Adolescents' Perceived Parenting Styles and Their ...

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 11(4), 401–423 Copyright © 2001, Society for Research on Adolescence

Adolescents’ Perceived Parenting Styles and Their Substance Use: Concurrent and Longitudinal Analyses Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir and Leifur G. Hafsteinsson University of Iceland

The relation between parenting style and adolescent substance use (tobacco, alcohol, hashish, and amphetamines) was examined concurrently (at age 14) for licit drug use and longitudinally (from age 14 to 17) for both licit and illicit drug use in a sample of 347 youth from compulsory schools in Reykjavik, Iceland. After controlling for adolescent perceptions of parental and peer use, own previous use, and gender, results indicated that adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were more protected against substance use than adolescents who perceived their parents as neglectful, both concurrently and longitudinally. Compared with adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative and neglectful, those from authoritarian and indulgent families each showed a different pattern of substance use both with regard to the type of substance and over time in a longer term perspective.

Several recent studies have suggested that interpersonal processes are more effective than intrapersonal processes in predicting substance use, such as tobacco smoking (Bertrand & Abernathy, 1993; Doherty & Allen, 1994). Of the interpersonal processes, parental and peer factors appear to be the most influential (e.g., Kandel, 1980). In their important socialization role, parents hold certain attitudes and expectations about substance use and in their behavior serve as role models for their children (e.g., Jessor & Jessor, 1977). Furthermore, in these socialization processes, parents’ ways of connecting and communicating with their children, and in creating mu-

Requests for reprints should be sent to Sigrun Adalbjarnardottir, Faculty of Social Science, University of Iceland, Oddi, IS-101 Reykjavik, Iceland. E-mail: [email protected]

402

ADALBJARNARDOTTIR AND HAFSTEINSSON

tual trust and respect in their relationships, can be expected to have important effects on the development of adolescent behavior, including their substance use. In other words, adolescents’ substance use may be influenced by the quality of the parent–adolescent relationship (e.g., Baumrind, 1991). Reviews of the research literature on family socialization as related to tobacco smoking (Conrad, Flay, & Hill, 1992) and alcohol consumption (Foxcroft & Lowe, 1991) show that most studies focus on one or two major dimensions of parenting—support and control—in which low support and lax control tend to be related to increased likelihood of substance use. The most recent studies continue to provide support for these findings, indicating that high levels of family cohesion and adequate parental monitoring are associated with less adolescent substance use (Barnes, Reifman, Farrel, & Dintcheff, 2000; Biglan, Duncan, Ary, & Smolkowski, 1995; Doherty & Allen, 1994; Duncan, Tildesley, Duncan, & Hops, 1995). Although the importance of exploring various dimensions of parenting style—by combining an index of parental support, acceptance, warmth, or responsiveness with an index of parental control, strictness, or level of demand—is commonly accepted, most empirical studies on adolescent substance use have tended to focus on single dimensions of the parent– child relationship (see Gray & Steinberg, 1999). Recently, however, increased attention has been paid to the interactive effects of the parenting dimensions of support and control. For example, Barnes and colleagues (2000), in their longitudinal study, found that adolescents raised in supportive families seemed to be receptive to parental monitoring, which was related to their being less likely to misuse alcohol. In other longitudinal studies, high levels of family conflict and lack of parental involvement have been shown to be risk factors for poor parental monitoring that predicts adolescent tobacco use (Biglan et al., 1995) and general problem behavior, including substance use (Ary, Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1999). To meet the need to study several dimensions of the parent–child relationship in large samples, Lamborn and colleagues (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991) have constructed a measure using a fourfold typology of parenting style based on the seminal work of Diana Baumrind (1971) and on Maccoby and Martin’s revision (1983) of her conceptual work. In the present study, the measure constructed by Lamborn and colleagues (1991) was used to explore how various parenting styles relate to different types of substance use. The prototypes of the parenting styles are authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful. These four prototypes depict interactive effects of different dimensions of parental action. Authoritative parents are both responsive and demanding. They are warm, supportive, and encouraging, but at the same time they are firm

PARENTING STYLES AND ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE USE

403

and impart clear standards for their children’s behavior without being intrusive or restrictive. They emphasize explaining their own points of view to their children and encourage the children to do the same. Authoritarian parents are demanding and controlling, but not responsive or warm. They have clear rules that their children are not supposed to question. Indulgent parents are responsive and warm, but less demanding than authoritative parents. They allow considerable self-regulation, but are lenient and avoid confrontation. Neglectful parents are neither responsive nor demanding. They do not monitor or guide their children and do not support them or relate to them with warmth. Children from authoritative families have been shown to score higher than their peers who are from authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families on a wide variety of measures of competence, psychosocial development, and school achievement (e.g., Baumrind, 1991; Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, & Bornstein, 2000; Dornbusch, Ritter, Liederman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, & Dornbusch, 1991). With regard to substance use, adolescents from authoritative and authoritarian families seem to manifest a lower incidence of drug use (licit and illicit drug use combined) than adolescents from neglectful and indulgent families (Baumrind, 1991; Lamborn et al., 1991). Moreover, adolescents from authoritative families appear to be less susceptible to the drug use of their friends than adolescents from families that are relatively less authoritative (Mounts & Steinberg, 1995). Even though several researchers (e.g., Jessor & Jessor, 1977) have found that a variety of deviant behaviors, such as substance use, are manifestations of a single general tendency, others have stressed the value of identifying specific effects for adolescent use of different substances (e.g., Duncan, Duncan, Biglan, & Ary, 1998; Osgood, Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1988). The discrimination between different substances used by adolescents, such as tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis or other drugs, however, seems to be made mainly in studies that do not focus on several dimensions of parenting (e.g., Anderson & Henry, 1994; Dishion, Patterson, Stoolmiller, & Skinner, 1991; Duncan et al., 1995). Exploring the effects of various parenting styles on adolescent use of diverse kinds of substances is particularly relevant for this study, given the culture of the sample. In their attitudes toward issues related to substance use, Icelanders, in general, strongly discriminate between licit and illicit drugs. For example, the word in Icelandic for illicit drugs, such as hashish, marijuana, amphetamines, and heroin, is “poison” drugs (“eiturlyf”). Iceland’s relatively few illicit drug users are seen as being at odds with traditional community standards (Gunnlaugsson & Galliher, 2000). This is reflected in the higher proportions of Icelandic adults who strongly oppose

404


having drug addicts as their neighbors compared with those in other Nordic countries and Europe (Jonsson & Olafsson, 1991). Not surprisingly, this societal attitude seems to be reflected in the adolescents’ discrimination of the risks involved in experimenting with licit and illicit drugs, even though the focus is on the illicit use of hashish, which traditionally is not included with the so-called “hard” drugs like amphetamines or heroin. For example, at age 14, 8% of the adolescents in the present study’s sample responded that “people take large risks in trying” alcohol, compared with 22% for cigarettes, and 73% for hashish; at age 17, these proportions were 2%, 9%, and 48%, respectively (Adalbjarnardottir, Davidsdottir, & Runarsdottir, 1997). Accordingly, cultural factors, such as societal attitudes toward the use of different substances, might be reflected in parental styles and affect the substance use of the adolescents in different ways. That is, if adolescents feel their parents attend to them in one way or another (i.e., if they perceive them as authoritative, indulgent, or authoritarian as opposed to neglectful), their parents’ societally negative attitude toward illicit drug use may be reflected in their hesitation to use illicit drugs. In contrast, because parents hold more contradictory societal attitudes toward the use of licit drugs, more differences might be observed in adolescents’ use of licit drugs, depending on the parenting style. Also, given that many studies have found a relation between the use of licit and illicit drugs (e.g., Adalbjarnardottir et al., 1997; Duncan et al., 1998; Scheier & Newcomb, 1991), reporting that most adolescents try alcohol first, then cigarettes, and subsequently marijuana (Andrews, Hops, Ary, Lichtenstein, & Tildesley, 1991; Duncan et al., 1995), it was essential to consider the adolescents’ own licit drug use or nonuse when exploring whether parental styles predict their illicit drug use in a longer term perspective. This suggestion also militates for the need to discriminate between types of substances. Furthermore, when exploring the use of each substance in question over time, in light of the findings of longitudinal research (e.g., Barnes, Welte, & Dintcheff, 1992; Chassin, Presson, Rose, & Sherman, 1996), it is important to take into account previous use of the same substance. Several studies indicate that both parental and peer substance use are related to the initiation and pattern of adolescent substance use (e.g., Ary, Tildesley, Hops, & Andrews, 1993; Bahr, Marcos, & Maughan, 1995; Barnes, Farrell, & Cairns, 1986; Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Montello, & McGrew, 1986; Duncan et al., 1995; Kandel & Andrews, 1987). Thus, it is surprising that few studies on parenting styles and adolescent substance use have included both parental and peer substance use in their analyses, and those few have tended to focus on single measures of parenting. It is important to be able to make inferences with regard to the relations between parental


405

style and adolescent substance use independently of whether parents and peers use the substance in question (tobacco, alcohol). Such an approach also allows for the ability to explore the interactive effects of various parenting styles and parental and peer substance use on adolescent substance use (Andrews, Hops, & Duncan, 1997). The present longitudinal study followed a group of adolescents from the age of 14 to the age of 17. This design not only provided the opportunity to explore associations between adolescent substance use and both parental and peer factors concurrently, but also to predict substance use in a longer term perspective, controlling for the adolescents’ own previous use. Importantly, longitudinal, as opposed to cross-sectional, research designs are essential to allow researchers to decide with more certainty which comes first: the substance use or the set of variables associated with it (e.g., Conrad et al., 1992). Thus, the purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between various parenting styles and substance use of adolescents both concurrently and longitudinally. The families of approximately 350 adolescents who participated in the study both at age 14 and 17 were categorized into four groups (authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful) based on adolescents’ ratings of their parents’ practices on the two-dimensional scale of Lamborn and colleagues (1991): acceptance/ involvement and strictness/supervision. In the present study, their questionnaire on parenting practices was used to explore how parenting styles relate to different types of substance use: tobacco smoking, alcohol consumption, and hashish and amphetamine use. The focus was on the experimentation with each of these substances (age 14, licit drugs; age 17, illicit drugs), and the prediction of adolescent daily smoking and heavy drinking, which has received less attention from researchers than initiation (see Reifman, Barnes, Dintcheff, Farrell, & Uhteg, 1998). In our longitudinal design, a longer time frame was used than previous studies that have employed the same research tool on parenting styles. The relation between parenting styles and specific substance use was also examined in a different society from previous studies; this gave us the opportunity to explore some cultural characteristics of the relations between parental styles and substance use (see Oetting, Donnermeyer, Trimble, & Beauvais, 1998). In the above ways, this study contributed to the evaluation of the measure postulated by Lamborn and colleagues. Based on the research literature, and controlling for the effects of parental and peer use, as well as own previous use, we hypothesized that: 1. Adolescents from authoritative families would report lower levels of licit drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally, than adolescents from indulgent and neglectful families.

406


2. Adolescents from neglectful families would report higher levels of licit drug use, both concurrently and longitudinally, than adolescents from authoritative and authoritarian families. Given the culture of the sample, which represents relatively strong negative attitudes toward illicit drug use, we expected adolescents who felt attended to by their parents (i.e., those who perceived their parents as authoritative, indulgent, or authoritarian) to differ less in their use of illicit drugs than in their use of licit drugs. More specifically, we did not expect to find significant differences in level of experimentation with illicit drugs between adolescents from authoritative families on the one hand, and indulgent and authoritarian families on the other. 3. Adolescents from neglectful families would report higher use of illicit drugs than adolescents from authoritarian, authoritative, or indulgent families.

METHOD Participants This study focused on 347 adolescents who participated in both the baseline (age 14) and follow-up (age 17) portions of the Reykjavik Adolescent Risk-Taking Study and could be classified at baseline into one of the four parenting styles. These 347 adolescents were a subgroup of the initial sample of 1,293 students drawn from the population of students attending ninth grade of compulsory schools in Reykjavik, the capital city of Iceland. The sample was homogeneous with respect to culture (native Icelanders), religion (Lutheran), and language (Icelandic). At baseline, 70.4% of the adolescents lived with both biological parents, 14.3% lived with a single parent, 13.6% lived in blended families (one biological parent and one stepparent), and 1.7% lived in other types of households. The classification of their parents’ socioeconomic status (SES) at baseline is shown in Table 1 (Hollingshead, 1975). Approximately 90% of the ninth-grade population participated in the study at baseline. The case loss was the result of absenteeism (9%) and parental exclusion (8 cases, less than 1%). Almost 3 years (32 months) later, when most of the adolescents were in their second year of secondary school or working, 928 individuals (72% of the original sample, 54% female), participated in the study (compulsory school ends after tenth grade). The case loss was due to absenteeism. Of the 1,293 students attending ninth grade, approximately 347 were classified according to four family types (authoritative, indulgent, authoritarian, and neglectful) based on their ratings of their parents’ practices.


407

Procedure Permission to undertake this study was granted by the Icelandic Data Protection Commission, the Ministry of Education, and the Education Service Center in Reykjavik. Each of the principals in the 19 compulsory schools in Reykjavik was contacted in writing, and subsequently by phone calls in which they were asked for permission to collect data in their schools. After having consulted with the teachers involved, all of the principals gave their written permission. Letters describing the purpose and content of the study were sent to parents as well as their adolescent children. The parents were asked to contact us if they or their child did not want to participate in the study. It has been shown that when the standard active consent procedure is requested from parents, the well-functioning families tend to be overrepresented (see Lamborn et al., 1991). Because studying adolescents from neglectful families as well as from well-functioning families was an essential part of this research, the passive consent procedure was preferred. The adolescents signed a standard consent form just before answering the questionnaire on each occasion, and were informed that they could refuse or discontinue participation at any time. They were also assured that their answers were strictly confidential. The adolescents were assigned code numbers so that their questionnaires could be matched from year to year, but all identifying characteristics were kept confidential. Students were not paid for their participation. The self-report questionnaire was divided into two parts and administered during school hours on two occasions a week apart, with the help of trained data collectors. Adolescents attending the same school responded to the questions at the same time in their classrooms. Those adolescents who were absent from school at the time of the second data collection were asked to complete the questionnaire at the university at certain hours, which they could choose over a period of a week. This request was repeated 2 weeks later.

Materials Cigarette smoking. The questionnaire regarding substance use employed in this study was developed to promote comparability of adolescent substance use between samples on either side of the Atlantic (Hibell et al., 1997). Smoking status, that is, whether the 14-year-olds had tried smoking, was determined from a question that asked how many times they had smoked cigarettes over the preceding 12 months. The six response choices offered were never, 1–2, 3–5, 6–9, 10–19, and 20 times or

408


more. The smoking variable was dichotomized so that those who reported having smoked one or more cigarettes were classified as having tried smoking at age 14; the others were classified as not having tried smoking. Daily smoking at age 17 was determined by asking the adolescents how many cigarettes they smoked daily. The five response choices offered were none, 1–5, 6–10, 11–20, or more than 20. The adolescents were classified as daily smokers if they reported smoking at least one cigarette each day. Since the goal of the longitudinal analysis was to predict daily smoking at age 17 from data collected at age 14, adolescents who reported daily smoking at age 14 (55 individuals) were excluded from the longitudinal part of the analysis. Alcohol use. To assess whether the adolescents had tried drinking at age 14, their responses to a question that asked how many times over the last 12 months had they had a drink were used. The six response choices offered were never, 1–2, 3–5, 6–9, 10–19, and 20 times or more. The variable was dichotomized between those who had had a drink at least once versus abstainers. When the adolescents were 17 years old, they were asked how many drinks they normally consumed when they drank. The seven response categories were I do not drink, less than 1, 1, 2, 3–4, 5–6, and 7 or more drinks/glasses. Those who reported consuming five or more drinks at each episode were classified as heavy drinkers, (see Barnes, Farrell, & Banerjee, 1995; Reifman et al., 1998). Adolescents who at age 14 drank five or more glasses at each episode (50 individuals) were excluded from this part of the analysis because they had already reached the level of alcohol use being predicted. Illicit drug use. To assess whether the adolescents had tried hashish and amphetamines at age 17, we used their responses to a question that asked how many times over the last 12 months they had used each drug. The six response choices offered were never, 1–2, 3–5, 6–9, 10–19, and 20 times or more. Both variables were dichotomized into those adolescents who had tried either or both of these drugs once or more often, and those who had not. Those adolescents who reported having tried these substances at age 14 were excluded from this part of the analysis because they had already reached the level of illicit drug use being predicted (24 adolescents reported having tried hashish, and 7 reported having tried amphetamines). Parental and peer use. Prevalence of parental and peer use was explored when the adolescents were 14. Parental smoking and drinking was determined from a question that asked adolescents how often their mother/father smoked/drank alcohol. Response categories were never,


409

sometimes, or often. Both variables were dichotomized: Parents were classified as smokers if one parent smoked at least sometimes, and parents were classified as drinkers if either parent drank alcohol often, or both parents drank sometimes. In single-parent families, the present parent was classified as a smoker/drinker if he or she smoked/drank sometimes or often. The smoking/drinking of peers was also rated on a 3-point scale: never, sometimes, or often. As was the case with parents, the peer variables were dichotomized: Peers were classified as smokers/drinkers if they smoked/drank sometimes or often. Socioeconomic status. SES was assessed with the Hollingshead (1975) Index in which parents’ SES was determined with regard to their education and occupation on a 6-point scale. Parenting styles. Parenting styles were measured using the Acceptance/ Involvement and Strictness/Supervision scales developed by Lamborn and colleagues (1991). On the Acceptance/Involvement Scale, adolescents characterize their parents with regard to responsiveness, affection, and involvement. Typical statements to be rated include “I can count on (him/ her) to help me out if I have some kind of problem” and “When (he/she) wants me to do something, (he/she) explains why.” On this scale of 10 items, .75, M .87, SD .09, and range .47 to 1.00 in the present study. On the Strictness/Supervision Scale, adolescents are asked how they perceive their parental monitoring and supervision. Examples of questions include “How much do your parents REALLY know where you go at night?” and “In a typical week, what is the latest you can stay out on Friday or Saturday night?” On this scale of eight items, .77, M .69, SD .13, and range .28 to .97 in the present study. The correlation between the variables, r(1,164) .43, p .01, was comparable with the findings of Lamborn et al. (1991). Of the 1,293 adolescents participating in the study at age 14, 579 were classified according to one of four parenting styles: authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful. Of these, 347 took part in the second data collection. So that we could compare the results of the concurrent and longitudinal analysis, all analyses were confined to the 347 participants. More precisely, following the methodology of Lamborn and colleagues (1991), the sample was trichotomized on the two scales and combined to yield four different parenting styles. Authoritative parents (n 147) were defined as those who scored in the upper one third on both the Acceptance/ Involvement and Strictness/Supervision scales. Authoritarian parents (n 40) were those who scored in the lowest one third on the Acceptance/ Involvement Scale, but scored in the highest one third on the Strictness/

410


Supervision Scale; whereas indulgent parents (n 40) were those who scored in the highest one third on the Acceptance/Involvement Scale, but scored in the lowest one third on the Strictness/Supervision Scale. Finally, neglectful parents (n 120) were those who scored in the lowest one third on both scales. Those parents who scored in the middle one third on either scale were omitted from the analysis to distinguish more clearly between the four parenting styles. This method results in sample-specific categorization of parenting styles; that is, a family classified as neglectful in this sample would not necessarily be strictly categorized as such in another sample. In this sample, however, we were confident in stating that the “neglectful” families were relatively more “neglectful” than the other three types of families. Table 1 presents the comparison of adolescent substance use, gender, family structure, SES, and parental and peer substance use for the total sample (N 1,293), the total sample for parenting styles (N 579), and the sample used in this study (N 347).

Analysis For the attrition analysis, 2 tests were used to compare respondents with nonrespondents. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine whether parental style at age 14 was a significant risk factor for substance use concurrently and also 3 years later. A separate logistic regression model was used for each substance (cigarette smoking and alcohol use at age 14 and 17, and hashish and amphetamine use at age 17) to determine the effects of parental style on the use of each substance. To take into account the effects of gender and the effective environmental variables of parental and peer use, as well as the adolescents’ own previous substance use (tobacco and alcohol), these variables were entered into a multiple logistic regression. Socioeconomic status did not contribute significantly to the multiple logistic regression and was, therefore, not entered into the final models. Each of the independent variables was entered as a dichotomized variable, except for parenting styles, which were quadrivalent. Analyses were performed to explore the relation between parenting style and (1) experimentation with tobacco smoking at age 14 and gender, with parental and peer smoking controlled for; (2) experimentation with drinking alcohol at age 14 and gender, with parental and peer drinking controlled for; (3) daily smoking at age 17 and gender, with parental and peer smoking and own previous experimentation of tobacco smoking controlled for (all variables measured at age 14); (4) heavy drinking at age 17 and gender, with parental and peer drinking and own previous experimentation with drinking con-


411

TABLE 1 Comparison of Adolescent Substance Use, Gender, Family Structure, Socioeconomic Status, and Parental and Peer Substance Use of Total Sample, Total Sample within Parenting Styles, and Study Sample Total Sample (n 1,293) Variable

Parenting Styles (n 579)

Study Sample (n 347)

n

%

n

%

n

%

Gender Males Females

624 631

49.7 50.3

273 300

47.6 52.4

151 196

43.5 56.5

Socioeconomic status Unskilled employee Skilled manual worker Clerical Owner of small business Supervisor Executive

46 237 321 228 197 228

3.7 18.9 25.5 18.1 15.7 18.1

18 94 144 101 77 97

3.4 17.7 27.1 19.0 14.5 18.3

12 52 85 64 53 72

3.5 15.3 25.0 18.8 15.6 21.2

Smoking at age 14 Smoke Do not smoke

560 705

44.3 55.7

236 299

44.1 55.9

129 211

37.9 62.1

Drinking at age 14 Drink Do not drink

743 527

58.5 41.5

307 229

57.3 42.7

178 162

52.4 47.6

Smoking of parents Smoke Do not smoke

704 564

55.5 44.5

312 220

58.6 41.4

180 165

52.2 47.8

Drinking of parents Drink Do not drink

721 524

57.9 42.1

296 228

56.5 43.5

182 160

53.2 46.8

Smoking of peers Smoke Do not smoke

295 986

23.0 77.0

147 388

27.5 72.5

77 269

77.7 22.3

Drinking of peers Drink Do not drink

812 468

63.4 36.6

335 200

62.6 37.4

201 146

57.9 42.1

Note. Ns in the table vary because of missing data.

trolled for (all variables measured at age 14); (5) experimentation with hashish smoking and gender, with own previous experimentation of tobacco smoking and drinking controlled for (as measured at age 14); and (6) experimentation with amphetamine use and gender, with own previous experimentation of tobacco smoking and drinking controlled for (as mea-

412


sured at age 14). Two-way interactions between (1) parenting styles and (2) gender and each of the other predictor variables were examined for each analysis. Forward selection was computed to test for significant interactions among parenting styles and predictor variables and were entered as a separate step in each model. If the model was not significantly improved with the addition of interactions (as assessed by the significance of the change in the log-likelihood statistics), the main effects model was retained.

RESULTS Attrition Analysis A series of analyses was conducted to determine whether the attrition in sample size from age 14 to 17 was due to any systematic effects. Of the adolescents who were categorized within one of the four parenting styles, those who responded to the questionnaire with regard to substance use at age 17 (n 347) were compared with those who did not respond according to information obtained at age 14 (n 232). These two groups were contrasted with regard to nine variables for the adolescents at age 14. The Bonferroni-adjusted significance level, p .01, was used to adjust for multiple simultaneous comparisons. In other words, an association between respondents and nonrespondents at age 17 on variables at age 14 was considered significant if the p value was less than .01. Among the participants, 2 dropouts were more likely to be males, (1, N 573) 7.17, p .01; to 2 have tried drinking alcohol, (1, N 536) 9.16, p .01; and to have tried 2 cigarette smoking at age 14, (1, N 535) 12.88, p .001. Also, relations were found between dropouts and parenting styles, 2(1, N 579) 12.17, p .01, indicating that adolescents who characterized their parents as neglectful were more likely to drop out of the study than other adolescents, and adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were least likely to drop out. In addition, adolescents who had friends who smoked 2(1, N 535) 16.05, p .001, or drank, 2(1, N 535) 10.89, 2 p .001, or had parents who smoked, (1, N 532) 19.12, p .001, were more likely to drop out of the study. No differences were observed for parental drinking and SES. These data reveal an attrition bias that suggests that generalization of results needs to be considered cautiously.

Adolescent Substance Use Table 2 presents the number of cases in each predictor variable group and also the proportion of adolescents who used each substance in ques-

413


TABLE 2 Number of Cases in Each Predictor Variable Group and Proportions of Adolescent Substance Use by Each Predictor Both Concurrently (Age 14) and Longitudinally (Age 17) Cigarette Smoking Tried Daily Smoking Smoking at Age at Age 14 17 a Predictors at Age 14

ne

%

nf

Alcohol Use

Tried Alcohol at Age 14

Illicit Substance Use

Heavy Drinking at Age 17b

Tried Tried Hashish Amphetamines c at Age 17 at Age 17d

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

347

39 289

25

346

53

291

39

323

26

340

16

Parenting styles Neglectful Authoritarian Indulgent Authoritative

120 40 40 147

59 86 40 33 33 37 24 133

35 33 27 17

120 40 40 146

68 68 43 40

85 35 37 134

55 31 46 28

105 40 40 138

45 18 38 12

115 40 40 145

30 8 13 8

Gender Male Female

151 196

30 134 46 155

28 23

151 195

49 56

125 166

47 32

136 187

32 22

148 192

18 15

Parental smoking Parents do not smoke 167 Parents smoke 180

31 147 47 142

16 35

Peer smoking Peers do not smoke Peers smoke

28 257 81 32

24 38

Parental drinking Parents do not drink Parents drink

162 184

42 63

139 152

32 44

Peer drinking Peers do not drink Peers drink

145 201

23 74

138 153

25 51 208 115

15 47

211 129

9 29

156 167

12 40

162 178

7 25

Own smoking Not tried smoking Tried smoking Own drinking Not tried drinking Tried drinking

272 75

208 81

17 46 161 130

27 52

Note. Those adolescents who already a smoked daily, b drank heavily, c had tried hashish, and/or d had tried amphetamines at age 14 were excluded from the corresponding part of the longitudinal analysis. e n total sample in that analysis. f % percentage of total sample.

414


tion by each predictor variable. The association between parenting style and adolescent substance use was explored further by conducting six logistic regressions, controlling for the effects of the other predictor variables. A logistic regression was run in each analysis for (1) authoritative (Hypothesis 1) and (2) neglectful (Hypotheses 2 and 3) parenting styles serving as a comparison group. In this way it was possible to make direct comparisons between all pairs of parenting styles except between the adolescents who perceived their parents as authoritarian and indulgent. The statistically significant results for each model are presented in the form of odds ratios (OR).1 Because several influential variables were controlled for in the analysis, and a large proportion of the sample was excluded for the purpose of comparing the concurrent and longitudinal analysis, ORs that approached statistical significance, p .10, are reported. Cigarette smoking. As Table 2 indicates, approximately 40% of the 14year-olds had tried smoking at least once, with females more likely than males to have done so (46% versus 30%, respectively), OR .35, p .001. At age 17, 25% smoked daily, with no gender difference detected. The results of the logistic regressions showed that parenting style related significantly to adolescent experimentation with smoking at age 14. More precisely, 14-year-olds who characterized their parents as authoritative were less likely to have tried smoking than adolescents from neglectful families, OR 4.27, p .001, and they tended to be less likely to have tried smoking than adolescents from authoritarian families, OR 2.10, p .10. Also, adolescents who characterized their parents as neglectful were more likely to have tried smoking than adolescents from indulgent families, OR .32, p .05, and tended to be more likely to have tried smoking than those who were from authoritarian families, OR .49, p .10. With regard to peer smoking, adolescents were more likely to have experimented with smoking if their peers smoked (81% versus 28%), OR 8.33, p .001. Having excluded the 14-year-olds who smoked daily from the longitudinal analysis, we found that parenting styles did not reach statistical significance in predicting daily smoking at age 17. Other factors were stronger in this prediction, namely parental smoking (35% versus 16%), OR 2.50, p .01, and adolescents’ own experimentation with smoking at age 14 (46% versus 17%), OR 3.85, p .001. Adolescents were more likely to 1

Odds ratios are formally defined as: [Probability (Event 1)/Probability (No Event 1)] / [Probability (Event 2)/Probability (No Event 2)]. An OR different from 1.0 indicates a relation between the predictor and the outcome variable: An OR less than 1.0 indicates a negative association, whereas an OR above 1.0 indicates a positive association.


415

smoke daily at age 17 if, at age 14, they had experimented with smoking or their parents had smoked. In summary, parenting styles, gender, and peer smoking were associated with smoking experimentation at age 14. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were less likely to have experimented with cigarette smoking than adolescents from neglectful families, and they tended to be less likely to have tried smoking than adolescents from authoritarian families. Further, adolescents who characterized their parents as neglectful were more likely to have tried smoking than adolescents from indulgent families, and tended to be more likely to have tried smoking than adolescents who perceived their parents as authoritarian. Only parental smoking and own smoking at age 14 were predictive of daily smoking at age 17. Alcohol use. As Table 2 shows, approximately 50% of the 14-year-olds had tried drinking alcohol at least once, with no gender difference detected. At age 17, nearly 40% drank heavily, with males being more likely than females to drink five glasses or more at each episode (47% versus 32%, respectively), OR 2.01, p .05. Parenting styles were associated with 14-year-olds’ experimentation with drinking. Adolescents who perceived their parents as authoritative were less likely to have tried drinking than adolescents from authoritarian, OR 2.74, p .05, and neglectful, OR 1.99, p .05, families. Also, adolescents from neglectful families tended to be more likely to have tried drinking than adolescents from indulgent families, OR .49, p .10. In addition, the drinking of parents (63% versus 42%), OR 1.61, p .10, as well as that of peers (74% versus 23%), OR 7.14, p .001, was positively associated with adolescent drinking. The results of the logistic regression indicated further that the parenting styles that adolescents experienced at age 14 tended to predict their heavy drinking at age 17. Adolescents from authoritative families were less likely to drink heavily 3 years later (at age 17) than adolescents from neglectful families, OR 2.04, p .05. Also, adolescents from authoritarian families tended to be less likely to drink heavily than adolescents who perceived their parents as neglectful, OR .42, p .10. In addition, adolescents who had experimented with drinking at age 14 (52% versus 27%), OR 2.36, p .01, or whose peers drank at that time (51% versus 25%), OR 2.04, p .05, were more likely to drink heavily at age 17. In summary, parenting style was associated with experimentation with drinking at age 14. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were less likely to have tried drinking than adolescents from neglectful and authoritarian families. Also, adolescents from neglectful

416


families tended to be more likely to have experimented with drinking than adolescents from indulgent families. In addition, at age 14, peer drinking was positively associated with adolescents’ experimentation with drinking, and parental drinking showed a trend toward association with drinking. Adolescents who characterized their parents as being authoritative were less likely to drink heavily at age 17 than adolescents from neglectful families, who tended to be more likely to drink heavily than adolescents from authoritarian families. Peer drinking and own previous drinking at age 14 were also predictive of heavy drinking at age 17. Illicit drug use. As Table 2 indicates, 26% of the adolescents had smoked hashish at least once at age 17, and 16% had tried amphetamines. Males were more likely to have tried hashish than females (32% versus 22%, respectively), OR 2.23, p .05, but no gender difference was found (18% males versus 15% females), OR 1.13, p .10, with regard to experimentation with amphetamines. Parenting style at age 14 predicted adolescent hashish smoking at age 17. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were less likely to have tried hashish than adolescents from indulgent, OR 3.82, p .01, and neglectful families, OR 3.34, p .001. Also, adolescents from neglectful families were more likely to have tried hashish than adolescents from authoritarian families, OR .31, p .05, but not more likely to have tried hashish than adolescents from indulgent families, OR 1.14, p .10. In addition, adolescents’ own experimentation with smoking (47% versus 15%), OR 3.23, p .001, and drinking (40% versus 12%), OR 3.23, p .001, at age 14 predicted initiation of hashish smoking at age 17. Moreover, parenting style at age 14 predicted adolescent use of amphetamines. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were less likely to have tried amphetamines than adolescents from neglectful families, OR 3.07, p .01, who were more likely to have tried amphetamines than adolescents from authoritarian families, OR .20, p .05. In addition, adolescents who had experimented with smoking (29% versus 9%), OR 2.22, p .05, and drinking (25% versus 7%), OR 2.63, p .05, at age 14 were more likely to have tried amphetamines at age 17. In summary, adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were less likely to have tried hashish at age 17 than those who were from neglectful and indulgent families, and less likely to have tried amphetamines than adolescents from neglectful families. Further, adolescents from neglectful families were more likely to have tried both hashish and amphetamines than those who were from authoritarian families. Adolescents’ own previous smoking and drinking were related to experimen-


417

tation with both hashish and amphetamine use and males were more likely to have tried hashish than females.

DISCUSSION In one of the most important findings of the study, a general relation was detected between parenting styles and adolescent substance use, both concurrently and longitudinally, even after controlling for several influential factors: the effects of parental and peer use (e.g., Ary et al., 1993; Chassin, et al., 1986; Duncan et al., 1995), and adolescents’ own previous use (e.g., Chassin et al., 1996; Kandel & Yamaguchi, 1993; Reifman et al., 1998), which have been shown to be effective in predicting adolescent substance use. This overall finding suggests how strongly adolescent-perceived parenting styles relate to their use of substances. Furthermore, this association holds for both adolescent males and females (see Lamborn et al., 1991; Radziszewska, Richardson, Dent, & Flay, 1996). More precisely, as predicted, our findings indicate first that 14-year-old adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were less likely, both concurrently and longitudinally, to have used each substance in question than adolescents from neglectful families. These results support previous findings about the benefits of authoritative parenting and the costs of neglectful parenting (Baumrind, 1991; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). The only exception to this relation was the prediction of daily smoking at age 17. Second, parents whom adolescents characterized as authoritarian seemed less able to prevent their 14-year-old adolescents from drinking than authoritative parents. This finding among 14-year-olds is noteworthy, given the suggestion from earlier research in the United States (Baumrind, 1991; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994) that adolescents from authoritative and authoritarian families seem to be less likely to use substances than those from indulgent and neglectful families. The findings of this longitudinal study, however, support the results of previous research: those adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative and authoritarian did not differ significantly in their heavy drinking and their use of illicit drugs. Thus, the question is whether there are some cultural differences during early adolescence in the relation between parenting styles and adolescent alcohol use. In comparison with their peers in Europe, Icelandic adolescents are known for having relatively more “autonomy” from early on with regard to where, and with whom, they spend time, as well as the amount of time, which often affords them the opportunity to stay out late at night (Bjarnason, Morgan, Miller, & Plant, 2000). This may

418


be because Iceland is a safe society with a relatively low crime rate (Gunnlaugsson, 1998) and bright summer nights. For at least these two reasons, parents are not afraid of having their children out with friends. Because of this general autonomy among Icelandic teenagers, adolescents from authoritarian families might feel the need to protest against parental control and orders by starting to experiment with drinking earlier than adolescents from authoritative families. Interestingly, Clausen (1996) reported similar findings in his cross-sectional study in another Nordic country, Norway: a parenting style of “affectionless control” (connection of low caring and high protection), which seems analogous to authoritarian parenting, was correlated with adolescent substance use. Comparing our findings with those from previous research is complicated, however; although we used the same measure of parenting styles, we employed different outcome variables (a composite substance-use score versus each substance-use score in the present study) and a different study design (cross-sectional versus longitudinal in the present study). Accordingly, the question of cultural difference during early adolescence requires further exploration. Third, similar to adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative, adolescents from indulgent families seemed more protected at age 14 against experimentation with substances than adolescents from neglectful families. Interestingly, however, this pattern had changed at age 17; these results corroborate the cross-sectional findings of Lamborn and colleagues (1991) that adolescents who perceived their parents as indulgent and those who perceived them as neglectful did not differ significantly in the use of any of the substances under exploration. Thus, during early adolescence, children of indulgent families who have a warm and caring relationship with their parents do not seem vulnerable to experimentation with substances. As time passes, lack of parental control might allow these adolescents to start to drink heavily and, in fact, also start to smoke hashish in proportions similar to those observed from neglectful families. In this respect, the indulgent parenting style seems problematic with regard to adolescent substance use. This finding also raises a question for further exploration: whether a parenting style that is effective during early adolescence may be less so over the longer term. Our hypothesis was that given the negative attitude toward illicit drug use in Iceland, adolescents who perceived their parents as authoritative, authoritarian, and indulgent would show similar levels of illicit drug use. This hypothesis was supported only with regard to amphetamine use and not hashish smoking. Adolescents who characterized their parents as authoritative were less likely to smoke hashish than those who were from indulgent families. A question raised by these findings is whether adoles-


419

cents from indulgent families discriminate less between licit and illicit drug use (e.g., hashish) than adolescents from authoritative and authoritarian families. For example, might indulgent parents be more tolerant of or less watchful about hashish smoking, as reflected in their children’s use, compared with authoritative and authoritarian parents? At least three important limitations qualify our research findings: selfreport measures and the derivation of all the data from the same source, the nature of the method used for measuring parenting style, and attrition. First, our analyses relied on adolescents’ self-reports, and objective validation of that measure through other data sources was not obtained. Considerable evidence, however, indicates that self-report methods for substance use provide valid data (Johnston & O’Malley, 1985; Morgan, 1997), and similar results have been obtained on parenting styles in spite of different methods of data collection (see Baumrind, 1991; Lamborn et al., 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994). Second, parenting styles were measured by focusing on the extreme one thirds in the sample to emphasize the contrasting characteristics (see Lamborn et al., 1991); this method excludes part of the data and results in sample-specific categorization of parenting styles. Third, due to attrition, we lost additional data on the follow-up 3 years later. Although not unique to our study (see Ary & Biglan, 1988; Chassin, Presson, Sherman, & Edwards, 1990; McGee & Stanton, 1993; Snow, Tebes, & Arthur, 1992), the relatively low retention rate in our sample poses a threat to the external validity of the findings. Those who dropped out of the study appeared to be at greater risk than those who remained, according to some of the observed variables at baseline: dropouts were more likely to be males, to have experimented with substances, and to be from neglectful families. They were also least likely to be from authoritative families. It should be noted, however, that our results of the effects of parenting styles were detected in spite of lesser variability and possible range restrictions in the skewed study sample. Also, we would like to add that the attrition obviously decreased the power of the study somewhat, thus limiting the probability of detecting (1) significant interactions, and (2) differences when contrasting the smaller parenting style categories (indulgent and authoritarian) to the neglectful and authoritative categories. Because these issues somewhat limit the external validity of the findings, the results should be viewed with some caution. Given the corroborative evidence of previous research, however, the findings should contribute to the validation of the measure developed by Lamborn and colleagues (1991). The strength of the present study in exploring the relation between parenting style and adolescent substance use was its longitudinal design, which allowed us to suggest with more certainty that parenting styles pre-

420


cede adolescent substance use. We are not ruling out the reverse and simultaneous causal relation, however, for example, nonrisky behavior by adolescents may lead parents to be more authoritative (see Steinberg et al., 1994). Another strength of this study was that we took into account both influential environmental factors (parental and peer use) and the behavioral factor of the individual’s own previous use. From a health promotion perspective, our findings generate the main message: the authoritative parenting style is quite protective with regard to adolescent use of licit and illicit drugs, both concurrently and longitudinally; whereas, adolescents from neglectful families are quite vulnerable in this respect. Adolescent substance use is vulnerable to a complex interplay among many inter- and intrapersonal risk factors that are important to explore and understand with the goal of public health in mind (see Boyd, Howard, & Zucker, 1995; Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Petraitis, Flay, & Miller, 1995). Parenting style is an essential interpersonal factor. As such, the results of this study should be informative for parents, family practitioners, educators, and social policy planners.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ongoing longitudinal research project reported in this study was designed and directed by the first author with support by grants from the Icelandic Council of Science and the Research Foundation of the University of Iceland. The adolescents, parents, teachers, and principals who kindly consented to participate in this project are gratefully thanked, as well as the research assistants who collected and coded the data.

REFERENCES Adalbjarnardottir, S., Davidsdottir, S., & Runarsdottir, E. M. (1997). Áhættuhegð un reykvískra unglinga: Tóbaksreykingar, áfengisneysla, hassneysla og neysla annarra vímuefna árin 1994– 1996 [The risk-taking behavior of adolescents: Tobacco smoking, alcohol use, hashish use and the use of other substances 1994–1996]. Reykjavik, Iceland: Faculty of Social Science, University of Iceland. Anderson, A. R., & Henry, C. S. (1994). Family system characteristics and parental behaviors as predictors of adolescent substance use. Adolescence, 29, 404–419. Andrews, J. A., Hops, H., Ary, D., Lichtenstein, E., & Tildesley, E. (1991). The construction, validation and use of Guttman scale of adolescent substance use: An investigation of family relationships. Journal of Drug Issues, 21, 556–572. Andrews, J. A., Hops, H., & Duncan, S. C. (1997). Adolescent modeling of parent substance use: The moderating effect of the relationship with the parent. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 259–270.


421

Ary, D. V., & Biglan, A. (1988). Longitudinal changes in adolescent cigarette smoking behavior: Onset and cessation. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11, 361–382. Ary, D. V., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Hops, H. (1999). Adolescent problem behavior: The influence of parents and peers. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 217–230. Ary, D. V., Tildesley, E., Hops, H., & Andrews, J. (1993). The influence of parent, sibling, and peer modeling and attitudes on adolescent use of alcohol. International Journal of the Addictions, 28, 853–880. Bahr, S. J., Marcos, A. C., & Maughan, S. L. (1995). Family educational and peer influences on the alcohol use of female and male adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 457–469. Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Banerjee, S. (1995). Family influences on alcohol abuse and other problem behaviors among Black and White adolescents in a general population sample. In G. M. Boyd, J. Howard, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), Alcohol problems among adolescents: Current directions in prevention research (pp. 13–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Cairns, A. (1986). Parental socialization factors and adolescent drinking behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 27–36. Barnes, G. M., Reifman, A. S., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2000). The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: A six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 175–186. Barnes, G. M., Welte, J. W., & Dintcheff, B. (1992). Alcohol misuse among college students and other young adults: Findings from a general population study in New York State. International Journal of the Addictions, 27, 917–934. Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4, 1–103. Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95. Bertrand, L. D., & Abernathy, T. J. (1993). Predicting cigarette smoking among adolescents using cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches. Journal of School Health, 63, 100–105. Biglan, A., Duncan, T. E., Ary, D. V., & Smolkowski, K. (1995). Peer and parental influences on adolescent tobacco use. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 315–330. Bjarnason, Th., Morgan, M., Miller, P., & Plant, M. (2001). The anomie scale of exteriority and constraint: Theoretical framework and cross-cultural validation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Boyd, G. M., Howard, J., & Zucker, R. A. (Eds.). (1995). Alcohol problems among adolescents: Current directions in prevention research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks. Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Rose, J. S., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). The natural history of cigarette smoking from adolescence to adulthood: Demographic predictors of continuity and change. Health Psychology, 15, 478–484. Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J., & Edwards, D. A. (1990). The natural history of cigarette smoking: Predicting young-adult smoking outcomes from adolescent smoking patterns. Health Psychology, 9, 701–716. Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J., Montello, D., & McGrew, J. (1986). Changes in peer and parent influences during adolescence: Longitudinal versus cross-sectional perspective on smoking initiation. Developmental Psychology, 3, 327–334. Clausen, S. E. (1996). Parenting styles and adolescent drug use behaviors. Childhood, 3, 403–414. Collins, W. A., Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). Contemporary research on parenting. The case for nature and nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218–232. Conrad, K. M., Flay, B. R., & Hill, D. (1992). Why children start smoking cigarettes: Predictors of onset. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 1711–1724.

422


Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, I. (1991). Family, school and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology, 27, 172–180. Doherty, W. J., & Allen, W. (1994). Family functioning and parental smoking as predictors of adolescent cigarette use: A six-year prospective study. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 347– 353. Dornbusch, S., Ritter, P., Liederman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257. Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., Biglan, A., & Ary, D. (1998). Contributions of the social context to the development of adolescent substance use: A multivariate latent growth modeling approach. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 50, 57–71. Duncan, T. E., Tildesley, E., Duncan, S. C., & Hops, H. (1995). The consistency of family and peer influences on the development of substance use in adolescence. Addiction, 90, 1647–1660. Foxcroft, D. R., & Lowe, G. (1991). Adolescent drinking behaviour and family socialization factors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 255–273. Gray, M. R., & Steinberg, L. (1999). Unpacking authoritative parenting: Reassessing a multidimensional construct. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 574–587. Gunnlaugsson, H. (1998). Icelandic sociology and the social production of criminological knowledge. In M. Bertilsson & G. Therborn (Eds.), From a doll’s house to the welfare state: Reflections on Nordic sociology (pp. 83–88). Copenhagen, Denmark: International Sociological Association. Gunnlaugsson, H., & Galliher, J. F. (2000). Wayward Icelanders. Punishment, boundary maintainance, and the creation of crime. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Bjarnason, R., Kokkevi, A., Morgan, M., & Narusk, A. (1997). The 1995 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs report [ESPAD]: Alcohol and other drug use among students in 26 European countries. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, Department of Sociology, New Haven, CT. Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development. New York: Academic. Johnston, L., & O’Malley, P. M. (1985). Issues of validity and population coverage in student surveys of drug use. In B. A. Rouse, N. J. Kozel, & L. G. Richards (Eds.), Self-report methods of estimating drug use: Meeting current challenges of validity (NIDA Research Monograph No. 57, pp. 31–54). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Jonsson, F. H., & Olafsson, S. (1991). Lifsskoðun í nútíma þ jóð félögum [Life-attitudes in modern societies] (Report). Reykjavik, Iceland: Faculty of Social Science, University of Iceland. Kandel, D. B. (1980). Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 235–285. Kandel, D. B., & Andrews, K. (1987). Processes of adolescent socialization by parents and peers. International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 319–342. Kandel, D. B., & Yamaguchi, K. (1993). From beer to crack: Developmental patterns of drug involvement. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 851–855. Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049–1065. Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley. McGee, R., & Stanton, W. R. (1993). A longitudinal study of reasons for smoking in adolescence. Addiction, 88, 265–271.


423

Morgan, M. (1997). EMCDDA instrument bank: Core scales, sources and guidelines. A report to the EMCDDA. Lisbon, Portugal: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Mounts, N. S., & Steinberg, L. (1995). An ecological analysis of peer influence on adolescent grade point average and drug use. Developmental Psychology, 31, 915–922. Oetting, E. R., Donnermeyer, J. F., Trimble, J. E., & Beauvais, F. (1998). Primary socialization theory: Culture, ethnicity, and cultural identification. The link between culture and substance use. Substance Use and Misuse, 33, 2075–2107. Osgood, D. W., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1988). The generality of deviance in late adolescence and early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 53, 81–93. Petraitis, J., Flay, B. R., & Miller, T. Q. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 67–86. Radziszewska, B., Richardson, J. L., Dent, C. W., & Flay, B. R. (1996). Parenting style and adolescent depressive symptoms, smoking, and academic achievement: Ethnic, gender, and SES differences. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 289–305. Reifman, A., Barnes, G. M., Dintcheff, B. A., Farrell, M. P., & Uhteg, L. (1998). Parental and peer influences on the onset of heavier drinking among adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 311–317. Scheier, L. M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1991). Differentiation of early adolescent predictors of drug use versus abuse: A developmental risk-factor model. Journal of Substance Abuse, 3, 277–299. Snow, D. L., Tebes, J. K., & Arthur, M. W. (1992). Panel attrition and external validity in adolescent substance use research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 804–807. Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Overtime changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–770. Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parenting and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1, 19–36.