Prevention of youth alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use are important public health priorities because early onset, regular, or heavy use of these substances in adolescence increases risk for abuse or dependence and a wide range of other negative social, economic, legal, and health outcomes [1–4]. Prior research has shown that parent substance use, parental norms favoring substance use, and parenting practices like good family management (monitoring, consistent moderate discipline) predict youth substance use [5–8]. In addition to general parenting practices like family management, parents also engage in substance-specific parenting practices, including establishing family rules about substance use, providing substances or permitting youth to use them, and involving youth in family member substance use (getting, opening, or pouring alcoholic drinks; getting or lighting cigarettes). The role of these substance-specific parenting practices in youth substance use remains understudied, and their contribution to risk for youth substance use beyond general parenting practices is unclear. The current study aimed to understand whether parent-permitted use of alcohol or cigarettes; family rules about alcohol, cigarette, and drug use; and child involvement in family member alcohol or cigarette use predict child alcohol, cigarette, or marijuana use over and above family management and parent substance use and norms.
Substance-specific parenting practices
External constraints (laws, policies, rules) can be effective at reducing youth substance use [7, 9, 10]. Family rules, in particular, are an important source of constraint on youth behavior [9], and many families establish rules around substance use [11]. In a probability sample of U.S. families, 75% and 65% of parents reported discussing rules about alcohol and cigarette use, respectively, with their teen [11]. Evidence regarding whether family rules about alcohol reduce teen drinking is mixed, however, with studies showing negative, positive, and no associations [11–13]. Studies of smoking have been more consistent in showing that family rules restricting smoking predict a lower likelihood and reduced frequency of youth smoking [14–16], although some have failed to find prospective associations between family rules and teen smoking [e.g., 11]. One potential source of inconsistency in studies of family rules about substance use is that the time ordering of youth use and establishment of family rules may differ in different families. Some families may institute rules proactively to prevent use (producing a negative association) and some may institute rules reactively once use has occurred (producing a positive association). This problem is amplified because many prior studies of family rules about substance use were cross-sectional or had short longitudinal follow-up periods. We did not find studies of the association between family rules about drug use and child marijuana use, and identify this as a significant gap in the literature.
In addition to constraining their children’s behavior, parents provide opportunities for their children to engage in prosocial behaviors, like helping with chores, playing games, and eating meals together, which provide a basis for shaping desired behavior through rewards and increased bonding [9]. Parents also may provide opportunities for antisocial behavior, such as allowing underage children to use substances [17]. For example, some parents and policy makers believe that teaching children to drink at home may promote more responsible drinking [18, 19]. Yet, the literature on parent provision of alcohol to youth suggests that allowing underage drinking at home is associated with more problematic youth drinking. Longitudinal studies have consistently linked parent provision of alcohol to earlier initiation, higher levels of alcohol use, more drunkenness and binge drinking, and greater increases in use over time among youth [13, 20, 21, but see 22], even when prior youth alcohol use is controlled [23]. We found no studies of parent provision of cigarettes to youth.
Another way parents and family members may provide antisocial opportunities to youth is by including children in family member substance use. For example, asking or allowing children to get, open, or pour alcoholic drinks for family members is a common practice. In one study, 33% of parents reported that their 5th grade child had been involved in family member drinking [24]. Yet, very few studies have investigated links between child substance use and child involvement in family member substance use. In one longitudinal study, child involvement in parent drinking predicted child past year alcohol use and drunkenness [21]. A second longitudinal study of alcohol use found that child involvement in family member drinking predicted child alcohol use, even when controlling family management, parent drinking, and parent alcohol norms [24]. A study of child involvement in family member smoking found a bivariate association with onset of child daily smoking that did not remain significant when parent smoking, family management, and family bonding were controlled [8].
Family management
The social development model [9] and other theories focused on social learning and social control have identified family management as a key predictor of child substance use. Good family management practices include frequent parental monitoring; moderate, consistent discipline; clear rules and expectations; and praise for good behavior [9]. Family management is a key target in multiple tested-effective youth substance use prevention programs [25], and has been linked repeatedly to a lower probability of teen alcohol use, delayed onset, and lower levels of use among teens who drink [13, 23, 24, 26]. Studies also have linked good family management to a lower probability of teen smoking [6, 8] and marijuana use [26]. Given the importance of family management in predicting youth substance use, it is important to test whether substance-specific parenting practices contribute uniquely to youth substance use when family management is modeled.
Other family factors
A large body of research links parent substance use and norms to child substance use. Studies have demonstrated parent-child congruence in a general tendency to use substances [27, 28], as well as in the use of specific substances, including alcohol, [4, 29] cigarettes [5, 30], and marijuana [5]. Several studies have shown links between parent substance-related norms and child substance use [31, 32], however, studies in this area have often relied on children’s perceptions of parent norms as opposed to parent reports of their own norms. To examine the unique relationship between substance-specific parenting practices and child substance use, this study included measures of parent binge drinking and cigarette and marijuana use, as well as measures of parents’ norms about alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana.
Time ordering of parenting practices and child substance use
This study used longitudinal data to test whether youth substance use was predicted by family rules about alcohol, cigarette, and drug use; parent provision of alcohol and cigarettes; or child involvement in family member alcohol or cigarette use. Correct time ordering of predictors and outcomes is important to understand associations between parenting practices and child substance use, particularly for family rules about substance use. Further, it is important to consider the timescale of the processes under study [33]. For example, child involvement in family member smoking could have both immediate effects on child smoking if the child takes a cigarette for her/himself while fetching one for a family member and long-term effects on child smoking if the child becomes desensitized over time to handling tobacco products. This study tests both short- and long-term relationships between substance-specific parenting practices and child substance use by testing concurrent models, in which parenting practices and child substance use are measured at the same time, and lagged models, in which parenting practices are measured 1 year prior to child substance use.
Methods
Participants and Procedures
Data were drawn from the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) and the Intergenerational Project (TIP). TIP families (n = 383) were identified from among participants in SSDP, an ongoing, longitudinal study [see 34, 35 for details]. TIP began in 2002, and included SSDP participants who became parents; the oldest biological child with whom they had regular contact; and a second caregiver when present. TIP used an accelerated longitudinal design; rolling enrollment added new families to the sample as SSDP participants had their first child. Data collections were tied to the child’s birthday. Table 1 displays sample demographic data.
Table 1.
Sample demographics (full sample).
| Mean or proportion | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Child female | 49% | -- |
| Child age at wave 1 | 9 | 1–13 |
| Child age at wave 7 | 16 | 1–22 |
| SSDP parent age at wave 1 | 27 | 26–30 |
| SSDP parent age at wave 7 | 36 | 35–39 |
| SSDP parent age at child birth | 24.2 | 15 – 36 |
| 1+ parent with 4-year degree | 33% | -- |
| Family public assistance receipt | 42% cumulative | 23% – 30% in waves 1–7 |
| Second caregiver is parent/parent figure | 88% cumulative | 71% – 89% in waves 1–7 |
The current analyses used seven waves of data collected between 2002 and 2011. Across waves, recruitment averaged 82% and retention averaged 90%. SSDP mothers and married SSDP parents were more likely to be eligible (i.e., have regular, face-to-face contact with the child) than SSDP fathers and unmarried SSDP parents. Families with Asian American parents or parents who received free or reduced-price lunch in grades 5–7 were slightly less likely to be recruited. Retention was not consistently related to SSDP parent cigarette use, marijuana use, or binge drinking at baseline; free lunch eligibility in childhood; gender; marital status; or receipt of public assistance. The University of Washington Institutional Review Board approved procedures for SSDP and TIP. Parents and children ages 18+ gave informed consent. Parents gave permission for children under age 18, and children assented. Most of the “children” were adolescents, however, we use the term “child” to denote that they are the offspring of the parent(s) in the study.
Measures
Child substance use
Past year alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use were reported by children at each wave. Cigarette and alcohol use were assessed beginning at age 6, and marijuana use was assessed beginning at age 10. Each of these three indicators of substance use was coded 0 no past year use or 1 any past year use.
Parenting practices
The current paper focuses on parent influences on child substance use. Although most second caregivers were parents or parent figures (biological, step-, adoptive, or foster parent; live-in partner of parent), some were not (e.g., grandmothers). When the second caregiver was a parent or parent figure, SSDP parent and second caregiver practices were combined as described below. Otherwise, the sole parent figure’s parenting practices were included in analyses.
Substance-specific parenting practices
At each wave, SSDP parents and second caregivers reported whether the family had “clear rules and expectations” for their children about, respectively, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and using drugs (1 NO! 2 no 3 yes 4 YES!). Parents and children each responded to two items assessing, respectively, child involvement in family member alcohol (getting, pouring, or opening a drink) or cigarette use (getting or lighting a cigarette); if either parent or the child reported child involvement, then involvement was coded as 1 (otherwise 0). Child use of alcohol and cigarettes (separately) with parent or second caregiver permission was reported by parents. If either parent reported permitting the child to use, child use with permission was coded as 1 (otherwise 0). Measures of marijuana-specific parenting practices were not available; clear rules and expectations about “drugs” (including marijuana), parent provision of alcohol or cigarettes, and child involvement in family smoking were used as proxies for marijuana-specific practices.
Family management items captured child reports of clear family rules, parent monitoring, and praise for good behavior at each wave. When two parents were present, items were averaged across parents. Responses were on a 4-point Likert scale (1 NO! 2 no 3 yes 4 YES!). Continuous scale scores used in analyses averaged items at each wave (mean α = .65). Higher scores indicated better management.
Parent substance use
At each wave, SSDP parents and second caregivers reported their own frequency of past month binge drinking (5+ drinks in a two-hour period), cigarette use, and marijuana use. Frequency variables were dichotomized to indicate any past month use of each substance. When two parents were present, parent use was scored as 1 if either reported use (otherwise 0). Otherwise the sole parent figure’s report determined past month use.
Parent pro-substance norms
Parents answered a series of questions about whether it is “OK for adults” to drink alcohol, get drunk, smoke cigarettes, and use marijuana; responses were on a 4-point Likert scale (1 NO! 2 no 3 yes 4 YES!). Multiple items assessed alcohol norms; items were averaged across parents when two parents were present, then these combined items were averaged. Single items assessed norms about cigarettes and marijuana; these were averaged across parents when two parents were participating. Higher scores indicated more pro-use norms.
Control variables
Controls included child age (the “time” variable for repeated measures), child sex, SSDP parent race/ethnicity and age when the child was born, and highest level of parent education (either parent). The primary caregiver to the child reported on family receipt of public assistance at each wave (1 yes 0 no).
Analysis
Multilevel modeling with a Bernoulli link function in HLM 6.0 software was used to model repeated measures and dichotomous outcome variables. Because children were born in different years, we tested for potential birth cohort differences [36]. Testing revealed no evidence of child birth cohort effects; cohorts were combined for analysis. One series of three, fixed effects models predicted, respectively, child past year alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use from concurrently measured predictors. A second series of fixed effects models included predictors measured 1 year prior to outcomes in order to establish hypothesized causal ordering among predictors and outcomes. Where predictors were measured repeatedly (e.g., parent substance use, parenting practices), they were modeled as time-varying; otherwise they were modeled as time-fixed (e.g., child sex, parent race/ethnicity). Few parents reported allowing their child to use cigarettes (Table 2). Analyses of child alcohol use included a measure of child alcohol use with permission; analyses of child cigarette and marijuana use included a combined measure of child cigarette or alcohol use with permission. Virtually no child substance use was reported before age 10. Sample sizes for children ages 19–22 were small. Therefore, analyses presented here included children ages 10 to 18 years (M = 13, N = 224).
Table 2.
Prevalence and means of key study variables.
| Variable | Cumulative % | Range across waves 1–7 |
|---|---|---|
| Child past year substance use | ||
| Alcohol | 26% | 0% – 14% |
| Cigarettes | 16% | 0% – 9% |
| Marijuana | 24% | 0% – 14% |
| Substance-specific parenting practices | ||
| Family rules about alcohol | -- | M = 3.5 – 3.7 |
| Family rules about cigarettes | -- | M = 3.5 – 3.8 |
| Family rules about drugs | -- | M = 3.6 – 3.9 |
| Child alcohol use with permission | 12% | 3% – 9% |
| Child cigarette use with permission | 2% | 0.4% – 1.4% |
| Child involvement in family alcohol use | 34% | 10% – 25% |
| Child involvement in family cigarette use | 21% | 5% – 17% |
| Family management | -- | M = 3.4 – 3.8 |
| Parent substance use (past month) | ||
| Binge drinking | 36% | 13% – 19% |
| Cigarette use | 48% | 29% – 46% |
| Marijuana use | 29% | 14% – 21% |
| Parent substance use norms | ||
| Pro alcohol norms | -- | M = 2.0 – 2.9 |
| Pro cigarette norms | -- | M = 1.9 – 2.8 |
| Pro marijuana norms | -- | M = 1.8 – 3.1 |
Results
Table 2 shows the prevalence of key study variables. More children reported any alcohol or marijuana use than cigarette use over the 7 waves of data collection. Most parents reported that their family had rules about substance use. Child involvement in family alcohol and cigarette use were common, but child use of either drug with parent permission was rare. Intercorrelations among general and substance-specific parenting practices were small or nonsignificant (not shown).
Table 3 shows results of models predicting child past year alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use from concurrently measured parenting practices. Family rules about substance use were unrelated to the child substance use outcomes. Child use of alcohol or cigarettes with parent permission uniquely predicted child cigarette use (OR = 7.14), but not marijuana use; parent provision of alcohol did not predict child alcohol use. Child involvement in family alcohol use predicted greater odds of child alcohol use (OR = 4.29), and child involvement in family smoking predicted greater odds of child cigarette (OR = 7.16) and marijuana use (OR = 7.64). Better family management predicted a lower likelihood of child past year alcohol use (OR = .27), and just missed significance for child cigarette (OR = 0.42, p = .07) and marijuana use (OR = 0.45, p = .05). None of the parent substance use measures predicted child substance use when parenting practices, norms, and controls were included in models.
Table 3.
Results of multilevel models predicting child past year substance use from concurrently measured predictors (robust standard errors, N = 224).
| Child Alcohol Use | Child Cigarette Use | Child Marijuana Use | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed effect | Coefficient | SE | P-value | Coefficient | SE | P-value | Coefficient | SE | P-value |
| Intercept | 6.965 | 3.14 | 0.028 | −0.211 | 4.22 | 0.961 | −1.294 | 4.03 | 0.749 |
| Parent age at child birth | −0.401 | 0.13 | 0.004 | −0.155 | 0.16 | 0.342 | −0.071 | 0.15 | 0.645 |
| Parent education | 0.007 | 0.19 | 0.971 | 0.029 | 0.29 | 0.921 | 0.122 | 0.20 | 0.546 |
| Child female | 0.924 | 0.50 | 0.066 | 1.655 | 0.68 | 0.017 | 0.983 | 0.60 | 0.108 |
| Parent African American | −1.388 | 0.50 | 0.006 | −0.648 | 0.61 | 0.293 | −1.416 | 0.72 | 0.053 |
| Parent Native American | −0.460 | 0.78 | 0.557 | −0.664 | 0.97 | 0.494 | 0.262 | 0.91 | 0.774 |
| Parent Asian American | −0.842 | 0.59 | 0.161 | −1.352 | 1.02 | 0.187 | −0.912 | 1.37 | 0.506 |
| Child age (time) | 0.822 | 0.95 | 0.388 | −1.812 | 1.27 | 0.156 | 2.627 | 1.72 | 0.127 |
| Parent age at child birth | −0.044 | 0.05 | 0.398 | 0.180 | 0.07 | 0.015 | −0.068 | 0.08 | 0.425 |
| Parent education | 0.008 | 0.11 | 0.946 | −0.456 | 0.11 | 0.000 | −0.063 | 0.13 | 0.639 |
| Child female | 0.187 | 0.24 | 0.449 | −0.261 | 0.29 | 0.372 | −0.667 | 0.30 | 0.030 |
| Parent African American | 0.413 | 0.25 | 0.101 | 0.099 | 0.23 | 0.669 | 0.778 | 0.40 | 0.056 |
| Parent Native American | −0.570 | 0.37 | 0.127 | −0.313 | 0.52 | 0.554 | −0.252 | 0.42 | 0.552 |
| Parent Asian American | 0.572 | 0.34 | 0.099 | −0.612 | 0.28 | 0.030 | 0.681 | 0.83 | 0.415 |
| Child age2 (time2) | −0.170 | 0.08 | 0.056 | −0.188 | 0.08 | 0.019 | −0.378 | 0.10 | 0.001 |
| Family welfare receipt | −0.415 | 0.45 | 0.365 | −0.795 | 0.51 | 0.123 | −1.031 | 0.45 | 0.024 |
| Family management | −1.306 | 0.37 | 0.001 | −0.863 | 0.47 | 0.069 | −0.796 | 0.41 | 0.054 |
| Parent binge drinking | −0.515 | 0.38 | 0.181 | ||||||
| Parent alcohol norms | 0.174 | 0.25 | 0.489 | ||||||
| Family rules about alc | 0.396 | 0.28 | 0.163 | ||||||
| Child involved in family alc use | 1.456 | 0.40 | 0.001 | ||||||
| Child alc use with permission | 0.224 | 0.60 | 0.713 | ||||||
| Parent cigarette use | 0.124 | 0.23 | 0.603 | ||||||
| Parent cigarette norms | 0.189 | 0.27 | 0.482 | ||||||
| Family rules about smoking | 0.219 | 0.33 | 0.512 | ||||||
| Child involved in family cig use | 1.969 | 0.75 | 0.009 | 2.034 | 0.50 | 0.000 | |||
| Child alc or cig use w permission | 1.966 | 0.69 | 0.005 | 0.307 | 0.58 | 0.597 | |||
| Parent marijuana use | −0.019 | 0.04 | 0.683 | ||||||
| Parent marijuana norms | 0.253 | 0.26 | 0.348 | ||||||
| Family rules about drugs | 0.438 | 0.37 | 0.243 | ||||||
NOTE: Bolding indicates statistical significance (p < .05); italics indicate marginal significance (p < .10). Alc = alcohol, cig = cigarette
In lagged models (Table 4), neither family rules about substance use nor parent provision of alcohol or cigarettes predicted child substance use one year later. Child involvement in family alcohol use predicted a higher probability of child alcohol use one year later (OR = 2.84). Child involvement in family smoking predicted child smoking 1 year later (OR = 4.21), and was marginally related to child marijuana use 1 year later (OR = 2.86, p = .10). Good family management predicted lower odds of child cigarette use 1 year later (OR = 0.14), but not the probability of child alcohol or marijuana use. Parent smoking predicted a higher probability of child cigarette use the following year (OR = 1.70). More positive parent norms about alcohol predicted higher odds of child alcohol use one year later (OR = 1.73).
Table 4.
Results of multilevel models predicting child past year substance use from predictors measured 1 year prior (robust standard errors, N = 185).
| Child Alcohol Use | Child Cigarette Use | Child Marijuana Use | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fixed effect | Coefficient | SE | P-value | Coefficient | SE | P-value | Coefficient | SE | P-value |
| Intercept | 2.458 | 2.94 | 0.405 | 8.530 | 5.87 | 0.148 | −2.375 | 3.83 | 0.536 |
| Parent age at child birth | −0.264 | 0.12 | 0.034 | −0.507 | 0.24 | 0.037 | −0.135 | 0.14 | 0.340 |
| Parent education | 0.134 | 0.18 | 0.470 | −0.473 | 0.31 | 0.133 | 0.119 | 0.23 | 0.610 |
| Child female | 0.782 | 0.51 | 0.130 | 2.789 | 0.83 | 0.001 | 0.884 | 0.70 | 0.212 |
| Parent African American | −1.693 | 0.72 | 0.020 | −1.715 | 0.82 | 0.038 | −1.718 | 1.07 | 0.112 |
| Parent Native American | 1.046 | 0.73 | 0.157 | 0.835 | 1.06 | 0.434 | 0.227 | 1.05 | 0.830 |
| Parent Asian American | −0.180 | 0.69 | 0.797 | −1.179 | 2.15 | 0.584 | 0.023 | 0.79 | 0.977 |
| Child age (time) | 0.279 | 1.10 | 0.800 | 1.251 | 1.75 | 0.477 | 1.397 | 1.57 | 0.376 |
| Parent age at child birth | 0.039 | 0.06 | 0.550 | 0.013 | 0.09 | 0.892 | −0.003 | 0.07 | 0.970 |
| Parent education | −0.149 | 0.08 | 0.086 | −0.080 | 0.12 | 0.530 | −0.032 | 0.10 | 0.761 |
| Child female | −0.454 | 0.22 | 0.043 | −0.810 | 0.38 | 0.034 | −0.735 | 0.31 | 0.021 |
| Parent African American | 0.458 | 0.31 | 0.151 | 0.818 | 0.48 | 0.095 | 0.580 | 0.52 | 0.275 |
| Parent Native American | −0.245 | 0.30 | 0.420 | −0.916 | 0.57 | 0.109 | −0.178 | 0.42 | 0.677 |
| Parent Asian American | 0.108 | 0.28 | 0.706 | 0.482 | 0.97 | 0.622 | −0.232 | 0.44 | 0.605 |
| Child age2 (time2) | −0.152 | 0.05 | 0.004 | −0.357 | 0.10 | 0.001 | −0.220 | 0.08 | 0.010 |
| Family welfare receipt | 0.075 | 0.41 | 0.858 | −0.652 | 0.51 | 0.207 | −0.005 | 0.47 | 0.992 |
| Family management | −0.422 | 0.36 | 0.253 | −1.987 | 0.59 | 0.001 | −0.373 | 0.41 | 0.364 |
| Parent binge drinking | 0.023 | 0.15 | 0.887 | ||||||
| Parent alcohol norms | 0.532 | 0.23 | 0.025 | ||||||
| Family rules about alc | 0.041 | 0.36 | 0.909 | ||||||
| Child involved in family alc use | 1.042 | 0.41 | 0.012 | ||||||
| Child alc use with permission | 0.573 | 0.56 | 0.312 | ||||||
| Parent cigarette use | 0.506 | 0.24 | 0.038 | ||||||
| Parent cigarette norms | −0.128 | 0.28 | 0.651 | ||||||
| Family rules about smoking | 0.645 | 0.47 | 0.173 | ||||||
| Child involved in family cig use | 1.438 | 0.53 | 0.008 | 1.051 | 0.63 | 0.097 | |||
| Child alc or cig use w permission | 1.080 | 0.73 | 0.144 | 0.783 | 0.69 | 0.262 | |||
| Parent marijuana use | 0.003 | 0.03 | 0.939 | ||||||
| Parent marijuana norms | 0.327 | 0.20 | 0.101 | ||||||
| Family rules about drugs | 0.650 | 0.46 | 0.159 | ||||||
NOTE: Bolding indicates statistical significance (p < .05); italics indicates marginal significance (p < .10). Alc = alcohol, cig = cigarette
Discussion
This study investigated the association between substance-specific parenting practices and child use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana in a prospective, longitudinal study. Models tested the predictive power of both concurrent parenting practices and practices measured one year prior to child substance use outcomes. The main finding was that child involvement in family member substance use (getting, opening, or pouring alcoholic drinks; getting or lighting cigarettes) predicted an increased probability of child substance use both concurrently and one year later, even when controlling parent substance use, pro-substance norms, and family management. Family rules about substance use and parent provision of alcohol or cigarettes were not consistently related to child alcohol, cigarette, or marijuana use.
The present findings linking child involvement in family member substance use and child substance use were robust, with significant associations observed in 5 of the 6 models tested and a marginal association in the 6th. Findings are in line with the small body of work showing that child involvement in family alcohol use predicts an increased risk for child alcohol use [21, 24]. This practice was common in our community sample: 34% of families reported that children had gotten or opened alcoholic drinks; 21% reported that children had gotten or lit cigarettes for family members. Findings suggest that this practice may be a potential target for family-based interventions aiming to reduce youth substance use.
Family rules about alcohol, cigarette, and drug use were not related to child use in the current study, either when measured concurrently or in the year prior to child substance use. We found neither a negative association, consistent with preventive establishment of rules, nor a positive association, consistent with reactive establishment of rules. This finding is in line with a recent review [13] concluding that there is no link between family rules about alcohol use and youth drinking. It conflicts with the more limited literature showing that rules about cigarette use may predict less teen smoking [14, 15]. These prior studies on smoking rules were cross sectional, however, and included limited measures – if any – of confounds like those included here. The one study we found that included measures of general parenting practices found no link between household smoking rules and child intention to smoke or smoking behavior [37].
Parent provision of substances was rare in this sample, with 12% of parents reporting allowing their child to drink alcohol and 2% of parents allowing their child to use cigarettes. These prevalences are in line with those from Project Northland Chicago, where about 10% of children and 6% of parents reported parent provision of alcohol to the child [21], but are much lower than the prevalence of parent-supervised drinking reported by McMorris and colleagues [23] in a state-wide sample of Washington State 8th graders (35%). Parent provision of alcohol or cigarettes was not consistently related to child use across the six models tested; only one significant association with concurrent child cigarette use was observed. This finding is in contrast to prior longitudinal studies [21, 23, 38] suggesting that parental provision of alcohol increases risk for youth drinking. Prior studies, however, have not simultaneously included controls for other substance-related parenting practices, family management, and parent current substance use. Additional longitudinal studies with good controls for potential confounds like other substance-specific and general parenting practices are needed.
Limitations and strengths
Several limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting the current findings. First, measures of marijuana-specific parenting were not available. Second, the lack of significant findings about measures of family rules predicting substance use may have been affected by the high means observed for these variables, which may indicate ceiling effects. Further, details about the specific content of family rules were not available. Third, few parents reported allowing their child to use either alcohol or cigarettes with permission, and these low prevalences may have reduced power to detect associations with child substance use. These limitations are balanced by important strengths, which include the use of prospective, longitudinal data from both parents and children, including parent and child self-reports of substance use; inclusion of known family predictors of youth substance use as covariates; and consideration of both lagged and concurrent effects of predictors.
Conclusions and future directions
Future research should aim to understand the prevalence of child involvement in family member substance use more generally and explore why this parenting practice predicts child substance use. Possible mechanisms include desensitization of children to handling substances, implied parental approval of substance use, and increased child access to substances. Existing prevention programming often focuses on family management and rule setting around substance use. The present findings support the utility of additional components aimed at reducing child involvement in family member alcohol and cigarette use. Public health messaging urging parents not to involve their children in family member alcohol or cigarette use also may be helpful in reducing youth substance use.
As more states legalize nonmedical marijuana use for adults, more parents may use marijuana. Research on marijuana-specific parenting practices, their association with child marijuana use, and whether they are influenced by marijuana legalization is urgently needed. In particular, it is important to understand whether children are involved in family member use of marijuana, and, if so, whether this practice is related to child use of marijuana or other substances.
Implications and Contribution.
Results suggest that public health messaging urging parents not to allow their children to get, open, or pour alcoholic drinks or get or light cigarettes for family members may be helpful in reducing teen substance use.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by grant #R01DA023089 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The funding agency had no role in the design or execution of this study or the decision to submit the article for publication. Findings and conclusions reflect the points of view of the authors, not those of the funding agency.
We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of participating families, as well as the SDRG Survey Research Division for their data collection efforts.
Abbreviations
- SSDP
Seattle Social Development Project
- TIP
The Intergenerational Project
Footnotes
Portions of these findings were presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Austin, TX, April, 2017.
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
References
- 1.Danielsson AK, Wennberg P, Tengstrom A, Romelsjo A. Adolescent alcohol use trajectories: Predictors and subsequent problems. Addictive Behaviors. 2010:35. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fergusson DM, Boden JM. Cannabis use and later life outcomes. Addiction. 2008:103. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02221.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Georgiades K, Boyle MH. Adolescent tobacco and cannabis use: Young adult outcomes from the Ontario Child Health Study. Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2007;48:724–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01740.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hingson R, White A. New Research Findings Since the 2007 Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking: A Review. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2014;75:158–69. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2014.75.158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bailey JA, Hill KG, Guttmannova K, et al. Associations between parental and grandparental marijuana use and child substance use norms in a prospective, three-generation study. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2016;59:262–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.04.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Chassin L, Presson CC, Rose J, et al. Parenting Style and Smoking-Specific Parenting Practices as Predictors of Adolescent Smoking Onset. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2005;30:333–44. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsi028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Miller JY. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:64–105. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hill KG, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Abbott RD, Guo J. Family influences on the risk of daily smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2005;37:202–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.08.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Catalano RF, Hawkins JD. The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In: Hawkins JD, editor. Delinquency and crime: Current theories. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1996. pp. 149–97. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wagenaar AC, Salios MJ, Komro KA. Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction. 2009;104:179–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02438.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ennett ST, Bauman KE, Foshee VA, Pemberton M, Hicks KA. Parent-Child Communication About Adolescent Tobacco and Alcohol Use: What Do Parents Say and Does It Affect Youth Behavior? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001;63:48–62. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jackson C, Henriksen L, Dickinson D. Alcohol-Specific Socialization, Parenting Behaviors and Alcohol Use by Children. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1999;60:362–67. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1999.60.362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ryan SM, Jorm AF, Lubman DI. Parenting factors associated with reduced adolescent alcohol use: a systematic reviewof longitudinal studies Australian and New Zealand. Journal of Psychiatry. 2010;44:774–83. doi: 10.1080/00048674.2010.501759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Andersen MR, Leroux BG, Bricker JB, Rajan KB, Peterson J, AV Antismoking Parenting Practices Are Associated With Reduced Rates of Adolescent Smoking. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004;158:348–52. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.158.4.348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Clark PI, Schooley MW, Pierce B, et al. Impact of Home Smoking Rules on Smoking Patterns Among Adolescents and Young Adults. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy. 2006;3:1–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Proescholdbell RJ, Chassin L, MacKinnon DP. Home smoking restrictions and adolescent smoking. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2000;2:159–67. doi: 10.1080/713688125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Warner LA, White HR. Longitudinal Effects of Age at Onset and First Drinking Situations on Problem Drinking. Substance Use & Misuse. 2003;38:1983–2016. doi: 10.1081/ja-120025123. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.McBride N, Farringdon F, Midford R, Mueleners L, Phillips M. Early unsupervised drinking—reducing the risks: The School Health and Alcohol Harm Reduction Project. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2003;22:263–76. doi: 10.1080/0959523031000154409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.McBride N, Midford R, Farringdon F, Phillips M. Early results from a school alcohol harm minimization study: The School Health and Alcohol Harm Reduction Project. Addiction. 2000;95:1021–42. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.95710215.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kaynak O, Winters KC, Cacciola J, Kirby KC, Arria AM. Providing Alcohol for Underage Youth: What Messages Should We Be Sending Parents? Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2014;75:590–605. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2014.75.590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Komro KA, Maldonado-Molina MM, Tobler AL, Bonds JR, Muller KE. Effects of home access and availability of alcohol on young adolescents’ alcohol use. Addiction. 2007;102:1597–608. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01941.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Foley KL, Altman D, Durant RH, Wolfson M. Adults’ approval and adolescents’ alcohol use. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2004;34:345.e17–45.e26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.McMorris BJ, Catalano RF, Kim MJ, Toumbourou JW, Hemphill SA. Influence of Family Factors and Supervised Alcohol Use on Adolescent Alcohol Use and Harms: Similarities Between Youth in Different Alcohol Policy Contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2011;72:418–28. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Peterson PL, Hawkins JD, Abbott RD, Catalano RF. Disentangling the effects of parental drinking, family management, and parental alcohol norms on current drinking by Black and White adolescents. Journal of Researh on Adolescence. 1994;4:203–27. [Google Scholar]
- 25. [Accessed May 15, 2017];Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. Available at: http://www.blueprintsprograms.com.
- 26.Kosterman R, Hawkins JD, Guo J, Catalano RF, Abbott RD. The Dynamics of Alcohol and Marijuana Initiation: Patterns and Predictors of First Use in Adolescence. American Journal of Public Health. 2000;90:360–66. doi: 10.2105/ajph.90.3.360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Bailey JA, Hill KG, Oesterle S, Hawkins JD. Linking substance use and problem behavior across three generations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2006;34:273–92. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9033-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Merikangas KR, Stolar M, Stevens DE, et al. Familial transmission of substance use disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1998;55:973–79. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.55.11.973. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Handley ED, Chassin L. Alcohol-Specific Parenting as a Mechanism of Parental Drinking and Alcohol Use Disorder Risk on Adolescent Alcohol Use Onset. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2013;74:684–93. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2013.74.684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gillman SE, Rende R, Boergers J, et al. Parental Smoking and Adolescent Smoking Initiation: An Intergenerational Perspective on Tobacco Control. Pediatrics. 2009;123:e274–e81. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-2251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Andrews JA, Hops H, Ary D, Tildesley E, Harris J. Parental influence on early adolescent substance use: Specific and nonspecific effects. Journal of Early Adolescence. 1995;13:285–310. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wood MD, Read JP, Mitchell RE, Brand NH. Do Parents Still Matter? Parent and Peer Influences on Alcohol Involvement Among Recent High School Graduates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2004;18:19–30. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.18.1.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Collins LM, Graham J. The effect of the timing and spacing of observations in longitudinal studies of tobacco and other drug use: temporal design considerations. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2002;68:S85–S96. doi: 10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00217-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hawkins JD, Kosterman R, Catalano RF, Hill KG, Abbott RD. Promoting positive adult functioning through social development intervention in childhood: Long-term effects from the Seattle Social Development Project. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2005;159:25–31. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.1.25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hawkins JD, Kosterman R, Catalano RF, Hill KG, Abbott RD. Effects of social development intervention in childhood 15 years later. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2008;162:1133–41. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.162.12.1133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Miyazaki Y, Raudenbush SW. Tests for linkage of multiple cohorts in an accelerated longitudinal design. Psychological Methods. 2000;5:44–63. doi: 10.1037/1082-989x.5.1.44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Huver RME, Engels RCME, Vermulst AA, de Vries H. Is parenting style a context for smoking-specific parenting practices? Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;89:116–25. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.12.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Danielsson AK, Romelsjo A, Tengstrom A. Heavy Episodic Drinking in Early Adolescence: Gender-Specific Risk and Protective Factors. Substance Use & Misuse. 2011;46:633–43. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2010.528120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]