COM 207 Arizona State University Coding Sheet Computer Science Task

Com207 Practice Coding Sheet
(A) APA Citation (type the full APA reference below, double space w/ handing indent)
(B) Rationale, pp. ________ (list the page(s) where the study’s rationale is located)
Provide 2 reasons. You do not need to use complete sentences:
(C) Theory/Theoretical Framework: pp. _____ (List the pages where the theory is discussed)
(D) Research Subjects: pp. _____ (List the pages where participant information is located)
(E) Hypotheses: pp. ________ (List pages where the hypotheses are located)
How many hypotheses are included in this research study article? _________
Write out word for word and include quotation marks for H1 and H2 below. Put page numbers
in parentheses at the end of each hypothesis.
H1:
H2:
(F) Methods: pp. ________ (List the pages where the methods are located)
Describe the methodology used and the specific details of how data was collected. You do not
need to use complete sentences:
How was the data analyzed? You do not need to use complete sentences.
(G) Findings, pp. _______
1
Com207 Practice Coding Sheet
H1 was (Circle one: supported, partially supported, not supported).
Now explain what this means in your own words:
H2 was (Circle one: supported, partially supported, not supported).
Now explain what this means in your own words:
(H). Additional information that might be useful
In which paradigm does this article fit: (Select one) Social Scientific or Interpretive or
Critical?
2
Communication Research Reports
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcrr20
Shielding SNS content from parents: a survey
investigating perspectives of emerging adults who
have recently left the parental home
Martin Tanis & Moniek Buijzen
To cite this article: Martin Tanis & Moniek Buijzen (2021) Shielding SNS content from parents:
a survey investigating perspectives of emerging adults who have recently left the parental home,
Communication Research Reports, 38:1, 1-11, DOI: 10.1080/08824096.2020.1867090
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2020.1867090
© 2021 The Author(s). Published with
license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Published online: 31 Jan 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1616
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcrr20
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS
2021, VOL. 38, NO. 1, 1–11
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2020.1867090
Shielding SNS content from parents: a survey investigating
perspectives of emerging adults who have recently left the
parental home
Martin Tanis
and Moniek Buijzen
ABSTRACT
KEYWORDS
Emerging adults are increasingly “unfriending” their parents on
Social Networking Sites (SNS). A survey among 300 emerging
adults who recently moved out of the parental home investi­
gated whether family communication patterns were related to
shielding of SNS content from parents and whether perceived
undesirability of privacy invasion mediated this relation.
Structural equation modeling analyses showed that emerging
adults from high conformity-oriented families reported higher
perceived undesirability of privacy invasion, which related to
higher shielding of SNS content. In contrast, emerging adults
from high conversation-oriented families reported lower per­
ceived undesirability of privacy invasion, which related to lower
shielding of SNS content.
Social media; privacy;
emerging adults; parent–
child relations; family
communication
There are many anecdotes of young people regretting the fact that they are
“friends” with their parents on Social Networking Sites (SNS), not only
because they feel embarrassed by their parents’ posts, but also because they
do not feel comfortable with the idea that parents can see what they themselves
are posting, sharing, or liking. Feelings like these can result in young people
shielding SNS content from parents, such as “unfriending” or blocking par­
ents, or being more careful about what their parents can see of their SNS
activities (Madden et al., 2013; Moser, Chen, & Schoenebeck, 2017; Yang,
2018). In the present study, we zoom in on SNS shielding behavior of a specific
group of young people: those who have recently left the parental home and
have started living on their own.
For many young people, moving out of the parental home is an important
step. Leaving home marks the period of emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004), in
which young people gradually adjust to adulthood, independence, and
a “mature” sense of control with increased autonomy and privacy (Deutscher,
1964; Gierveld, Liefbroer, & Beekink, 1991; Jones, 1995; Kins, Beyers, Soenens, &
Vansteenkiste, 2009; Mitchell & Lovegreen, 2009; Rudi, Dworkin, Walker, &
Doty, 2015; Steinberg & Silk, 2002). According to Arnett, “having left the
Correspondence: Martin Tanis
m.a.tanis@vu.nl
Department of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2
M. TANIS & M. BUIJZEN
dependency of . . . adolescence, and having not yet entered the enduring respon­
sibilities that are normative in adulthood, emerging adults often explore a variety
of possible life directions in love, work, and worldviews” (Arnett, 2000, p. 469).
For parents too, this period is characterized by a transition to a less prominent
parenting role. Initially, parents may attempt to maintain familiar parenting
patterns (see also Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2004) and keep a close eye on what their
child is doing and with whom. Thus, emerging adults may desire more privacy
and control over what they share with their parents, whereas parents may feel it
necessary to stay informed about their children’s lives and maintain a sense of
connection and control (Kennedy-Lightsey & Frisby, 2016).
One way for parents to keep an eye on what their child is doing is by using
social network sites (SNS) such as Facebook, Instagram, Google+, and Twitter.
Research by Duggan, Lenhart, Lampe, and Ellison (2015) revealed that 75% of
parents use SNS at least some of the time to retrieve information about children’s
whereabouts and activities. This does not stop when the child flees the family nest:
Tanis, van der Louw, and Buijzen (2017) showed that parents are even more active
on their child’s SNS right around the time children leave the parental home. This
behavior was at least partly predicted by the wish of parents to keep track of their
children.
As yet, there remains the question of how emerging adult children perceive
and respond to such parental SNS activities. Anecdotes indicate that some
perceive these activities as undesirable privacy invasions, leading them to
shield SNS content from their parents. However, research on privacy invasions
within families (i.e., spatial, verbal, mediated invasion; Ledbetter & Vik, 2012)
suggests that such attitudes (perceived undesirability of privacy invasion) and
behaviors (shielding of SNS content) at least partly depend on general family
communication patterns (Bridge & Schrodt, 2013; Kennedy-Lightsey & Frisby,
2016). Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate whether family com­
munication patterns relate to perceived undesirability of privacy invasion
among emerging adults,’ and, in turn, to shielding SNS content from parents.
Family communication patterns
The family communication literature uses two dimensions to characterize how
families communicate (Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990).
The dimension of conformity-orientation involves “the degree to which family
communication stresses a climate of homogeneity of attitudes, values, and beliefs”
(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 37). Personal interests are subordinate to family
interests, and children are expected to behave in line with their parent(s)’ wishes.
Conversation-orientation is defined as “the degree to which families create
a climate in which all family members are encouraged to participate in unrest­
rained interactions about a wide array of topics” (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002,
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS
3
p. 37). Families with a high conversation-orientation interact spontaneously and
encourage each other to share ideas, thoughts, and feelings.
Conformity-orientation and conversation-orientation are conceptually dis­
tinct dimensions (see Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), variations on each of which
could be reflected in how open emerging adults want to be in their online social
life. For emerging adults living outside the parental home and away from direct
“offline” supervision, the SNS environment may provide an opportunity to
regulate what their parents can see of what they are doing and with whom. For
example, emerging adults can decide to shield their online behavior by not
becoming “friends” with their parents, “unfriending” or “blocking” them, or
blocking specific content. Especially in the period after leaving the parental
home, emerging adults may use this regulating mechanism to gain privacy.
Perceived undesirability of privacy invasion and shielding behavior
For emerging adults, the transition after leaving the home may include
a longing for more privacy (Arnett, 2004, 2007). The fact that parents can
see their online activities may lead to feelings of undesired privacy invasion
(Kanter, Afifi, & Robbins, 2012; Yang, 2018). At the same time, parents may
feel they have the right, or even the obligation, to monitor the emerging adult’s
activities (Petronio, 2010). According to the Communication Privacy
Management Theory, in this situation, emerging adults and parents have
differing ideas about privacy boundaries, ownership, and control (see
Petronio, 2002, 2010).
Kennedy-Lightsey and Frisby (2016) have linked ideas about ownership of
private information to family communication patterns. Their research showed
that parents with a stronger conformity-orientation were more likely to invade
the privacy of the emerging adult. One reason is that parents might feel they
have the right to know what is happening in their child’s life (Petronio, 2010).
At the same time, research has shown that emerging adults in families with
a stronger conformity-orientation had more restricted privacy boundaries
(Bridge & Schrodt, 2013), were more careful about what they posted on social
media, and were more likely to adjust their privacy settings on Facebook (Ball,
Wanzer, & Servoss, 2013).
Based on these findings, we argue that the perception of shared privacy
ownership by parents with a strong conformity-orientation (Kennedy-Lightsey
& Frisby, 2016; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002) may be related to children’s longing
for more privacy that accompanies emerging adulthood (Arnett, 2004, 2007),
associated with shielding behaviors designed to protect against parental privacy
invasions (Ledbetter & Vik, 2012). This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: Emerging adults who experience a more conformity-oriented family
communication pattern perceive higher undesirability of parental privacy
4
M. TANIS & M. BUIJZEN
invasions on SNS, and are therefore more likely to shield SNS content from
their parents.
For families with a conversation-oriented communication pattern, we expect
the opposite. Emerging adults from families with a conversation-oriented com­
munication pattern typically exhibit more permeable privacy boundaries (Bridge
& Schrodt, 2013, p. 4) and therefore develop fewer defensive behaviors to protect
themselves against parental privacy invasions (Ledbetter & Vik, 2012). This is in
line with findings by Avtgis (1999) which show that people from families with
a high conversation-orientation had a higher tendency to communicate with
others and view conversation as a rewarding process, whereas people from low
conversation-oriented families were more likely to avoid communicating.
Research by Booth-Butterfield and Sidelinger (1998) revealed that children and
parents in families with an open communication style talked more about sensitive
topics such as alcohol use and sex, supporting the assumption that a conversationoriented communication pattern is associated with less shielding behavior,
because sharing potentially sensitive information will not be perceived as an
undesirable invasion of privacy. This results in our second hypothesis:
H2: Emerging adults who experience a more conversation-oriented family com­
munication pattern perceive lower undesirability of parental privacy invasions on
SNS, and are therefore less likely to shield SNS content from their parents.
Methods
Procedure and sample
We tested our hypotheses using a sample of people living in the US, between
18 and 30 years old, who had moved out of the parental home less than 2 years
ago (cf. Tanis et al., 2017), who had an account on at least one of the most
popular SNS in the US at that moment (Facebook, Instagram, Google+,
Twitter; PEW, 2017), and had one or more parents who had an account on
the same SNS. Respondents, recruited in May 2017 through MTurk, were told
that their responses would be used for scientific research only and that the data
would be analyzed anonymously. Respondents were asked to provide active
consent and, upon doing so, received 1.80 USD for their participation. The
study received IRB approval.
From our initial sample (N = 425), 331 respondents indicated that they
themselves as well as at least one of their parents had an account on one or
more of the aforementioned SNS. An attention check item, “It is important
that you pay attention to this study. Please tick ‘Strongly disagree’ to indicate
your attention” (Chandler, Mueller, & Paolacci, 2014) flagged 31 respondents
COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS
5
who were removed from the main analysis. This resulted in a total sample of
N = 300 (female: n = 136; 45%), average age = 25.70 years, SD = 3.28, average
number of months living away from the parental home = 13.51, SD = 6.58.
Measures
Family Communication Patterns
Family communication patterns were measured with the scale developed by
Ritchie and Fitzpatrick (1990) consisting of 26 items (1 = strongly disagree; 5 =
strongly agree). Items were averaged to create separate measures for
a conformity-oriented communication pattern (11 items, e.g., “My parent(s)
often say something like: ‘There are some things that just shouldn’t be talked
about,’” M = 2.89, SD = 0.81, α = .87) and a conversation-oriented commu­
nication pattern (15 items, e.g., “My parent(s) encourage me to challenge their
ideas and beliefs,” M = 3.44, SD = 0.80, α = .93).
Perceived Undesirability of Privacy Invasion
Five items measured the extent to which respondents perceived it as an
undesirable invasion of their privacy that their parents could oversee their
SNS content: “My parent(s) do not have to see everything I do on Social
Network Sites,” “What I do on Social Network Sites is none of my parent(s)’
business,” “I find it annoying that my parent(s) can see me on Social Network
Sites,” “I don’t mind that my parent(s) can see me on Social Network Sites”
(reversed), “The fact that my parents can view my online content feels to me
like an invasion of my privacy” (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree, M =
2.74, SD = 0.80, α = .77).
Shielding SNS Content from Parents
For each of the aforementioned SNS, we asked respondents to indicate
whether they and their parents were active on the site. If they were, we
asked whether they had taken any action to shield (part of) their SNS content
from their parent(s). For instance, for Facebook, we asked respondents “Have
you adjusted any settings to limit what your parent(s) can see? This may
include not being Facebook friends with your parent(s) at all.” We used the
combined count (i.e., at least one sort of shielding, on at least one SNS) as
a dichotomous measure for shielding SNS content (0 = no shielding, 1 =
shielding). In other words, a score of 1 indicated that the respondent had
taken some kind of action to shield SNS content from parents. This resulted in
187 respondents (62%) indicating that they had never adjusted any settings or
had not refrained from being connected with their parent(s) on any of the
platforms they and their parents were both active on, and 123 respondents
(38%) indicating that they had taken action to shield their SNS content.
6
M. TANIS & M. BUIJZEN
Table 1. Pearson correlation matrix among studied variables.
1: shielding social media content
2: conformity-oriented communication
3: conversation-oriented communication
4: resistance to privacy invasion
5: sex childa
6: age child
1
.27*
−.23*
.46*
−.05
.02
2
3
4
5
6
−.43*
.45*
.00
−.03
−.38*
−.04
.06
−.19*
.02
.01
–
*< .01. 1 = male, 2 = female. a Results We computed correlations between all variables. Table 1 demonstrates that shielding SNS content correlated positively with conformity-oriented commu­ nication (r = .27, p < .01), and negatively with conversation-oriented commu­ nication (r = −.23, p < .01). Furthermore, there was a relatively strong correlation between perceived undesirability of privacy invasion and shielding SNS content (r = .46, p < .01), providing tentative support for our hypotheses. For the main analyses, we conducted structural equation modeling in Mplus version 8.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017), testing the two mediated hypoth­ eses in one model, allowing covariation between the two communication patterns (see Figure 1). Because the analytical model was just-identified (satu­ rated), model fit indices were not calculated. Standardized estimates (between −1 and 1) were reported rather than raw estimates, facilitating interpretation. As illustrated in Figure 1, conformity-oriented communication-related posi­ tively to resistance to privacy invasion; β = .34, SE = .05, p< .001, 95% CI[.25, .43], while conversation-oriented communication-related negatively to per­ ceived undesirability of privacy invasion; β = −.23, SE = .05, p< .001, 95% CI Figure 1. Coefficients of relations between a communication patterns, perceived privacy invasion and shielding SNS content. *p< .001. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS 7 [−.31, −.14]. Perceived undesirability of privacy invasion related positively to shielding SNS content; β = .34, SE = .07, p< .001, 95% CI[.21, .47]. The direct effect of conformity-oriented communication on shielding SNS content was nonsignificant, as was the direct effect of conversation-oriented communica­ tion, suggesting full mediation of perceived undesirability of privacy invasion. The total variance explained by the model was R2 =.33. These results support both H1 and H2. Discussion This study showed that the degree to which emerging adults who have recently left the parental home shield SNS content from their parents depended on the family’s communication patterns, which was explained by the emerging adults’ perception of the undesirability of privacy invasion. These results shed new light on the debate regarding parents and children coexisting on SNS, which seems to be dominated by the perspective that parents use SNS to check on their children and that children resist this. By distinguishing between two family communica­ tion patterns, our results showed that there is also another story to be told. The perspective described above resonates in our findings, but primarily for emer­ ging adults from high conformity-oriented and/or low conversation-oriented families. A different picture emerged for people from families with more con­ versation-oriented and/or less conformity-oriented communication patterns. Children from these families reported lower perceived undesirability of privacy invasion and less shielding behavior. Earlier work investigating SNS parenting suggested that child-related SNS use by parents may have a social-emotional function, with SNS filling the void of the absent child (Tanis et al., 2017). Therefore, for both children and parents, SNS may impact the transition between adolescence and adulthood. In this period of emerging adulthood young people progressively adjust to independence, autonomy, and increased privacy (Arnett, 2004). Without SNS, leaving the parental home almost automa­ tically means less parent–child interaction and reduced opportunities for parents to monitor their children. The emergence of SNS clearly has blurred this line, resulting in a more gradual transitional phase for the parent–child relationship. For parents, this may enable prolonged parenting, and for children the opportu­ nity to be guided in their steps toward adulthood. During this phase, SNS provide a setting in which the child and parent may negotiate about and experiment with the shifting privacy boundaries of the child (Petronio, 2002, 2010). As before, the emerging adult is in the lead, as the very nature of SNS still provides them with control over what is shared and, in turn, over their privacy boundaries and ownership. One limitation of this study is its cross-sectional nature. It is conceivable that how parents communicate with their child at least partly depends on what the emerging adult shares with or shields from their parent(s). If for 8 M. TANIS & M. BUIJZEN instance, parents get the impression that important information is shielded from them, they may feel the need to resort to more conformity-oriented communication. Longitudinal research could shed light on the directions of the relations observed. Another limitation that should be taken into account is that data were collected through Amazon’s online service Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Overall, literature that addresses the represen­ tativeness of MTurk samples (Berinsky, Margolis, & Sances, 2014; Huff & Tingley, 2015; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014, p. 168; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010) agrees that these are more representative than convenience samples—particularly in the case of student samples—and are not very different from other survey platforms, making MTurk a suitable platform for conducting social science research (Holden, Dennie, & Hicks, 2013). However, research has shown that MTurk “workers” tend to be younger, higher educated, more liberal, and less religious than the general US population (Paolacci et al., 2010), so we should be cautious about extra­ polating the findings of the present study to the general population. Considering these limitations, our results point to several directions for further research. First, future research could further explore the role of SNS in different family types. It should be noted that conformity-orientation and con­ versation-orientation are conceptually distinct, but not per definition indepen­ dent dimensions (see Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). As in previous research, our findings showed a medium-sized negative association between the two patterns. In other words, families more prone to engage in conversation-oriented com­ munication patterns engage less in conformity-oriented patterns, yet the two patterns can also co-occur, or both be absent. Koerner and Fitzpatrick distin­ guished four types of families (consensual, pluralistic, protective, laissez-faire), classified by relatively low and high scores on the two dimensions. Given the opposite results for the two family patterns observed in our study, it would be fascinating to compare our model across these four family types. Second, we do not know what type of SNS content it is that emerging adults shield from their parents. Is it the content of which emerging adults are afraid parents will react to with anger, frustration, or disappointment, such as pictures of parties, vacations, or other leisure activities that might lead parents to think that the child is not working or studying hard enough? Or is it content that parents might be offended by, such as violent, erotic, antinormative, political, or (anti-) religious content? It would be very informative to obtain more insight into the specific types of content that emerging adults want to keep away from their parents, and how that predicts shielding behavior. Third, it would be interesting to take the quality of the parent–child relation­ ship into account. Research by Kanter, Afifi, & Robbins, (2012) revealed that when a parent and child had a conflicted relationship, perceptions of greater parental privacy invasions negatively impacted the child’s perception of satisfac­ tion with the relationship. Strength and quality of the relationship between COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS 9 parent and child, therefore, seem to be promising constructs to consider in future research. The first results from the present study warrant further research to provide answers to these and other questions. In conclusion, family communication patterns relate in varying ways to emer­ ging adults’ perception of the undesirability of privacy invasion and, in turn, to shielding (part of) the SNS content from parents. Our study provided a more nuanced view on parent’s child-related SNS activities and their emerging adult children’s responses to these activities, warranting further research in this domain. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Notes on contributors Martin Tanis (PhD, 2004, University of Amsterdam) is an Associate Professor in Communication at the Department of Communication Science at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His primary research interest focuses on online social behavior and information processing, with a special interest in wellbeing. In addition to his work on online social behavior, he has a special interest in group-based phenomena that he studies from a Social Identity perspective. In this research he focuses on topics such as cyberchondria, misbeliefs in health claims, hostile media effect, attitude polarization, etc. Prof. Moniek Buijzen (PhD, 2003, University of Amsterdam) is Professor of Communication and Behavioural Change at Erasmus University Rotterdam and Radboud University. Her research focuses on how digital communication technology affects young people’s wellbeing. Specifically, Buijzen and her team study how the benefits of digital technology can be optimally used for a healthy and sustainable lifestyle, while keeping potential risks at a minimum. She received a prestigious Vici grant in 2019 from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) for a five-year research project studying the implementation of health campaigns through online social networks used by young people. Previously, she received grants from NWO and the European Research Council (ERC) for talented researchers. Buijzen is a frequent media expert and is the founder of Bitescience.com, an international platform for the dissemination of research to non-academic audiences. ORCID Martin Tanis http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9898-7250 References Arnett, J. J. (2000). A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.55.5.469 Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press. 10 M. TANIS & M. BUIJZEN Arnett, J. J. (2007). Emerging adulthood: What is it, and what is it good for? Child Development Perspectives, 1(2), 68–73. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2007.00016.x Avtgis, T. A. (1999). The relationship between unwillingness to communicate and family communication patterns. Communication Research Reports, 16(4), 333–338. Ball, H., Wanzer, M. B., & Servoss, T. J. (2013). Parent-child communication on Facebook: Family communication patterns and young adults’ decisions to “friend” parents. Communication Quarterly, 61(5), 615–629. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.822406 Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739–753. doi:10.1111/ajps.12081 Booth-Butterfield, M., & Sidelinger, R. (1998). The influence of family communication on the college-aged child: Openness, attitudes and actions. Communication Quarterly, 46(3), 295–308. Bridge, M. C., & Schrodt, P. (2013). Privacy orientations as a function of family communication patterns. Communication Reports, 26(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/08934215.2013.773054 Chandler, J., Mueller, P., & Paolacci, G. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7 Deutscher, I. (1964). The quality of postparental life: Definitions of the situation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 26(1), 52–59. doi:10.2307/349376 Duggan, M., Lenhart, A., Lampe, C., & Ellison, N. B. (2015). Parents and social media. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/16/parents-and-social-media/ Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(3), 275–301. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00324.x Gierveld, J. D. J., Liefbroer, A. C., & Beekink, E. (1991). The effect of parental resources on patterns of leaving home among young adults in the Netherlands. European Sociological Review, 7(1), 55–71. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036577 Holden, C. J., Dennie, T., & Hicks, A. D. (2013). Assessing the reliability of the M5-120 on Amazon’s mechanical Turk. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1749–1754. doi:10.1016/ j.chb.2013.02.020 Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic char­ acteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 1–12. doi:10.1177/2053168015604648 Jones, G. (1995). Leaving home. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Kanter, M., Afifi, T., & Robbins, S. (2012). The impact of parents “friending” their young adult child on Facebook on perceptions of parental privacy invasions and parent–child relation­ ship quality. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 900–917. doi:10.1111/j.14602466.2012.01669.x Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., & Frisby, B. N. (2016). Parental privacy invasion, family commu­ nication patterns, and perceived ownership of private information. Communication Reports, 29(2), 75–86. doi:10.1080/08934215.2015.1048477 Kins, E., Beyers, W., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2009). Patterns of home leaving and subjective well-being in emerging adulthood: The role of motivational processes and par­ ental autonomy support. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1416. doi:10.1037/a0015580 Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Annals of the International Communication Association, 26(1), 36–65. doi:10.1080/ 23808985.2002.11679010 COMMUNICATION RESEARCH REPORTS 11 Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Communication in intact families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 177–195). New York: Routledge. Ledbetter, A. M., & Vik, T. A. (2012). Parental invasive behaviors and emerging adults’ privacy defenses: Instrument development and validation. Journal of Family Communication, 12(3), 227–247. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith, A., & Beaton, M. (2013). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew Research Center, 21, 2–86. Mitchell, B. A., & Lovegreen, L. D. (2009). The empty nest syndrome in midlife families: A multimethod exploration of parental gender differences and cultural dynamics. Journal of Family Issues, 30(12), 1651–1670. doi:10.1177/0192513X09339020 Moser, C., Chen, T., & Schoenebeck, S. Y. (2017). Parents’ and children’s preferences about parents sharing about children on social media. In (Ed.),^(Eds.). CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, ACM. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. doi:10.1177/0963721414531598 Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechan­ ical turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419. Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(3), 175–196. doi:10.1111/ j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x PEW. (2017). Social media fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet /social-media/ Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns measuring intra­ personal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17(4), 523–544. doi:10.1177/009365090017004007 Rudi, J., Dworkin, J., Walker, S., & Doty, J. (2015). Parents’ use of information and commu­ nications technologies for family communication: Differences by age of children. Information, Communication & Society, 18(1), 78–93. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.934390 Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Borenstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. (Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 103–133). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tanis, M., van der Louw, M., & Buijzen, M. (2017). From empty nest to social networking site: What happens in cyberspace when children are launched from the parental home? Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 56–63. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.005 Yang, C. C. (2018). Social media as more than a peer space: College freshmen encountering parents on Facebook. Journal of Adolescent Research, 33(4), 442–469. doi:10.1177/ 0743558416659750