Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Feb 16.
Published in final edited form as: S Afr J Psychol. 2016 Sep 9;47(2):246–259. doi: 10.1177/0081246316667918

Community violence exposure, family management practices, and substance use in youth: a cross-cultural study

Wendy Kliewer 1,2, Basil J Pillay 3, Alicia Borre 1, Nikola Zaharakis 1, Tess Drazdowski 1, Lena Jäggi 1
PMCID: PMC7885975  NIHMSID: NIHMS1648385  PMID: 33597789

Abstract

Associations between community violence exposure, family management practices, and substance use were compared in a sample of early adolescents in low-income communities from the United States (N = 151; M age = 12.71 years, standard deviation = 0.65; 50.3% female) and South Africa (N = 175; M age = 12.55 years, standard deviation = 0.85; 64.6% female) using home interviews with youth and their maternal caregivers. Past year victimization was associated with recent youth substance use. The moderating role of family management practices varied by type of practice (e.g., parental knowledge, control, solicitation, or child disclosure), reporter, and country. High parental knowledge reported by caregiver was protective against substance use only for South African youth. In youth reports, parental knowledge was protective across the United States and South Africa. Youth reports of their disclosure to parents were negatively associated with substance use in the United States but not South Africa. These data highlight the importance of considering both ecological context and reporter in the links between violence exposure, parenting, and substance use in youth.

Keywords: Community violence victimization, cross-cultural, family management, substance use

Direct and indirect exposure to community violence is a common experience for millions of youth living in under-resourced communities in the United States, placing them at heightened risk for adjustment difficulties (Fowler, Tompsett, Braciszewski, Jacques-Tiura, & Baltes, 2009; Kliewer, Lepore, Oskin, & Johnson, 1998; Lynch, 2003; Martinez & Richters, 1993). A recent nationwide epidemiology study conducted in the United States found that close to 60% of youth have been exposed to violence in the past year, with almost 50% of youth experiencing multiple forms of violence (Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2013). There are ample reports of youth exposure to community violence across the world (Kaminer, du Plessis, Hardy, & Benjamin, 2013; Seedat, Van Niekerk, Jewkes, Suffla, & Ratele, 2009), constituting a global public health concern. Community violence rates are particularly high in South Africa (SA). In 2012–2013, the murder rate was 31 per 100,000 persons, about four-and-a-half times higher than the global average. Furthermore, attempted murders, robbery, vehicle hijacking, and residential burglary all rose over the previous year (South African Police, 2015).

Community violence can include a range of behaviours ranging from hitting, slapping, or punching to attacks with a knife or gun (Richters & Martinez, 1993). Youth may be exposed to community violence directly (the child is the direct target of the violent act) and/or indirectly (witnessing or hearing about violent acts), with both forms of exposure to violence being linked to adverse outcomes (Fowler et al., 2009; Lynch, 2003). In this study, the focus is on direct victimization experiences.

Community violence and substance use

One outcome associated with community violence exposure is substance use (Brook, Rubenstone, Zhang, Morojele, & Brook, 2011; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; E. M. Wright, Fagan, & Pinchevsky, 2013). Youth may engage in substance use as a way to cope by numbing negative emotions associated with the stress of violence exposure (Kilpatrick, Acierno, Resnick, Saunders, & Best, 1997). Urban youth may be particularly susceptible to early use and future problematic use of alcohol and illicit drugs (Martino, Ellickson, & McCaffrey, 2008; D. Wright, 2004), as many of these youth are disproportionately exposed to trauma (e.g., violence, crime) which increases vulnerability to substance use (e.g., Lee, 2012; Zinzow et al., 2009).

Community-based research has documented linkages between witnessing community violence and substance use (e.g., Kliewer et al., 2006; Schwab-Stone et al., 1995; Sullivan, Kung, & Farrell, 2004) as well as directly experiencing violence and substance use (e.g., Brook et al., 2011; Vermeiren, Schwab-Stone, Deboutte, Leckman, & Ruchkin, 2003; E. M. Wright et al., 2013). In a study with 2195 South African youth, Brook et al. (2011) found an association between environmental stress (which included violent victimization) and cigarette smoking and alcohol use.

Parenting and family management practices

Given the robust associations between community violence exposure and substance use, it is important to identify factors that may mitigate against use. In this study, we conceptualized substance abuse among youth exposed to community violence within a contextual framework as proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) in his ecological perspective of development. In Bronfenbrenner’s conceptual model, an individual’s behaviour and development are influenced by five different systems of influence, ranging from the microsystem – which refers to institutions and groups that most immediately and directly affect an individual – to the macrosystem – which refers to the broad cultural context in which individuals live. Between the microsystem and the macrosystem lies the mesosystem – which refers to interconnections between the microsystems, and the exosystem – which involves links between a setting in which the individual does not have a role and the individual’s microsystem. The chronosystem refers to events and transitions that occur over the life course and include sociohistorical trends and events (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Applying Bronfenbrenner’s model to our study, we consider the microsystem influences of family management practices as well as the macrosystem influences of community violence and the broader cultural context of SA and the United States. Thus, not only distal influences (e.g., community violence) but also proximal influences (e.g., family management practices) are taken into consideration. Shillington et al. (2005) found that youth who reported that their parents did not monitor their whereabouts were significantly more likely to use a variety of substances. Conversely, Stewart (2002) reported that close monitoring by parents and positive parental style constituted protective factors for youth’s alcohol and other drug use.

Because of the primacy of the family as a source of protection against substance use (Kliewer, 2010), it is important to consider the role parents play in reducing associations between victimization experiences and substance use. As noted by Kerr and Stattin (2000), parents’ ability to adequately monitor their children’s activities and whereabouts is a key protective factor that relates to better youth adjustment. This is especially true for youth growing up in neighbourhoods characterized by poverty and danger (Kotchick & Forehand, 2002). One aspect of family management, parental monitoring, goes beyond simple control of children’s whereabouts and activities and entails parental solicitation of information as well as voluntary child disclosure of information (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Together, these factors contribute to the extent of parental knowledge of their child’s activities and whereabouts and ability to manage their family. Since closeness to parents’ declines, and the importance of peers rises, as children transition from childhood to adolescence, encouraging voluntary child disclosure of information is key for optimizing parental monitoring efforts (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Moreover, a child’s voluntary disclosure of information is linked with parental acceptance, responsiveness, and warmth in the parent-child relationship (Blodgett-Salafia, Gondoli, & Grundy, 2009; Smetana, Metzger, Gettman, & Campione-Barr, 2006), and these factors are associated with youth adjustment (Stanik, Riina, & McHale, 2013).

There is some evidence that family management practices attenuate the association between community violence and drug use (Kliewer et al., 2006; Sullivan et al., 2004), although other studies have not found moderator effects (Lee, 2012). The majority of studies on family management practices as moderators of associations between community violence exposure and drug use have been conducted in the United States; limited information is available about these processes in SA.

Family management practices and adjustment: reporter effects

The literature on informant discrepancies in reports of family management practices suggests that mothers and children have varied perspectives in this domain, and these differences have implications for future child adjustment (De Los Reyes, Goodman, Kliewer, & Reid-Quiñones, 2010). Thus, parental reports of their family management practices may reflect one aspect of parent–child interaction, while youth reports of the same family management practices may reflect another aspect. Indeed, it is not uncommon for mothers and children to have low agreement on the same construct (De Los Reyes & Kazdin, 2005).

Parenting across cultures

Considering parenting with a wide ecological framework is important (Belsky, 1984; Lachman, Cluver, Boyes, Kuo, & Casale, 2014). Certainly, the dynamics of parent–child relations are influenced by characteristics of the contexts in which said interactions occur, and when considering family management practices in different cultures, certain similarities as well as differences will arise.

As noted earlier, community violence is a serious problem in SA (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2013), and huge percentages of South African youth report both direct and indirect exposure to community violence (Kaminer et al., 2013). Interpersonal violence is something both witnessed by and targeted towards children living in low-income communities characterized by violence and poverty (Liang, Flisher, & Lombard, 2007). It comes as little surprise, then, that anxiety levels of South African youth are higher than those experienced by their American counterparts (Muris, Schmidt, Engelbrecht, & Perold, 2002). Substance use among South African youth is an increasing issue (Meghdadpour, Curtis, Pettifor, & MacPhail, 2012; Parry et al., 2004; Reddy et al., 2013), with lifetime prevalence rates among school-aged youth estimated at 13% for cannabis use, followed by 12% for inhalant use; 12% for over-the-counter or prescription drugs; 7% each for Mandrax (methaqualone), cocaine, and club drugs; and 6% for heroin (Reddy et al., 2010).

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that examines the potential protective role of family management practices indicated by parental knowledge, control, solicitation, and disclosure as reported by both parent and youth in a cross-country comparison.

In summary, this cross-country comparison study augments the literature on the impact of exposure to community violence and victimization on substance use by exploring the protective role of family management practices for youth exposed to violence in under-resourced neighbourhoods in SA and the United States. Thus, the following questions were explored for both the SA and US samples. (1) Are family management practices protective against substance use for youth who have experienced victimization in the community? (2) Do the effects of family management practices vary as a function of (a) country, (b) reporter (parent vs adolescent), or (c) family management construct (e.g., knowledge, solicitation, control, and child disclosure)? Two main hypotheses were tested: first, an association between exposure to community violence and substance use and, second, that adequate family management would constitute a protective factor for substance use in both samples, regardless of reporter (parent vs adolescent).

Method

This cross-country comparison study focused on low-income communities characterized by violence and poverty. The South African sample was recruited from low-income neighbourhoods in the greater Durban, SA. The US participants were recruited from neighbourhoods within Richmond, VA, and the neighbouring counties with high levels of violence and/or poverty according to police statistics and 2000 census data.

Participants

The South African sample consisted of 175 Grade 7 youth (M age = 12.55 years, standard deviation [SD] = 0.85; 64.6% female) and their primary female caregivers. Most (74.6%) caregivers were the child’s biological mother, but grandmothers (11.6%), aunts (6.9%), stepmothers (3.5%), adopted mothers (1.1%), sisters (1.2%), and other female relatives (1.2%) were represented. Many (31.4%) of the caregivers had never married, 57.6% were married or cohabitating, 2.3% were separated, 2.9% were divorced, and 5.8% were widowed. Household income was low: 20% of the sample earned R1500 (US$100) or less per month, and the median household income was R3501–R4500 (US$ 233–300) per month. Highest educational level achieved by caregivers varied widely from never attending school (3.0%), Grades 1–8 (12.5%), Grades 9–11 (31.0%), secondary school graduate (44.0%), some college (5.4%), to college graduate (4.2%).

The US sample consisted of 151 Grade 7 youth (M age = 12.71 years, SD = 0.65; 50.3% female) and their primary female caregivers. Most (88.7%) caregivers were the child’s biological mother, but grandmothers (6.7%), adopted mothers (1.3%), and other female relatives (3.3%) were represented. Many (44.0%) of the caregivers had never married, 32.7% were married or cohabitating, 14.7% were separated, 7.3% were divorced, and 1.3% were widowed. Nearly all (91.3%) of the sample was African American/Black. Overall, the sample was poor, with a median household income of R4515–R6000 (US$301–400) per week. In terms of education, 28.9% of the caregivers had not completed high school, 23.5% had earned a high school diploma or General Education Diploma (GED), 22.1% had some college, 16.1% earned an associate degree or vocational degree, and 9.4% had a bachelor’s level education or higher.

Instruments

Violence exposure.

Youth exposure to community violence was assessed with the 10-item victimization subscale of the Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (Richters & Saltzman, 1990). A count of the number of different types of victimization experiences in the past year was used to quantify violence exposure. This measure has been used in many studies including the National Institute of Mental Health Community Violence Project (Richters & Martinez, 1993).

Substance use.

Past month substance use was assessed with the 6-item drug use subscale of the Problem Behaviour Frequency Scale (PBFS; Farrell, Kung, White, & Valois, 2000). Substance use scores were calculated based on a mean value for items in the subscale, with a higher score representing greater use. The measure has good reliability and validity (Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006). Reliabilities in the current samples were α = .71 and α = .88 for the SA and US samples, respectively. Due to skewness, the substance use score was dichotomized for use in logistic regression analyses.

Family management.

Family management practices were assessed by both caregiver and youth reports using the 24-item Parenting Practices Scale (Stattin & Kerr, 2000). The Parenting Practices Scale assesses four behaviours related to family management. Parental knowledge assesses parent’s knowledge of the child’s whereabouts, activities, and associations. Parental solicitation assesses the extent to which parents talked with other parents, the child’s friends, or the child themselves in order to get information. Child disclosure refers to the extent to which youth revealed information to or hid information from parents. Parental control assesses the degree to which parents required their children to check in with them or get permission from them before participating in evening and weekend activities. These domains index behaviours related to family management or parental monitoring. Responses are rated on a 5-point scale. Kerr and Stattin (2000) report excellent validity and reliability for the measure. Reliabilities in the current samples were as follows: parent-reported knowledge (SA α = . 92, United States α = . 75); youth-reported knowledge (SA α = .81, United States α = .86); parent-reported solicitation (SA α = .78, United States α = .63); youth-reported solicitation (SA α = .74, United States α = .76); parent-reported control (SA α = .92, USA α = .75); youth-reported control (SA α = .88, United States α = .79); parent-reported disclosure (SA α = .59, United States α = .72); and youth-reported disclosure (SA α = .51, United States α = .70).

Procedure

The SA sample was recruited via local primary schools. Once enrolled, a team of two trained research assistants conducted interviews in the home separately with the caregiver and child. Each item of the interview was translated into isiZulu and then back-translated to English. Bilingual (English/isiZulu) staff was available to ensure that isiZulu-speaking participants were properly informed about the study; all participants had the choice of completing the interview in English or isiZulu. In addition, all measures were reviewed for appropriateness by a team of South African clinical psychologists familiar with the target population; approximately 44% of the caregivers completed the interview in isiZulu.

US participants were recruited from neighbourhoods within Richmond, VA, and the neighbouring counties with high levels of violence and/or poverty according to police statistics and 2000 census data. The study was advertised through community agencies and events and by canvassing qualifying neighbourhoods via flyers posted door-to-door. Families were eligible if they spoke English, had a fifth or an eighth grader, and if the primary caregiver could be present for the interview. In all, 63% of eligible participants agreed to be in the study, which is consistent with studies using similar designs and populations. Once enrolled, a team of two trained research assistants conducted interviews in the home separately with the caregiver and child.

Ideally, recruitment for the SA and US samples would be identical. However, permission to recruit through the schools in the United States was not obtained, so a community recruitment approach in the United States was used. More critically, both in SA and in the United States, the samples were recruited from low-income neighbourhoods, and data were collected via face-to-face home interviews with youth and caregivers in both studies. This is likely a greater source of variation than the sample recruitment method per se, and it was consistent across the United States and SA.

Ethical considerations

The SA study was approved by the Bioethics Committee at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) and the Provincial Department of Education. Families were paid a R50 shopping card voucher for their participation. The US study was approved by the ethics review board at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). Families were compensated with a US$50 gift card for their participation.

Data analysis

A series of one-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were used to compare the South African and US samples on victimization, family management practices, and substance use, controlling for child age and sex. A series of regression analyses were conducted with victimization as the predictor, dichotomized past month substance use as the outcome, one dimension of family management practices as a moderator, and country as a second moderator. Thus, a total of eight logistic regression equations were estimated. Continuous-level predictor variables were centred and two- and three-way interaction terms were computed from the centred variables (Aiken & West, 1991). Age and child sex were included as control variables in all analyses.

Results

Descriptive information on and associations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. On average, youth reported one type of victimization event during the past year. The commonly reported type of victimization was being slapped, hit, or punched (39.3% of South African and 36.5% of US youth) in the past year. Slightly, more than one in six youth (17.8% of the country samples combined) reported some substance use in the past 30 days. Victimization was positively associated with substance use and parent-reported control and negatively associated with child-reported knowledge, solicitation, and disclosure. Substance use was negatively associated with child reports of parental knowledge, parental solicitation, and child disclosure but not parent reports of these constructs. Child-reported disclosure was positively associated with parent-reported knowledge, solicitation, control and disclosure; additionally, parent-reported control was negatively related to child-reported solicitation, and parent-reported child disclosure was positively associated with child-reported parental knowledge.

Table 1.

Correlations among and descriptive information on study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Child age – .09   .09   −.11   −.09   −.05   −.11   −.09   −.03   −.07   −.07   −.10
2. Child sex (male= 1; female = 0) –   .31***   −.03  .07  .08   −.09   −.16**   −.29**   −.14*   −.13*  .09
3. Victimization (C) –  .05  .07  .18**   −.01   −.34***   −.25***   −.05   −.29***  .28***
4. Knowledge (P) –  .57***  .62***  .66***  .09   −.02   −.01  .18**   −.03
5. Solicitation (P) –  .49***  .48***  .04  .02   −.01  .15*   −.01
6. Control (P) –  .52***  .03   −.14*   −.01  .18**  .07
7. Disclosure (P) –  .13*  .04  .08  .24***   −.11
8. Knowledge (C) –  .58***  .48***  .59***   −.25***
9. Solicitation (C) –  .40***  .43***   −.15**
10. Control (C) –  .33***   −.09
11. Disclosure (C) –   −.29***
12. Substance use (C) –
M 12.62 42% 0.98 39.74 19.53 23.18 21.02 38.64 17.79 22.48 19.92 82.2%
SD   0.77 1.22   6.45   4.48   4.40   3.91   6.15   4.87   3.69   3.9
Open in a new tab

P: parent report; C: child report; M: mean; SD: standard deviation.

Numbers ranged from 269 to 326 due to missing data. Substance use was dichotomized.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

There were no overall differences by country on victimization, F(1, 321) = 1.61, p>.10. However, youth in the United States reported being asked to distribute drugs more frequently in the past year than youth in SA (1.7% vs 7.3%), F(1, 318) = 5.63, p< .05. Additionally, youth in the United States reported being threatened with serious physical harm more often than youth in SA (4.0% vs 20.7%), F(1, 320) = 19.36, p< .001. There was a trend for South African youth to report being beaten up or mugged more frequently than youth in the United States (10.9% vs 6.7%), F(1, 320)=3.41, p< .10. Past month substance use did not differ by country, χ2(1) = .04, p> .10. In terms of parent-reported family management practices, knowledge did not differ by country, F(1, 314) = 1.89, p> .10. However, parents in the United States reported higher levels of solicitation, F(1,317) = 14.78, p< .001 (M= 18.66 [SD = 5.27]; M = 20.52 [SD = 3.12]), control, F(1,301) = 36.96, p< .001 (M = 21.73 [SD = 5.71]; M= 24.67 [SD = 1.18]), and child disclosure, F(1, 301) = 9.54, p< .01 (M= 20.45 [SD = 4.50]; M= 21.02 [SD = 3.10]) than parents in SA. In contrast to parent reports, youth reports of family management practices yielded no differences across countries, knowledge: F(1, 317) = .01, ns; solicitation: F(1, 317) = 2.12, p> .10; control: F(1, 277) = 0, ns; and disclosure: F(1, 283) = 1.65, p> .10.

Analyses are summarized in Table 2. There was a significant victimization × knowledge interaction which was qualified by a significant country × victimization × knowledge interaction (see Model 1a of Table 2). There was a strong, positive association between violence exposure and substance use for youth living in the United States whose parents reported high levels of knowledge about their activities. As seen in Table 2, the model with youth-reported data (Model 1b) on parental knowledge was marginally significant. The lack of an interaction indicated that more parental knowledge, from the perspective of youth report, tended to be protective for youth across both countries.

Table 2.

Summary of logistic regression analyses predicting past month substance use from community violence victimization, dimensions of parental monitoring, country, and their interactions.

Variable Parent-rated
 Child-rated
B SEB Odds ratio B SEB Odds ratio
Models 1a and b: knowledge
 Child age .60 0.23   1.83** .49 0.22 1.63*
 Child sex .02 0.34   1.0 −.02 0.35 0.98
 Country .60 0.36   1.83 .38 0.36 1.46
 Victimization .27 0.20   1.31 .19 0.21 1.21
 Knowledge −.01 0.06   0.99 −.08 0.05 0.92+
 Victimization × knowledge .13 0.06   1.14* −.06 0.04 0.95
 Country × knowledge −.01 0.08   0.99 .02 0.06 1.02
 Country × victimization .34 0.32   1.41 .06 0.29 1.06
 Country × victimization × knowledge −.24 0.08   0.79** −.01 0.05 0.99
Models 2a and b: solicitation
 Child age .56 0.22   1.75** .45 0.21 1.57*
 Child sex .04 0.33   1.04 −.12 0.34 0.89
 Country .31 0.34   1.37 .32 0.34 1.38
 Victimization .43 0.17   1.53** .35 0.18 1.48*
 Solicitation −.08 0.08   0.92 −.05 0.05 0.95
 Victimization × solicitation −.02 0.06   0.98 −.01 0.04 0.99
 Country × solicitation .15 0.09   1.16 .06 0.07 1.02
 Country × victimization .03 0.25   1.03 .02 0.26 1.06
 Country × victimization × solicitation −.02 0.07   0.98 .03 0.06 1.03
Models 3a and b: control
 Child age .48 0.22   1.62* .47 0.23 1.60*
 Child sex .11 0.34   1.12 −.23 0.38 0.79
 Country .05 0.69   1.06 .34 0.36 1.40
 Victimization 2.79 1.69 16.32+ .40 0.17 1.49*
 Control −.27 0.36   0.77 −.05 0.07 0.95
 Victimization × control −1.35 0.93   0.26 −.01 0.05 0.99
 Country × control .31 0.37   1.37 0    0.10 1.00
 Country × victimization −2.40 1.70   0.09 .30 0.29 1.35
 Country × victimization × control 1.31 0.93   3.70 .07 0.09 1.06
Models 4a and 4b: disclosure
 Child age .37 0.22   1.45+ .46 0.23 1.59*
 Child sex −.08 0.34   0.93 −.23 0.37 0.80
 Country .31 0.34   1.37 .54 0.38 1.71
 Victimization .42 0.16   1.53** .28 0.19 1.32
 Disclosure −.05 0.08   0.95 −.23 0.07 0.80**
 Victimization × disclosure .02 0.06   1.02 −.03 0.06 0.97
 Country × disclosure 0    0.10   1.00 .19 0.09 1.22*
 Country × victimization .09 0.25   1.09 .43 0.33 1.53
 Country × victimization × disclosure −.09 0.08   0.91 .04 0.08 1.04
Open in a new tab

SEB: standard error of B.

Terms are from the final step of the model. Sex was coded 0 = female, 1 = male. Country was coded 0 = United States, 1 = South Africa.

+

p < .10;

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01;

***

p < .001.

The models that included parental solicitation (models 2a and 2b) as well as the models that included parental control (models 3a and 3b) were consistent in that they revealed main effects for child age and victimization and no interactions with family management practices or country. Similarly, model 4a, which included parental reports of child disclosure, showed a main effect of victimization. However, model 4b, which included youth reports of their disclosure to parents, revealed main effects of age and child disclosure, which was qualified by a country × disclosure interaction. Child disclosure was unrelated to substance use in SA (partial correlation=−.06), while disclosure was negatively associated with substance use in the US sample (partial correlation=−.31, p< .001).

Discussion

This study sample of Grade 7 students from both SA and the United States examined how the relation between community violence victimization and youth substance use varied as a function of four dimensions of family management practices using both parent and youth reports. Despite similar rates of victimization and substance use, and similar patterns of association between victimization and substance use across the two countries, family management practices exerted different patterns of moderation based on the type of practice, who reported on the practice, and country.

In this study, parental knowledge was the practice that most clearly moderated associations between violent victimization and youth substance use. According to South African parents and youth in both countries, when parents knew about their children’s activities, youth were less likely to use substances in the context of violence. Thus, parental knowledge may be an important target for intervention in reducing youth substance use. Interventions targeted at increasing parent knowledge of their children’s whereabouts and activities may be effective in preventing or reducing youth substance use, particularly among families exposed to high levels of community violence. Such interventions could include education around how to set up family management practices, such as monitoring plans with the child regarding their leisure time plans and whereabouts. In fact, some research has begun to document the effectiveness of improving parents’ family management skills on reducing youth substance use (Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 2001). That this finding held across our American and South African samples is an important contribution of this study and is salient to clinical and policy implications, suggesting similar parenting interventions may translate well and be similarly effective in geographically disparate locations.

One caveat to this conclusion is the finding that according to the data reported by US parents, knowledge acted as a risk factor on the link between victimization and substance use. That is to say, among youth whose parents reported high levels of knowledge about their children’s activities, there was a strong relationship between violence and substance use. This reactive effect might be explained by considering the cross-sectional design of our study. The variables in our study were measured at one point in time, precluding conclusions about the temporality of this relationship. Indeed, some prior studies provide support for this interpretation, as researchers have documented reciprocal relationships between parent knowledge and adolescent substance use (Coley, Votruba-Drzal, & Schindler, 2008; Wang, Dishion, Stormshak, & Willett, 2011). Thus, parents in our US sample may have been reacting to the discovery of their child’s victimization, substance use, or both by increasing their knowledge of their child’s activities.

While parental knowledge worked similarly across country and reporter in exerting a generally protective effect, solicitation, control, and child disclosure worked similarly across country and reporter in exerting little effect on the link between victimization and substance use. The one exception to this general trend in the data was that child disclosure exerted a protective effect only when youth from the United States reported on this construct. Cultural differences may help to explain why disclosure might act as a protective factor among the United States, but not SA youth. First, it may be the case that differing cultural beliefs influence parents in SA and United States to solicit information from youth to a greater or lesser degree. Recently, research has begun to illuminate the importance of attending to cultural differences in family management practices related to youth mental health (Bowie et al., 2013). Indeed, these findings highlight the importance of understanding cultural contexts before implementing interventions that have been developed elsewhere.

Also noteworthy is that this finding, that disclosure exerted a protective effect, was significant only as reported by US youth. A growing body of literature is examining informant discrepancies – differences that arise in multiple informants’ reports on a single construct, such as family management or psychopathology (De Los Reyes, 2011). Prior research often has documented these discrepancies between parent and youth reports on a variety of constructs (De Los Reyes, 2013), suggesting these differences are not uncommon. A few prior studies have suggested that discrepancies in family management practices, in particular, may be linked to understanding other youth outcomes, such as child delinquency (De Los Reyes et al., 2010) and psychopathology (Guion, Mrug, & Windle, 2009). However, the importance of these discrepancies is not yet completely clear, warranting further investigation of this potentially insightful information (De Los Reyes, 2013). Further research in this area could benefit the development of family interventions aimed at helping parents and youth understand each other’s perspectives and how these differences in perception may influence behaviour and relationships within the family.

Finally, it is interesting to consider why parental knowledge, and not other family management practices assessed in the study, had a moderating effect on the association between victimization by community violence and substance use. It may be the case that the knowledge is protective against substance use because it captures an aspect of the parent–adolescent relationship – a unique mix of control, solicitation, and child disclosure – that blocks youth from contexts where they could use substances or be exposed to violence. Furthermore, parental knowledge may strengthen youth’s capacity to resist pressure to use substances or engage in behaviours that may place them at risk for victimization.

While this study had several strengths, it is important to note limitations that may have influenced the results. This study used a cross-sectional design which precluded our ability to determine whether victimization preceded substance use or vice versa. Another limitation is the low internal consistency value in the South African sample for the parent-reported measure which may have to do with the fact that two of the five items on the scale referred to ‘secrets’ (e.g., Do you keep a lot of secrets from your parents about what you do during your free time? Do you hide a lot from your parents about what you do during nights and weekends?), and in SA, there may be a particular cultural prohibition against reporting on secretive behaviour. Other limitations of this study are concerns about generalizability, as the sample focused solely on Grade 7 youth and their maternal caregivers from poor neighbourhoods. Future research should investigate whether these findings are generalizable to other age groups (e.g., late adolescence), contexts (e.g., higher socioeconomic status [SES]), and caregivers (e.g., fathers).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that parental knowledge may be an important target of future research aimed at understanding the role of parents in preventing youth substance use, especially in the context of violence. Future research should tailor parenting measures to a specific cultural group and test interventions that teach parenting skills appropriate to that group.

Acknowledgments

Funding

The data collected for the United States sample was supported by Grants R21DA020086 and K01DA015442 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the data collected for the South Africa sample was funded by a Global Education Grant from Virginia Commonwealth University, USA, and from the Department of Behavioural Medicine at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.

References

  1. Aiken LS, & West SG (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  2. Belsky J (1984). The determinants of parenting – A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Blodgett-Salafia EH, Gondoli DM, & Grundy AM (2009). The longitudinal interplay of maternal warmth and adolescents’ self-disclosure in predicting maternal knowledge. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 654–668. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bowie BH, Carrere S, Cooke C, Valdivia G, Mcallister B, & Doohan E (2013). The role of culture in parents’ socialization of children’s emotion development. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 35, 514–533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bronfenbrenner U (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bronfenbrenner U (1994). Ecological models of human development In International Encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier; (Reprinted from Readings on the development of children, 2nd ed., pp. 37–43, by M. Gauvain & M. Cole, Eds., 1993, New York: Freeman) [Google Scholar]
  7. Brook DW, Rubenstone E, Zhang C, Morojele NK, & Brook JS (2011). Environmental stressors, low well-being, smoking, and alcohol use among South African adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 1447–1453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Coley RL, Votruba-Drzal E, & Schindler HS (2008). Trajectories of parenting processes and adolescent substance use: Reciprocal effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 613–625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. De Los Reyes A (2011). 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, 40, 1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. De Los Reyes A (2013). Strategic objectives for improving understanding of informant discrepancies in developmental psychopathology research. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 669–682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. De Los Reyes A, Goodman K, Kliewer W, & Reid-Quiñones K (2010). 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, 39, 1417–1430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. De Los Reyes A, & Kazdin AE (2005). Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: A critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 483–509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Farrell AD, Kung EM, White KS, & Valois R (2000). The structure of self-reported aggression, drug use, and delinquent behaviors during early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 282–292. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Finkelhor D, Turner H, Shattuck A, & Hamby SL (2013). Violence, crime, and abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: An update. Pediatrics, 167, 614–621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fowler PJ, Tompsett CJ, Braciszewski JM, Jacques-Tiura AJ, & Baltes BB (2009). Community violence: A meta-analysis on the effect of exposure and mental health outcomes of children and adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 227–259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Guion K, Mrug S, & Windle M (2009). Predictive value of informant discrepancies in reports of parenting: Relations to early adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 17–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaminer D, du Plessis B, Hardy A, & Benjamin A (2013). Exposure to violence across multiple sites among young South African adolescents. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 19, 112–124. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kerr M, & Stattin H (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kilpatrick DG, Acierno R, Resnick HS, Saunders BE, & Best CL (1997). A 2-year longitudinal analysis of the relationships between violent assault and substance use in women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 834–847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kilpatrick DG, Ruggiero KJ, Acierno R, Saunders BE, Resnick HS, & Best CL (2003). Violence and risk of PTSD, major depression, substance abuse/dependence, and comorbidity: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 692–700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kliewer W (2010). Family processes in drug use etiology In Scheier LM (Ed.), Handbook of drug use etiology: Theory, methods, and empirical findings (pp. 365–381). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kliewer W, Lepore SJ, Oskin D, & Johnson PD (1998). The role of social and cognitive processes in children’s adjustment to community violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 199–209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kliewer W, Murrelle L, Prom E, Ramirez M, Obando P, Sandi L, & Karenkeris M (2006). Violence exposure and drug use in Central American youth: Family cohesion and monitoring as protective factors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 455–478. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kotchick BA, & Forehand R (2002). Putting parenting in perspective: A discussion of the contextual factors that shape parenting practices. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 255–269. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lachman JM, Cluver LD, Boyes ME, Kuo C, & Casale M (2014). Positive parenting for positive parents: HIV/AIDS, poverty, caregiver depression, child behavior, and parenting in SA. AIDS Care, 26, 304–313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lee R (2012). Community violence exposure and adolescent substance use: Does monitoring and positive parenting moderate risk in urban communities? Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 406–421. [Google Scholar]
  27. Liang H, Flisher AJ, & Lombard C (2007). Bullying, violence, and risk behavior in South African school students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 161–171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lynch M (2003). Consequences of children’s exposure to community violence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 265–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Martinez P, & Richters JE (1993). The NIMH community violence project: II. Children’s distress symptoms associated with violence exposure. Psychiatry, 56, 22–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Martino SC, Ellickson PL, & McCaffrey DF (2008). Developmental trajectories of substance use from early to late adolescence: A comparison of rural and urban youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 430–440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Meghdadpour S, Curtis S, Pettifor A, & MacPhail C (2012). Factors associated with substance use among orphaned and non-orphaned youth in SA. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1329–1340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Muris P, Schmidt H, Engelbrecht P, & Perold M (2002). DSM-IV-defined anxiety disorder symptoms in South African children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41, 1360–1368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Parry CD, Myers B, Morojele N, Flisher A, Bhana A, & Donson H (2004). Trends in adolescent alcohol and other drug use: Findings from three sentinel sites in SA (1997-2001). Journal of Adolescence, 27, 429–440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Reddy SP, James S, Sewpaul R, Koopman F, Funani NI, Sifunda S, & Omardien RG (2010). Umthente Uhlaba Usamila – The South African Youth Risk Behaviour Survey 2008. Cape Town: South African Medical Research Council. [Google Scholar]
  35. Reddy SP, James S, Sewpaul R, Sifunda S, Ellahebokus A, Kambaran NS, & Omardien RG (2013). Umthente Uhlaba Usamila – The 3rd South African National Youth Risk Behaviour Survey – 2011. Cape Town: South African Medical Research Council. [Google Scholar]
  36. Richters JE, & Martinez P (1993). The NIMH community violence project: I. Children as victims of witnesses to violence. Psychiatry, 56, 7–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Richters JE, & Saltzman W (1990). Survey of exposure to community violence: Self-report version. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schwab-Stone ME, Ayers TS, Kasprow W, Voyce C, Barone C, & Shriver T (1995). No safe haven: A study of violence exposure in an urban community. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1343–1352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Seedat M, Van Niekerk A, Jewkes R, Suffla S, & Ratele K (2009). Violence and injuries in SA: Prioritising an agenda for prevention. The Lancet, 374, 1011–1022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Shillington AM, Lehman S, Clapp J, Hovell MF, Sipan C, & Blumberg EJ (2005). Parental monitoring: Can it continue to be protective among high-risk adolescents? Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  41. Smetana JG, Metzger A, Gettman DC, & Campione-Barr N (2006). Disclosure and secrecy in adolescent-parent relationships. Child Development, 77, 201–217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. South African Police. (2015). Factsheet South Africa: Official crime statistics for 2012/13. Retrieved from https://africacheck.org/factsheets/factsheet-south-africas-official-crime-statistics-for-201213/
  43. Spoth RL, Redmond C, & Shin C (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 627–642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Stanik CE, Riina EM, & McHale SM (2013). Parent-adolescent relationship qualities and adolescent adjustment in two-parent African American families. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 62, 597–608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Stattin H, & Kerr M (2000). Parental monitoring: A reinterpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072–1085. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Stewart C (2002). Family factors of low-income African-American youth associated with substance use: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 1, 97–111. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sullivan TN, Farrell AD, & Kliewer W (2006). Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors among urban middle school students. Development and Psychopathology, 18, 119–137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sullivan TN, Kung EM, & Farrell AD (2004). Relation between witnessing violence and drug use initiation among rural adolescents: Parental monitoring and family support as protective factors. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 488–498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Global study on homicide 2013 (United Nations publication, Sales No. 14.IV.1). Retrieved from http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf [Google Scholar]
  50. Vermeiren R, Schwab-Stone M, Deboutte D, Leckman PE, & Ruchkin V (2003). Violence exposure and substance use in adolescents: Findings from three countries. Pediatrics, 111, 535–540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang MT, Dishion TJ, Stormshak EA, & Willett JB (2011). Trajectories of family management practices and early adolescent behavioral outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1324–1341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Wright D (2004). State estimates of substance use from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-3907, NSDUH Series H-23). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. [Google Scholar]
  53. Wright EM, Fagan AA, & Pinchevsky GM (2013). The effects of exposure to violence and victimization across life domains on adolescent substance use. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 899–909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Zinzow HM, Ruggiero KJ, Hanson RF, Smith DW, Saunders BE, & Kilpatrick DG (2009). Witnessed community and parental violence in relation to substance use and delinquency in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 525–533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES