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

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

Communication Studies
Publication 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 Away
at College: Mediated Communication and Privacy Boundary Management
Andrew 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 the
Department of Health Promotion, School of Public Health at Tel Aviv University, Israel c Public Health
at 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: Mediated
Communication and Privacy Boundary Management', Communication Studies, 61: 2, 184 — 204
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10510971003603960
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510971003603960

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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 or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should 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 directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

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

Parental Invasive and Children’s
Defensive Behaviors at Home and
Away at College: Mediated
Communication and Privacy
Boundary Management
Downloaded By: [Wright State University] At: 19:49 13 April 2011

Andrew 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:
ledbette@ohio.edu

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2010 Central States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10510971003603960

Parental Invasive Behaviors 185
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

186 A. M. Ledbetter et al.
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 might
construct 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 problems
or issues he or she faces to other family members. On the other hand, other families
might have restricted orientation rules about disclosure and be more private. For
these families, the members construct rules that limit the disclosure to one another,
insisting that each member should solve his or her own problems without talking
about 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 begin
to form an individual set of criteria or rules for privacy regulation over information
that is considered personally private. These rules may differ from family privacy
orientations. . . . The other family members may see this divergence from a general
orientation 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 . . . function
in 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

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 in
invasive behaviors toward their young adult children?
RQ2: In what ways do young adult children use communication technologies to
defend themselves against parental invasive behaviors?
RQ3: What are the relative frequencies of different types of parental invasive
behaviors?
RQ4: What are the relative frequencies of different types of young adult children’s
defensive 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 invasive
behaviors when away at college?
RQ6: Are children’s defensive behaviors at home associated with their defensive
RQ7: What children’s defensive behaviors are associated with parental invasive
behaviors when at home?
RQ8: What children’s defensive behaviors are associated with parental invasive

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 (n ¼ 271; 59.6%) and predominantly reported a white=
Caucasian ethnic identity (n ¼ 395; 86.8%), with ages ranging from 18 to 39 years
(M ¼ 20.4, SD ¼ 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 when
you 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 (n ¼ 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 ‘‘[They] often want me to come home and spend time with them;’’
home to visit ‘‘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 ‘‘Listen when on the phone;’’ ‘‘She’ll listen to me talking on the
conversations phone. . . . She’ll turn the TV down.’’
Computer Invasions
Reading blogs=social ‘‘Get on Facebook;’’ ‘‘My mom would sometimes try to read my
networking sites online blog.’’
Checking online accounts ‘‘Check grades online;’’ ‘‘Checking . . . online bank account.’’
Unwelcome online ‘‘They send me way too many emails;’’ ‘‘My dad emails me right
communication right [sic] wing spam.’’
Reading private online ‘‘When I am using the computer, they come behind me and read
communication 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.’’

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= ‘‘I just shut my door;’’ ‘‘I stayed in my room for the most part
bathroom doors 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 ‘‘Sometimes I don’t answer the phone when they are calling if I
parental phone calls am not home;’’ ‘‘Don’t answer . . . or hang up.’’
Make phone calls outside the ‘‘Talk on the phone outside;’’ ‘‘Talk on the phone away from
parental home=in secret everyone.’’
Computer Defenses
Conceal online ‘‘Use the computer when no one else is in the room;’’ ‘‘Close IMs
communication and delete emails.’’
Filter blog=social network ‘‘I try to be descreet [sic] in how things are displayed on
site information [Facebook].’’
Do not respond to parental ‘‘I ignore the emails.’’
online communication
Verbal Defenses
Inflict emotional distress ‘‘I give them the silent treatment for awhile;’’ ‘‘Raise my voice, talk
back.’’
Make direct request to ‘‘I have sat them down and explained how it bothers me;’’ ‘‘I ask
stop invasion 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.’’

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

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

Table 3 Frequencies of Parental Invasive Behaviors at Home and Away at College
Behavior Type Home Frequency (n ¼ 455) Away Frequency (n ¼ 431) v2(1) Residuala

Invasions
Spatial Invasion 132 (29.0%) 50 (11.0%) 63.38ÃÃ À75
Phone Invasion 49 (10.8%) 44 (9.7%) 0.10 À2
Online Invasion 33 (7.3%) 26 (5.7%) 0.87 À5
Verbal Invasion 134 (29.5%) 84 (18.5%) 20.64ÃÃ À43
No Invasion 171 (37.6%) 270 (59.3%) 69.79ÃÃ þ84
Defenses
Spatial Defense 100 (22.0%) 18 (4.0%) 80.06ÃÃ À77
Phone Defense 17 (3.7%) 30 (6.6%) 12.72ÃÃ þ14
Online Defense 17 (3.7%) 8 (1.8%) 4.15Ã À8
Verbal Defense 155 (34.1%) 90 (19.8%) 33.54ÃÃ À57

No Defense 186 (40.9%) 286 (62.9%) 116.20ÃÃ À110

Note. Column totals do not equal 100% because participants could mention more than one type of invasive
behavior.
a
Negative 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.
Ã
p < .05. ÃÃ p < .01.

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 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 .19ÃÃ .01 .08 À.08 À.07
2. Phone Invasion-Home .11Ã .16ÃÃ .20ÃÃ .10Ã À.19ÃÃ
3. Online Invasion-Home À.01 > À.01 .28ÃÃ <.01 À.02
4. Verbal Invasion-Home À.11Ã .18ÃÃ À.12Ã .37ÃÃ À.27ÃÃ
5. No Invasion-Home À.09 À.14ÃÃ À.06 À.22ÃÃ .30ÃÃ
Children’s Defenses
1. Spatial Defense-Home .15ÃÃ .04 .15 À.12Ã À.01
2. Phone Defense-Home .15ÃÃ À.05 À.03 > À.01 À.05
3. Online Defense-Home .09 À.05 .16ÃÃ À.07 <.01

4. Verbal Defense-Home > À.01 .05 À.06 .33ÃÃ À.26ÃÃ
5. No Defense-Home À.13ÃÃ À.08 À.01 .20ÃÃ .27ÃÃ

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.
Ã
p < .05. ÃÃ 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 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 .32ÃÃ À.05 .03 .13ÃÃ À.30ÃÃ
2. Phone Invasion .12ÃÃ .38ÃÃ .12Ã .08 À.25ÃÃ
3. Online Invasion .18ÃÃ .08 .44ÃÃ À.06 .13ÃÃ
4. Verbal Invasion À.06 À.03 À.10Ã .34ÃÃ À.23ÃÃ
5. No Invasion À.24ÃÃ À.06 À.08 À.40ÃÃ .55ÃÃ
Away at College
1. Spatial Invasion .47ÃÃ À.10Ã À.05 .13ÃÃ À.25ÃÃ
2. Phone Invasion À.07 .51ÃÃ À.05 .11Ã .29ÃÃ
3. Online Invasion >.01 À.03 .47ÃÃ .09 À.17ÃÃ

4. Verbal Invasion À.07 .07 À.02 .54ÃÃ À.44ÃÃ
5. No Invasion À.19ÃÃ À.22ÃÃ À.16ÃÃ À.47ÃÃ .62ÃÃ

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.
Ã
p < .05. ÃÃ 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

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

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

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

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

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

Semelhante a Parental Invasive and Children's Defensive Behaviors at Home and Away at College (20)

Mais de Michele Battle-Fisher

Mais de Michele Battle-Fisher (6)

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