Family privacy dilemmas: Managing communication boundaries within family groups

Group Communication in Context: Studies of Bona Fide Groups, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 23-56

  Petronio, Sandra ^a   Jones, Susanne ^b   Morr, Mary Claire ^c  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85076305901     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (50)

1. Alderman, E., & Kennedy, C. (1995). The right to privacy. New York: Knopf.
2. Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advancement in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 107-160). New York: Academic Press.
3. Arriaga, X. B., &Rusbult, C. E. (1998). Standing in my partner’s shoes: Partner perspective taking and reactions to accommodative dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 927-948.
4. Baron, J. (1997). The illusion of morality as self-interest: A reason to cooperate in social dilemmas. Psychological Science, 8, 330-335.
5. Berardo, F. M. (1974). Family invisibility and family privacy. In S. Margulis (Ed.), Privacy (pp. 55-71). Stony Brook, NY: Environmental Design Research Association.
6. Berg, J. H., & Derlega, V. J. (1987). Themes in the study of self-disclosure. In V. J. Derlega & J. H. Berg (Eds.), Self-disclosure: Theory, research, and therapy (pp. 1-8). New York: Plenum Press.
7. Bergmann, J. R. (1993). Discreet indiscretions: The social organization of gossip. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
8. Broderick, C. B. (1993). Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Burgoon, J., Parrott, R., LePoire, B. A., Kelley, D., Walther, J. B., & Perry, D. (1989). Maintaining and restoring privacy through communication in different types of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 131-158.
10. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1997). Is it mine or is it ours? Framing property rights and decision making in social dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 195-209.
12. Eckenrode, J., & Wethington, E. (1990). The process and outcome of mobilizing social support. InS. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 122-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Frey, L. R. (1994a). Call and response: The challenge of conducting research on communication in natural groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 293-304). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Frey, L. R. (1994b). The naturalistic paradigm: Studying small groups in the post-modern era. Small Group Research, 25, 551-577.
15. Gifford, R., & Hine, D. W. (1998). “I’m cooperative, but you’re greedy�?: Some cognitive tendencies in a commons dilemma. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29, 257-265.
16. Gouran, D. S., & Hirokawa, R. Y. (1996). Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 55-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Greene, K., & Serovich, J. M. (1996). Appropriateness ofdisclosure ofHIV-testing information: The perspective of PLWAs. Journal of Applied CommunicationRe-search, 24, 50-65.
18. Hirokawa, R. Y., & Salazar, A. J. (1999). Task-group communication and deci-sion-making performance. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory & research (pp. 167-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Hosman, L. A., & Siltanen, S. A. (1995). Relationship intimacy, need for privacy, and privacy restoration behaviors. Communication Quarterly, 43, 64-74.
20. Huber, G. P., & Daft, R. L. (1987). Information environments of organizations. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 130-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Karpel, M. A. (1980). Family secrets: Implications for research and therapy. Family Process, 19, 295-306.
22. Kaufman, G. (1993). The mysterious disappearance of battered women in family therapists’ offices: Male privilege colluding with male violence. In E. Imber-Black (Ed.), Secrets in families and family therapy (pp. 196-214). New York: W. W. Norton.
23. Kelley, D. L. (1988). Privacy in marital relationships. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53, 441-456.
24. Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, M. (1997). "… and besides, I probably couldn’t have made a difference anyway�?: Justification of social dilemma defection via perceived self-inefficacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 211-230.
25. LaGaipa, J. J. (1990). The negative effects of informal support systems. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support (pp. 122-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. Lane, J. D., & Wegner, D. M. (1995). The cognitive consequences of secrecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 237-253.
27. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families & family therappy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press.
28. Neufeldt, V. (Ed.). (1990). Webster’s new world dictionary. New York: Pocket Books.
29. Owen, W. F. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274-287.
30. Pennebaker, J. W. (1990). Opening up: The healing power of confiding in others. New York: Avon Books.
31. Petronio, S. (1991). Communication privacy management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure ofprivate information between marital couples. Commu-nication Theory, 1, 311-335.
32. 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. 241-258). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Petronio, S. (2000a). The boundaries of privacy: Praxis of everyday life. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets ofprivate disclosures (pp. 37-50). Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum Associates.
34. Petronio, S. (2000b). The reluctant confidant: Problems ofhearing private disclo-sures. In A. C. Richards &T. Schumrum (Eds.), Invitations to dialogue: The legacy of Sidney Jourard (pp. 113-132). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
35. Petronio, S. (2002). The boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany: State University of New York Press.
36. Petronio, S., &Bantz, C. (1991). Controlling the ramifications of disclosure: “Don’t tell anybody but ….“Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 263-269.
37. Petronio, S., &Kovach, S. (1997). Managing privacy boundaries: Health providers’ perceptions of resident care in Scottish nursing homes. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 115-131.
38. Petronio, S., Ellemers, N., Giles, H., & Gallois, C. (1998). (Mis)communicating across boundaries: Interpersonal and intergroup considerations. Communica-tion Research, 25, 571-595.
39. Petronio, S., Reeder, H. M., Hecht, M., & Mon’t Ros-Mendoza, T. (1996). Disclo-sure of sexual abuse by children and adolescents. JournalofAppliedCommunication Research, 24, 181-199.
40. Putnam, L. L. (1994). Revitalizing small group communication: Lessons learned from a bona fide group perspective. Communication Studies, 45, 97-102.
41. Putnam, L. L., &Stohl, C. (1990). Bona fide groups: A reconceptualization of group in context. Communication Studies, 41, 248-265.
42. Putnam, L. L., & Stohl, C. (1996). Bona fide groups: An alternative perspective for communication and small group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 147-178). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Ray, E. B. (1996). Challenging the stigmatizing messages: The emerging voices of adult survivors of incest (pp. 273-292). InE. B. Ray (Ed.), Communication and disenfranchisement: Social health issues and implications (pp. 273-292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. Snell, R. S. (1996). Complementing Kohlberg: Mapping the ethical reasoning used by managers for their own dilemma cases. Human Relations, 49, 23-49.
45. Socha, T. (1999). Communication in family units: Studying the first “group.�? In L. R. Frey (Ed.), D. S. Gouran & M. S. Poole (Assoc. Eds.), The handbook of group communication theory & research (pp. 475-492). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46. Stohl, C., & Putnam, L. L. (1994). Group communication in context: Implications for the study of bona fide groups. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups (pp. 285-292). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. Swanson, G. E. (1993). The structure of family decision-making: Personal and societal sources and some consequences for children. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D. A. Hansen, A. Skolnick, & G. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self, and society: Toward a new agenda for family research (pp. 235-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Family secrets: Forms, functions and correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 113-135.
49. Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (1997). Revealing family secrets: The influence of topic, function, and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 14, 679-705.
50. VanLange, P. A. M., VanVugt, M., Meertens, R. E., &Ruiter, R. A. C. (1998). Asocial dilemma analysis of commuting preferences: The roles of social value orienta-tion and trust. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 796-820.