Journal of Family Communication
ISSN: 1526-7431 (Print) 1532-7698 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjfc20
Let's Be Facebook Friends: Exploring Parental
Facebook Friend Requests from a Communication
Privacy Management (CPM) Perspective
Jeffrey T. Child & David A. Westermann
To cite this article: Jeffrey T. Child & David A. Westermann (2013) Let's Be Facebook
Friends: Exploring Parental Facebook Friend Requests from a Communication Privacy
Management (CPM) Perspective, Journal of Family Communication, 13:1, 46-59, DOI:
10.1080/15267431.2012.742089
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2012.742089
Published online: 22 Jan 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3909
View related articles
Citing articles: 14 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjfc20
Journal of Family Communication, 13: 46–59, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1526-7431 print / 1532-7698 online
DOI: 10.1080/15267431.2012.742089
Let’s Be Facebook Friends: Exploring Parental Facebook
Friend Requests from a Communication Privacy
Management (CPM) Perspective
Jeffrey T. Child and David A. Westermann
School of Communication Studies, Kent State University
Young adults may interact on Facebook in ways that makes them feel vulnerable about parental
Facebook friend requests. This study utilizes Communication Privacy Management theory as a framework to investigate how young adult Facebook users respond to parental Facebook friend requests.
Overall, 235 individuals completed an online survey. Results confirmed that users tend to accept
parental Facebook friend requests from both parents and make few restrictive privacy rule adjustments
when contemplating the requests. However, request decisions for mothers varied in conjunction with
family privacy orientation, parent-child relationship quality, and parent-child trust, but not for fathers.
These results suggest that young adults do not experience a privacy dilemma when contemplating
parental connections on Facebook. Implications of the study are explored, including how power differentials inherent in the parent-child relationship may be impacting young adults’ perceived ability
to decline such requests. Future research examining other familial conversations about social media
practices is highlighted.
Evidence of the potential for family interaction on Facebook is abundant. Facebook offers a
host of third-party applications to connect families. Family applications are intended to provide
a place for family members to communicate through Facebook. However, a relative dearth of
scholarly attention has examined if family members even wish to connect and interact through
social media (Child & Petronio, 2011; Meszaros, 2004). This study adds to this understudied area
of research about family communication and Facebook by exploring how young adult Facebook
users process and respond to requests received from their parents to be Facebook friends.
Facebook allowed parents to create their own page for the first time in 2006. Since the loosening of membership restrictions, the makeup of Facebook has drastically changed (Lenhart,
2009). Parents and older adult users of Facebook in general reflect the fastest growing new demographic to adopt and use the social networking site (Facebook, 2012; Hampton, Goulet, Rainie, &
Purcell, 2011; Lenhart, 2009; Nielsen Company, 2011; Qualman, 2009). Across a two-year time
span (2008–2010) the number of people using social networking sites doubled with the average
age of users shifting from 33 years old to 38 years old (Hampton et al., 2011). The longer an
individual maintains a Facebook account the more frequent their usage patterns are for all of the
Correspondence should be addressed to Jeffrey T. Child, Kent State University, School of Communication Studies,
P. O. Box 5190, Kent, OH 44242. E-mail: jchild@kent.edu
PARENTAL FACEBOOK FRIENDS REQUESTS
47
interactive functions offered through the site, including status updates, commenting on content,
tagging and liking behaviors, and sending private messages (Hampton, Goulet, Marlow, & Rainie,
2012). Collectively, this evidence suggests that Facebook users are older, more interactive across
time, and comfortable integrating Facebook interaction into daily routines.
Young adult Facebook users may feel vulnerable about the increased potential to encounter
parents on Facebook than has previously been the case (Child & Petronio, 2011). With its start
as a college networking site, Facebook first experienced widespread popularity among young
adult audiences ages 18–22, who used the application to connect to close friends and engaged in
identity exploration with peers (Pempek, Yermolayeva, & Calvert, 2009). Across time, Facebook
users increasingly turn to the site to interact with their closest confidants (Hampton et al., 2011),
which means they may be disclosing and sharing private information not intended for a parent to
read or access (Petronio & Child, 2011).
We frame parental Facebook friend request as triggering a possible privacy dilemma for young
adults, like researchers have done in other contexts (Petronio & Jones, 2006; Petronio, Jones, &
Morr, 2003). Young adult Facebook users may not know how to deal with or effectively respond
to incoming requests from parents to be Facebook friends. Possible privacy dilemmas between
young adults and their parents have received attention from nonscholarly Internet websites such as
MyParentsJoinedFacebook.com. The website highlights how young adults can experience tension
and conflict with parental use of Facebook, demonstrating the increased attention young adults
give to the ramifications of accepting parental Facebook friend requests (Fletcher, 2010; Smith,
2009).
The goal of this study is to explore how young adult Facebook users who have received
parental Facebook friend requests process and respond to the request sent by a parent to be
Facebook friends. We turn to the evidence-based Communication Privacy Management (CPM)
theory (Petronio, 2002) for greater insights into potential factors that illuminate how young adults
handle the requests. Namely, we examine parental Facebook friend requests and family privacy
management orientations (Morr Serewicz & Canary, 2008; Morr Serewicz, Dickson, Morrison,
& Poole, 2007; Petronio, 2002) and parent-child relationship quality and trust (Petronio, 1994).
COMMUNICATION PRIVACY MANAGEMENT, FAMILY COMMUNICATION,
AND FACEBOOK
When considering parent-child linkages and social media, Facebook use produces both potentially positive and negative effects for children. For example, the extension of such requests can
be seen as a threat when perceived as a parental privacy invasion attempt or an encroachment
on autonomy needs (Hawk, Keijsers, Hale, & Meeus, 2009; Petronio, 1994). However, Facebook
may also give young adults a convenient way to maintain family ties without much direct effort.
Communication Privacy Management theory assists in understanding the different ways users
may perceive and process parental Facebook friend requests (Petronio, 1991, 2002). The theory proposes that effective management of private information includes considerations of three
main principles, privacy ownership, privacy control, and privacy turbulence (Child, Haridakis, &
Petronio, 2012).
First, CPM contends that when individuals share private information with others they
essentially extend co-ownership rights for the future management and control of that private
48
CHILD AND WESTERMANN
information. The theory illustrates this principle of ownership rights through different types of
metaphorical privacy boundaries (Petronio, 2002). Information identified as private and protected
resides within an individual privacy boundary. Once private information is disclosed to others, it
transitions from an individual privacy boundary into a collectively-owned privacy boundary that
is managed among authorized co-owners (Petronio & Caughlin, 2006; Petronio & Gaff, 2010).
In the case of Facebook, personal information that an individual refuses to share with others
on Facebook remains in their individual privacy boundary. An individual’s own page where they
post status updates, photos, and allow comments is the collectively managed privacy boundary
(Child & Petronio, 2011). When an individual deletes shared private information from their site
they either reclaim individual private rights again (in the case of removing their own posted
information) or refuse to accept fiduciary responsibility and management obligations for others’
private information on their site (in the case of removing information posted to their site by others)
(Child et al., 2012; Child, Petronio, Agyeman-Budu, & Westermann, 2011).
Second, CPM establishes that individuals control their privacy and make decisions about what
private information to reveal or conceal through the use of privacy rules (Petronio, 2002). Privacy
rules function for regulating management of both individual privacy boundaries and collective
privacy boundaries (Petronio & Reierson, 2009). At the individual level, people are inclined to
share or protect private information more or less as a product of cultural, gendered, motivational,
contextual, and risk-benefit ratio criteria (Petronio, 2002). In terms of rules governing collective privacy boundaries, co-owners must consider boundary linkage rules, boundary permeability
rules, and boundary ownership rules (Child & Agyeman-Budu, 2010; Child, Pearson, & Petronio,
2009; Child et al., 2011).
Managing privacy turbulence or breakdowns is the last step in the privacy management process. Not all privacy management works smoothly; therefore, CPM argues that it is necessary to
accommodate this possible outcome. Although often unpleasant, addressing privacy turbulence
provides a process for updating, correcting, and recalibrating the adequate functioning of privacy rules (Child et al., 2011; Petronio, 2002). People can experience minor disturbances to full
breakdowns in the management of their private information.
A parent’s attempt to be a part of their child’s Facebook collective boundary might cause
a form of turbulence for the child if the request is seen as a parental privacy invasion by the
young adult (Hawk et al., 2009; Petronio, 1994; Petronio et al., 2003). Facebook users can avert
breakdowns in the management of their private information through adapting their privacy rules in
light of evolving concerns (Child et al., 2011). One way to do this is to reclaim private information
and delete previously posted information, essentially asserting greater protection of privacy by
reclaiming individual privacy rights (Child et al., 2011, 2012). Most social media users engage in
such strategies rather than never deleting previously posted information (Child et al., 2011).
Parental Facebook Friend Requests and Young Adult Decisions
Facebook users have several different possible reactions when receiving a parental Facebook
friend request. Users may accept, reject, or take no action in response to requests. Once a
request decision has been made, as described above, the recipient may reassess the adequacy
of their current privacy management rules and disclosure practices as well as make adaptations in
response to the request sent by their parent to be Facebook friends. For example, after handling
PARENTAL FACEBOOK FRIENDS REQUESTS
49
a parental Facebook friend request a young adult user may find it necessary to delete old posts
and/or limit content accessible to a parent or they may find such revisions to their privacy rules
are unnecessary. CPM theory contends that an important part of privacy management calculations, and subsequent decision-making practices, includes understanding the existing collective
privacy boundary regulation practices (Petronio, 2002). Given the expansion of diverse individuals maintaining relationships on Facebook (Child & Petronio, 2011; Child et al., 2011), the first
and second research questions explore how young adult Facebook users handle requests made
by each parent to be Facebook friends and to what extent do they adjust their privacy rules for
greater protection of private information after responding to parental Facebook friend requests.
RQ1 : How do young adult Facebook users handle parental Facebook friend requests (i.e., do they
tend to accept, reject, or take no action as a response to the requests)?
RQ2 : To what extent do young adult Facebook users adjust their privacy rules for greater protection
of private information after responding to parental Facebook friend requests?
Family Privacy Orientations and Parental Facebook Friend Requests
A powerful force in the socialization of privacy rules is the family unit (Golish & Caughlin,
2002; Petronio, 1991, 2002; Williams, 2003). Families influence members of the group across
time by providing orientations for use when interacting both with other family members and
individuals external to the family unit (Morr Serewicz & Canary, 2008; Morr Serewicz et al.,
2007; Petronio, 2002; Petronio et al., 2003). The interior family privacy orientation is cultivated
through both direct communication within the family and the occurrence of such practices among
sub-groups within the family as concealing secrets from one another (Caughlin, Golish, Olson,
Sargent, Cook, & Petronio, 2000; Golish & Caughlin, 2002). These practices demonstrate the
value of open versus closed disclosure practices within the family (Petronio, 2002).
The interior family privacy orientation is significantly and positively correlated with family satisfaction (Morr Serewicz et al., 2007). Relational maintenance strategies also mediate the
relationship between the permeability level of the internal family privacy orientation and family
satisfaction (Morr Serewicz et al., 2007). Furthermore, different types of families (e.g., blended,
nuclear, and single-parent families) socialize individual family members with unique values in
regards to the type of information suggested as either appropriate or inappropriate to share with
other family members (Caughlin et al., 2000). For example, young adults are more likely to avoid
discussion of topics with stepparents than with their biological fathers or mothers (Golish &
Caughlin, 2002). The current study explores how the current level of privacy management suggested as appropriate for family interaction may be in understanding the types of decisions that
young adults make about parental Facebook friend requests.
The interior family privacy orientation has primarily been studied in offline settings (Caughlin
et al., 2000; Golish & Caughlin, 2002; Morr Serewicz et al., 2007; Petronio, 1991, 2002).
However, CPM theory predicts that the privacy management orientations functioning within the
family assist individuals in decisions that they may make about managing private information
with other family members (Petronio, 2002). As such, we expect that families who suggest family members should always be open with one another will have children who respond to parental
Facebook friend requests in different ways than families, which suggests that members of the
50
CHILD AND WESTERMANN
family do not need to always share private information with other family members if they do not
desire to do so. As such, research question three explores:
RQ3 : Do the privacy management orientations functioning within the family help explain the way
that young adults respond to parents who have requested to be Facebook friends?
Relational Quality, Relational Trust, and Parental Facebook Friend Requests
CPM theory asserts that contextual factors also help explain the way that individuals construct privacy rules that help them make privacy management decisions (Petronio, 2002). When examining
privacy in the family, many studies explore family satisfaction as an outcome variable (Caughlin
et al., 2000; Morr Serewicz et al., 2007; Vangelisti, 1994). Vangelisti (1994) found an inverse
relationship between the perceived number of family secrets and family satisfaction. The form,
topic, and function of the secret, however, influenced this relationship. Furthermore, the number
of family secrets in different family configurations (e.g., blended, nuclear, and single-parent) is
consistently related to family satisfaction (Caughlin et al., 2000). Lower levels of parent-child
relationship quality exist when adult children perceive their parents as invading their privacy
(Finkenauer, Engels, & Meeus, 2002; Hawk et al., 2009; Morr Serewicz et al., 2007; Petronio,
1994). Longitudinal research also supports a bi-directional positive relationship between the
degree of perceived parental privacy invasion behaviors and the amount of conflict that young
adults have with their parents (Hawk et al., 2009).
In addition to examining relationship quality with each parent, we also explore parent-child
relationship trust as a contextual factor important to understanding young adults’ privacy rules
and how they may respond to parental Facebook friend requests. Because a parent can gain access
to a young adult’s entire Facebook network upon approval of a friend request, issues of trust in
that relationship seem to be an important factor in privacy management considerations. King
(2002) defines trust as “an individual’s expectations and beliefs about the reliability of others”
(p. 642). Sheppard and Sherman (1998) state that trust is the assumption and acceptance of risks
associated with the interdependence of a relationship. In particular, Petronio (1994) found that
young adult children are likely to question the motives of their parents and have thicker individual privacy boundaries with them if lower levels of parent-child relationship quality and trust
characterize the relationship.
Because pervious research supports that the parent-child relationship dynamics are associated
with the types of privacy rules that they use with them (Hawk et al., 2009; Petronio, 1994), we
examine how the type of relationship that young adults have with each parent may also help
in understanding the way that they respond to parental Facebook friend requests. We suspect
that parent-child relationships which are less satisfying and trusting may also present a situation
where the young adult could perceive fewer rewards and perhaps less motivation to establish a
Facebook connection with a parent requesting to be Facebook friends (Petronio, 2002). However,
given the limited research in this area we pose this inquiry as a research question:
RQ4 : Do young adults who have less satisfying and trustful relationships with their parents respond
differently to parents requesting to be Facebook friends than do individuals with more satisfying
and trusting relationships?
PARENTAL FACEBOOK FRIENDS REQUESTS
51
METHOD
Participants
Two hundred and thirty-five Facebook users with at least one living parent or parental figure
who had requested to be their Facebook friend comprised participants of the study. From the
sample, 221 Facebook users (94%) completed the study thinking about their biological mother
or mother figure and 212 participants (90.2%) of participants completed the study thinking about
their biological father or a father figure. If participants indicated they had neither a mother/mother
figure nor a father/father figure, they only answered questions pertaining to the parent/parental
figure in their life.
Sample participants included a greater proportion of women (n = 159, 67.7%) than men (n =
76, 32.3%). Participants were 20 years old on average (M = 20.39, SD = 3.04). The majority of
participants (n = 219, 93.2%) accessed their own personal computer at their place of residence.
A greater proportion of the sample lived away from their parents on their own (n = 144, 61.3%)
versus living at home with them (n = 91, 38.7%). Most participants came from a two-parent
household (n = 176, 75%), followed by a single-parent (mother) household (n = 39, 16.6%),
a single-parent (father) household (n = 13, 5.5%), and finally a nonparent household (n = 7,
3%). Users spent an average of just over four hours a day on the Internet (M = 4.18, SD =
3.29), spent close to two and a half hours of that time each day actively using Facebook (M
= 2.43, SD = 3.55), and logged onto Facebook approximately 23 times a week (M = 22.8,
SD = 33.05).
Procedures
The current study was part of a larger investigation where the only requirement for participation
in the overall study was having a Facebook account and at least one living parent/parental figure.
In the overall study, a series of initial question sorted participants into different groups based on if
a parent had ever requested to be Facebook friends or not. Initial questions in the study impacted
framing of the rest of the survey. The only data utilized and analyzed in the current study reflects
participants who had actually received a parental Facebook friend request from either one or both
of their parents/parental figures.
Participants were recruited for participation in the study through use of an undergraduate
introductory course in human communication. The course was an option for fulfilling a liberal
educational requirement at a large Midwestern university and included students from a variety
of majors and areas of study across the university campus. The study was one of several ways
that students could fulfill the minimal research participation requirement associated with the
course.
Potential participants were also solicited directly on Facebook through the creation and dissemination of a group page about the study. Participants were directed to a website for the survey
(hosted on Qualtrics.com) where they provided consent and participated in the online survey.
Survey respondents were recruited to participate in the study for approximately one month. After
the survey had closed, two participants were randomly selected to receive $10 Amazon.com gift
cards.
52
CHILD AND WESTERMANN
Measures
Parental Facebook friend request decisions
To explore parental Facebook friend request decisions, participants answered a series of categorical questions. First, participants responded to whether each parent/parental figure had sent a
request to them to be approved as a Facebook friend (yes/no). Only those responding yes to this
initial question for each parent were included in the analysis. Next, for participants indicating
they have been asked by a parent to be Facebook friends they responded to how they handled
the request (accept, ignore/take no action, or reject the request). Finally, participants were asked
if they made any restrictive modifications to their privacy settings (yes/no) or if they made any
deletions to profile content or postings (yes/no) during the decision-making process about the
request. Privacy rule adjustments occurred if participants responded yes to either of the questions
related to making restrictive modifications or deletions when making decisions about parental
Facebook friend requests.
Interior family privacy orientation
Participants completed a 6-item interior family privacy orientation measure (Morr, 2002; Morr
Serewicz et al., 2007). Responses to questions were on a 7-point Likert-type scale from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree.” Sample statements include “family members are very open with
each other” and “family members do not discuss private information with one another.” Previous
research demonstrates the validity and reliability of the measure (Morr Serewicz et al., 2007; Morr
Serewicz & Canary, 2008). Among current participants, the scale maintained adequate reliability
(Cronbach’s α = .72, M = 4.62, SD = 1.22).
Parent-child relationship quality
Participants completed Petronio’s (1994) eight-item parent-child relationship quality measure
for each parent/parental figure. Responses to questions were on a 7-point Likert-type scale from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Sample statements include “I frequently feel satisfied
about the relationship with my mother/father” and “I frequently feel that nothing goes right in the
relationship with my mother/father.” The measure demonstrates excellent reliability in previous
research (Petronio, 1994). In the current study, the measure displayed excellent reliability for both
mothers (Cronbach’s α = .92, M = 5.81, SD = 1.26) and fathers (Cronbach’s α = .92, M = 5.51,
SD = 1.54).
Parent-child relationship trust
Participants also completed Petronio’s (1994) six-item parent-child relationship trust measure for each parent/parental figure. Responses to questions were on a 7-point Likert-type scale
from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Sample items include “I trust my mother/father”
and “My mother/father does not show much consideration.” The measure demonstrates excellent reliability in previous research (Petronio, 1994). In the current study, the measure displayed
PARENTAL FACEBOOK FRIENDS REQUESTS
53
high reliability levels for both mothers (Cronbach’s α = .88, M = 6.06, SD = 1.11) and fathers
(Cronbach’s α = .95, M = 5.93, SD = 1.37).
RESULTS
Research question one explores how young adult Facebook users handle parents who request to
be approved as a Facebook friend. When considering mothers who had extended the requests,
significant differences existed (expected P = .33) in how Facebook users handled the requests,
χ 2 (2, N = 193) = 275.36, p < .001, ES = .71. The effect size indicates a large difference in
the distributions from the expected values. The most common response was to accept Facebook
friend request from mothers (n = 173, P = .90), versus either leaving them unanswered/in limbo
(n = 9, P = .05) or outright rejecting the requests (n = 11, P = .06). When considering fathers
who had extended the requests, significant differences also existed (expected P = .33) in how
Facebook users handled the requests, χ 2 (2, N = 108) = 170.72, p < .001, ES = .79. The effect
size indicates a large difference in the distributions from the expected values. The most common
response among sample participants was to accept Facebook friend request from fathers (n = 100,
P = .93), versus either leaving them unanswered/in limbo (n = 3, P = .03) or outright rejecting
the requests (n = 5, P = .05). These results for each parent indicate that the majority of Facebook
users in this sample allowed their parents some type of access to their Facebook interactions.
To answer research question two, chi-square tests explored the extent to which young adult
Facebook users adjusted their privacy rules for greater protection of private information when
their parents requested to be their Facebook friends. An individual user was noted as having made
such privacy adjustments if they made any restrictions to available content on their Facebook page
or deleted posts when their parent requested to be Facebook friends. Among mothers who had
requested parental Facebook friend status, users were significantly more likely (χ 2 [1, N = 193]
= 29.15, p < .001, ES = .15) not to not make any restrictive privacy rule adjustments in conjunction with the request (n = 134, P = .69) versus those individuals who did make restrictive privacy
rule adjustments because of the request (n = 50, P = .31) to be their mother’s Facebook friend.
Among fathers who had requested parental Facebook friend status, users were significantly more
likely (χ 2 [1, N = 108] = 23.15, p < .001, ES = .21) to also not make any restrictive privacy
rule adjustments in conjunction with the request (n = 79, P = .73) versus those individuals who
did make restrictive privacy rule adjustments because of the request (n = 29, P = .27) to be their
father’s Facebook friend. Because adjusting privacy rules is an important part of understanding users’ overall privacy management (Child et al., 2011), we explore privacy rule adjustments
that occurred with individuals who accepted parental Facebook friend requests in the rest of the
analyses. We did not differentiate making restrictive privacy rule adjustments in the categories
of ignore or reject the request because of the low overall frequencies of young adult Facebook
users who even made these decisions. Therefore, the four categories of accept without privacy
rule adjustment, accept with privacy rule adjustment, ignore, or reject the request are examined
for research questions three and four.
To address research question three, two one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were
conducted. The two tests considered if the privacy management orientations functioning within
the family helped explain the way that young adults responded to parents requesting to be
Facebook friends. Among users who had received requests from their mothers, the handling of
54
CHILD AND WESTERMANN
the request reflected differences in the interior family privacy orientation, F(3, 189) = 3.73, p <
.05, η2 = .06. Tukey post-hoc tests confirmed that individuals who accepted requests from their
mothers without restrictive privacy rule adjustments came from families where sharing private
information within the family was more common (M = 4.88; SD = 1.12; n = 121) than individuals who accepted the request but made restrictive privacy rule adjustments (M = 4.33; SD
= 1.12; n = 52). The remaining pairwise comparisons of the interior family privacy orientation
and responses were not significant as main effects. Among users who had received a request from
their fathers (n = 108), the privacy management orientations functioning within the family did
not help to explain the way that young adults responded to the request, F(3, 189) = 3.73, p = .11.
Research question four examined if young adults who had less satisfying and trustful relationships with their parents responded differently to parents requesting to be Facebook friends
than did individuals with more satisfying and trusting relationships. ANOVA tests allowed exploration of this research question. Among users who had received friend requests from their mothers
(n = 193), the handling of the request reflected differences in relationship quality with the mother,
F(3, 182) = 4.94, p < .01, η2 = .08. Tukey post-hoc tests confirmed that individuals who accepted
requests from their mothers without making restrictive privacy rule adjustments had a significantly higher overall level of relational quality with their mothers (M = 6.07; SD = 1.10; n =
117) than did individuals who ignored the requests from their mothers (M = 4.77; SD = 1.36;
n = 9). The remaining pairwise comparisons of the relationship quality with mother and user
responses were not significant as main effects. The handling of the request also reflected differences in relational trust levels with mother, F(3, 175) = 2.67, p < .05, η2 = .04. Tukey post-hoc
tests confirmed that individuals who accepted requests from their mothers without making restrictive privacy rule adjustments had a significantly higher overall level of relational trust with their
mothers (M = 6.19; SD = 1.03; n = 110) than did individuals who accepted the requests but also
made restrictive adjustments to their privacy rules (M = 5.77; SD = 1.16; n = 50). The remaining pairwise comparisons examining relationship trust with mother and user responses were not
significant as main effects.
The results of the ANOVA analysis for users’ responses to their fathers and the same parentchild relationship dynamics reflected different findings to those of mothers. Among users who
had received a parental Facebook friend request from their fathers, the handling of the request
did not reflect differences in relationship quality with the father, F(3, 102) = 0.71, p = .05. The
handling of the request did not reflect differences in relational trust levels with fathers either,
F(3, 100) = 0.34, p = .80. Thus, relational characteristics did not help explain how young
adults responded to their fathers’ requests to be Facebook friends in the same ways that it did
for mothers.
DISCUSSION
The current study examines parental Facebook friend requests and if young adults feel vulnerable
about allowing their parents to interact with them on Facebook. The study set out to examine if a
parent requesting to be their child’s Facebook friend triggers a privacy dilemma for young adults,
since they may be leery of parents wanting to interact with them on Facebook. Furthermore,
young adults may also not have fully considered how to deal with an incoming request made by
one of their parent’s to be Facebook friends (Child & Petronio, 2011).
PARENTAL FACEBOOK FRIENDS REQUESTS
55
We utilized Communication Privacy Management (CPM) theory (Petronio, 2002) as a framework for considering other variables that could possibly illuminate variation in how young adults
handled the requests. Our results confirmed when young adult Facebook users receive parental
Facebook friend requests from either parent or both parents, they tended to welcome and accept
the requests. However, differences in decision-making practices occurred among mothers who
requested to be Facebook friends in association with family privacy orientations, parent-child
relationship quality, and parent-child trust (Morr Serewicz et al., 2007).
In particular, individuals in the study who tended to outright accept requests from their moms
without making restrictive privacy rule adjustments came from families where sharing private
information within the family unit was more common than individuals who also ultimately
accepted the requests but before doing so returned to their Facebook pages and adapted their
privacy rules toward greater protection of private information. Such individuals reclaimed greater
protection of privacy before allowing the parental linkage by deleting posts and/or only providing
limited access of their Facebook site to their mothers (Child et al., 2011, 2012). The same associations were not supported among fathers. Finally, higher quality and more trusting mother-child
relationships were also associated with the same type of outright acceptance among young adult
Facebook users in the study than was the case for individuals who either ignored the requests
from their moms or made privacy rule adjustments before allowing the parental Facebook connection to be made. These same relational variables did not support associations among fathers
and young adults’ Facebook decision-making practices either.
Family interaction on Facebook reflects one of many possible types of relational connections
that may be facilitated through Facebook. The fact that young adult Facebook users in this sample
were more willing than reluctant to accept requests from their parents on Facebook may mean
that they had already adapted their privacy management practices, knowing that parents and other
types of individuals (such as future employers) may be trying to find more private information
about them on Facebook. Facebook has become a critical place to engage in proactive privacy
management because of its increased access and use by many segments of the population (Child
et al., 2011, 2012; Child & Petronio, 2011).
Child et al. (2011) examined how social media users’ privacy management practices frequently
include returning to previously posted information and removing potentially vulnerable information for a variety of motivations. The reasons provided by participants included making deletions
in order to effectively manage impressions with diverse audiences; to more fully protect personal
identity and reduce safety risks; to appease important relational connections like friends, partners,
and family members; and to prevent vulnerability of encountering a legal or disciplinary problem.
Less common was the individual who said they would post something on their own social media
site and leave it forever unchanged. These individuals who never made restrictive adjustments to
their privacy rules indicated doing so because they either were overly cautious in the first place
or were high risk takers and did not care what others might come to think about them because of
what they post (Child et al., 2011).
These findings may be one reason why young adults are willing to allow their parents to
be Facebook friends when requested, because young adult social media users frequently monitor what people contribute to their collective boundary and they eliminate any posts or content
that may result in a potentially dilemmatic situations before minor privacy mis-steps evolve into
more dramatic forms of privacy turbulence (Child et al., 2012; Petronio, 2002). Proactive privacy management can lead to fewer situations experiencing distress over private information that
56
CHILD AND WESTERMANN
has moved into a more public space because of faulty privacy rules (Child et al., 2009). This
may explain the lack of concern in the study over an individual parental linkage because a user
can utilizing multiple strategies to manage their privacy online and ultimately focus more on the
disclosures in the collective boundary rather than the linkages (Child & Agyeman-Budu, 2010).
Such diverse privacy regulation practices with decisions deserve greater investigation in future
research.
This study confirms that family privacy orientations among study participants were associated
with the way that individual family members responded to parental Facebook friend requests.
These orientations, developed by the family over time (Petronio, 2002), illuminated differences
in how families communicated on Facebook. Therefore, family relational ties were related to
individual behaviors among participants when considering whether or not to allow a parental
connection through social media. Young adults in families that valued openness and transparency
were more likely to connect with their mothers on Facebook than families who valued less openness and transparency within the family unit. This finding is valuable as it begins to answer
questions about family characteristics associated with individuals’ social media use. Previously,
family privacy orientations had not been examined in this particular context (Morr Serewicz et al.,
2007).
Relational indicators with mothers among sample participants were associated with the decisions that young adults’ made about allowing Facebook site access. However, the discrepancy
in results between mothers and fathers may be explained by the roles each parent tends to play.
Mothers are often socialized to be caregivers. As a result, they tend to show more warmth and
experience closer relationships with children than fathers (Hosley & Montemayor, 1997; Phares,
1999; Tein, Roosa, & Michaels, 1994). Mothers often serve as the family’s nexus of communication (Lye, 1996) and are seen as being more open to communication than fathers (Holmbeck,
Paikoff, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995). During the late adolescent years in particular, fathers are more
likely than mothers to be authoritarian in nature; their role is often characterized as the disciplinarian (Conrade & Ho, 2001; McKinney & Renk, 2008). Young adults who experienced closer, more
trusting relationships with their mothers were more likely to accept their friend requests than
those Facebook users who experienced less trusting relationships with their mothers. When it
came to fathers, closeness and trust were not important factors in young adults’ Facebook friend
request decisions. Perhaps young adult Facebook users in the sample were concerned about how
their fathers might bring typical role-based interactions to what they read and experience on their
Facebook sites.
FUTURE RESEARCH, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
The power differential inherent in parent/child relationships represents another possible explanation for the factors related to young adults’ decisions about whether or not to accept parental
friend requests. Young adults may experience a lack of ability to decline friend requests from
either parent because of the inherent power issues associated with the parent-child relationship.
The repercussions of declining such requests may cause too much privacy turbulence for young
adults in the relationships they maintain with their parents (Petronio, 2002). Young adults may
feel an obligation to allow parents into their Facebook space simply because the request came
PARENTAL FACEBOOK FRIENDS REQUESTS
57
from an authority figure. Future research might explore a power-based analysis of social media
interactions and decision-making practices with parents.
Another aspect of parent-child communication and Facebook includes exploring parents who
have been chronicling and noting the development of their children from infancy on Facebook,
both in terms of the photos uploaded and the commentary provided about their children. CPM
theory (Petronio, 2002) highlights how young adults start out with limited privacy boundaries and
parents who largely make privacy management decisions for them. However, as kids mature and
go through adolescence they also reclaim greater desire for control over their own privacy management decisions and expect their parents to relinquish control over their privacy management
decisions. How will these youth feel when they discover a rich online identity has already been
developed for them, which may be hard to reclaim given the nature of digital footprints (Child &
Petronio, 2011)? Such a study would be an additional way to explore privacy turbulence between
parents and their children related to social media practices.
The intricacies involved in studying parent/child communication on Facebook reflect the complexities of studying family communication in face-to-face settings. It can be difficult to examine
communication between isolated members without considering the remaining family members
or all of the ways those individuals interact with one another as an entire integrated system.
This study captures parent/child communication on Facebook but cannot account for face-toface communication between other family members, who might also factor into young adults’
decisions regarding parental Facebook friend requests. For example, an adult child may decide
to allow their parent access and instead of changing their privacy management rules for the
Facebook space they may respond to the request by establishing new rules for their parents and
negotiating with their parents face-to-face the types of appropriate and inappropriate interactions
that they expect to occur and be avoided as a new member of their privileged online Facebook
community (Child & Petronio, 2011).
One limitation of this study is the reliance on perceptual data for understanding young adults’
experiences on Facebook. Even though participants were only allowed to proceed with the study
if they had been the recipient of a parental Facebook friend request, rather than the initiator of
such a request, participants may have misrepresented their actual experiences. However, recent
research suggests that self-reported survey results about Facebook practices and actual activity
log analysis supports that people’s perceptions match up rather closely with analysis of the logs
(Hampton et al., 2012). This study does not address how people would have responded if they
were the ones who asked to be included on their parent’s Facebook page. An additional research
project could focus on who initiated the link, subsequent decision-making and privacy regulation
practices, and the connection of data from multiple family members. Such complex analysis
allows for a more realistic understanding of family interaction systems.
Finally, the results demonstrate the usefulness of variables and factors associated with CPM
theory and research in other contexts (Petronio, 2002) in understanding responses to parental
Facebook friend requests. Adult children in the sample made linkage-based decisions with their
mothers associated with both cultural (family privacy orientations) and contextual (relational
quality and relational strength) privacy rule criteria. As such, this study demonstrates the usefulness of CPM theory for understanding parent-child interactions in face-to-face as well as online
interaction environments. Advancing an understanding of the mediated family will continue to
be a complex but critical endeavor.
58
CHILD AND WESTERMANN
REFERENCES
Caughlin, J. P., Golish, T. D., Olson, L. N., Sargent, J. E., Cook, J. S., & Petronio, S. (2000). Intrafamily secrets in various
family configurations: A communication boundary management perspective. Communication Studies, 51, 116–134.
doi: 10.1080/10510970009388513.
Child, J. T., & Agyeman-Budu, E. (2010). Blogging privacy rule development: The impact of self-monitoring
skills, concern for appropriateness, and blogging frequency. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 957–963. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.009.
Child, J. T., Haridakis, P. M., & Petronio, S. (2012). Blogging privacy rule orientations, privacy management, and content
deletion practices: The variability of online privacy management activity at different stages of social media use.
Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1859–1872. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.004.
Child, J. T., Pearson, J. C., & Petronio, S. (2009). Blogging, communication, and privacy management: Development of
the blogging privacy management measure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,
60, 2079–2094. doi: 10.1002/asi.21122.
Child, J. T., & Petronio, S. (2011). Unpacking the paradoxes of privacy in CMC relationships: The challenges of
blogging and relational communication on the internet. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer-mediated
communication in personal relationships (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Child, J. T., Petronio, S., Agyeman-Budu, E. A., & Westermann, D. A. (2011). Blog scrubbing: Exploring triggers that
change privacy rules. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2017–2027. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.05.009.
Conrade, G., & Ho, R. (2001). Differential parenting styles for fathers and mothers: Differential treatment for sons and
daughters. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 29–35. doi: 10.1080/00049530108255119.
Finkenauer, C., Engels, R. C., & Meeus, W. (2002). Keeping secrets from parents: Advantages and disadvantages of
secrecy in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 123–136. doi: 10.1023/A:1014069926507.
Facebook (2012). Press room. Palo Alto, CA: Facebook. Retrieved from http://www.facebook.com/press/info.
php?statistics.
Fletcher, D. (2010, May 20). How Facebook is redefining privacy. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/business/
article/0,8599,1990582,00.html.
Golish, T. D., & Caughlin, J. P. (2002). “I’d rather not talk about it”: Adolescents’ and young adults’ use of topic avoidance
in stepfamilies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 78–106. doi: 10.1080/00909880216574.
Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Marlow, C., & Rainie, L. (2012). Why most Facebook users get more than they give. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Facebook-users.aspx.
Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sists and our lives. Pew Internet
& American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Technology-and-social-networks.
aspx.
Hawk, S. T., Keijsers, L., Hale, W. W., & Meeus, W. (2009). Mind your own business! Longitudinal relations between
perceived privacy invasion and adolescent-parent conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 511–520. doi: 10.1037/
a0015426
Holmbeck, G. N., Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Parenting adolescents. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook
of parenting (Vol. 1, pp. 91–118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hosley, C. A., & Montemayor, R. (1997). Fathers and adolescents. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child
development (pp. 162–178). New York, NY: John Wiley.
King, V. (2002). Parental divorce and interpersonal trust in adult offspring. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64,
642–656. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00642.x.
Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social network websites. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://
www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Adults-and-Social-Network-Websites.aspx.
Lye, D. N. (1996). Adult child-parent relationships. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 79–102. doi: 10.1146/
annurev.soc.22.1.79.
McKinney, C., & Renk, K. (2008). Differential parenting between mothers and fathers: Implications for late adolescents.
Journal of Family Issues, 29, 806–827. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07311222.
Meszaros, P. S. (2004). The wired family: Living digitally in the postinformation age. American Behavioral Scientist, 48,
377–390. doi: 10.1177/0002764204270276.
Morr, M. C. (2002). Private disclosure in a family membership transition: In-laws’ disclosures to newlyweds.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.
PARENTAL FACEBOOK FRIENDS REQUESTS
59
Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Canary, D. J. (2008). Assessments of disclosure from the in-laws: Links among disclosure
topics, family privacy orientations, and relational quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 333–357.
doi: 10.1177/0265407507087962.
Morr Serewicz, M. C., Dickson, F. C., Morrison, J. H., & Poole, L. L. (2007). Family privacy orientation, relational
maintenance, and family satisfaction in young adults‘ family relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 7,
123–142. doi: 10.1080/15267430701221594.
Nielsen Company. (2011). State of the media: Social media report q3.New York, NY: Nielsen Company.
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students’ social networking experiences on Facebook.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 227–238. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010.
Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 1, 311–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.1991.tb00023.x.
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: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Petronio, S., & Caughlin, J. P. (2006). Communication privacy management theory: Understanding families. In D.
O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication (pp. 35–49). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Petronio, S., & Gaff, C. (2010). Managing privacy ownership and disclosure. In C. Gaff & C. Bylund (Eds.). Family
communication about genetics: Theory and practices. London, England: Oxford Press.
Petronio, S., & Jones, S. M. (2006). When “friendly advice” becomes a privacy dilemma for pregnant couples: Applying
CPM theory. In R. West & L. Turner (Eds.), Family Communication: Sourcebook (pp. 201–218). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Petronio, S., Jones, S., & Morr, M. C. (2003). Family privacy dilemmas: Managing communication boundaries within
family groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (pp. 23–55). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Petronio, S., & Reierson, J. (2009). Regulating the privacy of confidentiality: Grasping the complexities through communication privacy management theory. In T. D. Afifi & W. A. Afifi (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and
disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 365–383). New York, NY: Routledge.
Phares, V. (1999). “Poppa” psychology. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Qualman, E. (2009, August 11). Statistics show social media is bigger than you think. Retrieved from http://socialnomics.
net/2009/08/11/statistics-show-social-media-is-bigger-than-you-think/.
Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general implications. The Academy of
Management Review, 23, 422–437. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1998.926619.
Smith, S. (2009, September 23). Having parents on Facebook creates opportunities, drama. The Purdue Exponent.
Retrieved
from
http://www.purdueexponent.org/index.php/module/Section/section_id/11?module=article&
story_id=17870.
Tein, J. Y., Roosa, M. W., & Michaels, M. (1994). Agreement between parent and child reports on parental behaviors.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 56, 341–355. doi: 10.2307/353104.
Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Family secrets: Forms, functions and correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
11, 113–135. doi: 10.1177/0265407594111007.
Williams, A. (2003). Adolescents’ relationships with parents. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 58–65.
doi: 10.1177/0261927X02250056.