounts ‘‘Check grades online;’’ ‘‘Checking . . . online bank account.’’

Unwelcome online

communication

‘‘They send me way too many emails;’’ ‘‘My dad emails me right

right [sic] wing spam.’’

Reading private online

communication

‘‘When I am using the computer, they come behind me and read

over my shoulder for a few minutes;’’ ‘‘My dad reads the instant

messages I write.’’

Verbal Invasions

Asking personal questions ‘‘They won’t leave me alone, constantly are asking me questions I

don’t feel like answering;’’ ‘‘They ask a lot of questions that are

not any of their business.’’

Making demands ‘‘They try and tell me what I should and should not do;’’ ‘‘Want

me to get up early on the weekends and I am not allowed to curse

around them.’’



Tables 1 and 2 contain exemplars of each subcategory, and the results section (below)

further addresses the nature of the supercategories.

Content analysis

Following typology development, the male faculty member introduced the typology

to two other team members (one male graduate student and one female graduate

student) who were not involved in typology construction. A small amount of the data

(10%) was randomly selected and both team members separately coded each

Table 2 Typology of Children’s Defensive Behaviors

Invasion Type Home Frequency

Spatial Defenses

Avoid parental home ‘‘Tried to get out of the house fast, or not tell them where I was

going;’’ ‘‘Not coming home after getting off of work, and going

to meet up with friends.’’

Lock=close bedroom=

bathroom doors

‘‘I just shut my door;’’ ‘‘I stayed in my room for the most part

while they stayed upstairs.’’

Hide personal belongings ‘‘Have important stuff shipped to my apartment;’’ ‘‘As long as I

kept what they didn’t need to know out of sight (cigerrettes

[sic], lighters), we didn’t have a problem.’’

Telephone Defenses

Conceal phone from parents ‘‘Try to keep my phone on me at all times;’’ ‘‘Hide my cell.’’

Do not respond to

parental phone calls

‘‘Sometimes I don’t answer the phone when they are calling if I

am not home;’’ ‘‘Don’t answer . . . or hang up.’’

Make phone calls outside the

parental home=in secret

‘‘Talk on the phone outside;’’ ‘‘Talk on the phone away from

everyone.’’

Computer Defenses

Conceal online

communication

‘‘Use the computer when no one else is in the room;’’ ‘‘Close IMs

and delete emails.’’

Filter blog=social network

site information

‘‘I try to be descreet [sic] in how things are displayed on

[Facebook].’’

Do not respond to parental

online communication

‘‘I ignore the emails.’’

Verbal Defenses

Inflict emotional distress ‘‘I give them the silent treatment for awhile;’’ ‘‘Raise my voice, talk

back.’’

Make direct request to

stop invasion

‘‘I have sat them down and explained how it bothers me;’’ ‘‘I ask

her not to open mail directed to me.’’

Deception ‘‘I just tell her the small stuff and leave out everything I don’t want

her to know;’’ ‘‘Tell them what they want to hear, even if it’s not

the truth.’’



response for the presence of each of the subcategories identified in the initial

typology. The coders also assessed whether the response described no invasive or

defensive behaviors. A participant’s response was the unit of analysis. After this prac-

tice coding, the coders shared their impressions of the data to ensure consistency in

further coding. The coders resolved irregularities through discussion. The coders then

discarded the practice coding and separately coded all participant responses (i.e., the

entire data set, including those coded in the practice coding) into the coding scheme

constructed by the two initial team members.

After both team members coded the entire data set, inspection of the data revealed

that most subcategories contained very few items. Given the study’s overarching goal

of examining invasive and defensive behaviors across media conditions, the research

team decided to collapse all forms of invasive and defensive behaviors into the four

respective supercategories for subsequent quantitative analyses. Cohen’s kappa

revealed high reliability between coders for all supercategories except phone invasions

at college and phone defenses at home. After review of discrepant cases at a meeting

of both coders and the principal investigator, a small number of cases were recoded,

which increased all Cohen’s kappa indices of intercoder agreement to acceptable

values (for all supercategories, .74� j� 1.00). For all variables except for those indi-

cating no invasive behaviors and no defensive behaviors, remaining disagreements in

the data set were handled by a decision rule treating a case as an instance of a super-

category of behavior if either coder marked it as such. Conversely, we treated each

case as containing no invasions and=or defenses only if both coders agreed this

was the case. In light of the high frequency of invasive=defensive behaviors reported

in Petronio (1994), these decision rules permitted us to obtain a conservative esti-

mate of the degree to which participants reported an absence of invasive=defensive

behaviors and, simultaneously, created an orthogonal relationship between the

absence variables (see ‘‘Content analysis’’ section above) and supercategory variables.

Although not included in analyses, a separate coding category indicated ‘‘other’’

behavior types not specified in the typology. For invasive behaviors, a trivial number

of cases qualified as ‘‘other’’ for both the home and away contexts, with most involv-

ing the use of another person to investigate the student (e.g., ‘‘ask my friends and

brother’s friends about me’’). A similarly small number of ‘‘other’’ cases of defensive

behaviors included use of silence (e.g., ‘‘just walk out and don’t say anything’’) and

responses idiosyncratic to the topic of a particular invasion (e.g., ‘‘work more so they

cannot bug me about money’’).

Results

Parental Invasive Behaviors

The first research question addressed how parents invade their young adult children’s

privacy. In light of reports of parental technology use aimed at invading their chil-

dren’s privacy (e.g., Merriman, 2007), one goal of the current project was to identify

differences in invasive behaviors across different media types. Identification of



thematic categories proceeded through this conceptual=pragmatic lens (see Table 1).

The first supercategory, spatial invasions, included behaviors involving spatial copre-

sence. Such behaviors included direct attempts at face-to-face interaction, such as

eavesdropping on a conversation or requesting that the child return home for a visit.

Other behaviors invaded the child’s space without the child present, such as looking

through pockets in clothing or entering the child’s room while he or she was away

from home. The second supercategory included behaviors with the telephone as

the locus and was thus labeled telephone-based invasions. Behaviors in this supercate-

gory included parents making unwelcome phone calls, eavesdropping on the content

of phone conversations, and checking up on children’s calling activity (e.g., by read-

ing the phone bill or scrolling through the phone’s call logs). The third supercategory,

computer-based invasions, included such behaviors as reading private online conversa-

tions and checking up on children via online accounts. The fourth supercategory, ver-

bal invasions, focused on communicative behavior without regard for the medium via

which it occurs. The two types of behaviors in this supercategory were asking

personal questions and making demands.

Children’s Defensive Behaviors

The second research question concerned the behaviors children use to defend against

their parents’ invasive behaviors. Our final typology of children’s defensive behaviors

(see Table 2) contains four supercategories mirroring those for parental invasive

behaviors. Spatial defenses involved avoiding the parents’ house, hiding personal

belongings, and meeting friends outside of the home. Telephone-based defenses com-

prised concealing the phone (e.g., keeping the phone on one’s person at all times),

deliberately failing to respond to parents’ phone calls, and taking measures to prevent

parental eavesdropping on phone conversations. Likewise, computer-based defenses

consisted of concealing online conversations (e.g., by changing passwords, deleting

emails, or closing open windows when a parent enters the room) and ignoring par-

ents’ emails. Finally, verbal defenses focused on communicative behaviors without

regard to medium, including attempting to inflict emotional distress on the parents

(e.g., by making them feel guilty), engaging in deception, and directly requesting that

parents cease their invasive behavior.

Associations among Invasive and Defensive Behaviors

The third and fourth research questions concerned the relative frequency of invasive

and defensive behaviors. Table 3 shows the number and proportion of items fitting

each supercategory when home and away at college. Whether involving invasive or

defensive behaviors, spatial and verbal types were particularly common, with phone

and online behaviors occurring less frequently. Chi-square tests (see Table 3) indi-

cated that both spatial and verbal invasions occurred significantly more frequently

when at home, whereas the relative frequencies of phone and online invasions did



not differ significantly. Overall, participants reported significantly more invasions at

home than when at college. Defensive behaviors showed a similar trend, with the

exception of mediated invasions. Phone defenses occurred more frequently when

away at college, and online defenses occurred slightly less frequently. Perhaps most

strikingly, participants reported much fewer instances of invasive behaviors than

Petronio (1994) obtained using a similar open-ended survey methodology. Only

3% of Petronio’s (1994) sample reported no parental invasive behaviors; a chi-square

test using this threshold reveals that participants in the present study reported signifi-

cantly fewer invasions both when home, v2(1)¼ 1816.54, p< .01, and when away at

college, v2(1)¼ 4306.96, p< .01.

The fifth research question addressed the extent to which parental invasive

behaviors at home are associated with such behaviors when the children are away

at college. The Phi correlation coefficient indicates strength of association between

dichotomous variables (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003); Table 4 shows the

Phi correlation coefficients among these behaviors. Examination of the diagonal of

the correlation matrix suggests that parents continue to enact invasive behaviors

via the same media whether children are away at college or at home. Additionally,

both verbal and phone invasions at home were especially associated with invasions

when away at college. Specifically, parents who engage in verbal invasions at home

were more likely to engage in both verbal and phone-based invasions when their chil-

dren are away at college, yet less likely to engage in spatial or online-based invasions.

However, parents who engage in phone invasions at home were more likely to engage

in every type of invasion when away at college.

Table 3 Frequencies of Parental Invasive Behaviors at Home and Away at College

Behavior Type Home Frequency (n¼ 455) Away Frequency (n¼ 431) v2(1) Residuala

Invasions

Spatial Invasion 132 (29.0%) 50 (11.0%) 63.38�� 75

Phone Invasion 49 (10.8%) 44 (9.7%) 0.10 �2

Online Invasion 33 (7.3%) 26 (5.7%) 0.87 �5

Verbal Invasion 134 (29.5%) 84 (18.5%) 20.64�� 43

No Invasion 171 (37.6%) 270 (59.3%) 69.79�� þ84

Defenses

Spatial Defense 100 (22.0%) 18 (4.0%) 80.06�� 77

Phone Defense 17 (3.7%) 30 (6.6%) 12.72�� þ14

Online Defense 17 (3.7%) 8 (1.8%) 4.15� �8

Verbal Defense 155 (34.1%) 90 (19.8%) 33.54�� 57

No Defense 186 (40.9%) 286 (62.9%) 116.20�� 110

Note. Column totals do not equal 100% because participants could mention more than one type of invasive

behavior.aNegative residuals indicate that the supercategory occurred less frequently when away at college than when

home. Likewise, positive residuals indicate the supercategory occurred more frequently at college than at home.�p< .05. ��p< .01.



Relatedly, the sixth research question asked whether children’s defensive behaviors

at home predict such behaviors when away at college. As with invasive behaviors,

examination of the Phi correlation coefficients among these variables (see Table 4)

suggests that children tend to enact defensive behaviors across the same media when

away at college as they do at home. Phone defense was an exception to this trend and

was significantly associated instead with spatial defense at college. Spatial defenses at

home were associated with verbal defense when away. Those who reported engaging

in no defensive behaviors at home were less likely to engage in spatial defense and

more likely to engage in verbal defense when at college.

The seventh and eighth research questions addressed the relationship between par-

ental invasive behaviors and children’s defensive behaviors when at home and away at

college, respectively. Table 5 shows Phi correlation coefficients for the associations

among these behaviors. Evidence for the principle of media reciprocation, akin to

patterns observed in the data pertaining to the fifth and sixth research questions, con-

tinued to emerge here, such that invasive behaviors across a particular medium are

associated with defensive behaviors across the same medium. Several other significant

associations emerged beyond this trend. Spatial invasive behaviors correlated posi-

tively with verbal defense when at home and away at college, although such invasive

behaviors at college were also inversely associated with telephone defense. Telephone

invasive behaviors were associated with a variety of defenses, including spatial and

phone defenses at home and verbal defensive behaviors when away. Curiously, when

at home, online invasions were associated with an absence of defensive behaviors

Table 4 Phi Correlations Assessing Whether Behaviors at Home are Associated with

Behaviors When Away at College

Variables Spatial-Away Phone-Away Online-Away Verbal-Away None-Away

Parental Invasions

1. Spatial Invasion-Home .19�� .01 .08 �.08 �.07

2. Phone Invasion-Home .11� .16�� .20�� .10� �.19��

3. Online Invasion-Home �.01 >�.01 .28�� <.01 �.02

4. Verbal Invasion-Home �.11� .18�� .12� .37�� .27��

5. No Invasion-Home �.09 �.14�� .06 �.22�� .30��

Children’s Defenses

1. Spatial Defense-Home .15�� .04 .15 �.12� �.01

2. Phone Defense-Home .15�� .05 �.03 >�.01 �.05

3. Online Defense-Home .09 �.05 .16�� .07 <.01

4. Verbal Defense-Home >�.01 .05 �.06 .33�� .26��

5. No Defense-Home �.13�� .08 �.01 .20�� .27��

Note. The upper block presents Phi correlation coefficients between parental invasive behaviors at home and

parental invasive behaviors when away at college. The lower block presents Phi correlation coefficients between

children’s defensive behaviors at home and children’s defensive behaviors when away at college.�p< .05. ��p< .01.



and positively associated with spatial defense. Verbal invasions at home were inver-

sely associated with online defenses.

Discussion

In light of accounts of increasing parental technological intrusion (Merriman, 2007),

the chief goal of this investigation was to refine Petronio’s (1994) typology of parental

invasive and children’s defensive behaviors in accounting for such mediated inva-

sions. Results not only provided a basis for such a revised typology but also identified

the frequency and associations among such behaviors. Among the potential implica-

tions of these findings, this discussion focuses chiefly on differences from Petronio’s

(1994) results (i.e., both in the reported frequency of invasions and composition

of the typology), differences in parental invasive behaviors at home versus when

children are away at college, and children’s defensive responses to parental invasions.

We conclude by considering practical applications for students, parents, and

university officials.

Differences from Petronio’s (1994) Findings

The first four research questions addressed the nature and frequency of invasive and

defensive behaviors in parent=undergraduate relationships. That parental invasive

and children’s defensive behaviors were relatively rare was perhaps the most striking,

and unexpected, finding of this investigation. Although most participants identified

Table 5 Phi Correlations Comparing Invasive=Defensive Patterns at Home and When

Away at College

Variables Spatial Defense Phone Defense Online Defense Verbal Defense No Defense

At Home

1. Spatial Invasion .32�� .05 .03 .13�� .30��

2. Phone Invasion .12�� .38�� .12� .08 �.25��

3. Online Invasion .18�� .08 .44�� .06 .13��

4. Verbal Invasion �.06 �.03 �.10� .34�� .23��

5. No Invasion �.24�� .06 �.08 �.40�� .55��

Away at College

1. Spatial Invasion .47�� .10� �.05 .13�� .25��

2. Phone Invasion �.07 .51�� .05 .11� .29��

3. Online Invasion >.01 �.03 .47�� .09 �.17��

4. Verbal Invasion �.07 .07 �.02 .54�� .44��

5. No Invasion �.19�� .22�� .16�� .47�� .62��

Note. The upper block presents Phi correlation coefficients between parental invasive behaviors and children’s

defensive behaviors when at home. The lower block presents Phi correlation coefficients between such behaviors

when away at college.�p< .05. ��p< .01.



at least one parental invasive behavior that occurred when at home, almost 60%

reported no invasive behaviors when away at college. The frequency of children’s

defensive behaviors showed a similar pattern. This relative rarity contrasts with popu-

lar press concern about mediated privacy invasions (Jayson, 2007). The results differ

even more sharply from Petronio’s (1994). In her sample, ‘‘only 3% of the respon-

dents did not identify a type of invasion, suggesting that parental invasion for these

college children was not unusual’’ (p. 246). Of course, it is worth considering whether

methodological differences produced this discrepancy. We attempted to pattern this

study closely after Petronio’s (1994); however, we must concede that the paucity of

methodological information in her report leaves open the possibility of methodolo-

gical artifacts. Even in light of that possibility, the magnitude of the obtained differ-

ence seems to offer compelling evidence of a true change in the population parameter

over the past two decades.

One could conclude, then, that management of parent-child privacy produces less

boundary turbulence for undergraduates today than approximately 20 years ago.

The formal propositions of CPM suggest at least two possibilities for explaining this

finding in light of technological development. First, the decrease in frequency of

invasive behaviors may signal a shift in parental communication patterns and, perhaps,

attitudes toward their college-aged children. In other words, it is possible that parents

of current undergraduates are less prone, say, to search through their children’s rooms

than were parents of the previous generation. CPM helps explain why this may be so.

Petronio (2002) argues that changing privacy rule orientations may generate boundary

turbulence when a child ‘‘[develops] a separate identity apart from his or her family’’

(p. 74). Prior to recent proliferation of newer communication technologies, families

shared many communication channels in common. For example, all family members

shared use of the house’s single landline phone and access to the same postal mailbox.

In such a family communicative environment, parents may have been used to some

oversight of adolescent communication behavior, and thus the formation of a separate

communicative identity did not occur until leaving home (for some, to college). In the

language of CPM, privacy rule management in the case of separate, individualized

communication channels may not have been routinized during the college years. But

in the current media environment, many adolescents possess private cell phones and

online technology (e.g., personal email addresses and social network site accounts) well

prior to college; Wellman et al. (2003) refer to this phenomenon as networked indi-

vidualism, and Ling and Yttri (2002) document how adolescents use such technology

to regulate parent-child privacy and disclosure. Thus, by the time adolescents reach

college, patterns of privacy regulation vis-a-vis individual communication channels

may already be routinized, thus minimizing occurrence of boundary turbulence.

Alternatively but relatedly, previous theory suggests that increased independence is a

defining characteristic of adolescence (Arnett, 1994); perhaps dissemination of such

theory (via college education, media outlets, and so forth) has further helped routinize

privacy expectations for parents and their college children.

Yet, a second possible explanation is that behaviors perceived as invasive by pre-

vious generations of undergraduates are no longer perceived as such. In other words,



these results may not so much signal a shift in parents’ communicative behavior as a

shift in young adult children’s perceptions of that behavior. In the language of CPM,

undergraduate students may view their private information as falling within the col-

lective boundary of the family. Pryor, Hurtado, Sharkness, and Korn’s (2008) recent

report that undergraduates are generally satisfied with their parents’ level of involve-

ment supports this interpretation. If current undergraduates ‘‘are often exceedingly

close to their parents’’ (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2008, p. 22), this closeness may

blind students to independence-threatening parental invasive behaviors. Moreover,

Haythornthwaite’s (2005) media multiplexity theory suggests that interdependence

is associated with the number of communication media that relational partners

use with each other, a claim supported by empirical research (Ledbetter, 2009). Thus,

to the extent that new communication technology both fosters a sense of relational

closeness, young adult children may be more willing to co-own private information

with their parents. Indeed, this interpretation supports concerns about helicopter

parenting, a form of frequent parental involvement that the college student may

welcome (Merriman, 2007).

Beyond the striking trend of fewer invasions, our typology also differs somewhat

from that developed by Petronio (1994). The revision aimed chiefly at accounting for

mediated privacy invasions that were less salient in the late 1980s and early 1990s. We

also collapsed some of Petronio’s (1994) categories into larger units (e.g., for inva-

sions, ‘‘give unsolicited advice’’ was included with ‘‘make demands’’; for defenses,

‘‘using signs such as ‘keep out’’’ and ‘‘asking their parents to stop’’ were combined

into ‘‘direct requests to stop invasions’’). Whether the underlying factor structure

of our typology conforms to Petronio’s (1994) differentiation between subversive=direct invasions and confrontational=evasive defenses remains an open question that

could be effectively addressed via confirmatory factor analysis. Apart from such for-

mal analysis, we do not portray our typology as superior to Petronio’s (1994), but

merely as an alternative offering a different theoretical lens.

Invasive/Defensive Behaviors at Home and Away at College

Previous research concerning the parent-collegiate child relationship identifies dis-

tance (i.e., the child’s relocation away from the parental home) as a theoretical mech-

anism that drives children’s sense of independence (Flanagan et al., 1993; Larose &

Boivin, 1998). Thus, our fifth and sixth research questions addressed the extent to

which home invasive=defensive behaviors are associated with such behaviors when

at college. Both spatial and verbal invasions were less frequent at college than at

home. The frequency of mediated (i.e., phone and online) invasions did not differ,

which may provide some support for the argument that new communication tech-

nologies enable parents to invade from a distance. However, this interpretation is

tempered by the relative infrequency of mediated invasions. Relatedly, children’s

defensive behaviors occurred less frequently at college with the exception of signifi-

cantly more telephone defenses. This may suggest that children view phone com-

munication as more threatening to their autonomy than online communication.



Ling and Yttri (2002) have documented that adolescents use phone calls to screen

information that parents receive, and it is likely that the current study’s participants

conduct boundary coordination similarly.

Taken as a whole, then, it appears that spatial copresence and synchronous verbal

interaction (e.g., the phone) create communicative contexts that are particularly

amenable to parental invasive behaviors. Although Petronio (2002) is silent on the

role of new communication technology in privacy invasions, both media richness

theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986) and Goffman’s (1967) theory of the self offer theoretical

constructs that suggest why face-to-face and phone communication may foster such

invasions. Media richness theory portrays online communication as lacking in non-

verbal cues and, thus, a poor medium for managing ambiguous information. Some

parental invasive behaviors may necessitate careful detection of nonverbal cues. If so,

parents may find online media poor for privacy invasions. Relatedly, additional cues

may lead children to perceive spatial and verbal privacy invasions as particularly

threatening.

Along this line of reasoning, Goffman (1967) theorizes that an individual performs

multiple roles before multiple audiences, and a person becomes uncomfortable if a

performance is called into question by the entrance of an unexpected audience mem-

ber. Therefore, people tend to avoid performances in the presence of mixed audiences,

such as one with parents and friends. O’Sullivan (2000) notes that ‘‘mediated chan-

nels . . . can be utilized strategically by interactional partners . . . as an opportunity

to regulate information exchanged between partners as a means of managing

self-presentations’’ (p. 406). For example, answering a call from mother in front of

the student’s friends may force decisions about which self to perform: friend, party

animal, or child. To avoid embarrassment, the student may avoid mixed audiences

by declining to accept calls from mother when she or he is around friends, as caller

identification greatly facilitates such selective filtering of incoming calls (Ling & Yttri,

2002). Such filtering, in turn, permits students to segregate their audiences and to

maintain face. As such filtering is more difficult when face-to-face, it follows that

face-to-face spatial and verbal invasions ostensibly present the most threat to face.

O’Sullivan’s (2000) finding that people prefer mediated channels for face-threatening

performances further supports this line of argumentation. Thus, one possible avenue

for refining CPM is to further elaborate how medium selection functions as a form of

boundary coordination and a means of avoiding boundary turbulence.

Associations among Various Forms of Invasive and Defensive Behaviors

The seventh and eighth research questions involved the association between types of

invasions and types of defenses. Although the results revealed an intuitively appealing

reciprocal pattern between invasions and similar defenses, correlational analyses also

suggested that children may not always respond to parental invasions via the same

medium. When at home, children enacted spatial defenses against spatial, phone,

and online invasions. If children and their invasive parents share a living space,

removing themselves from the vicinity of their parents (or, alternatively, taking steps



to safeguard information in their room) may take particular exigency for children.

Parental spatial invasions were also associated with verbal defenses, which suggest

that children may try to use verbal communication to construct a privacy boundary

around their personal space (perhaps leading to explicit conflict; Renk et al., 2006).

Phone invasions were associated with a variety of defensive behaviors, including spa-

tial, phone, and online defenses. Some parents may view the phone as did a father in

Palen, Salzman, and Youngs’ (2001) investigation, who ‘‘described the phone as a

kind of ‘umbilical cord’, that would allow her some independence while ensuring

bidirectional accessibility’’ (p. 113); the very metaphor (i.e., of an umbilical cord)

suggests that mobile phones may forge a connection to parents that is, perhaps,

developmentally immature. To the extent that children perceive mobile phone use

to hinder their developing independence (Ling & Yttri, 2002), such invasions may

prompt children to use a variety of defensive behaviors.

At college, parental phone invasions were associated with fewer forms of defense,

with significant associations only for phone and verbal defenses. Indeed, verbal

defenses emerged as particularly common when students were away, as they were sig-

nificantly associated with spatial, phone, and verbal invasions. When children do not

share a living space with their parents, direct verbal requests may be their most useful

method of addressing privacy invasions. Although verbal defenses were reportedly

less frequent at college versus home, the correlational results may indicate that some

children shift from indirect (e.g., spatial) forms of defense to more direct (e.g., ver-

bal) defenses when at college. Consistent with Flanagan and her colleagues’ (1993)

evidence that independence is one of the most frequent topics of parent-child

conflict, this may exacerbate parent-child boundary turbulence.

Practical Application

These results offer empirical evidence of a significant generational shift. It is reason-

able to assume that many university professors and administrators attended college

during the 1980s and 1990s, with Petronio’s (1994) research suggesting that under-

graduates of that generation generally perceived parental influence attempts nega-

tively. Thus, administrative perception of the degree of parental influence may be

biased by the generational divide that separates them from undergraduates (as well

as the practical challenges parental involvement imposes; White, 2005). To the extent

that parental influence hinders achievement of adult independence, administrators’

concerns in this domain are justified; however, previous research also suggests that

parental social support aids undergraduate success (Rodriguez, Mira, Myers, Morris,

& Cardoza, 2003). Close parental involvement is, to some degree, then, desirable. As

such, not only should administrators refrain from discouraging undergraduates from

including their parents in decision making but also affirm that they bear ultimate

responsibility for their choices. Toward this end, restricting direct parental access

to professors and university staff (e.g., the registrar) is arguably a healthy boundary.

Some colleges have established Web sites targeted at increasing parental involvement

(Elam et al., 2008). Especially as online communication may reduce face threats and



may facilitate impression management (O’Sullivan, 2000), as well as reduce the need

to directly=verbally communicate with university officials, such sites may facilitate

healthy parent-child boundary coordination.

Although relatively infrequent, phone invasions at home were significantly corre-

lated with a variety of invasive behaviors when away at college; one might assume,

therefore, that frequent phone invasions serve as evidence of an overall pattern of dis-

tressing parent=child privacy boundary management. If practitioners (e.g., college

counselors or professors) learn that undergraduates are distressed by parental phone

calls, they might encourage greater use of online communication within the

parent-child relationship. The asynchronicity of some online communication permits

both undergraduates and parents to respond when convenient (Walther, 1996) and,

thereby, to restore a privacy boundary around the student’s time. Additionally, the

relative lack of nonverbal cues facilitates greater control of impression management

between children and parents (O’Sullivan, 2000). Likewise, parents should exercise

caution regarding how they use the phone to communicate with their undergraduate

children, as phone defenses were the only type participants reported engaging in

more frequently at college than at home.

Parents and administrators may contribute to healthy independence, but the

undergraduate is most responsible for achieving this outcome. Hence, undergradu-

ates should prepare themselves for boundary turbulence with parents (Flanagan

et al., 1993). These results also suggest that boundary turbulence may be less common

for current undergraduates than those of a prior generation. Thus, as the greater dan-

ger may rest in overreliance on parents (Merriman, 2007), undergraduates should

recognize the desire to communicate less frequently with their parents as normal

(Parke & Sawin, 1979). As most boundary turbulence is spatial and verbal in nature,

undergraduates should make proactive decisions about the frequency of visits home

and, perhaps, directly address parental invasions when they occur.

Conclusion

This investigation was an attempt to update Petronio’s (1994) typology in light of the

widespread adoption of newer communication technologies, and, as such, it elaborates

the role of medium selection in boundary turbulence and subsequent coordination.

As with any research, the findings must be interpreted in light of the limitations of

the research design. The sample consisted of predominantly Caucasian undergradu-

ates; as previous research shows ethnic=racial differences in the transition to college

(Hurtado et al., 2007), the results may not generalize to other populations. The

cross-sectional nature of the design greatly limits claims about mutually causal rela-

tionships among types of parental invasive behaviors and children’s defensive beha-

viors, as CPM claims that both reciprocally and dialectically function together in

ongoing processes of boundary coordination (Petronio, 2002); longitudinal research

could inform the theoretical and practical implications of this line of research.

Regardless of college attendance, young adulthood presents unique communicat-

ive challenges within the parent-child relationship. For some young adults, cycling



between distance and proximity complexifies the maintenance, turbulence, and res-

toration of privacy boundaries. It is not surprising, then, that distance-transcending

communication media alter the contours of privacy management, but much remains

to be investigated regarding the practical implications of this reconfiguration for par-

ents, children, and the university officials that work with them. We hope that the

results will inform discussion of the frequency and significance of such invasive=defensive behaviors and, in so doing, eventually provide undergraduates with a less

turbulent journey to adult independence.

References

Afifi, A. D., Olson, L. N., & Armstrong, C. (2005). The chilling effect and family secrets: Examining

the role of self protection, other protection, and communication efficacy. Human Communi-

cation Research, 31, 564–598.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships.

New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Arnett, J. J. (1994). Are college students adults? Their conceptions of the transition to adulthood.

Journal of Adult Development, 1, 213–224.

Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York:

Guilford.

Boneva, B., Quinn, A., Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Cummings, J., & Shklovski, I. (2006). Teenage

communication in the instant messaging era. In R. Kraut, M. Brynin, & S. Kiesler (Eds.),

Computers, phones, and the Internet: Domesticating information technology (pp. 201–218).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Caughlin, J. P., & Petronio, S. (2004). Privacy in families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of

family communication (pp. 379–412). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression=correlationanalysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cooney, T. M. (2000). Parent-child relationships in young and older adulthood. In R. Milardo &

S. Duck (Eds.), Families as relationships (pp. 39–58). Sussex, England: John Wiley.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and

structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2008). Welcoming a new generation to college: The

millennial students. Journal of College Admission, 195, 20–25.

Flanagan, C., Schulenberg, J., & Fuligni, A. (1993). Residential setting and parent-adolescent

relationships during the college years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22, 171–189.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Pantheon.

Golish, T. D. (2000). Changes in closeness between adult children and their parents: A turning

point analysis. Communication Reports, 13, 79–97.

Greene, A., & Boxer, A. (1986). Daughters and sons as young adults: Restructuring the ties

that bind. In N. Datan, A. Greene, & H. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology:

Intergenerational relations (pp. 125–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information,

Communication & Society, 8, 125–147.

Hoffman, J. A. (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 31, 170–178.

Hurtado, S., Han, J. C., Saenz, V. B., Espinosa, L. L., Cabrera, N. L., & Cerna, O. S. (2007). Pre-

dicting transition and adjustment to college: Biomedical and behavioral science aspirants’

and minority students’ first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 48, 841–887.



Jayson, S. (2007, April 4). ‘‘Helicopter’’ parents appear to defy socioeconomic pegging. USA Today,

p. 5D.

Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (1998). Attachment to parents, social support expectations, and socioemo-

tional adjustment during the high school-college transition. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 8, 1–27.

Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Patterns of media use and multiplexity: Associations with sex, geographic

distance and friendship interdependence. New Media & Society, 11, 1187–1208.

Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007, April 18). Teens, privacy and online social networks. Pew Internet

& American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/

Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks.aspx

Ling, R., & Yttri, B. (2002). Nobody sits at home and waits for the telephone to ring: Micro and

hyper-coordination through the use of the mobile telephone. In J. Katz & M. Aakhus

(Eds.), Perpetual contact (pp. 139–169). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Mayer, R. N. (2003). Technology, families, and privacy: Can we know too much about our loved

ones? Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 419–439.

McKenney, K. D. (1998). Space, body, and mind: Parental perceptions of children’s privacy needs.

Journal of Family Issues, 19, 75–100.

Merriman, L. S. (2007, November 23). It’s your child’s education, not yours. The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 54, B20.

Noller, P. (1995). Parent-adolescent relationships. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.),

Explaining family interactions (pp. 77–111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Sullivan, P. B. (2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management

functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research,

26, 403–431.

Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech,

70, 274–287.

Palen, L., Salzman, M., & Youngs, E. (2001). Discovery and integration of mobile communications

in everyday life. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5, 109–122.

Parke, R., & Sawin, D. (1979). Children’s privacy in the home: Developmental, ecological, and

child-rearing determinants. Environment and Behavior, 11, 87–104.

Pecchioni, L. L., Wright, K. B., & Nussbaum, J. F. (2005). Life-span communication. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Petronio, S. (1994). Privacy binds in family interactions: The case of parental privacy invasion.

In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication

(pp. 241–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of

New York.

Petronio, S. (2004). Road to developing communication privacy management theory: Narrative in

progress, please stand by. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 193–207.

Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Sharkness, J., & Korn, W. S. (2008). The American freshman: National

norms for Fall 2007 [research brief]. Higher Education Research Institute at University

of California-Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/pr-display.php?

prQry=11

Renk, K., Roddenberry, A., Oliveros, A., Roberts, R., Meehan, C., & Liljequist, L. (2006). An exam-

ination of conflict in emerging adulthood between college students and their parents. Journal

of Intergenerational Relationships, 4, 43–61.

Rodriguez, N., Mira, C. B., Myers, H. F., Morris, J. K., & Cardoza, D. (2003). Family or friends:

Who plays a greater supportive role for Latino college students? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 9, 236–250.

Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated

communication. Communication Research, 21, 427–459.



Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyper-

personal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.

Wellman, B., Quan-Haase, A. Q., Boase, J., Chen, W., Hampton, K., de Diaz, I. I., et al. (2003). The

social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated

Communication, 8. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/wellman.html

White, W. S. (2005). Students, parents, colleges: Drawing the lines. The Chronicle of Higher

Education, 52, B16.



Date post:	18-Dec-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	michele-battle-fisher
View:	881 times
Download:	2 times

Parental Invasive and Children's Defensive Behaviors at Home and Away at College

Documents