Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs logoLink to Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
. 2020 May 3;81(2):180–189. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2020.81.180

Youth Perceptions of Parental Involvement and Monitoring, Discrepancies With Parental Perceptions, and Their Associations With First Cigarette Use in Black and White Girls

Carolyn E Sartor a,*, Feifei Ye b, Patricia Simon a, Zu Wei Zhai c, Alison E Hipwell d, Tammy Chung d
PMCID: PMC7201214  PMID: 32359047

Abstract

Objective:

Low parental involvement and monitoring are risk factors for adolescent cigarette use. Assessments of parental involvement and monitoring by youth and parents may capture an additional source of risk: differences in perceptions of these parenting behaviors. This study tested for unique contributions of youth-reported parental involvement and monitoring and youth–parent discrepancies in reporting to first cigarette use in girls.

Method:

Data were drawn from interviews at ages 8–17 with 1,869 girls (57.3% Black, 42.7% White) and their primary caregivers (94% mothers) in the Pittsburgh Girls Study. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were conducted to predict first cigarette use as a function of girls’ reports of parental involvement and monitoring, magnitude and direction of youth–parent reporting discrepancies, and the interaction between them, adjusting for neighborhood, socioeconomic, and individual level factors.

Results:

High magnitude of discrepancy in parental involvement reports (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.03, 1.26]) and lower perceived parental involvement by girls (HR = 1.14, CI [1.03, 1.27]) were associated with an elevated risk for first cigarette use. Girls’ reports of low parental monitoring also predicted first cigarette use (HR = 1.14, CI [1.06, 1.21]).

Conclusions:

Girls whose parents have limited awareness of their whereabouts and friends (i.e., low monitoring) are at an elevated risk for trying cigarettes, but parent–daughter differences in perceived awareness do not affect risk. By contrast, girls who perceive a lower degree of parental involvement than their parents do are at increased risk. Monitoring is one component of parenting that may reduce smoking risk; shared perspectives on the parent’s level of involvement are similarly important.

Nearly one in four 12th grade girls in the United States has tried cigarettes (Miech et al., 2019). Although the prevalence of cigarette smoking is slightly higher among boys, the prevalence of smoking-attributable diseases is on the rise for women, nearly closing the historic gender gap (Thun et al., 2013). Given that 90% of adult daily cigarette smokers initiate smoking before age 18 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014), the development of prevention efforts to curb youth initiation is a high public health priority. Identifying influences on first use of cigarettes is crucial to informing these efforts. Parenting behaviors are a common target of intervention because of their modifiability and have therefore been the subject of numerous youth smoking investigations.

Parental knowledge of their children’s activities, whereabouts, and friends, referred to as parental monitoring, has consistently been linked to a reduced likelihood of smoking during adolescence (Abar et al., 2014; Cohen et al., 1994; Lippold et al., 2014; Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2012; Van Ryzin et al., 2012; Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2004). Numerous studies have reported higher levels of parental monitoring in girls compared with boys (Crosnoe et al., 2002; Svensson, 2003), and some evidence indicates that its impact on adolescent smoking is especially strong for girls (Sanchez et al., 2010), suggesting the salience of parental monitoring as a modifier of smoking risk in girls.

Similarly, parental involvement—a broader construct that encompasses parents providing emotional support, spending quality time, and fostering an overall positive relationship with their children—has long been associated with a reduced risk for youth smoking (Chassin et al., 1993; Crouter et al., 2004; Fleming et al., 2002; Gutman et al., 2011; Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2012; Wills et al., 2004). More recent work has suggested that parental involvement buffers the risk for adolescent substance use conferred by community disadvantage (Gordon et al., 2020) and that its protective effects against smoking persist into young adulthood (Mak et al., 2019). Furthermore, enhancement of parent–child relationships as well as parental monitoring are central components of family-based adolescent substance use prevention efforts, which have received broad empirical support (Allen et al., 2016; Kuntsche & Kuntsche, 2016; Van Ryzin et al., 2016).

The assessment of both parental and youth perceptions of parental involvement and monitoring captures additional components of the parent–child relationship, that is, shared versus discrepant perspectives on key parenting behaviors, that may contribute to the initiation of adolescent smoking. Discrepancy between youth and parental reports of parenting behaviors is well recognized among developmental researchers as an informative construct (De Los Reyes, 2011; Guion et al., 2009). It indicates a possible mismatch in perceptions of youth–parent communication or, more broadly, of their relationship. Although some degree of discrepancy in reporting is normative (De Los Reyes et al., 2016; Korelitz & Garber., 2016), reflecting different views of family dynamics by parents compared with their children (Rote & Smetana, 2016), substantial discrepancies may be associated with problem behaviors (Ohannessian, 2012).

Few studies have examined discrepant parent–youth reporting of parental monitoring or involvement in relation to substance use initiation. Of note, none of the prior work in this area has examined substance use in the middle to late adolescent years or cigarette smoking specifically. Investigations of youth–parent discrepancies in perceived parental monitoring have been limited to the pre- to early adolescent years, examining alcohol outcomes (Abar et al., 2015) or a single indicator of any substance use (Lippold et al., 2011). Given that relationships with parents evolve and opportunities to use substances increase from middle to late adolescence, expanding the developmental assessment period to late adolescence may reveal significant associations where they have not been previously observed. With respect to parental involvement, the potential informativeness of youth–parent discrepancies in reporting has been explored in relation to externalizing problems in adolescents (Reidler & Swenson, 2012), but we are unaware of any studies to examine them in relation to cigarette smoking or other substance use outcomes. However, evidence that a supportive, engaged parenting style is associated with a lower risk for adolescent smoking (Chassin et al., 2005) supports a plausible link to cigarette use.

Current study

The current study was designed to expand the existing literature on the associations of parental involvement and monitoring with adolescent smoking risk by assessing the additional contribution of differences in youth–parent perceptions of parenting to the timing of first cigarette use—the earliest stage of cigarette smoking—among adolescent girls. Youth-reported parental involvement and monitoring and discrepancies in youth–parent perceptions were considered in the context of a range of correlates of cigarette smoking, including socioeconomic status (Green et al., 2013) and conduct problems (Fuemmeler et al., 2013). Consistent with the existing literature, we expected youth-reported low parental involvement and monitoring to predict first cigarette use. We further hypothesized that, for both parenting constructs, greater magnitude of discrepancy would be associated with an elevated risk for first cigarette use and, based on findings in the externalizing literature (De Los Reyes et al., 2010), that reports of lower monitoring or involvement by girls relative to parents would confer additional risk.

Method

The protocol for the Pittsburgh Girls Study, the source of data for the current investigation, was approved by University of Pittsburgh’s Human Research Protection Office.

Participants

The Pittsburgh Girls Study (PGS; N = 2,450) is a longitudinal urban community-based study of four female age cohorts (ages 5, 6, 7, or 8 years at Wave 1) that oversampled low-income neighborhoods. Participants were recruited in 1999–2000; 85.2% of eligible families completed the first wave of data collection. PGS sample retention was high: 88.5% or higher across the annual assessment waves used in the current analyses (when girls were 8–17 years old). Additional details of sample ascertainment can be found in prior publications (Hipwell et al., 2002; Keenan et al., 2010). Analyses were conducted exclusively with girls identified by their primary caregiver as Black or White (n = 2,306; 94.1% of the sample), including race as a covariate, to allow for the interpretation of possible distinctions between Black and White girls, who are known to differ in prevalence of cigarette use (Miech et al., 2019). We excluded 437 participants due to missingness on key variables, resulting in a final analytic sample of 1,869 girls (57.3% Black, 42.7% White). Participants excluded based on missing data did not differ significantly from those included in analyses with respect to lifetime (any) cigarette use or reports by either youth or primary caregiver of parental involvement or parental monitoring at baseline (age 8).

Procedure

Primary caregivers (94% mothers) provided written informed consent and girls provided verbal assent before data collection. In-person interviews were conducted annually in participants’ homes, separately for the girl and her primary caregiver, by trained research staff members. The protocol for maintaining confidentiality was explained to all participants. Respondents were compensated for study participation.

Measures

Key constructs.

Cigarette smoking was assessed by querying past-year frequency and usual quantity of cigarette use. Consistent with our aim of predicting first experience of smoking cigarettes (rather than onset of habitual use), age at first use was calculated as age at the wave in which any past-year cigarette use was first endorsed.

Parental involvement and parental monitoring variables were derived, as described below, from youth’s and primary caregivers’ reports (hereafter referred to as mothers’reports) on the Supervision and Involvement Scale (SIS; Loeber et al., 1998). Consistent with our conceptualization of low involvement and monitoring as risk factors (rather than high involvement and monitoring as protective factors; see Rutter [1985]), higher scores reflected lower involvement and monitoring. Items and response choices are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Items comprising parental involvement and parental monitoring scales

graphic file with name jsad.2020.81.180tbl1.jpg

Parental involvement
Youth Primary caregiver (mother)
1. How often does your [primary caregiver] talk to you about what you are going to do for the day?a 1. In the past 6 months, how often have you discussed with your daughter her plans for the coming day?b
2. How often does your [primary caregiver] talk with you about what you had actually done during the day?a 2. In the past 6 months, how often have you talked with your daughter about what she had actually done during the day?b
3. How often does your [primary caregiver] find the time to listen to you when you want to talk to her?c 3. Do you find time to listen to your daughter when she wants to talk to you?c
4. How often do you and your [primary caregiver] do things together at home?c 4. Do you and your daughter do things together at home?c
5. How often do you have a friendly chat with your [primary caregiver]?c 5. How often do you have a friendly chat with your daughter?c
6. How often do you help your [primary caregiver]?c 6. Does your daughter help you?c
7. How often does your [primary caregiver] talk with you about how things are going in school?d 7. Do you talk with your daughter about how she is doing in school?c
Parental monitoring
1. If your parent(s) are not at home, and you are going to leave the house, do you leave a note for them, or call them about where you are going?e 1. If you (or another adult) are not at home when your daughter leaves the house, does your daughter leave you a note or call you to let you know where she is going?e
2. Do your parent(s) know who you are with when you are away from home?e 2. Do you know who your daughter’s companions are when she is not at home?e
3. When your parent(s) are not at home, do you know how to get in touch with them?e 3. When you are not at home, does your daughter know how to get in touch with you?e
4. When you are out, do your parent(s) know what time you will be home?e 4. When your daughter is out, do you know what time she will be home?e
Open in a new tab
a

1 (often) to 4 (never);

b

1 (almost every day) to 4 (<once/month);

c

1(often) to 3 (almost never);

d

1 (often) to 3 (never);

e

1 (almost always) to 3 (almost never).

Covariates.

  • (A) Socioeconomic status: Given the association of low socioeconomic status with elevated risk for cigarette smoking (Hiscock et al., 2012) and the potential links between socioeconomic status and parenting behaviors (e.g., more limited availability of parents in single-parent–headed households, possibly leading to lower involvement), we included three socioeconomic status indicators in our models. Primary caregivers reported (a) education level (<12 years [low] vs. ≥12 years), (b) household receipt of public assistance (0 = no, 1 = yes), and (c) single-parent–headed household (0 = no, 1 = yes).

  • (B) Neighborhood factors: As neighborhood factors have been tied to cigarette smoking (Shih et al., 2017) and parenting behaviors (e.g., higher monitoring in disadvantaged neighborhoods; Chuang et al., 2009), we included three neighborhood-related constructs in our models: (a) Low neighborhood safety (reported by primary caregivers) was assessed using Your Neighborhood (Loeber et al., 1998), a 17-item measure of neighborhood problems (e.g., “Assaults or muggings”) using a 3-point Likert scale (not a problem to big problem; with a possible range of 17–51). Alphas ranged from .95 to .96 across waves. (b) Community cohesion (reported by primary caregivers) was assessed using 10 items from the Community Survey (Gorman-Smith et al., 2000), a 13-item measure (e.g., “I feel loyal to the people in my neighborhood”) using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree; with a possible range of 10–50). Alphas ranged from .77 to .80 across waves. (c) Neighborhood physical disorder (reported by study interviewers) was indexed with five dichotomously coded items (e.g., presence of litter) from the 25-item Interviewer Impressions of the Neighborhood (Wei et al., 2005), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 5. Alphas ranged from .67 to .78 across waves.

  • (C) Individual-level risk factors: Conduct problems and early puberty, which are also well-established risk factors for cigarette smoking (Arim et al., 2011; Fuemmeler et al., 2013) that may affect parenting behaviors (e.g., youth history of conduct problems leading to higher monitoring by parents) were included as covariates as well. Conduct problems (reported by girls) were assessed with the Adolescent Symptom Inventory–4 (Gadow & Sprafkin, 1997), which queries the frequency of experiencing 15 conduct disorder symptoms over the past year, using a 4-point scale (never to very often) to generate a severity score (possible range: 0–45). Alphas ranged from .64 to .71 across waves. Early puberty (menarche by age 11, reported by girls) was assessed with an item from the Pubertal Development Scale (Petersen et al., 1988). All covariates other than early puberty and race were time-varying, reflecting year-by-year reports.

Data analysis

All analyses were conducted in SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

Derivation of parental involvement and parental monitoring scores and discrepancy indicators.

Exploratory factor analyses were conducted, separately for youth and mother reports, of the 13 items that appear in both mother and youth versions of the SIS. Items referencing weekend curfew and weekday curfew loaded exclusively with each other and had low correlations (rs < .2) with other items, so they were dropped. Two additional items querying how often the girl and her mother talk about (a) plans for the coming day and (b) what the girl did that day loaded only with each other when entered separately. A mean of the two items loaded with involvement items and was therefore included as a single variable. Confirmatory factor analyses supported measurement invariance across ages, race, and reporters for two factors representing parental involvement and parental monitoring. Cronbach’s alphas across ages 8–17 for youth reports ranged from .64 to .86 for involvement and .52 to .75 (.60 and higher starting at age 9) for monitoring; ranges for mother reports were .68–.77 for involvement and .46–.71 (.59 and higher starting at age 9) for monitoring.

Discrepancies between mother and youth reports were calculated for each set of scores by subtracting the mother’s score from the girl’s score. Variables representing (a) the absolute value of the difference in scores and (b) the direction of discrepancy (0 = girl reports higher involvement/monitoring; 1 = girl reports lower involvement/monitoring) were created. We opted to apply this approach over other possible methods of capturing discrepancies (e.g., polynomial regression; Edwards, 1994, 2002) for two reasons. First, we found that second-order effects (squared mother reports, squared youth reports, interaction between mother and youth reports) were not significant in polynomial regression models. Second, using absolute difference scores and direction of difference scores to capture mother–youth discrepancy allowed for straightforward interpretations of the associations of two key dimensions of discrepancy in parenting perception with risk for first cigarette use. Modeling the absolute value of the difference in scores allowed us to assess the relevance of the magnitude of mother–daughter differences in perceptions of involvement and monitoring. Modeling the direction of discrepancy allowed us to assess the relevance of the daughter perceiving a lower versus higher level of monitoring or involvement than her mother did.

Prediction of first cigarette use.

A survival analysis approach was taken with the data, given its utility for handling right censored data (i.e., not all participants had passed through the age of risk for first cigarette use) and our aim of predicting onset of first cigarette use. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were conducted to predict first cigarette use as a function of year-by-year youth reports, the absolute value of discrepancies in youth–mother reports, and the direction of discrepancies in reports of parental involvement and parental monitoring. (Mother reports were not included in the models, as including both mother and youth reports would be redundant with discrepancy scores, and youth reports are generally considered more relevant than parental reports for predicting youth outcomes; Abar et al., 2015; Latendresse et al., 2009).

Interactions between the absolute value and the direction of discrepancy were also included in the models, along with covariates (socioeconomic status indicators, neighborhood variables, conduct problems, and early puberty). First, we ran separate models with parental involvement and parental monitoring variables. Next, to capture unique contributions of each parenting construct to the risk for first cigarette use, we combined statistically significant parental involvement and parental monitoring variables from the separate models into a single model.

Results

Prevalence of cigarette use, age at first use, and associations among parenting variables

Cigarette use was reported by 30.3% of participants, with mean age at first use of 14.57 (SD = 1.90) years. Year-by-year (absolute value) discrepancies in youth–mother reports of parental involvement and monitoring are shown in Figure 1. As expected, differences between youth and mother reports were common; scores were nonidentical in 82.4% to 91.4% of families at a given age for involvement, and in 38.0% to 62.3% of families for monitoring. Across ages, where youth and mother reports of parental involvement differed, in the majority of cases, girls were the ones who reported lower involvement (range: 56.8%–75.8%). The opposite was true for parental monitoring. With the exception of age 8 reports, a minority of discrepant cases was attributable to girls reporting lower monitoring than their mothers (range: 29.9%–44.0% for ages 9–17; 52.9% at age 8). Of note, across ages, for both involvement and monitoring, the magnitude of discrepancies was significantly higher in cases where girls reported lower involvement/monitoring (detailed results available upon request). Within-year correlations between involvement and monitoring scores were statistically significant at all ages, with rs ranging from .26 to .41 (p < .001) for youth reports and .24 to .42 (p < .001) for mother reports.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Discrepancies in youth–mother reports of monitoring and involvement from ages 8 to 17 (shown with standard errors). Linear and quadratic trends were significant for the absolute discrepancy in parental monitoring, F(1,1033) = 51.46, p < .001 and F(1,1033) = 272.14, p < .001, respectively, and for the absolute discrepancy in parental involvement, F(1,1075) = 6.93, p = .009 and F(1,1075) = 18.87, p < .001, respectively.

First use of cigarettes as a function of parental involvement and monitoring

Results of Cox proportional hazards regression analyses conducted separately for the two parenting constructs are shown in Table 2: parental involvement in Model 1 and parental monitoring in Model 2. In Model 1, youth report of low parental involvement was associated with an elevated likelihood of using cigarettes (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.04, 1.15]). Main effects were significant for the magnitude of discrepancy between the youth and mother reports but nonsignificant for the direction of the discrepancy. The interaction between the magnitude and the direction of the discrepancy was significant, such that the magnitude of discrepancy in youth–mother reports was predictive of cigarette use when girls reported lower involvement than their mothers did (HR = 1.15, CI [1.03, 1.27]) but not when girls reported greater involvement than their mothers did (HR = 0.97, CI [0.90, 1.04]). In Model 2, youth report of low parental monitoring was associated with an elevated risk for using cigarettes (HR = 1.22, CI [1.09, 1.38]). Neither discrepancy in youth–mother reports nor in the direction of the discrepancy predicted cigarette use, and the interaction between the two was nonsignificant.

Table 2.

Results of Cox proportional hazards regression analyses predicting first cigarette use as a function of youth reports of parental involvement and parental monitoring, and discrepancies in youth and mother reports, in separate models

graphic file with name jsad.2020.81.180tbl2.jpg

Hazard ratio [95% CI]
Model 1: Low involvement Model 2: Low monitoring
Low parental involvement/monitoring
 Youth report 1.09 [1.04, 1.15]* 1.22 [1.09, 1.38]*
 Discrepancya between youth and mother reports 1.15 [1.03, 1.27]* 1.06 [0.92, 1.23]
 Direction of discrepancy: youth reports lower involvement/monitoring 1.31 [0.98, 1.77] 1.26 [0.93, 1.71]
 Discrepancy × Direction of Discrepancy 0.85 [0.75, 0.96]* 0.85 [0.68, 1.05]
  Youth reports lower involvement/monitoring 1.15 [1.03, 1.27]*
  Youth reports higher involvement/monitoring 0.97 [0.90, 1.04]
Covariates
 Race: Black vs. White 1.21 [0.96, 1.51] 1.20 [0.96, 1.50]
 Socioeconomic status indicators
  Primary caregiver education: <12 years vs. ≥12 years 1.05 [0.80, 1.39] 1.07 [0.81, 1.41]
  Household receipt of public assistance 0.85 [0.69, 1.06] 0.86 [0.69, 1.06]
  Single-parent-headed household 0.96 [0.78, 1.17] 0.97 [0.79, 1.18]
 Neighborhood factors
  Low neighborhood safety 1.01 [1.00, 1.02] 1.01 [0.99, 1.02]
  Community cohesion 1.00 [0.99, 1.01] 1.00 [0.99, 1.01]
  Neighborhood physical disorder 0.97 [0.89, 1.05] 0.97 [0.89, 1.05]
 Conduct problems 1.01 [0.97, 1.06] 1.02 [0.97, 1.06]
 Early puberty 0.95 [0.77, 1.18] 0.96 [0.78, 1.20]
Open in a new tab

Notes: CI = confidence interval.

a

Absolute value.

*

p < .05.

Results from the combined model, which included all parental involvement variables (youth report, magnitude of discrepancy in youth–mother report, direction of discrepancy in youth–mother report, and interaction between the magnitude and direction of discrepancy) and youth report of parental monitoring, along with covariates, are shown in Table 3. Consistent with findings from separate models, youth reports of parental monitoring (HR = 1.14, CI [1.06, 1.21]), discrepancy in youth–mother involvement reports (HR = 1.14, CI [1.03, 1.26]), and the interaction between the magnitude and the direction—specifically, youth reports of lower involvement (HR = 1.14, CI [1.03, 1.27])—were associated with cigarette use. By contrast, an independent contribution of youth-reported parental involvement to risk for cigarette use was no longer significant when youth-reported parental monitoring was also included in the model.

Table 3.

Results of Cox proportional hazards regression analysis predicting first cigarette use as a function of youth reports of parental involvement and parental monitoring, and discrepancies in youth and mother reports

graphic file with name jsad.2020.81.180tbl3.jpg

Hazard ratio [95% CI]
Low parental involvement
 Youth report 1.06 [1.00, 1.12]
 Discrepancya between youth and mother reports 1.14 [1.03, 1.26]*
 Direction of discrepancy: youth reports lower involvement 1.32 [0.98, 1.77]
 Discrepancy × Direction of Discrepancy 0.85 [0.75, 0.97]*
  Youth reports lower involvement 1.14 [1.03, 1.27]*
  Youth reports higher involvement 0.97 [0.90, 1.05]
Low parental monitoring
 Youth report 1.14 [1.06, 1.21]*
Covariates
 Race: Black vs. White 1.19 [0.95, 1.49]
 Socioeconomic status indicators
  Primary caregiver education: <12 years vs. ≥12 years 1.05 [0.80, 1.39]
  Household receipt of public assistance 0.85 [0.69, 1.05]
  Single-parent-headed household 0.96 [0.78, 1.18]
 Neighborhood factors
  Low neighborhood safety 1.01 [1.00, 1.02]
  Community cohesion 1.00 [0.99, 1.01]
  Neighborhood physical disorder 0.97 [0.89, 1.05]
 Conduct problems 1.02 [0.97, 1.06]
 Early puberty 0.96 [0.77, 1.19]
Open in a new tab

Notes: CI = confidence interval.

a

Absolute value.

*

p < .05.

Discussion

Low parental involvement and low parental monitoring are well-documented risk factors for adolescent cigarette use, and discrepancies in parental versus youth reports on parenting behaviors have been shown to be informative in relation to adolescent problem behaviors (De Los Reyes, 2011). Building on this foundation, the current study investigated discrepancies between youth and mother reports of parental involvement and parental monitoring as potential predictors of first cigarette use in adolescent girls, above and beyond youth-reported involvement and monitoring and a range of socioenvironmental and individual-level risk factors. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine discrepancy in youth–parent reports of parental involvement as a predictor of cigarette smoking, as well as the first to assess for independent contributions of parental involvement and parental monitoring to smoking behaviors. The current investigation, based on annually collected data across ages 8 to 17, revealed that both youth-reported parental monitoring and discrepancies between girls’ and mothers’ perspectives on parental involvement—specifically, lower perceived parental involvement by girls compared with their mothers—were associated with an elevated risk for first cigarette use.

Youth-reported parental involvement and parental monitoring

Consistent with existing literature linking low parental monitoring with adolescent smoking (Abar et al., 2014; Cohen et al., 1994; Lippold et al., 2014; Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2012; Van Ryzin et al., 2012; Wright & Fitzpatrick, 2004), youth-reported low parental monitoring was associated with an elevated risk for first cigarette use. Youth-reported low parental involvement also predicted first cigarette use, similar to results of prior work in this area (Chassin et al., 1993; Crouter et al., 2004; Fleming et al., 2002; Gutman et al., 2011; Mahabee-Gittens et al., 2012; Wills et al., 2004), but exclusively in the involvement only model. Unlike parental monitoring, it did not remain significant when both involvement and monitoring were included in the same model. Our results are not consistent with the published study most comparable to ours, Stattin and Kerr’s (2000) investigation of “normbreaking” (which includes cigarette and other substance use) that supported independent contributions of parental involvement and parental monitoring. However, the change in hazard ratio for parental involvement from the parental involvement only model to the combined model was not statistically significant, indicating that the association between parental involvement and first cigarette use was not only attributable to its overlap with parental monitoring.

Discrepancies between youth and mother reports and their associations with first cigarette use

Discrepancies in parent–youth perceptions of parental monitoring have only rarely been investigated in relation to adolescent substance use, with no prior work focused specifically on smoking behaviors. Consistent with the null findings for parental monitoring report discrepancies in the current study, Abar et al. (2015) found no associations between discrepant monitoring reports and any of the alcohol outcomes included in their study (having a sip of alcohol, consuming a full drink, or becoming intoxicated) after accounting for youth-reported parental monitoring. Given the limited research on discrepancies as predictors of substance use specifically, we also considered our findings in the context of the broader literature on externalizing behaviors—“delinquent” and other problem behaviors that commonly co-occur with early substance use—which has produced mixed results. For example, there is some support for concurrent associations between discrepancies in monitoring reports and elevated likelihood of engaging in delinquent behaviors (Lippold et al., 2011; Reynolds et al., 2011) but inconsistent support for longitudinal associations (De Los Reyes et al., 2010; Reynolds et al., 2011). The reverse direction of effects—that is, monitoring discrepancies being linked to reduced risk for externalizing behaviors—has also been found (Reidler & Swenson, 2012). Evidence for distinctions by the direction of the discrepancies is even scarcer, limited to De Los Reyes and colleagues’ (2010) finding of greater delinquent behavior among youth whose mothers consistently reported higher monitoring than their children did. In sum, the absence of associations of the magnitude or the direction of the discrepancy in parental monitoring reports with risk for first cigarette use is not inconsistent with the broader adolescent substance use and externalizing literature.

Our most striking finding is that girls who perceived lower parental involvement than their mothers did were at an elevated risk for first cigarette use. Although the effects were modest, they were robust, remaining significant even after we accounted for youth-reported parental involvement and parental monitoring as well as a range of socioenvironmental and individual-level risk factors. We are unaware of prior studies investigating discrepancies between youth and parental reports of parental involvement in relation to substance use outcomes, and we know of only one that examined related problem behaviors in adolescents. In Reidler & Swenson’s (2012) cross-sectional study with 5th, 8th, and 11th graders, discrepancies (in either direction) of youth–mother reportsof relationship quality were associated with lower externalizing problems. Substantial differences in study design likely account in part for distinctions from our findings, but more importantly, although frequently grouped together, substance use differs meaningfully from externalizing behaviors, which are by definition problematic, whereas trying a cigarette is developmentally normative.

Limitations

Study findings should be interpreted with certain limitations in mind. First, our measure of parental monitoring reflects parental knowledge; inferences cannot be made about the source (e.g., youth disclosure versus parental solicitation). Second, as seen in Table 1, the wording for some SIS items was not identical on mother and youth versions of the measure. Third, the Cronbach’s alphas for parental monitoring were somewhat low, especially before age 12, likely because of the greater relevance of monitoring questions to adolescents than to younger children. Fourth, we did not have information on maternal smoking history or the smoking status of household members. Although it is unlikely that they would directly affect discrepancies in youth versus parental perceptions of parental monitoring or parental involvement, both factors could influence parenting behaviors related to the risk for youth smoking or youth access to cigarettes.

Future directions

Our results suggest a number of directions for future research in this area. The extent to which our findings generalize to boys, for whom parental monitoring is not as strongly associated with smoking (Sanchez et al., 2010), as well as youth living in nonurban environments, merits investigation. The relevance of shared perspectives on parental involvement and monitoring to later stages of cigarette smoking (e.g., frequency of smoking among regular smokers) and other forms of tobacco use is another key question to explore, given its potential to inform prevention efforts. More detailed assessments of family dynamics would help to reveal what mechanisms link parental involvement and monitoring, and their discrepancies in youth–parent perceptions, to adolescent cigarette use. Involvement of other caregivers, sources of parental knowledge, youth and parental reports of perceived connectedness, and youth–parent discussions about substance use would be particularly informative in such assessments.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that girls whose parents have limited knowledge of their whereabouts and friends are at an elevated risk for smoking, but differences in the perceived level of parental knowledge does not impact risk for first cigarette use. By contrast, girls who perceive a lower degree of parental involvement than their parents do have an increased likelihood of trying cigarettes. The distinction in the relevance of discrepant perceptions of monitoring versus involvement indicates that a shared perception of parental involvement in the parent–child dyad, including communication and spending quality time together, is more important than a shared perception of parental knowledge of youth activities away from home. With respect to prevention efforts, our findings suggest that parents’ awareness of their children’s whereabouts and friends is one component of parenting that may reduce smoking risk; a shared perspective on the parent’s level of involvement with the child is similarly important. The efficacy of family-based substance use prevention efforts may be enhanced by integrating communication between youth and their parents about the desired nature and level of parental involvement.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all of the research participants and their families for the time they dedicated to this study.

Footnotes

Funding for this study was provided by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant AA023549, National Institute on Drug Abuse grants DA012237 and DA042454, National Institute on Mental Health grant MH056630, the FISA Foundation, and the Falk Fund.

References

  1. Abar C. C., Jackson K. M., Colby S. M., Barnett N. P. Common and unique parenting predictors of adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors. 2014;39:1528–1532. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.06.003. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.06.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abar C. C., Jackson K. M., Colby S. M., Barnett N. P. Parent-child discrepancies in reports of parental monitoring and their relationship to adolescent alcohol-related behaviors. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2015;44:1688–1701. doi: 10.1007/s10964-014-0143-6. doi:10.1007/s10964-014-0143-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen M. L., Garcia-Huidobro D., Porta C., Curran D., Patel R., Miller J., Borowsky I. Effective parenting interventions to reduce youth substance use: A systematic review. Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20154425. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4425. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-4425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arim R. G., Tramonte L., Shapka J. D., Dahinten V. S., Willms J. D. The family antecedents and the subsequent outcomes of early puberty. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2011;40:1423–1435. doi: 10.1007/s10964-011-9638-6. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9638-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chassin L., Pillow D. R., Curran P. J., Molina B. S. G., Barrera M., Jr. Relation of parental alcoholism to early adolescent substance use: A test of three mediating mechanisms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1993;102:3–19. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.102.1.3. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.102.1.3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chassin L., Presson C. C., Rose J., Sherman S. J., Davis M. J., Gonzalez J. L. Parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices as predictors of adolescent smoking onset. Journal of Pediatric Psychology. 2005;30:333–344. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsi028. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsi028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chuang Y. C., Ennett S. T., Bauman K. E., Foshee V. A. Relationships of adolescents’ perceptions of parental and peer behaviors with cigarette and alcohol use in different neighborhood contexts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2009;38:1388–1398. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9424-x. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9424-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen D. A., Richardson J., LaBree L. Parenting behaviors and the onset of smoking and alcohol use: A longitudinal study. Pediatrics. 1994;94:368–375. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Crosnoe R., Erickson K. G., Dornbusch S. M. Protective functions of family relationships and school factors on the deviant behavior of adolescent boys and girls: Reducing the impact of risky friendships. Youth & Society. 2002;33:515–544. doi:10.1177/0044118X02033004002. [Google Scholar]
  10. Crouter A. C., Head M. R., McHale S. M., Tucker C. J. Family time and the psychosocial adjustment of adolescent siblings and their parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 2004;66:147–162. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00010.x-i1. [Google Scholar]
  11. De Los Reyes A. Introduction to the special section: More than measurement error: Discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies in clinical assessments of children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2011;40:1–9. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2011.533405. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.533405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. De Los Reyes A., Goodman K. L., Kliewer W., Reid-Quiñones 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. 2010;39:1417–1430. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9496-7. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9496-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. De Los Reyes A., Ohannessian C. M. Introduction to the special issue: Discrepancies in adolescent–parent perceptions of the family and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2016;45:1957–1972. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0533-z. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0533-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Edwards J. R. Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression analysis and response surface methodology. In: Drasgow F., Schmitt N. W., editors. Advances in measurement and data analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002. pp. 350–400. [Google Scholar]
  15. Edwards J. R. The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1994;58:51–100. doi:10.1006/obhd.1994.1029. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fleming C. B., Kim H., Harachi T. W., Catalano R. F. Family processes for children in early elementary school as predictors of smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2002;30:184–189. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(01)00327-5. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00327-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fuemmeler B., Lee C. T., Ranby K. W., Clark T., McClernon F. J., Yang C., Kollins S. H. Individual- and community-level correlates of cigarette-smoking trajectories from age 13 to 32 in a U.S. population-based sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2013;132:301–308. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.021. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.02.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gadow K. D., Sprafkin J. N. Adolescent Symptom Inventory–4. Stony Brook; NY: Checkmate Plus: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gordon M. S., Russell B. S., Finan L. J. The influence of parental support and community belonging on socioeconomic status and adolescent substance use over time. Substance Use & Misuse. 2020;55:23–36. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2019.1654513. doi:10.1080/10826084.2019.1654513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gorman-Smith D., Tolan P. H., Henry D. A developmental-ecological model of the relation of family functioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2000;16:169–198. doi:10.1023/A:1007564505850. [Google Scholar]
  21. Green M. J., Leyland A. H., Sweeting H., Benzeval M. Socioeconomic position and adolescent trajectories in smoking, drinking, and psychiatric distress. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013;53:202–208. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.02.023. e2. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.02.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Guion K., Mrug S., Windle M. Predictive value of informant discrepancies in reports of parenting: Relations to early adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2009;37:17–30. doi: 10.1007/s10802-008-9253-5. doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9253-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gutman L. M., Eccles J. S., Peck S., Malanchuk O. The influence of family relations on trajectories of cigarette and alcohol use from early to late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence. 2011;34:119–128. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01.005. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hipwell A. E., Loeber R., Stouthamer-Loeber M., Keenan K., White H. R., Kroneman L. Characteristics of girls with early onset disruptive and antisocial behaviour. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 2002;12:99–118. doi: 10.1002/cbm.489. doi:10.1002/cbm.489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hiscock R., Bauld L., Amos A., Fidler J. A., Munafò M. Socioeconomic status and smoking: A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2012;1248:107–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06202.x. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06202.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Keenan K., Hipwell A., Chung T., Stepp S., Stouthamer-Loeber M., Loeber R., McTigue K. The Pittsburgh Girls Study: Overview and initial findings. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2010;39:506–521. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2010.486320. doi:10.1080/15374416.2010.486320. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Korelitz K. E., Garber J. Congruence of parents’ and children’s perceptions of parenting: A meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2016;45:1973–1995. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0524-0. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0524-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuntsche S., Kuntsche E. Parent-based interventions for preventing or reducing adolescent substance use—A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2016;45:89–101. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.02.004. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.02.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Latendresse S. J., Rose R. J., Viken R. J., Pulkkinen L., Kaprio J., Dick D. M. Parental socialization and adolescents’ alcohol use behaviors: Predictive disparities in parents’ versus adolescents’ perceptions of the parenting environment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2009;38:232–244. doi: 10.1080/15374410802698404. doi:10.1080/15374410802698404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lippold M. A., Greenberg M. T., Feinberg M. E. A dyadic approach to understanding the relationship of maternal knowledge of youths’ activities to youths’ problem behavior among rural adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2011;40:1178–1191. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-9595-5. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9595-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lippold M. A., Coffman D. L., Greenberg M. T. Investigating the potential causal relationship between parental knowledge and youth risky behavior: A propensity score analysis. Prevention Science. 2014;15:869–878. doi: 10.1007/s11121-013-0443-1. doi:10.1007/s11121-013-0443-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Loeber R., Farrington D., Stouthamer-Loeber M., Van Kammen W. Antisocial behavior and mental health problems: Explanatory factors in childhood and adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mahabee-Gittens E. M., Xiao Y., Gordon J. S., Khoury J. C. The role of family influences on adolescent smoking in different racial/ethnic groups. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2012;14:264–273. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr192. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntr192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mak H. W., Iacovou M. Dimensions of the parent–child relationship: Effects on substance use in adolescence and adulthood. Substance Use & Misuse. 2019;54:724–736. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2018.1536718. doi:10.1080/10826084.2018.1536718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Miech R. A., Johnston L. D., O’Malley P. M., Bachman J. G., Schulenberg J. E., Patrick M. E. Monitoring the Future: National survey results on drug use, 1975–2018: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ohannessian C. M. Discrepancies in adolescents’ and their mothers’ perceptions of the family and adolescent externalizing problems. Family Science. 2012;3:135–140. doi: 10.1080/19424620.2012.704596. doi:10.1080/19424620.2012.704596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Petersen A. C., Crockett L., Richards M., Boxer A. A self-report measure of pubertal status: Reliability, validity, and initial norms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1988;17:117–133. doi: 10.1007/BF01537962. doi:10.1007/BF01537962. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Reidler E. B., Swenson L. P. Discrepancies between youth and mothers’ perceptions of their mother-child relationship quality and self-disclosure: Implications for youth- and mother-reported youth adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2012;41:1151–1167. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9773-8. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9773-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Reynolds E. K., MacPherson L., Matusiewicz A. K., Schreiber W. M., Lejuez C. W. Discrepancy between mother and child reports of parental knowledge and the relation to risk behavior engagement. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2011;40:67–79. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2011.533406. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.533406. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rote W. M., Smetana J. G. Patterns and predictors of mother– adolescent discrepancies across family constructs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2016;45:2064–2079. doi: 10.1007/s10964-016-0515-1. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0515-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rutter M. Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1985;147:598–611. doi: 10.1192/bjp.147.6.598. doi:10.1192/bjp.147.6.598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sanchez Z. M., Opaleye E. S., Martins S. S., Ahluwalia J. S., Noto A. R. Adolescent gender differences in the determinants of tobacco smoking: A cross sectional survey among high school students in São Paulo. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:748. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-748. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Shih R. A., Parast L., Pedersen E. R., Troxel W. M., Tucker J. S., Miles J. N. V., D’Amico E. J. Individual, peer, and family factor modification of neighborhood-level effects on adolescent alcohol, cigarette, e-cigarette, and marijuana use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2017;180:76–85. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.07.014. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.07.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Stattin H., Kerr M. Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development. 2000;71:1072–1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Svensson R. Gender differences in adolescent drug use: The impact of parental monitoring and peer deviance. Youth & Society. 2003;34:300–329. doi:10.1177/0044118X02250095. [Google Scholar]
  46. Thun M. J., Carter B. D., Feskanich D., Freedman N. D., Prentice R., Lopez A. D., Gapstur S. M. 50-year trends in smoking-related mortality in the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368:351–364. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1211127. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1211127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Author; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Ryzin M. J., Fosco G. M., Dishion T. J. Family and peer predictors of substance use from early adolescence to early adulthood: An 11-year prospective analysis. Addictive Behaviors. 2012;37:1314–1324. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.020. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.06.020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Ryzin M. J., Roseth C. J., Fosco G. M., Lee Y. K., Chen I. C. A component-centered meta-analysis of family-based prevention programs for adolescent substance use. Clinical Psychology Review. 2016;45:72–80. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.007. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2016.03.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wei E., Hipwell A., Pardini D., Beyers J. M., Loeber R. Block observations of neighbourhood physical disorder are associated with neighbourhood crime, firearm injuries and deaths, and teen births. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2005;59:904–908. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.027060. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.027060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wills T. A., Resko J. A., Ainette M. G., Mendoza D. Role of parent support and peer support in adolescent substance use: A test of mediated effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2004;18:122–134. doi: 10.1037/0893-164X.18.2.122. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.18.2.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs are provided here courtesy of Rutgers University. Center of Alcohol Studies

RESOURCES