Field Notes

source

Impacts of Motivational Framing of Technology Restrictions on Adolescent Concealment

StatusStableUpdatedStands on1 sourceSupportsnotes

Netta Weinstein and Andrew K. Przybylski’s preregistered experiment with a nationally representative sample of 1,000 British adolescents aged 14–15, published in Computers in Human Behavior (2019).

The saved PDF is the accepted manuscript.

Design

Adolescents read vignettes in which a mother restricted a new smartphone app using one of four motivational framings: external control (threats of punishment), introjected control (guilt and conditional regard), autonomy support (empathy, rationale, choice), or a neutral comparison. They then rated their anticipated concealment, reactance, and perceived trustworthiness.

Key findings

  • Autonomy-supportive framing reduced concealment compared to the neutral condition.
  • Controlling framings did not increase concealment compared to neutral — but they increased reactance (the desire to resist), and reactance in turn drove concealment.
  • External control reduced perceived trustworthiness, which independently drove concealment.
  • Autonomy support increased perceived trustworthiness and reduced reactance, both of which independently reduced concealment.
  • These effects held regardless of the adolescent’s own mother’s general parenting style — the framing of a single restriction mattered on its own.

Interpretation

The finding most relevant to policy: controlling restriction styles backfire by making adolescents feel distrusted and reactive, which increases the behavior (concealment) that makes them less safe. Autonomy-supportive restriction achieves the same protective goal without the relational cost.

Built on 1 source (1 external).

Working out connections…