Talking to Youth About Drugs: What Do Late Adolescents Say About Parental Strategies?

Talking to Youth About Drugs: What Do LateAdolescents Say About Parental Strategies?

Michelle Miller-Day*

Abstract: This research, comprised of 2 studies, extends current knowledge of parent-child communication aboutdrugs. The first study developed a typology of parental strategies used to deter children’s substance use. The secondstudy examined relationships among the parental strategies identified in the first study, which included family com-munication environments and self-reported substance use. Results revealed that parental communication strategies todeter substance use may be employed in different ways by laissez-faire, pluralistic, consensual, and protective fami-lies. Of the 7 identified types of strategies, very few actually impacted substance use in the previous 30 days. Theonly strategy to have a significant effect on the use of all drug types was a ‘‘no tolerance rule.’’ Prevention efforts andprograms may target parents so as to enhance parental communication competence and offer parents an array ofstrategies to choose from that might best fit with their family communication environment.

Key Words: adolescents and families, adolescent and parent communication, adolescent and parent topics, adolescentrisk behavior, adolescent substance use.

Among youth in the United States, alcohol andother drug (AOD) use are linked to low achievementand other academic problems (Bryant, Schulenberg,O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnson, 2003). Of thenearly 12 million college undergraduates in the UnitedStates, statistics indicate that nearly 240,000 –360,000 will ultimately die from alcohol and othersubstance use-related causes and, even when notabused, substance use often interferes with individu-als’ academic success, sleep hygiene, and overallwell-being (U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices, 1995).

With these public health consequences in mind,a report released by National Institute on DrugAbuse Notes (2000) suggested that parent-offspringinteraction is an important predictor of youngpeople’s negative drug attitudes and intentions andmay protect youth from future risk of negativedrug-related outcomes. In particular, the transitionfrom midadolescence to early adulthood is a periodof developmental malleability. Negative behaviorsengaged by youth during this time may becomehabituated and develop into lifetime patterns

(Schorling, Gutgesell, Klas, Smith, & Keller, 1994).Specifically, for those ages 16 – 20 years, parentingpractices serve to foster resilience against antiso-cial activities and substance use (Chassin, Curran,Hussong, & Colder, l996; Chassin, Presson, Todd,Rose, & Sherman, 1998). In addition, parent-offspring communication patterns, including thedegree and manner in which parents talk with off-spring about drug use behavior, can influence youthoutcomes (Rueter, Conger, & Ramisetty-Mikler,1999). Though peers play a crucial role in levels ofcurrent adolescent drug use, the attitudes and behav-iors of parents, the quality of family life, and parent-ing practices play a critical role in initiation andexperimentation with AOD (Brody, Flor, Hollett-Wright, & McCoy, 1998; Kumpfer & Alvarado,1995; Miller, Alberts, Hecht, Trost, & Krizek,2000). A recent analysis of 82,918 students in theUnited States found that parents were identified asthe individuals most likely to have talked to childrenabout drugs and further discovered that as perceivedfamily sanctions increased, the offspring’s druginvolvement decreased (Kelly, Comello, & Hunn,

*Michelle Miller-Day is an Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at the Pennsylvania State

University, University Park, PA 16802 ([email protected]).

Family Relations, 57 (January 2008), 1–12. Blackwell Publishing.Copyright 2008 by the National Council on Family Relations.

2002). Kelly et al. concluded that parents were amore potent influence on their offspring’s drug usechoices than the parents themselves expected to be.Further, Califano (1999) argued that parents are themost underutilized instruments in preventing youthsubstance abuse. Given the critical role of parents inoffspring’s participation in risky use of AOD, it isvital that scholars understand how families withyouth communicate about drug use.

Regrettably, parent-offspring communication aboutdrugs (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, orinhalants) in many family-based programs is globallyconceptualized as ‘‘poor,’’ ‘‘average,’’ or ‘‘good’’ quality(Ennett, Bauman, Foshee, Pemberton, & Hicks,2001). This conceptualization provides little informa-tion about the specific influence strategies familymembers use to convey messages about drug attitudes,behaviors, or expectations. Though research confirmsthat parents almost universally disapprove of drug useby their adolescents (Conrad, Flay, & Hill, 1992), par-ents may be using a variety of specific techniques toconvey that disapproval. Despite the explicit call fromscholars for research on the content and style ofparent-offspring communication about drugs (seeEnnett et al., 2001; Klingle & Miller, 1999; Milleret al., 2000; Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004), we stillknow little about how parents convey and reinforcetheir disapproval of their child’s use of alcohol anddrugs and the extent such disapproval effectively detersyouth.

Socialization: Parent-OffspringTransmission Framework

Socialization refers to the deliberate shaping of off-spring to adopt social norms and meet expectations;the most common means of transmission of social-ization is parent-child communication (Kohn,Slomczynski, & Schoenbach, 1986). As Berger andLuckmann (1967) stated in their seminal work,communication ‘‘constitutes both the importantcontent and the most important instrument ofsocialization’’ (p. 133). Indeed, the socialization andnurturing of family members takes place primarilythrough the exchange of verbal and nonverbal mes-sages (Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994).

Within this ‘‘social mold’’ tradition of conceptual-izing socialization, parental expectations are conveyedfrom parent to child through the use of direct andindirect messages. This generational transmission of

expectations and norms is associated with learningand ultimately linked to performance and social com-petence (Peterson & Hann, 1999; Peterson & Rollins,1987). This parents-as-socialization-agents modeldoes not negate the influence of adolescent’s messageson parents but focuses the investigation explicitly onthe messages directed from parents to adolescents.

Specific to the topic of substance use, parentalmessages about use are influential throughout ado-lescence. Sargent and Dalton (2001) found that ado-lescents who perceived negative feedback from bothparents about smoking were half as likely to smokeas those who did not perceive disapproval. Addition-ally, Newcomb, Huba, and Bentler (1983) andBooth-Butterfield and Sidelinger (1998) found thatparent’s directly and indirectly affected their lateadolescents’ alcohol and marijuana use. Indeed, twolongitudinal studies have demonstrated that parentaldisapproval of alcohol use effectively deters laterdrinking (Ary, Tildesly, Hops, & Andrews, 1993;Reifman, Barnes, Dintcheff, Farrell, & Uhteg, 1998).Some drug-using adolescents have reported thata lack of parental input regarding expected drug usebehavior was interpreted as parental disinterest (Rees& Wilborn, 1983). These studies and other research(Brody, Murray, Kim, & Brown, 2002; Kaplan,Turner, Norman, & Stillson, 1996; Kelly et al.,2002; Steinberg & Brown, 1994) found that paren-tal communication of clear and consistent antidrugnorms was necessary to discourage adolescent initia-tion of drug use as well as to influence the degree ofexperimentation and use among youth users.

Emerging adulthood is a developmental periodencompassing ages 18 – 25 years that reflects a transi-tion from adolescence toward adulthood (Arnett,2004). During this period of emerging adulthood,youths’ drug-related behaviors have important im-plications for later health—particularly if unhealthybehaviors are sustained across a lifetime (Schorlinget al., 1994). The age of susceptibility—or theperiod of major risk for initiation—is in mid- to lateadolescence with entry into college as a peak timeperiod for experimentation and use. Therefore, mostfamily prevention programs urge parents not to waituntil the offspring reaches college age to addressissues of drug use but to participate in discussionabout these issues before the age of susceptibility.In fact, a national survey conducted by the Partner-ship for a Drug-Free America (U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services, 1999) indicated that98% of parents reported promoting abstinence and

Family Relations � Volume 57, Number 1 � January 20082

moderation in substance use with their offspring asthey transitioned from high school into college.

The purpose of this research was twofold. First, Isought to generate a typology of parental antidrugsocialization communication strategies. Explorationwas guided by the following research question: Whattypes of communication strategies do offspringreport parents use in antidrug socialization efforts?

Second, I sought to understand how these strate-gies may be differentially used within diverse familycommunication environments. Beyond the specificstrategies used by parents to promote conservativedrug use norms, research in the area of substance useprevention suggests that youth in families that areconversational in nature (who are permitted to openlyexpress their own thoughts) may develop increasedpsychological autonomy and self-regulation abilitiesleading to fewer problem behaviors in adolescenceinto emerging adulthood (Barber, 2002; Barber &Olsen, 1997; Baumrind, 1991; Brody et al., 2002;Miller-Day, 2002; Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004). Con-sequently, in a second study, I examined the associa-tions among family communication environments,parental antidrug socialization strategies, and off-spring’s reported alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use.

Family Communication Patterns

According to Ritchie and Fitzpatrick (1990) andRitchie (1997), family environments reflect generalnorms of communicative interaction that providea context for understanding the exchange of mes-sages among family members. These family commu-nication patterns include a conversation orientationand a conformity orientation. A conversation orienta-tion refers to the degree of openness in family inter-actions and emphasizes individuality and individualcontribution, whereas a conformity orientation refersto the degree of conformity required by the familyand emphasizes compliance with common familyideals and values. Using high and low discriminationson the two orientations, four family environmenttypes have been identified: laissez-faire, consensual,pluralistic, and protective families (Fitzpatrick &Ritchie, 1994). Laissez-faire families are low on bothconversation and conformity orientations, not reallyencouraging individuality nor requiring compliance.These families are characterized by low engagementwith each other, and offspring are predicted to bemore influenced by external influences (e.g., peers)than family members. In direct contrast are consensual

families, which are high in both conversation andconformity orientations. Consensual families areopen to discussing ideas and expressing opinions butare expected to ultimately agree with the opinion ofthose in positions of power such as parents. Pluralisticfamilies are high on conversation orientation but lowon conformity orientation. In these families, opendiscussion of ideas is encouraged with little pressureto conform to other members’ perspectives. Finally,protective families are low on conversation orientationbut high on conformity orientation. These familiesemphasize obedience and compliance with expecta-tions, providing little opportunity for dissent orautonomous thinking.

The family studies literature suggests that chil-dren whose parents discourage autonomous thinkingand self-discovery and require conformity to paren-tal ideals in their communication processes are lesslikely to develop psychological and social compe-tence than those whose parents do not have a confor-mity orientation (Barber, 2002; Baumrind, 1991;Booth-Butterfield & Sidelinger, 1998). Moreover,previous research in preventive intervention suggeststhat high conversation orientation (a pattern wherefamily members openly express their own thoughtsand challenge others’) in families, along with opensharing of information about drugs and clear expect-ations about drug use, is negatively related to druguse (Brody et al., 2004).

With regard to the second purpose of thisresearch, family communication patterns refer to fam-ily members’ general approach to communicatingwithin the family across conversational and confor-mity orientations; family communication environ-ments consist of the four types of families identifiedfrom calculating high and low discriminations onthe two orientations. Finally, parental communica-tion strategies represent practices that are specific,goal-directed behaviors exhibited by parents in anti-drug socialization interactions with their offspring.

Method

To address the twofold purpose of this research, twoseparate but related studies were designed and exe-cuted. Study 1 was designed to generate a typologyof parental antidrug socialization communicationstrategies and addressed the research question, Whattypes of communication strategies do offspring reportparents use in antidrug socialization efforts? Study 2

Parental Strategies � Miller-Day 3

examined the associations among parental commu-nication strategies, family communication environ-ments, and self-reported drug use.

Study 1

Participants

First-year students in an introductory course at a uni-versity in the northeastern United States were ques-tioned with the goal of generating a composite of thesalient parental strategies they recall parents using toprevent their AOD use. Emerging adulthood marksthe onset of developing an adult identity and behav-ior but is still characterized by interdependence withone’s family of origin. Youth generally navigate thistransition between the ages of 18 and 25 years(Arnett, 2004). The sample for this study wasselected because (a) college-aged offspring, especiallyfirst-year students, would most likely be ‘‘informa-tion rich,’’ having already experienced a variety ofparental strategies to promote nonuse of AOD (U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, 1999)and (b) this developmental period is characterizedby increased risk of drug use, especially alcohol(Bachman, Wadsworth, O’Malley, Johnston, &Schulenberg, 1999; Substance Abuse and MentalHealth Services Administration, 2006), likely activat-ing salient parental messages about conservative use.

The introductory course served as a general edu-cation requirement for all students and thus tendedto reflect the range of the student population. Com-pletion of an open-ended questionnaire was volun-tary—421 questionnaires out of a possible 458 werecompleted. Among those who participated, 54%(n ¼ 227) were women and 46% (n ¼ 194) weremen. Ethnicity was primarily Caucasian (83%). Themean age of the sample was 18.5. Those emergingadults who chose not to complete the questionnairewere instructed to sit quietly while the others com-pleted it and then to turn in a blank survey.

Participants were asked to ‘‘answer each questionbased on the parent(s) you spent the most time withduring the past four years.’’ Although there is no evi-dence that family structure (i.e., two-parent biologi-cal, single parent, or stepparent) affects offspringalcohol or other drug use (Brooke, 2001), data per-taining to the student’s family-of-origin householdwere obtained. Eighty-eight percent of the partici-pants reported being reared in intact biological

families with one mother and one father. In answer-ing the questions posed in this study, the majority ofreported maternal strategies referenced biologicalmothers (98%), with only 2% referencing a step-mother or other female guardian. Similarly, themajority of reported paternal strategies referencedbiological fathers (95%), whereas the remaining 5%referenced a stepfather or other male guardian.

Procedures

Because the goal of the first study was to generatea range of parental strategies, not assessing perceivedeffectiveness, one open-ended item was provided toparticipants that asked, ‘‘Think about your interac-tions with your guardians/parents in the past 4 years.Please list and then describe the ways in which yourguardians/parents (e.g., mother and father) conveyedtheir expectations to you about your use of alcohol,tobacco, and other drugs. What did they say or do?Also, please identify, if you can, the substance (alcohol,tobacco, or other drug) for each of your descriptions.’’A text box that filled the rest of the page was suppliedfor participants to enter their responses. Participantswere also directed to use the back of the page, if neces-sary, where another text box was centered on the page.

A total of 890 responses (strategies) were reportedby the 421 participants. The constant comparisonmethod of data analysis was used to code and cate-gorize the reported strategies. Constant comparisoninvolves the simultaneous comparison of allresponses, labeling each response with an identifyingcode and then subsuming codes into larger groupingsof parsimonious descriptive categories (Goetz &LeCompte, 1984). After devising the initial set ofcategories, 22% of the 890 responses (n ¼ 200) werecoded by a second coder trained by the author. The200 responses were then recoded and agreementbetween coding assignments was calculated usinga Cohen’s kappa coefficient and achieved a reliabilityof .81. Because this is a conservative test, Bakemanand Gottman (1986) argued that values above .70can be considered acceptable.

Results of Study 1

Reported Parental Strategies

Table 1 lists the strategies identified in offspring’sresponses, an excerpt that characterized the strategy,


and the frequency with which each was reportedacross respondents. Because of the ability of respon-dents to report more than one parental strategy, per-centages add up to more than 100%. The mostfrequently reported strategy was for a parent toencourage offspring to make his or her own deci-sions about drug use by telling them to use theirown judgment (79.3%), whereas 42.5% reportedthat their parent discussed the issue and providedthem with information about drugs. Nearly 30%reported their parent did not have a direct conversa-tion about drugs but indirectly hinted or suggestedan antidrug message, whereas nearly 9% indicatedtheir parent had never brought up the issue. Addi-tional reported strategies included a no tolerance rule(22.6%), punishment for use (18.1%), and rewardsfor nonuse (7.8%). There were no gender differencesacross reported strategies. Eliminating responses thatindicated parents did not bring up the issue of alco-hol or other drugs, the substances that were addressedin parental antidrug strategies included alcohol(87%), tobacco (76%), and marijuana (57%).

Study 2

Participants

Following the first study, additional undergraduatestudents enrolled in another introductory first-yeargeneral education course at a university in the north-eastern United States were surveyed to address the

remaining research questions and hypothesis. Thiscourse was also required of all students in the univer-sity and adequately represented the first-year studentpopulation at this university. Completion of a ques-tionnaire was voluntary—424 respondents out ofa possible 452 completed it. Among those who com-pleted it, 59% (n ¼ 250) were women and 41% (n ¼174) were men. The mean age of the sample was19.2 (SD ¼ 2.00). Those offspring who chose notto complete the questionnaire were instructed to sitquietly while the others completed it and then toturn in a blank survey.

Instruments

Parental strategies. The strategies identified inStudy 1 provided the items assessing parental strate-gies in this second study. Moreover, because theresponses in Study 1 seemed to be limited to alco-hol, tobacco, and marijuana, the responses in thesecond study were limited to those drugs. Respon-dents were asked to ‘‘Recall your interactions withyour parents over the past 4 years and answer thefollowing questions based on what you can recallfrom those years up until now. �During this time,my guardian(s)/parent(s) did the following to pre-vent me from using alcohol, tobacco, or mari-juana.’’’ Respondents were then asked to whatextent they agreed that their parents used each strat-egy. For example, ‘‘My parent(s) encouraged me touse my own judgment’’ or ‘‘My parent(s) had a notolerance rule.’’ Responses were measured on an

Table 1. Parental Strategies to Convey Expectations to Youth About Alcohol or Other Drug Use

Strategy Excerpt Frequency (%)

Use own judgment ‘‘They told me to use my own judgment’’ 79.3 (n ¼ 334)

Hinting ‘‘They never really talked directly about it, but hinted

around that I shouldn’t do it.’’

29.2 (n ¼ 123)

No tolerance rule ‘‘They just said to me that they would not put up with me

doing it and that was that.’’

22.6 (n ¼ 95)

Provided information ‘‘They didn’t make it out as evil, they just talked to me and

gave me information about it. My mom even printed out

an article of binge drinking for me to read.’’

42.5 (n ¼ 179)

Threat of punishment ‘‘They said if I [used drugs], they would kick my butt and

take the car away.’’

18.1 (n ¼ 76)

Rewarded for nonuse ‘‘They told me that if I made it to 21 without [doing drugs],

then they would pay for me to go to any college I wanted.’’

7.8 (n ¼ 33)

Did not address the issue ‘‘It was never brought up’’ 8.8 (n ¼ 37)

Note. Percentages add up to more than 100% because of potential of listing more than one strategy.


interval scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 ¼ strongly dis-agree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Although there is somespeculation that retrospective reports may be ham-pered because of limited ability to recall events,Brewin, Andrews, and Gotlib (1993) concluded thatclaims regarding the general unreliability of retro-spective reports are not substantiated. They notedthat retrospective accounts and recall of family inter-action in one’s family of origin are generally quiteaccurate (Brewin et al., 1993). Moreover, psychol-ogy and communication research (e.g., turningpoint analyses) often utilize retrospective interviewsto generate valid reports of events and interpersonalexchanges perceived to have happened in previousyears. The use of retrospective methodology for thepresent research was based on the premise thatparent-offspring relationships were important enoughfor participants to retain, as well as report, reliablememories from the previous 4 years of parental influ-ence strategies and general parental communicationorientations.

Family communication patterns. Ritchie andFitzpatrick’s (1990) Revised Family CommunicationPatterns instrument is an elaboration on an earlierversion of the Family Communication Patternsinstrument created by McLeod and Chaffee (1972).The orthogonal dimensions of conformity orientationand conversational orientation are measured sepa-rately and then combined into a typology of fourfamily communication environments consisting oflaissez-faire, consensual, pluralistic, and protective fami-lies (Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994). Each orientationwas assessed by 11 items measured on a 5-point inter-val scale. Conversation orientation was measured byitems such as ‘‘My parents say that every member ofthe family should have some say in family decisions’’or ‘‘My parents and I often have long relaxed conver-sations about nothing in particular.’’ Conformity ori-entation included items such as ‘‘My parents oftensay something like �a child should not argue withadults’’’ or ‘‘My parents often say something like �youshould give in on arguments rather than risk makingsomeone mad.’’’ In this study, both the conformityand conversation orientation scales consisted of 11items and achieved an alpha reliability coefficient of.81 for conversation orientation and .74 for confor-mity orientation.

Drug use. Frequency of self-reported alcohol,tobacco, and marijuana use in the past 30 days wasused to obtain a general distribution of drug usebehavior within this sample. Items derived from the

Core Alcohol and Drug Survey (Presley, Meilman,& Leichliter, 1998) were used to assess frequency ofuse. Respondents were asked four items, ‘‘how manytimes in the past 30 days have you––chewed orsmoked tobacco; been drunk on alcohol; smokedmarijuana?’’ Frequency response options includednever, 1 – 2, 3 – 7, 8 – 14, or 15 or more days(coded as 1 – 5, respectively).

Descriptive statistics calculated included the fre-quency and mean scores and standard deviations foreach study variable. To examine the association ofparental communication strategies, family commu-nication patterns, and drug use, zero-order correla-tion coefficients were examined. Because familycommunication environments reflect unique combi-nations of low and high conformity and conversa-tional orientations, median splits were used toclassify high and low discriminations of conversationorientation (Mdn ¼ 3.2) and conformity orientation(Mdn ¼ 2.6). Then, the sample was classified intothe four family environments (high/high, low/low,high/low, low/high).

To get a better idea of significant differencesbetween family types and parental strategies, themeans of each family environment type was com-pared with parental communication strategies. Inde-pendent t tests compared each strategy across familyenvironment type (e.g., consensual family/not con-sensual family). Additionally, to examine the associ-ations among family communication environments,parental antidrug socialization strategies, and off-spring’s reported alcohol, tobacco, and marijuanause, correlation coefficients were computed.

Results: Study 2

Mirroring national drug use prevalence data for thisage group (Core Institute, 2006), in the previousmonth, alcohol was the most frequently used sub-stance (M ¼ 2.38, SD ¼ 1.18) when compared withtobacco use (M ¼ 1.73, SD ¼ 1.33) or marijuanause (M ¼ 1.36, SD ¼ 0.91).

Patterns of parental communication strategieswere similar to those reported in the first study, with78.6% agreeing that parents told them to use theirown judgment (M ¼ 4.1, SD ¼ 1.02), 50% pro-vided their offspring with information about the risksof drugs (M ¼ 3.3, SD ¼ 1.25), 50.3% had a notolerance rule (M ¼ 3.38, SD ¼ 1.28), 36% threat-ened punishment for use (M ¼ 2.83, SD ¼ 1.32),


and 2.3% rewarded their offspring for nonuse (M ¼1.62, SD ¼ 0.81). Thirty-eight percent of respon-dents reported that their parents did not have a directconversation about drugs but indirectly hinted orsuggested an antidrug message (M ¼ 2.86, SD ¼1.25), whereas 9% of parents never brought up theissue (M ¼ 1.86, SD ¼ 1.02).

To examine the association of parental commu-nication strategies, family communication patterns,and drug use, zero-order correlation coefficientswere examined (see Table 2). The relationshipsbetween parental strategies and general family com-munication patterns were significant but weak tomoderate with correlation coefficients ranging from2.16 to .40. A general conversation orientation waspositively associated with discussing drugs and pro-viding offspring with information about the risks ofdrugs (r ¼ .40, p , .001) and encouraging offspringto use their own judgment (r ¼ .22, p , .001),whereas it was negatively associated with never pre-venting use (r ¼ 2.16, p , .001) and merely pro-viding hints (r ¼ 2.18, p , .001). A generalconformity orientation was positively associatedwith articulating a no tolerance rule (r ¼ .17, p ,

.001), threatening punishment for drug use (r ¼

.26, p , .001), and rewarding offspring for nonuse(r ¼ .15, p , .001), whereas it was negatively associ-ated with encouraging offspring to use their ownjudgment (r ¼ 2.18, p , .001).

The classification of respondents into familyenvironment types resulted in 132 participants(31%) classified as having a protective family

environment (low conversation, high conformity),128 as pluralistic (30%; high conversation, low con-formity), 92 as laissez-faire (21.9%; low conversa-tion, low conformity), and 72 as consensual (17.1%;high conversation, high conformity). Because familycommunication environments were computed usinglow and high discriminations on family patterns, asexpected, relationships among variables for laissez-fairefamilies and consensual families and also for pluralisticand protective families were in direct opposition.

When examining the associations among familycommunication environments and parental commu-nication strategies, the results revealed that laissez-faire families were positively associated with the morepassive approaches such as never preventing use (r ¼.14, p , .01) and merely providing hints (r ¼ .11,p , .01). Laissez-faire families were negatively associ-ated with the more active socialization approachessuch as directly talking about drugs and providinginformation on risks (r ¼ 2.22, p , .001), havinga no tolerance rule (r ¼ 2.18, p , .001), andrewarding for nonuse (r ¼2.16, p , .001). Consen-sual families were in direct opposition to laissez-fairefamilies. Consensual families were positively associ-ated with more active strategies such as directly talk-ing about drugs and providing information on risks(r ¼ .22, p , .001), having a no tolerance rule (r ¼.18, p , .001), and rewarding for nonuse (r ¼ .16,p , .001). Conversely, they were negatively associ-ated with the more passive approaches such as neverpreventing use (r ¼ 2.14, p , .01) and merely pro-viding hints (r ¼ 2.11, p , .01).

Table 2. Correlation Coefficients of Parental Communication Strategies, Family Communication Patterns, and Drug Use

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Conversational orientation 2.18**.01 .40**2.17**2.14**.06 2.03 .23**2.02 2.02 .03

2. Conformity orientation — .17**2.04 .07 2.05 .15** .26**2.15**2.04 .04 2.06

3. No tolerance rule — .29**2.14**2.29**.05 .40**2.24**2.11*2.13* 2.17**

4. Provide information — 2.57**2.36**.07 .20**2.01 .03 .08 .03

5. Hint — .31**.04 2.14** .11* .00 2.04 2.02

6. Never prevented use — .10* 2.25** .09 2.02 2.06 2.04

7. Rewarded for nonuse — .28**2.05 .05 .05 2.05

8. Threatened punishment for use — 2.18** .11* .19** .01

9. Told to use their own judgment — 2.02 2.04 .05

10. Alcohol use in past month — .48** .41**

11. Tobacco use in past month — .43**

12. Marijuana use in past month —

Note . All significant correlations are in bold text.

*p , .05. **p , .01.


Pluralistic families were more indirectly aggressivethan other family environments and positively associ-ated with threatening punishment for use (r ¼ .18,p , .001) and negatively associated with talkingabout drugs and providing information (r ¼ 2.20,p , .001) and encouraging offspring to use theirown judgment (r ¼ 2.23, p , .001). Protectivefamilies were in opposition with approaches moredirect and supportive. Protective families were posi-tively associated with talking about drugs and provid-ing information (r ¼ .20, p , .001) andencouraging offspring to use their own judgment(r ¼ .23, p , .001) and negatively associatedwith threatening punishment for use (r ¼ 2.18,p , .001).

Results regarding family types and parental strat-egies revealed several significant differences. Figure 1illustrates the means plots and Table 3 summarizesthe correlations of parental communication stra-tegies with each family type. Respondents fromlaissez-faire families reported significantly more useof indirect hinting (M ¼ 3.05, SD ¼ 1.28) andnever preventing use (M ¼ 2.1, SD ¼ 1.07) whencompared with other family environments. Respon-dents from consensual families reported significantlymore use of a sitting down and talking about therisks of drugs (M ¼ 3.75, SD ¼ 1.1), establishinga no tolerance rule (M ¼ 3.74, SD ¼ 1.3), and

providing rewards for nonuse (M ¼ 1.86, SD ¼0.97). Respondents from protective familiesreported significantly more use of a sitting downand talking about the risks of drugs (M ¼ 3.65,SD ¼ 1.21) and encouraging youth to use their ownjudgment (M ¼ 4.37, SD ¼ 0.86). Finally, respon-dents from pluralistic families reported significantlymore threatening punishment for use (M ¼ 3.25,SD ¼ 1.29).

Identifying the disparate strategies used in differ-ent family environments provides novel descriptiveinformation about parental approaches to antidrugsocialization. However, of interest to both practi-tioners and parents is—do any of these approachesassociate with lower levels drug use among offspring?The associations of the family communication strat-egies and drug use are listed in Table 2. There werefew significant relationships and those associationswere weak with correlation coefficients ranging from2.14 to .17. The correlation between threateningpunishment for use and alcohol use (r ¼ .17, p ,

.001) and tobacco use (r ¼ .10, p , .05) were bothpositive and statistically significant, but there was nosignificant association with marijuana use. The mostinteresting finding was that a no tolerance rule wasnegatively associated with marijuana use (r ¼ 2.14,p , .01), alcohol use (r ¼ 2.10, p , .05), andtobacco use (r ¼ 2.14, p , .01). It appears that a

consensualprotect-ive

plural-istic

Laissezfaire

Family Environment


plural-istic

Laissezfaire

Family Environment


plural-istic

Laissezfaire

Family Environment

3.80

3.60

3.40

3.00

3.20

2.80

Mea

n of

sit

dow

n an

d ta

lkab

out d

rugs

4.40

4.30

4.20

4.10

4.00

3.90

3.80


plural-istic

Laissezfaire

Family Environment

3.70

3.60

3.50

3.40

3.30

3.20

3.10

3.00

Mea

n of

no

tole

ranc

e


plural-istic

Laissezfaire

Family Environment

3.05

3.00

2.95

2.90

2.85

2.80

2.75

2.70

2.65Mea

n of

pro

vide

hin

ts (i

ndire

ct)


plural-istic

Laissezfaire

Family Environment

2.20

2.10

2.00

1.90

1.80

1.70

1.60

Mea

n of

avo

id a

ddre

ssin

g to

pic

1.80

1.70

1.60

1.50

Mea

n of

pro

mis

e re

war

dsfo

r non

use

Mea

n of

enc

oura

ge c

hild

tous

e ow

n ju

dgem

ent


plural-istic

Laissezfaire

Family Environment

3.20

3.00

2.80

2.40

2.60

2.20Mea

n of

thre

aten

pun

ishm

ent

for d

rug

use

Figure 1. Means Plots of Parental Communication Strategies Across Different Family Communication Environments.


no tolerance policy may be the only communicationstrategy to impact offspring’s use of a variety ofdrugs in late adolescence.

Discussion

This research identified a range of strategies used byparents in their efforts to prevent their offspringfrom using alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana andexamined how these strategies might be related tofamily communication environments and offspring’sdrug use. The following discussion interprets thefinding of both studies and offers ideas for how theseresults can be practically applied to drug prevention.

The findings revealed seven core parental strate-gies that emerging adults identified as used by par-ents to deter them from alcohol, tobacco, andmarijuana use within the past 4 years. In both stud-ies, the most frequently reported parental strategywas to encourage the offspring to use his or her judg-ment in terms of substance use. In Study 2, fewerthan 50% of respondents indicated that their parentprovided information about drugs or drug use andapproximately 9% indicated that their parents didnot address the issue at all. Several respondentsreported that their parent(s) strategically ‘‘hinted’’about it but never really addressed the issue, whereasothers indicated that their parents established a notolerance rule, threatened punishment, or offeredrewards. These results reflect a pattern similar to pre-vious studies examining parent-offspring communi-cation about drugs; for example, Barnett and Miller(2001) found that fewer than half of adolescentsreported a parent who provided them with informa-tion about drugs or drug use. These authors specu-lated that, by the time offspring reach older

adolescence, parents would have had additional timeto address the issue; thus, they predicted greater dis-cussions by late adolescence. The findings from thepresent studies seem to contradict this assumptionand also challenge the foundation of public healthmessages touting ‘‘parents as the antidrug’’—at leastamong college-attending late adolescents.

In this research, even though half of the respon-dents reported that their parents provided them withinformation about drugs or drug use, at least halfdid not. Moreover, the most commonly reportedstrategy was to ‘‘use your own judgment.’’ Althoughthis approach seems the most reasonable with acollege-aged sample because of the inability forparents to monitor late adolescents’ behavior, it alsoseems generally ineffective in inhibiting offspring’sdrug use. Moreover, because of the 4-year recallperiod, it is unclear if this strategy is used morefrequently after or before the age of consent. Addi-tionally, although many of the antidrug socializationstrategies that parents reportedly used were not sig-nificantly related to frequency of offspring’s druguse, findings from this study suggest that a ‘‘no tol-erance policy’’ may still have some positive effect oncollege-attending late adolescents. Clearly, an envi-ronment of some parental engagement is requiredregarding antidrug socialization. Moreover, it islikely that clear family rules about substance usemay yet be the most consistent approach for parentsof emerging adults as suggested in the StrengtheningAfrican American Families program of research (seeBrody et al., 2004).

Although the findings of this current researchrevealed few parental antidrug socialization strategiesthat affected drug use in the past 30 days in thiscollege-aged sample, there were significant associa-tions among family communication environmentsand parental strategies. The four unique family envi-ronment types tended to utilize dissimilar strategiesfor antidrug socialization. Although these resultsfound no significant associations between a specificfamily communication environments and decreaseddrug use, a no tolerance rule was most closely associ-ated with inhibiting drug use across all three drug cat-egories. Parents in consensual families used a notolerance rule strategy significantly more than otherfamily environments. By definition, consensual fami-lies are open to discussing ideas and expressing opin-ions and expect compliance with parental rules.Consequently, given the findings in this research thatconsensual families tended to invoke a no tolerance

Table 3. Significant Correlation Coefficients of ParentalCommunication Strategies and Family CommunicationEnvironments

Laissez-faire Plural Protective Consensual

No tolerance rule .18**

Discuss and provideinformation

.20** .22**

Hint .11*

Never prevent use .12*Reward .16**Threaten punishment .18**

Use judgment .23**

*p , .05. **p , .01.


rule, while placing considerable emphasis on opendiscussion of drugs and the provision of rewards fornonuse, it seems reasonable to posit that consensualfamily environments may prove to be effective envi-ronments for inhibiting late adolescent drug use. Theproposition that consensual family environments maybe optimal family environments for deterring adoles-cent drug use is supported in other family-focusedresearch such as Brody et al. (2004) and Spoth,Redmond, Trudeau, and Shin (2002). However,further research is needed to understand why this par-ticular family environment was not statistically relatedto decreased drug use when looking at an emergingadult sample. Additionally, although open conversa-tion and clear expectations are mentioned in previouspreventive intervention research (see e.g., Miller-Day& Dodd, 2004), there is almost no informationin the research literature about rewards for nonuse.Consensual families combined clear rules and openconversation with actual rewards for nonuse. Thestrategy of rewarding for nonuse (e.g., providingincentives) is not clearly understood, and furtherresearch is needed to explore the implementation ofthis strategy with youth of all ages.

Limitations

A typology of strategies is helpful for understandingthe socialization of drug use norms. However, theresults of this research should be considered in lightof several limitations. For example, the presentinquiry did not examine the frequency of strategyuse, potential differences between maternal andpaternal strategy use, or strategies used with off-spring at different stages of child development.Future research using longitudinal designs shouldtrack parental antidrug socialization efforts withyouth across different developmental periods.

Other limitations of this research include theretrospective questioning of one member of theparent-child dyad. It would be useful to obtainthe reports of parents and their offspring in futureresearch. Moreover, the operationalization of paren-tal strategies in Study 2 was not ideal given the 4-year period of recall during a period of importantdevelopment change in late adolescence, especiallyin terms of age of consent and legal use of certainsubstances such as tobacco. Parental strategies mightchange during the transition into age of consent,but the assessment in this research was not sensitiveto this developmental transition. Future research

should address this transition with more sensitivemeasures. In fact, it seems important that futureresearch identify the strategies that parents use acrossthe child’s span of development. There is very littleguiding research to map developmentally sensitiveapproaches to antidrug socialization. Consequently,longitudinal research is needed to better understandthe messages and strategies that might be mostdevelopmentally appropriate for offspring at differ-ent developmental periods.

Finally, the results of this study might have beeninfluenced by moderating attributes such as religi-osity. Specifically, religiosity may have influencedchoices of strategies and ultimate drug use amongoffspring. Research by Bahr, Maughan, Marcos, andLi (1998) and more recently by Wallace et al.(2007) indicated that the higher adolescents’ level ofreligiosity, the less likely they are to be currenttobacco users, to engage in binge drinking, or tohave used marijuana. Consequently, it is unclear ifthe effect of a no tolerance rule may merely bea product of religiosity in the household. Futureresearch should control for religiosity when examin-ing family communication environments, parentalstrategies, and drug use.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Media messages resoundingly convey to parents theirresponsibility for not only monitoring their childrenbut also addressing drug use issues with offspring(Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 2006). If themedia are correct in their claims, parental antidrugsocialization strategies should promote conservativedrug use choices (Ennett et al., 2001). The results ofthe present research raises questions about the accu-racy of these claims. At the very least, this researchsuggests that parental socialization via communicationis multifaceted. Although discussions and informationsharing about drugs were more common in familieswith high levels of conversation orientation, thesewere not significantly related to decreased frequencyof drug use among college-attending offspring. Giventhat millions of dollars in federal money are spenteach year in disseminating public health messagesabout parents’ role in antidrug socialization, it isimportant to accurately assess this role.

Family-centered intervention programs are oftendesigned to enhance parent and youth competenciestoward the goal of inhibiting youth substance use.Programs such as Strengthening African American


Families (Brody et al., 2004), Strengthening FamiliesProgram (Molgaard & Spoth, 2001), and the Adoles-cent Transitions Program (Dishion & Kavanagh,2004) promote home environments characterized byhigh levels of parental monitoring, support, and opencommunication about risky topics such as drugs andsex. These regulated, communicative home environ-ments, however, are often characterized by communi-cation that is either present/absent, open/closed, orexamined in terms of frequency. Brody and col-leagues have expanded their intervention efforts toinclude an emphasis on content as well as communi-cation features (see, e.g., Brody et al., 2004). Brodyargued that parent training should focus on enhancingparental competence in discussing facts and expecta-tions pertaining to drug use. He further argues thatthe articulation of specific expectations contributes tooffspring’s development of planful self-regulation(Brody et al., 2002). However, until this presentinquiry, there was virtually no research on the processof effective parental communication nor specific infor-mation about parental approaches to deterring off-spring’s drug use.

Kelly et al. (2002), Miller-Day (2002), and Miller-Day and Dodd (2004) have all suggested that drugprevention professionals need to know more aboutthe ways in which parents socialize (i.e., teach ex-pected behavior patterns to) their offspring concern-ing risky behaviors such as alcohol, tobacco, andother drug use. Regardless of offspring’s age, a major-ity of parents with late adolescent offspring viewalcohol and tobacco use as an issue affecting healthand well-being. Thus, for parents who maintaintheir concern about their offspring’s health, deter-ring substance use may remain important even asadolescents move away to college.

The findings from this research may be usefullyintegrated into prevention programs to enhanceexisting curriculum. By offering a more complexview of communication beyond presence andabsence, openness and closedness, and frequency oftalk, the typology identified in this research mightprovide parents with an array of strategies to choosefrom that might best fit with their family communi-cation environment. For example, because researchby Carlson et al. (2000) found that postcards pro-moting parent-child conversations about drugs effec-tively increased drug talks—especially amongCaucasian families—the typology of strategies iden-tified in this study could easily be included in bro-chure or postcard content, perhaps including

prototypical scripts for each strategy type. At a mini-mum, such programs may provide parents withmore direction than merely ‘‘talk with your kidsabout drugs.’’ These findings are not definitive;however, they suggest that parent education effortsshould emphasize the importance of establishingclear rules for nonuse, even for offspring who areentering adulthood and passing the age of consent.

The present study served to identify parentalstrategies used when socializing offspring about alco-hol, tobacco, and marijuana use and revealed severaldirections scholars may take in more fully under-standing the role of family communication environ-ment in drug prevention. A conceptual model ofparent-child communication pertaining to antidrugsocialization is surely needed to inform parent train-ing curricula and, ultimately, to provide parentswith more information on how to socialize their off-spring toward making individually responsible deci-sions regarding drug use. This study providespreliminary information for the conceptualization ofsuch a model.

References

Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teensthrough the twenties. New York: Oxford.

Ary, D., Tildesley, E., Hops, H., & Andrews, J. A. (1993). The influenceof parents, sibling, and peer modeling and attitudes on adolescent useof alcohol. International Journal of the Addictions, 28, 853–880.

Bachman, J. G., Wadsworth, K. N., O’Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., &Schulenberg, J. E. (1999). Smoking, drinking, and drug use in youngadulthood: The impacts of new freedoms and new responsibilities.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bahr, S. J., Maughan, S. L., Marcos, A. C., & Li, B. (1998). Family, religi-osity, and the risk of adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 4, 979–992.

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction. An introduc-tion to sequential analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barber, B. K. (Ed.). (2002). Intrusive parenting: How psychological controlaffects children and adolescents. Washington, DC: American Psychologi-cal Association Press.

Barber, B. K., & Olsen, J. A. (1997). Socialization in context: Connection,regulation, and autonomy in the family, school, and neighborhood, andwith peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 287–315.

Barnett, J. M., & Miller, M. (2001). Adolescents’ reported motivations touse or not use alcohol or other drugs. Social Studies, 92, 209–212.

Baumrind, D. (1991). The influence of parenting style on adolescent com-petence and substance use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality:A treatise in the sociology of knowledge . Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.

Booth-Butterfield, M., & Sidelinger, R. (1998). The influence of familycommunication on the college-aged child: Openness, attitudes, andactions about sex and alcohol. Communication Quarterly, 46, 295–308.

Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Gotlib, I. H. (1993). Psychopathology andearly experience: A reappraisal of retrospective reports. PsychologicalBulletin, 113, 82–98.


Brody, G. H., Flor, D. L., Hollett-Wright, N., & McCoy, J. L. (1998).Children’s development of alcohol use norms: Contributions of parentand sibling norms, children’s temperaments, and parent-child discus-sions. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 209–219.

Brody, G. H., McBride, M., Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., Molgaard, V.,McNair, L., Brown, A. C., Wills, T. A., Spoth, R. L., Luo, Z., Yi-fu,C., & Neubaum-Carlan, E. (2004). The Strong African American Fam-ilies Program: Translating research into prevention programming. ChildDevelopment, 75, 900–917.

Brody, G. H., Murray, V. M., Kim, S., & Brown, A. C. (2002). Longitudi-nal pathways to competence and psychological adjustment amongAfrican American children living in rural single-parent households.Child Development, 73, 1505–1516.

Brooke, D. (2001). Parents can curb teen drug use. The National Center onAddiction and Substance Abuse. Retrieved June 12, 2002, from http://www.casacolumbia.org.

Bryant, A. L., Schulenberg, J. E., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., &Johnson, L. D. (2003). How academic achievement, attitudes, andbehaviors relate to the course of substance use during adolescence:A 6-year, multiwave national longitudinal study. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 13, 361–397.

Califano, J. A. (1999). Dangerous liaisons: Substance abuse and sex. NewYork: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.

Carlson, J. M., Moore, M. J., Pappas, D. M., Werch, C. E., Watts, G. F.,& Edgemon, P. A. (2000). A pilot intervention to increase parent-childcommunication about alcohol avoidance. Journal of Alcohol and DrugEducation, 45, 59–70.

Chassin, L., Curran, P., Hussong, A. M., & Colder, C. R. (1996). The rela-tion of parent alcoholism to adolescent substance use: A longitudinalfollow-up study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 70–80.

Chassin, L., Presson, C., Todd, M., Rose, J., & Sherman, S. J. (1998).Maternal socialization of adolescent smoking: The intergenerationaltransmission of parenting and smoking. Developmental Psychology, 34,1189–1201.

Conrad, K. M., Flay, B. R., & Hill, D. (1992). Why children start smok-ing cigarettes: Predictors of onset. British Journal of Addiction, 87,1711–1724.

Core Institute (2006). Report on 2005 drug use prevalence data on 33,379undergraduate students from diverse American Colleges. Retrieved Octo-ber 11, 2006, from http://www.siu.edu/~coreinst/.

Dishion, T. J., & Kavanagh, K. (2004). Adolescent problem behavior: Anintervention and assessment sourcebook for working with families in schools.New York: Guilford.

Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Foshee, V. A., Pemberton, M., & Hicks, K. A.(2001). Parent-child communication about adolescent tobacco andalcohol use: What do parents say and does it affect youth behavior?Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 48–62.

Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, D. (1994). Communication schemata withinthe family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Com-munication Research, 20, 275–301.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitativedesign in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kaplan, C. P., Turner, S., Norman, E., & Stillson, K. (1996). Promotingresilience strategies: A modified consultation model. Social Work inEducation, 18, 158–170.

Kelly, K. J., Comello, M. L. G., & Hunn, L. C. P. (2002). Parent-childcommunication, perceived sanctions against drugs use, and youth druginvolvement. Adolescence, 37, 775–787.

Klingle, R. S., & Miller, M. (1999). 1998 Hawaii student alcohol and drug usestudy (1991-1998): Hawaii adolescent treatment needs assessment. Honolulu:Hawaii Department of Health, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division.

Kohn, M. L., Slomczynski, K., & Schoenbach, C. (1986). Social stratifica-tion and the transmission of values in the family. Sociological Forum, 1,73–102.

Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (1995). Strengthening families to preventdrug use in multiethnic youth. In G. J. Botvin, S. Schinke, & M. A.Orlandi (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention with multiethnic youth (pp. 255–294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality.In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence process (pp. 50–59). Chicago:Aldine-Atherton.

Miller, M., Alberts, J. K., Hecht, M. L., Trost, M., & Krizek, R. L. (2000).Adolescent relationships and drug use. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Miller-Day, M. (2002). Parent-adolescent communication about alcohol,tobacco, and other drug use. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 604–616.

Miller-Day, M., & Dodd, A. H. (2004). Toward a descriptive model ofparent–offspring communication about alcohol and other drugs. Jour-nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 69–91.

Molgaard, V., & Spoth, R. (2001). The Strengthening Families Programfor young adolescents: Overview and outcomes. Residential Treatmentfor Children and Youth, 18, 15–29.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Notes. (2000). Developing successful drugabuse prevention programs. Vol. 14. Retrieved October 12, 2006, fromhttp://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NN99index.html.

Newcomb, M. D., Huba, G. J., & Bentler, P. M. (1983). Mothers influenceon the drug use of their children: confirmatory tests of direct modelingand mediational theories. Developmental Psychology, 19, 714–726.

Partnership for a Drug-Free America. (2006). Parental involvement andmedia messages are major factors in recent decline in teen drug use.Retrieved October 13, 2006, from http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/About/NewsReleases/Parental_Involvement_and_Media_Messages.

Peterson, G. W., & Hann, D. (1999). Socializing parents and children infamilies. In M. B. Sussman, S. K. Steinmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.),Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 327–370). New York:Plenum Press.

Peterson, G. W., & Rollins, B. C. (1987). Parent-child socialization. InM. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and thefamily (pp. 471–507). New York: Plenum Press.

Presley, C. A., Meilman, P. W., & Leichliter, J. S. (1998). Core alcoholand drug survey user’s manual (6th ed.). Carbondale: Southern IllinoisUniversity.

Rees, C. D., & Wilborn, B. L. (1983). Correlates of drug abuse in adoles-cents: A comparison of families of drug abusers with families of non-drug users. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 55–63.

Reifman, A., Barnes, G. M., Dintcheff, B. A., Farrell, M. P., & Uhteg, L.(1998). Parental and peer influences on the onset of heavier drinkingamong adolescents. Journal on Studies of Alcohol, 59, 311–318.

Reuter, M. A., Conger, R. D., & Ramisetty-Mikler, S. (1999). Assessingthe benefits of a parenting skills training program: A theoreticalapproach to predicting direct and moderating effects. Family Relations,48, 67–77.

Ritchie, L. D. (1997). Parents’ workplace experiences and family communi-cation patterns. Communication Research, 24, 175–187.

Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication pat-terns: An epistemic analysis and conceptual reinterpretation. Communi-cation Research, 18, 548–565.

Sargent, J. D., & Dalton, M. A. (2001). Does parental disapproval ofsmoking prevent adolescents from becoming established smokers? Pedi-atrics, 108, 1256–1262.

Schorling, J. B., Gutgesell, M., Klas, P., Smith, D., & Keller, A. (1994).Tobacco, alcohol and other drug use among college students. Journal ofSubstance Abuse, 6, 105–115.

Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Trudeau, L., & Shin, C. (2002). Longitudinalsubstance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive interventioncombining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behav-iors, 16, 129–134.

Steinberg, L., & Brown, B. B. (1994). Parental monitoring and peer influ-ences on adolescent substance abuse. Pediatrics, 93, 1060–1082.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2006).Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: NationalFindings. Retrieved March 15, 2006, from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k4NSDUH/2k4results/2k4results.htm#fig7.3

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995). Healthy people2000: Midcourse review and 1995 revisions. Washington, DC: Depart-ment of Health and Human Services.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Retrieved October29, 2007, from Office of Applied Studies: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NHSDA/98SummHtml/NHSDA98Summ-16.htm.

Wallace, J. M., Yamaguchi, R., Bachman, J., O’Malley, P. M., Schulenberg,J. E., & Johnston, L. D. (2007). Religiosity and adolescent substanceuse: The role of individual and contextual influences. Social Problems,54, 308–327.


Documents

Talking to Youth About Drugs: What Do Late Adolescents Say About Parental Strategies?