Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Child Fam Stud. 2012 Feb 24;22(2):192–198. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9568-2

Buffering Effect of Parental Monitoring Knowledge and Parent-Adolescent Relationships on Consequences of Adolescent Substance Use

Steven A Branstetter 1,✉, Wyndol Furman 2
PMCID: PMC3711550  NIHMSID: NIHMS368257  PMID: 23869161

Abstract

When adolescents begin using substances, negative consequences are not always directly proportional to the amount used; heavy users may have few consequences whereas light users may have numerous consequences. This study examined how parental monitoring knowledge and parent-child relationship quality may serve as buffers against negative consequences when adolescents use substances. Self-report questionnaires were administered to a community sample of 200 healthy adolescents and their parents at two time points, one year apart. Results suggest that both parental monitoring knowledge and parent-child relationship quality serve as buffers against negative consequences of substance use – but only when adolescents report high levels of monitoring knowledge or strong parent-child relationship quality. Results suggests adolescent perceived parental monitoring knowledge and parent-child relationship quality each act independently to buffer adolescents against negative consequences of substance use over a one-year period.

Keywords: Adolescent, Parent, Monitoring, Relationship Quality, Substance Use, Negative Consequences

Introduction

Research has consistently found that parental monitoring of adolescent peer environments has a strong influence on their children's engagement in a range of other risky behaviors, including delinquency, risky sexual behavior, substance use, and low school achievement (Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993; Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Ledoux, Miller, Choquet, & Plant, 2002; Mounts, 2002). Specifically, the less a parent knows about factors such as their child's whereabouts, their child's peers, and their child's activities, the more likely that child is to exhibit delinquent behaviors (Crouter & Head, 2002; Griffin, Botvin, Scheier, Diaz, & Miller, 2000; Mounts, 2002; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2006). Whereas “monitoring” has been defined variously as any number of parental behaviors, a child's perception of parental knowledge, and the by-product of parent-child communication (Crouter, MacDermid, McHale, & Perry-Jenkins, 1990; DiClemente et al., 2001; Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Stattin & Kerr, 2000), parental “monitoring” has proven to be a robust construct that is consistently associated with positive adolescent outcomes. For example, monitoring, as defined as parental control and rule setting, has been found to lower the risk of adolescent substance use (Kiesner, Poulin, & Dishion, 2010); likewise, monitoring, as defined as child disclosure of information to parents, is also associated with a reduction of risk behavior (Kerr, Stattin, & Burk, 2010). Whereas a debate continues in the literature regarding the best definition of “monitoring,” many agree that parental knowledge of their children's activities is the critical endpoint in preventing youth risk behavior: how parents get such knowledge, and how adolescents come to perceive how much and what their parents know, remains controversial. Ultimately, despite the theoretical controversy regarding how parents come to know this information , when a parent is informed about key aspects of his/her adolescent's behavior and environment (or when an adolescent perceives his/her parents has that knowledge) – through whatever mechanism – the results are the same: adolescents are less likely to engage in risk behaviors.

Similar to monitoring, there is a strong link between parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent risk behavior (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992; Werner, 1990). For example, the quality of the relationship between children and their parents may influence not only the amount of alcohol a child uses, but may also influence the degree to which the child experiences negative outcomes as a result of drinking, such as physical fights, blackouts, or regretting sexual behavior (Turrisi, Wiersma, & Hughes, 2000). One important aspect of the overall parent-child relationship is parental support (Anderson & Henry, 1994). Parental support has often been found to provide strong protection against pathology and substance abuse; low levels of parental support are directly related to increased adolescent substance use, (Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Stice & Barrera Jr, 1995). Another side of the parent-child relationship, negative interactions, has also been implicated as a potential predictor of adolescent risk behavior, including substance abuse. Farrell and White (1998), for example, found that drug use increased as a function of overt conflict between adolescents and their mothers. Similarly, Brody and Forehand (1993) found that high mother-adolescent conflict predicted adolescent drug use problems.

Negative consequences of substance use are wide-ranging and numerous, and include emotional effects (e.g., regret, depression), inter-personal effects (e.g., relationship strain, arguments), and social/occupational effects (e.g., poor school grades). It is known that not all adolescents who use substances – even those who use large amounts of substances – experience significant negative consequences. Conversely, some adolescents may experience a large number of serious negative consequences, even when using small amounts of substances. Unfortunately, there has been little research into factors that moderate the relation between substance use and negative outcomes in adolescent populations (Wills, Sandy, & Yaeger, 2002), and the limited available research yields contradictory results. For example, Stacy and Newcomb (1999) found that neither parental substance use nor parental support were moderators of the relation between adolescent substance use and negative outcomes. On the other hand, Stice, Barrera and Chassin (1998) found that both parent- and adolescent-reported relationship support were protective against negative outcomes. Finally, Willis, Sandy and Yeager (2002) found that support, served as protective factors against problems related to substance use. To date, little is known how overall relationship quality–(i.e., support and negative interactions)-- may serve as a buffering factor against negative outcomes when adolescents engage in substance use. Similarly, investigators have not examined how parental monitoring knowledge may buffer the impact of substance use. As such, the present study sought to examine how parental monitoring knowledge and parent-child relationship qualities may serve to protect adolescents who use alcohol and drugs against negative outcomes over a one-year period.

Method

Samples

The participants were part of a longitudinal study investigating the role of relationships with parents, peers, and romantic partners on psychosocial adjustment. Two hundred 10th grade high school students (100 males, 100 females; M age = 15 yr, 10.44 month, SD = .49) were recruited from a diverse range of neighborhoods and schools in a large Western metropolitan area by distributing brochures and sending letters to families residing in various zip codes and to students enrolled in various schools in ethnically diverse neighborhoods. We were unable to determine the ascertainment rate because we used brochures and because the letters were sent to many families who did not have a 10th grader. To insure maximal response, we paid families $25 to hear a description of the project in their home. Of the families that heard the description, 85.5% expressed interest and carried through with the Wave 1 assessment. All 200 participants also participated in the Wave 2 assessment, a year later.

Participants were selected so that the sample was representative of the ethnic distribution of the United States; thus, the sample consisted of 11.5% African Americans, 12.5% Hispanics, 1.5% Native Americans, 1% Asian American, 4% biracial, and 69.5% White, non-Hispanics. The sample was of average intelligence and comparable to national norms on multiple measures of substance use, internalizing and externalizing symptoms (see Furman, Ho, & Low, 2009).

A mother figure also participated in the (N = 197). Almost all of mother figures were the participants’ biological or adoptive parent (98%); a minority were a step-mother or grandmother whom the participant had lived with for at least 4 years; 98.5% resided with the parent; all had contact with the participant at least once a week. With regard to family structure, 57.5% were residing with 2 biological or adoptive parents, 11.5% were residing with a biological or adoptive parent and a step-parent or partner, and the remaining 31% were residing with a single parent or relative. With regard to socioeconomic status, 55.4% of their mothers had a college degree, as would be expected from an ethnically representative sample from this particular Metropolitan area.

Measures

Substance use and negative consequences

To assess for the frequency of use of a range of substances, including alcohol, marijuana, and other “hard drugs” (i.e., opiates, cocaine, methamphetamines, inhalants, and club drugs), the Drug Involvement Scale for Adolescents (DISA; (Eggert, Herting, & Thompson, 1996) was administered to all participants at Wave 1 and Wave 2. The DISA was administered using computer assisted interviewing where respondents entered answers directly into the computer, without having to respond directly to research assistants. Participants were asked how often in the last month they had used each substance on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = “not at all” to 6 = “every day.” Reliability for the frequency of substance use sub-scale was acceptable, α = .76. The DISA was also used to assess the frequency at which participants experienced problems controlling their use (sample item: “I used more alcohol and/or drugs than I intended to”) and how often they experienced both inter- and intra-personal consequences as a result of their substance use. Interpersonal problems related relationship problems with peers or family members related to substance use (sample item: “My friends/family were mad at me because I used or did something wrong while using”); intrapersonal problems related to feeling of regret, depression, or other negative psychological effects related to use of substances (sample item: “I felt guilty about how much alcohol and/or drugs I used”). Participants were asked how often each negative outcome had happened to them in the last 30 days on a scale of 0 = “not at all” to 6 = “every day.” These three dimensions were highly correlated (r range = .51 - .90) and were thus combined to create an overall “negative consequences” variable. The reliability of the negative consequences sub-scale in this population was acceptable, α = .84.

Parental Monitoring Knowledge

To assess adolescents’ perceptions of level of parental monitoring knowledge, participants completed The Parental Monitoring Knowledge Scale, based on the scale by Brown, Mounts, Lamborn and Steinbery (1993). The Parental Monitoring Knowledge Scale consists of five items assessing what parents know about their adolescent's friends, how their adolescent spends his/her money, what their adolescent does after school, where their adolescent is at night, and how their adolescent spends his/her free time. The questionnaire is on a four-point Likert scale (1 = “Don't Know” to 4 = “Know a Lot”). Parents answered a parallel version reporting on how much they believed they knew about their child's friends, money, after school time, whereabouts at night, and free time activities. Reliability for both adolescent and parent reported monitoring knowledge scales were α ≥ .81. Whereas the two measures were significantly correlated, the correlation was modest (r = .44, p < .001) and reflects a common discrepancy between parent and adolescent reports of monitoring knowledge (De Los Reyes, Goodman, Kliewer, & Reid-Quinones, 2009).

Parent-Adolescent Relationship

The Network of Relationships Inventory, Behavioral Systems Version (NRI; Furman & Buhrmester, 2009) is a 24-item self-report questionnaire that asked participants to rate aspects of their relationship with their mother and father as well as with several peers. A parallel version was administered to the participant's mother, who reported on her relationship with her adolescent. The NRI consists of 8 three-item scales rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = “Little or None” to 5 = “The Most”). Two major factors are yielded: Negative Interactions (“How often do you and your mother point out each other's faults or put each other down?”) and Relationship Support (“How much does your mother show support for your activities?”). The Negative Interaction factor is comprised of three separate scales: 1) Conflict, 2) Antagonism, and 3) Criticism. The Support factor is comprised of five separate scales: 1) Seeking Secure Base, 2) Seeking Safe Haven, 3) Providing a Secure Base, 4) Providing a Safe Haven, and 5) Companionship. The NRI has been widely used to assess relationship qualities, and there is good evidence for the NRI's reliability and validity (see Furman, 1996; Furman & Buhrmester, 2009). Reliability for each factor was acceptable, alphas ≥ .85.

Results

All data were initially screened for the presence of outliers and problems of skew or kurtosis (Behrens, 1997). The normality of the distributions of all final indicators was acceptable (skew range = -1.18 - .74; kurtosis range = .09 – 1.5). Next, t-tests were conducted to determine if there were significant gender differences in study variables. Findings suggest there were no differences based on gender in any independent or dependent variables. Overall, 73% of participants reported using at least one substance in the last month. The average alcohol use was about once a week, M = 3.1, SD = 1.75, marijuana approximately 2 or 3 times a month, M = 2.42, SD = 1.93, and other drugs (excluding marijuana) about one a month, M = 1.54, SD = 1.39. Descriptive statistics for all other variables can be seen in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Sample

Respondent
Adolescent Parent
Mean SD Mean SD
Alcohol Use 3.13 1.75 -- --
Marijuana Use 2.42 1.94 -- --
Hard Drug Use 1.54 1.38 -- --
Relationship Quality .86 1.45 1.29 1.03
Monitoring Knowledge 3.32 .56 3.60 .34
Open in a new tab

As is hypothesized in the present study, when a protective factor such as monitoring knowledge also serves as a buffer against negative outcomes, it changes the specific relation between the risk factors and the outcome (Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995). Methodologically, therefore, buffering specifically implies moderation. As such, hierarchical moderated regression models were used to examine the potential buffering effect of parental monitoring knowledge and relationship quality on the relation between substance use and negative outcomes (e.g., (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Two separate models were conducted: first, a model with adolescent perceived parental monitoring knowledge and relationship quality, and second, a model with parent-reported monitoring knowledge and relationship quality. For both models, Wave 2 negative consequences was the criterion variable. In the first step of each model, Wave 1 use of alcohol, marijuana and hard drugs was followed by Wave 1 reports of relationship quality and parental monitoring knowledge. Step two of the models entered six interaction effects: 1) alcohol use X parental monitoring knowledge, 2) marijuana use X parental monitoring knowledge, 3) hard drug use X parental monitoring knowledge, 4) alcohol use X relationship quality, 5) marijuana use X relationship quality, and 6) hard drug use X relationship quality.

Step one of the adolescent reported model was significant, F (5, 187) = 101.89, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .72. All predictor variables, with the exception of relationship quality, were significant, see Table 2. Step two of the model was also significant, F (11, 187) = 61.35, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .75, with a small but statistically significant R2 change of .03, p = < .001. Marijuana use, all interactions with parental monitoring, and the interactions between relationship quality and marijuana use and relationship quality and hard drug use were significant predictors of Wave 2 negative outcomes.

Table 2.

Adolescent Report Regression Analyses Predicting Negative Consequences

Variable B SE B β p
Step 1
    Alcohol Use .24 .02 .58 .000
    Marijuana Use .09 .02 .24 .000
    Hard Drug Use .11 .02 .22 .000
    Relationship Quality -.02 .02 -.05 .269
    Monitoring Knowledge -.12 .06 -.10 .032
Step 2
    Alcohol Use .05 .12 .14 .628
    Marijuana Use .31 .08 .83 .001
    Hard Drug Use .05 .03 .10 .094
    Relationship Quality -.02 .04 -.04 .607
    Monitoring Knowledge -.21 .11 -.16 .058
    Alcohol X MK -.10 .04 -.77 .007
    Marijuana X MK -.09 .03 -.72 .004
    Hard Drug X MK -.02 .01 .19 .041
    Alcohol X RQ .01 .02 .13 .201
    Marijuana X RQ -.06 .02 .40 .001
    Hard Drug X RQ -.08 .02 -.50 .000
Open in a new tab

Note: MK = Monitoring Knowledge; RQ = Relationship Quality

For the parent-reported model, step one was significant, F (5, 180) = 86.31, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .70. However, no parent-reported variable was found to be a predictor of Wave 2 negative outcomes. The step two model was also significant, F (11, 180) = 45.84, p < .001, adjusted R2 = .73, with a small but statistically significant R2 change of .03, p = < .001. In step two, both the interaction between parent-reported monitoring knowledge and hard drug use and the interaction between parent-reported relationship quality and hard drug use were significant, see Table 3.

Table 3.

Parent Report Regression Analyses

Variable B SE B β p
Step 1
    Alcohol Use .24 .02 .58 .000
    Marijuana Use .09 .02 .24 .000
    Hard Drug Use .11 .02 .22 .000
    Relationship Quality .01 .03 .02 .65
    Monitoring Knowledge -.03 .09 -.02 .74
Step 2
    Alcohol Use .09 .22 .21 .18
    Marijuana Use .01 .19 .02 .96
    Hard Drug Use .07 .04 .13 .06
    Relationship Quality -.03 .06 .60 .28
    Monitoring Knowledge -.40 .21 -.19 .06
    Alcohol X MK .06 .05 .60 .28
    Marijuana X MK .00 .06 .01 .99
    Hard Drug X MK .06 .02 .56 .000
    Alcohol X RQ -.04 .03 -.20 .08
    Marijuana X RQ -.03 .03 -.12 .42
    Hard Drug X RQ .10 .03 .45 .004
Open in a new tab

Note: MK = Monitoring Knowledge; RQ = Relationship Quality

Discussion

Overall, the results of the present study reflect that beyond serving as protective factors against substance use, parental monitoring knowledge and positive parent-child relationships also serve as buffers against the negative consequences associated with the use of substances among adolescents. The findings suggest that the importance of parental monitoring knowledge extends beyond mere prevention of engaging in risk behaviors (e.g., substance use). Parental monitoring has been operationalized differently by various researchers (Dishion & McMahon, 1998; Stattin & Kerr, 2000), and there are numerous important dimensions comprising the construct of “monitoring” (e.g., child disclosure, parental strategies). Nevertheless, there is strong evidence that a key ingredient in the effectiveness of parental “monitoring” is how much a parent knows, or how much an adolescent perceives his/her parent actually knows, about the adolescent's behavior (Borawski, Ievers-Landis, Lovegreen, & Trapl, 2003; Li, Feigelman, & Stanton, 2000; Padilla-Walker, Nelson, Madsen, & Barry, 2008). Most would agree that the purpose behind the concept of parental monitoring is to prevent negative outcomes; typically through the prevention of the risky behavior. The present study demonstrates that even when preventative factors (e.g., monitoring and relationship quality) “fail” and adolescents do engage in risk behavior, these same factors may offer some protection against negative outcomes. Previous work has suggested that certain approaches to monitoring and interacting, especially with older adolescents, may lead to some degree of experimentation with risk behaviors, but that parental involvement may cause such experimentation to be done in a relatively more responsible manner (Borawski, et al., 2003). Extending previous work that has demonstrated monitoring is effective in reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage a range of risk behaviors (Crouter & Head, 2002; Crouter, et al., 1990; Kerr, et al., 2010; Padilla-Walker, et al., 2008), the results of the present study additionally support the notion that monitoring knowledge does, in fact, serve the additional purpose of preventing negative outcomes associated with substance use.

Notably, it was found that both adolescent-perceived parental monitoring knowledge and adolescent-perceived quality of the parent-child relationship (with the exception of the interaction between alcohol use and relationship quality) were buffers against negative outcomes. It has been argued that parents can only know about a child's friends, whereabouts and behaviors if that child is willing to disclose information to the parent (Stattin & Kerr, 2000), and that willingness to disclose is the direct result of a positive parent-adolescent relationship. In fact, in step one of the adolescent-reported model, only perceived parental monitoring was a predictor of negative consequences. However, in step two, both perceived monitoring and relationship quality served as buffers against negative consequences. This suggests that whereas there may be an interactive effect of between relationship qualities and monitoring knowledge with regard to prevention, these factors may have independent contributions when it comes to buffering against negative outcomes.

The results also demonstrate that a parent's perception of his/her monitoring knowledge and of the parent-child relationship quality has little direct or moderated impact on negative consequences of substance use. Interestingly, only the interactions between hard drug use and parent-report monitoring knowledge and between hard drug use and relationship quality were significant predictors of negative consequences. More specifically, the direction of these coefficients suggest an interaction when both drug use and parental-reported monitoring knowledge or relationship quality are high, adolescents have an increase in negative consequences. Prior research has found that when parents gain information through invasive monitoring methods, such as coerciveness or psychological control, the result is an increase in delinquent behavior (Pettit, Laird, Dodge, Bates, & Criss, 2001; Soenens, et al., 2006). It is possible that parents who have children who are using drugs not normally associated with “normal” experimentation (e.g., tobacco, alcohol, marijuana), respond with more aggressive and invasive techniques to monitor their children. Such intrusive methods may lead to both increased use and greater consequences.

The results of the present study should be viewed in light of its limitations. First, the sample comes from a healthy cohort of adolescents attending public schools. The incidence of clinically significant substance use and related negative consequences is relatively minimal in this population; as such, the results may not generalize to higher-risk populations where family dynamics and interactions may be vastly different. Next, the present study uses self-report of substance use. Whereas there is evidence that such self-reports are only marginally valid (Williams & Nowatzki, 2005), others contend that the use of confidential, computer-assisted technology to collect such data results in more valid responses (Turner et al., 1998). Although the present study examined how parental monitoring knowledge and relationship quality predicted negative substance use consequences one year later (controlling for concurrent substance use), the time frame may not be optimal. Specifically, parenting behavior and monitoring tends to change somewhat over the course of adolescence (Pettit, Keiley, Laird, Bates, & Dodge, 2007) with parents allowing greater independence the older their adolescents get. Although there is no specific evidence of substantial change in parental monitoring knowledge from ages 15 to 16 (the average ages in the present study), it is plausible that a shorter time frame may be ideal to study the interaction between monitoring knowledge and outcomes. Finally, the use of parental monitoring knowledge to measure the construct of “parental monitoring” is somewhat controversial. It is argued that parents get knowledge from a child's voluntary disclosure rather than through any specific parental behavior (Kerr, et al., 2010; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). However, in the present study, we do not assume to determine the source of the parental knowledge; rather we are interested in parental monitoring knowledge (or perceived knowledge) as the proximal indicator of adolescent risk behavior. Because of its strong association with adolescent outcomes, many studies have used parental monitoring knowledge as an outcome in order to assess the factors that lead to this critical indicator (Bumpus & Rodgers, 2009; Kerr, et al., 2010).

Despite these limitations, the present study highlights the importance of parental monitoring as both a preventative factor against substance use and as a buffering factor against negative consequences. Additionally, the present study demonstrates that whereas the parent-child relationship may not be a consistent preventative factor against substance use, it serves as a buffering factor against consequences related to marijuana and hard drug use – independent of monitoring knowledge. Finally, the present study suggests that in some circumstances, when parents obtain information about their children's behavior, it may come at a cost: as parents reported more knowledge of their adolescent's hard drug use behaviors, the greater the likelihood of negative consequences.

Contributor Information

Steven A. Branstetter, Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 sab57@psu.edu

Wyndol Furman, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, CO 80208.

References

  1. Anderson AR, Henry CS. Family system characteristics and parental behaviors as predictors of adolescent substance use. Adolescence. 1994;29(114) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes GM, Farrell MP. Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1992;54(4):763–776. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51(6):1173. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Behrens JT. Principles and procedures of exploratory data analysis. Psychological Methods. 1997;2(2):131–160. [Google Scholar]
  5. Borawski EA, Ievers-Landis CE, Lovegreen LD, Trapl ES. Parental monitoring, negotiated unsupervised time, and parental trust: The role of parenting practices in adolescent health risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2003;33:60–70. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(03)00100-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brody GH, Forehand R. Prospective associations among family form, family processes, and adolescents’ alcohol and drug use. Behaviour research and therapy. 1993;31(6):587–593. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(93)90110-g. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown BB, Mounts N, Lamborn SD, Steinberg L. Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child development. 1993;64(2):467–482. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02922.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bumpus MF, Rodgers KB. Parental Knowledge and Its Sources. Journal of Family Issues. 2009;30(10):1356. [Google Scholar]
  9. Crouter AC, Head MR. Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of Parenting: Being and Becoming a Parent. Vol. 3. Lawrence Earlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2002. p. 461. [Google Scholar]
  10. Crouter AC, MacDermid SM, McHale SM, Perry-Jenkins M. Parental monitoring and perceptions of children's school performance and conduct in dual-and single-earner families. Developmental Psychology. 1990;26(4):649–657. [Google Scholar]
  11. De Los Reyes A, Goodman KL, Kliewer W, Reid-Quinones K. The Longitudinal Consistency of Mother–Child Reporting Discrepancies of Parental Monitoring and Their Ability to Predict Child Delinquent Behaviors Two Years Later. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2009;39(23):1417–1430. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9496-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. DiClemente RJ, Wingood GM, Crosby R, Sionean C, Cobb BK, Harrington K, Oh MK. Parental monitoring: association with adolescents’ risk behaviors. Pediatrics. 2001;107(6):1363. doi: 10.1542/peds.107.6.1363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dishion TJ, McMahon RJ. Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical child and family psychology review. 1998;1(1):61–75. doi: 10.1023/a:1021800432380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Eggert LL, Herting JR, Thompson E. The drug involvement scale for adolescent (DISA). Journal of Drug Education. 1996;26(2):101–130. doi: 10.2190/EQ6J-D4GH-K4YD-XRJB. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Farrell AD, White KS. Peer influences and drug use among urban adolescents: Family structure and parent–adolescent relationship as protective factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1998;66(2):248. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.66.2.248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Griffin KW, Botvin GJ, Scheier LM, Diaz T, Miller NL. Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: Moderating effects of family structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2000;14(2):174–184. doi: 10.1037//0893-164x.14.2.174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hawkins JD, Catalano RF. Communities that care: Action for drug abuse prevention. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco, CA: 1992. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jessor R, Van Den Bos J, Vanderryn J, Costa FM, Turbin MS. Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology. 1995;31(6):923–933. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kerr M, Stattin H, Burk WJ. A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2010;20(1):39–64. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kiesner J, Poulin F, Dishion TJ. Merrill-Palmer quarterly. 4. Vol. 56. Wayne State University. Press; 2010. Adolescent Substance Use with Friends: Moderating and Mediating Effects of Parental Monitoring and Peer Activity Contexts. p. 529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ledoux S, Miller P, Choquet M, Plant M. Family structure, parent-child relationships, and alcohol and other drug use among teenagers in France and the United Kingdom. Alcohol and Alcoholism. 2002;37(1):52. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/37.1.52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Li X, Feigelman S, Stanton B. Perceived parental monitoring and health risk behaviors among urban low-income African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2000;27(1):43–48. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(99)00077-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mounts NS. Parental Management of Adolescent Peer Relationships in Context: The Role of Parenting Style. Journal of Family Psychology. 2002;16(1):58–69. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.16.1.58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Padilla-Walker LM, Nelson LJ, Madsen SD, Barry CMN. The role of perceived parental knowledge on emerging adults’ risk behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2008;37(7):847–859. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pettit GS, Keiley MK, Laird RD, Bates JE, Dodge KA. Predicting the developmental course of mother-reported monitoring across childhood and adolescence from early proactive parenting, child temperament, and parents’ worries. Journal of family psychology: JFP: journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43) 2007;21(2):206. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pettit GS, Laird RD, Dodge KA, Bates JE, Criss MM. Antecedents and Behavior Problem Outcomes of Parental Monitoring and Psychological Control in Early Adolescence. Child development. 2001;72(2):583–598. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Luyckx K, Goossens L. Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology. 2006;42(2):305–318. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Stacy AW, Newcomb MD. Adolescent Drug Use and Adult Drug Problems in Women: Direct, Interactive, and Mediational Effects* 1. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. 1999;7(2):160–173. doi: 10.1037//1064-1297.7.2.160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Stattin H, Kerr M. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child development. 2000;71(4):1072–1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Stice E, Barrera M., Jr A longitudinal examination of the reciprocal relations between perceived parenting and adolescents’ substance use and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology. 1995;31(2):322–334. [Google Scholar]
  31. Stice E, Barrera M, Jr, Chassin L. Prospective differential prediction of adolescent alcohol use and problem use: Examining the mechanisms of effect. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1998;107(4):616. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.107.4.616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science. 1998;280(5365):867. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5365.867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Turrisi R, Wiersma K, Hughes K. Binge-drinking-related consequences in college students: Role of drinking beliefs and mother-teen communications. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2000;14(4):342–355. doi: 10.1037//0893-164x.14.4.342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Werner EE. Protective factors and individual resilience. In: Meisels SJ, Shonkoff JP, editors. Handbook of early childhood intervention. Cambridge University Press; New York: 1990. pp. 97–116. [Google Scholar]
  35. Williams RJ, Nowatzki N. Validity of adolescent self-report of substance use. Substance Use & Misuse. 2005;40(3):299–311. doi: 10.1081/ja-200049327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Wills TA, Sandy JM, Yaeger AM. Moderators of the relation between substance use level and problems: Test of a self-regulation model in middle adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2002;111(1):3–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES