Journal of Pediatric Psychology Advance Access originally published online on February 23, 2005
Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2005 30(4):333-344; doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsi028
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parenting Style and Smoking-Specific Parenting Practices as Predictors of Adolescent Smoking Onset
1 Arizona State University, 2 Indiana University, and 3 Arizona State University
All correspondence should be sent to Laurie Chassin, Department of Psychology, PO Box 871104, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287–1104. E-mail: Laurie.chassin{at}asu.edu.
Received September 8, 2003; revisions received November 13, 2003; accepted July 6, 2004
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract MethodResultsDiscussionAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
Objective To test whether parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices prospectively predicted adolescent smoking. Methods Three hundred eighty-two adolescents (age 10–17 years, initial nonsmokers, 98% non-Hispanic whites) and their parents were interviewed, with smoking also assessed 1–2 years later. Results Adolescents from disengaged families (low acceptance and low behavioral control) were most likely to initiate smoking. Adolescents’ reports of parents’ smoking-related discussion was related to lowered smoking risk for adolescents with nonsmoking parents, but unrelated to smoking onset for adolescents with smoking parents. Smoking-specific parenting practices did not account for the effects of general parenting styles. Conclusions Both parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices have unique effects on adolescent smoking, although effects were largely confined to adolescents’ reports; and for smoking-specific parenting practices, effects were confined to families with nonsmoking parents. Interventions that focus only on smoking-specific parenting practices may be insufficient to deter adolescent smoking.
Because of the significant mortality and morbidity associated with cigarette smoking, combined with the difficulty of achieving cessation among smokers, considerable public health effort has been directed toward preventing smoking onset in adolescence and identifying the processes underlying smoking initiation (Lynch & Bonnie, 1994
). In general, parenting and family factors have played a rather minor role in these efforts, with greater emphasis being placed on peer social influences as well as on larger social contextual factors such as cigarette advertising and taxation. Recently, however, there has been increased interest in family-based interventions both to deter adolescent substance use in general and to prevent adolescent cigarette smoking specifically (Ashery, Robertson, & Kumpfer, 1998; Ennett, Bauman, Pemberton, et al., 2001).
One rationale for focusing on family influences is that parenting has consistently been shown to be related to adolescent "problem behaviors," including substance use (Baumrind, 1985, 1991). Research has suggested that there are two key dimensions of parenting: parental acceptance (nurturance, warmth, attachment) and behavioral control (monitoring, consistent discipline). Each of these dimensions has independently prospectively predicted a variety of adolescent problem behavior, including tobacco use (e.g., Ary, Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1999; Fleming, Kim, Harachi, & Catalano, 2002). Moreover, a combination of these two dimensions has been used to describe four parenting "styles": (1) authoritative (high levels of acceptance and control), (2) authoritarian (high level of control but low level of acceptance), (3) indulgent (high level of acceptance but low level of control), and (4) disengaged or neglectful (low levels of acceptance and control; see Baumrind, 1985; Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Previous studies of these four different parenting styles suggest that adolescents from disengaged homes exhibit the highest levels of problem behaviors (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994), including cigarette smoking ( Jackson, Bee-Gates, & Henriksen, 1994). Theoretically, disengaged parenting raises a risk for adolescent problem behavior because the combination of (1) a lack of emotional bonding to parents and (2) a lack of supervision and consistent behavioral control fails to provide a clear communication of parents’ values and also undermines motivation for adolescents to attend and comply, thus weakening adolescents’ internalization of parental values and socialization (Baumrind, 1991; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994).
However, from the point of view of prevention, an attempt to change broad general parenting styles involving behavioral control and affective bonds to children may require an intensity of intervention that may not always be feasible. For this reason, there has also been interest in the hypothesis that parents’ socialization practices and communication about a more delimited target behavior (such as smoking) may influence adolescents’ behaviors. If smoking-specific parenting (i.e., parents’ antismoking values, communications, and behaviors) can influence adolescents’ smoking, then these more delimited aspects of parenting may be easier to modify in prevention programs than are broad, general parenting styles (Ennett, Bauman, Pemberton, et al., 2001).
Existing data are conflicting about whether parents’ smoking-specific parenting practices can deter adolescent smoking. Mothers’ attitudes about their child’s smoking have prospectively predicted smoking onset, but only among nonsmoking mothers (Andersen et al., 2002), and the study by Andersen et al. did not assess how such attitudes might have been translated into antismoking parenting practices. Cross-sectional studies have suggested that parental antismoking practices are correlated with adolescent nonsmoking (Chassin, Presson, Todd, Rose, & Sherman, 1998; Chassin, Presson, Rose, Sherman, & Prost, 2002; Jackson & Henricksen, 1997), but the causal direction of these relations is unclear. In a prospective study with a large sample of parent/adolescent pairs recruited for a smoking prevention study, Ennett, Bauman, Foshee, Pemberton, and Hicks (2001) found no evidence that parent/adolescent communication about tobacco or alcohol prospectively predicted drinking or smoking onset. Moreover, there were marginal effects in the opposite of the predicted direction in that parent/adolescent communication about rules about tobacco and alcohol were associated with increases in smoking and drinking among those who had started. These results cast doubt on the interpretations of cross-sectional relations between smoking-specific parenting practices and adolescent smoking, which might reflect a reverse direction of effect (i.e., an effect of adolescent smoking on the behaviors of parents, rather than vice versa). The relations between parenting and adolescent behaviors will likely be bidirectional, as parents both react to and influence their adolescents’ behavior, and adolescents both react to and influence their parents’ behaviors.
Moreover, the data on smoking-specific parenting practices and adolescent smoking also vary depending on whose perspective is assessed. Ennett, Bauman, Foshee, et al.’s (2001) results were obtained using parents’ reports of parenting practices. Analyses of adolescents’ reports (Ennett, Bauman, Pemberton, et al., 2001) found significant relations between smoking-specific parenting and adolescent smoking. In general, studies that assess both adolescent and parent reports of parenting suggest that the extent of agreement between reporters is rather modest (Feinberg, Neiderhiser, Howe, & Hetherington, 2001; Pelegrina, Garcia, Linares, & Casanova, 2003; Tein, Roosa, & Michaels, 1994). Stronger prediction of adolescent behavior from adolescent report than parent report might be produced either by method variance (reports of parenting and smoking both derived from a single reporter) or because it is parenting as perceived by the adolescent that is more important. Accordingly, we assessed both parent and adolescent reports. We hypothesized that adolescents who received more antismoking parenting would be less likely to initiate smoking but that effects of smoking-specific parenting (and general parenting style) would be stronger for adolescents’ reports of parenting than for parents’ self-reports.
Another important question concerns the interplay between general parenting styles and smoking-specific parenting practices. Specific parenting practices may simply be indicators of general parenting styles and may not contribute uniquely to the prediction of adolescent behavior (above and beyond general parenting styles). Alternatively, smoking-specific parenting practices may mediate the effects of general parenting styles. Perhaps disengaged parents place their children at risk to smoke because they provide the lowest levels of antismoking socialization practices. If all of the effects of general parenting are mediated through smoking-specific socialization, then prevention programs might target only smoking-specific socialization for modification. However, studies in other domains (e.g., child social competence) found that mothers’ specific parenting practices were largely unrelated to their general parenting style (failing to support a mediational model). Rather, general and domain-specific parenting each influenced different aspects of social competence (Mize & Pettit, 1997). Finally, general parenting style might moderate the effect of specific parenting practices (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Mize & Pettit, 1997). Perhaps smoking-specific punishment and discussion would be more effective in the context of parenting styles with high levels of acceptance and control. For example, adolescents in those authoritative families might be more motivated to comply with parents’ socialization practices (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). Thus, we tested mediational, moderational, and separate unique effects models of the effects of general parenting style and smoking-specific parenting on later adolescent smoking.
Another important but unresolved question is whether antismoking parenting practices are effective even for children whose parents themselves smoke cigarettes. In fact, children of smoking parents may not even perceive their parents as communicating such antismoking parenting practices (despite parents’ reports of these behaviors; Chassin et al., 1998). Moreover, even if the antismoking parenting is accurately perceived by the child of a smoking parent, it may not be effective because the discrepancy between the parent’s attitude and behavior may undermine their perceived legitimacy to regulate the adolescent’s smoking (Chassin et al., 2002). Previous data are conflicting, with some studies (e.g., Andersen et al., 2002) reporting that parents’ antismoking attitudes were ineffective in deterring adolescent smoking if the parents themselves smoked, and other (cross-sectional) studies reporting that antismoking parenting practices reduced the likelihood of adolescent smoking even among children of currently smoking parents ( Jackson & Henricksen, 1997). Accordingly, we tested whether smoking-specific parenting practices reduced risk for later smoking equally among children of smoking and nonsmoking parents.
In summary, although there is growing interest in both general parenting styles and smoking-specific parenting practices as influencing adolescent smoking (with the goal of constructing family-based prevention programs), important questions remain. It is unclear whether smoking-specific parenting practices prospectively predict adolescent smoking, whether they have a unique effect above and beyond general parenting style, and whether the effects of general parenting style may be (in part) mediated through smoking-specific parenting practices. Finally, it is unclear whether smoking-specific parenting can influence adolescent smoking in families where the parents themselves are current smokers. The current study provided a longitudinal, prospective test of the relations between general parenting styles and smoking-specific parenting practices and adolescent smoking, using both adolescent and parent reports of parenting. First, we hypothesized that smoking increases would be highest among adolescents from disengaged families that provide low levels of acceptance and behavioral control, and also that smoking increases would be highest among adolescents from families that provide low levels of smoking-specific discussion and punishment (and that these effects would be stronger in adolescent reports). Second, we tested whether the effects of general parenting style on adolescent smoking were mediated through smoking-specific parenting or whether general parenting style moderated the effects of smoking-specific parenting practices. Finally, we hypothesized that the effects of both general parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices would be weakened in families with a currently smoking parent.
|
Method |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodResultsDiscussionAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
Participants
Subjects in the study were adolescents ages 10–17 and their parents, at least one of whom was also a participant in our ongoing, longitudinal smoking survey (Chassin, Presson, Sherman, Corty, & Olshavsky, 1984
; Chassin et al., 1998, 2002). Participants in the larger longitudinal study were all 6th to 12th graders in a Midwestern county school district between 1980 and 1983, who were present on the day of testing and consented to participate. All original survey participants who were successfully followed up in 1999 (72% of the original sample) and who reported on their survey that they had a child between ages 10 and 18 were invited by telephone or letter to participate in this family study (N = 861), and 556 (65%) accepted. Parents who refused were more likely to be smokers (45% refusers vs. 32.7% of participants) and less likely to have attended college (21.8% of refusers vs. 38.8% of participants, p < .05), suggesting some caution in generalization. For the current analyses, we selected adolescents who were less than 18 years of age, lived at least part time with a parent or parents (so that they could be exposed to parental socialization), were nonsmokers at the initial measurement (i.e., either total abstainers or had "tried once or twice" but were less than monthly smokers), and provided later follow-up information on their smoking status (N = 382, 50.5% female, mean age = 12.5, 87% living full time with both parents). Because the sample was 98% non-Hispanic white, ethnic differences were not examined.
Procedure
Families living in the vicinity attended a laboratory session, and others were interviewed in their homes by an interviewer from a nearby university. For both parents and adolescents (independently), the laboratory session began with a bioassay to validate self-reported smoking (using a MicroCO to measure carbon monoxide in expired air). Parents completed a questionnaire (in separate rooms). In a different room, an interviewer read the questionnaire items aloud to the child, who responded on his/her own copy. All participants were assured of confidentiality.
Follow-up data were collected from adolescents in telephone interviews over a 2-year period (94.6% of adolescents who met the current eligibility criteria, i.e., 382 out of 404, provided some follow-up information).
Measures
Parent and Adolescent Smoking Status
Adolescents reported whether they had ever smoked and their current smoking frequency, from less than monthly to daily. Parents indicated their lifetime smoking status as (1) never smoked, not even a single puff, (2) smoked one or two, "just to try," but not in the past month, (3) no longer smoke, but used to be a regular smoker, (4) smoke, but no more than once a month, (5) smoke, but no more than once a week, (6) smoke, but no more than once a day, and (7) smoke more than once a day. These items were the same as those we have used in our longitudinal study since 1980. Parents and adolescents also reported the time since their last cigarette, from within the past hour to more than 5 years ago.
The bioassay supported the validity of these self-reports of current smoking. Those who did and did not self-report smoking in the past 4 hours were compared in their bioassay readings as smokers (CO levels greater than 10 parts per million; cf. Wald, Idle, Boreham, & Bailey, 1981). The resulting kappas ranged from .73 for adolescents to .91 for mothers (p < .0001 for all).
For the current analyses, the outcome variable was any reported increase in smoking by the time of the 2-year follow-up among participants who initially were either abstainers or triers (20.7% [n = 79] reported increased smoking). This incidence is similar to national figures that show a 15.7% rate of smoking onset among a somewhat older (12- to 17-year-old) sample over a 1-year interval (Koppstein, 2001). Baseline smoking (abstinence vs. some trying) was used as a covariate in analyses.
Parent current smoking was coded as a dichotomous variable1 (neither parent a current smoker vs. either parent a current [at least monthly] smoker), with 39.4% of families (n = 219) reporting at least one parent who was a current smoker. Although cell sizes did not permit distinctions between ex-smokers and nonsmokers, our earlier cross-sectional analyses (Chassin et al., 2002) suggested that families with one ex-smoking parent and one currently smoking parent resemble families with two smoking parents in terms of their socialization. Families with one ex-smoking parent and one nonsmoking parent resemble families with two nonsmoking parents.
Family Structure
A dichotomous variable was created to indicate whether or not the child lived full time with both biological parents. Over half (56.9%) of the children lived full time with both biological parents.
Parent Education
Parent education consisted of the average of the mother’s and father’s report of their education level. Scores ranged from 1 (grade school) to 10 (completed graduate degree) with an average parent education level of 4.82 (SD = 2.26), which corresponds to having some post–high school education but not a college degree.
Parenting Style
Parenting style was assessed at baseline using both adolescent reports and parent self-reports of parental behavioral control and acceptance. Behavioral control was assessed with nine items from the Child Report of Parent Behavior Inventory (e.g., "I let my child get away without doing work she/he has been given to do"; Schaefer, 1965). Response alternatives were on 5-point Likert scales, from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Acceptance was assessed with seven items from the Network of Relationships Inventory (e.g., "How much can your child rely on you to really care about him/her without changing from day to day?"; Furman & Buhrmester, 1985). Response alternatives were on 4-point scales, from little or none to the most possible. Abbreviated versions of these measures were used because of battery length concerns. These abbreviated versions have shown good stabilities over a 1-year period, and good predictive validity in predicting adolescents’ externalizing outcomes (Stice, Barrera, & Chassin, 1993). Because adolescents’ perceptions of their mothers and fathers were highly correlated (r = .69 for behavioral control and .48 for acceptance), they were averaged into measures of perceived parental behavioral control and acceptance (coefficient alphas = .91 for behavioral control and .91 for acceptance). This allows a fuller consideration of both maternal and paternal influences on adolescent smoking.
To compare our findings with those of previous studies and to maintain the largest sample size, mothers’ reports were used as the measure of parent report, except for the small number of cases (3.5%) in which only fathers’ reports were available (coefficient alphas = .84 for behavioral control and .77 for acceptance). Multiple reporter aggregates were not created because of low correlations between reporters. Correlations for mothers’ and fathers’ acceptance and behavioral control were .18 and .16. Correlations between mother and adolescent reports were .15 and .22. Mean scores for behavioral control were 1.89 for child reports (skewness = .48, kurtosis = –.39) and 1.70 for parent reports (skewness = .73, kurtosis = 1.28), with higher scores indicating less behavioral control. Mean scores for acceptance were 3.20 for child reports (skewness = –.79, kurtosis = .64) and 3.54 for parent reports (skewness = –1.08, kurtosis = 1.26), with high scores indicating more acceptance.
As in previous research (e.g., Steinberg et al., 1994), parenting styles were created using median splits on behavioral control and acceptance. For adolescent reports, 40.3% were categorized as having authoritative parents (high behavioral control, high acceptance), 15.2% as having authoritarian parents (high behavioral control, low acceptance), 16.8% as having indulgent parents (low behavioral control, high acceptance), and 27.7% as having disengaged parents (low behavioral control, low acceptance). For mother reports, 40.0% were categorized as being authoritative, 12.0% as being authoritarian, 23.8% as being indulgent, and 24.3% as being disengaged. As expected from the low cross-reporter correlations, the agreement between classification based on parent report and adolescent report was low (kappa = .13).
To examine the construct validity of this classification, we used the parenting classification to prospectively predict both parent-reported and child-reported rebelliousness (measured by Smith & Fogg’s 1979 scale) and resistance to control (measured by the Resistance to Control subscale from Bates’s [1994] Youth Characteristics Questionnaire–Short Form), for a total of eight analyses of variance. In support of construct validity, there was a significant prospective effect of parenting group on both rebelliousness and resistance to control both within reporter and across reporters (significant in seven of the eight models, significant F values ranged from 2.60 to 20.64, ps < .05). In all cases, children with authoritative parents had the lowest levels of rebelliousness and resistance to control, and children from disengaged families had the highest levels of these characteristics in seven of the eight models.
Smoking-Specific Parenting Practices: Discussion and Punishment
Smoking-specific parenting practices were assessed by adolescent reports and parent self-reports of two dimensions taken from our earlier work (Chassin et al., 1998) that asked about parental reactions (actual or hypothetical) to the child’s smoking. Smoking-specific discussion was assessed with four items each about mother and father (e.g., "If you found out that [name of target child] smoked cigarettes, would you talk with the child about reasons why he/she should not smoke?"). Smoking-specific punishment was assessed with five items each for mother and father (e.g., "If you found out that [name of target child] smoked, would you withdraw privileges?"). Responses were on 5-point scales, from yes, definitely to no way. In support of the validity of these measures, cross-sectional analyses (Chassin et al., 1998) found significant relations with adolescent smoking, for both adolescent and maternal reports (all but mother reports of punishment, correlations from .18 to .49), as well as significant cross-sectional relations between adolescent perceptions of parenting practices and mother’s smoking (Chassin et al., 1998). Again, because adolescents’ reports about their mothers and fathers were highly correlated (r = .63 for discussion and .79 for punishment), these reports were averaged into measures of perceived parent smoking-related discussion and punishment (coefficient alphas = .89 for discussion and .90 for punishment). For consistency with the parenting style measures, parent reports of smoking-specific punishment were mother-report measures unless only father report was available (coefficient alphas = .64 for discussion and .77 for punishment). Again, multiple reporter aggregates were not created because of low correlations between reporters. Correlations between mother and adolescent reports were .12 and .22, and correlations between mother and father reports were .21 and .26.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodResultsDiscussionAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
Relations Between Parenting Style and Smoking Increase
We first tested whether parenting style was associated with an increase in smoking at the 2-year follow-up, using hierarchical logistic regression models (separately for mother’s reports and adolescent’s reports). Child age, child baseline smoking, family structure, parent education, and parent smoking status were entered in the first block as covariates. In preliminary analyses, we also tested the effect of gender, but because it was unrelated to smoking increase, we did not include it in further analyses. Parenting style categories were entered in the second block, represented by three dummy coded variables, and the pairwise differences are presented in Table I. In the third block, interactions between parenting style categories and parent smoking were tested. (In all models, other Covariate x Predictor interactions were tested but were found to be nonsignificant.)
|
Results of the logistic regressions are shown in Table I. Among the covariates, there were significant effects for adolescents’ age and family structure such that smoking was more likely to increase among older children and among those who did not live full time with both biological parents. Baseline smoking, parent education, and parent smoking were unrelated to an increase in smoking over the 2-year period. In the adolescent-report model, the block adding the parenting style dummy variables was significant over and above the covariates, 
2(3) = 18.92, p < .0001. Adolescents with authoritative, authoritarian, and indulgent parents were significantly less likely to increase smoking compared with adolescents with disengaged parents, and there were no other significant pairwise differences. The percentages of adolescents who increased their smoking were 11.0%, 17.2%, 15.6%, and 39.6% for authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and disengaged parenting, respectively. In the mother-report model, the block adding the parenting style dummy variables was not significant over and above the covariates, 2(3) = 3.82, p = .28. However, adolescents with authoritative mothers were marginally less likely to increase their smoking compared with adolescents with disengaged mothers (OR = .53, p = .06), and there were no other pairwise differences. In terms of mothers’ reports, the percentages of adolescents who increased their smoking paralleled the pattern for the adolescent-report model and were 15.5%, 19.6%, 22.2%, and 29.9% for authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and disengaged parenting, respectively. There were no significant interactions between parenting style (either by adolescents’ or mothers’ reports) and parent smoking in predicting adolescent smoking increase, and no other Covariate x Predictor interactions.
Relations Between Parenting Style and Smoking-Specific Parenting Practices
We next tested whether parenting style was related to smoking-specific parenting practices using analyses of covariance with separate models for smoking-specific discussion and punishment. Covariates included adolescent age, adolescent baseline smoking, family structure, parent education, and parent smoking status. In the adolescent-report models, parenting style was significantly related both to smoking-specific discussion, F(3, 389) = 15.09, p < .0001, and to punishment, F(3, 389) = 6.91, p < .0001. Parenting style explained 10% and 5% of the unique variance in discussion and punishment, respectively, over and above the covariates. In the mother-report models, parenting style was significantly related to smoking-specific discussion, F(3, 387) = 4.34, p < .01 (3% of unique variance explained), but not to smoking-specific punishment, F(3, 387) = 1.38, p = .25 (1% of unique variance explained). For both adolescents’ reports and mothers’ reports, there were no significant interactions between parenting style and parent smoking in predicting smoking-specific parenting practices and no other Covariate x Predictor interactions.
Table II shows mean levels of adolescents’ and mothers’ reports of smoking-specific discussion and punishment for each of the four parenting style groups. In the models using adolescents’ reports, individual contrasts revealed that adolescents from disengaged families reported the least smoking-specific discussion (significantly differing from all the other three groups). Adolescents in authoritative homes reported the most smoking-specific discussion, and those from authoritative and indulgent homes reported significantly more smoking-specific discussion than did those from authoritarian homes. Adolescents from authoritarian and authoritative homes reported the most smoking-specific punishment, and both differed significantly from adolescents in disengaged families (who reported the least punishment of smoking). Authoritarian parents were also significantly more likely to punish smoking than were indulgent parents.
|
For models using mothers’ reports, disengaged mothers were the least likely to discuss smoking and significantly differed from authoritative and indulgent mothers. Mothers’ self-reported punishment of smoking did not differ as a function of parenting style.
Relations Between Smoking-Specific Parenting Practices and Adolescent Smoking
Third, we tested the relations between smoking-specific parenting practices and adolescent smoking increase, with four hierarchical logistic regressions testing the effects of smoking-specific discussion and punishment separately (and separately for adolescents’ and mothers’ reports). Results are shown in Table III. Adolescents’age, baseline smoking, and family structure were entered in the first block as covariates. As noted earlier, older adolescents and those who did not live full time with both biological parents were significantly more likely to increase their smoking. In the second block, we entered parent smoking and either smoking-specific discussion or smoking-specific punishment; and in the third block, we entered the interaction of either smoking-specific discussion or smoking-specific punishment with parent smoking. The interaction was included to test whether the relations between smoking-specific parenting and adolescent smoking increase differed as a function of the parents’ own smoking status. In all models, all the other Covariate x Predictor interactions were tested but were not significant.
|
In the models using mothers’ reports, neither the main effects of discussion or punishment nor their interactions with parent smoking were significant. For the models that used adolescents’ reports, there were no significant main effects of either discussion or punishment. However, there were significant interactions between parent smoking and both discussion, 2(1, N = 380) = 8.62, p < .003, and punishment, 2(1, N = 380) = 6.09, p < .02 (see Table III). Probing these interactions showed that adolescents were less likely to increase smoking in families that discussed smoking to a greater extent, but this effect was present only in families in which the parents were nonsmokers (
= –.89, OR = .41, p = .004). Among families with a smoking parent, there were no significant effects of smoking-specific discussion on adolescent smoking ( = –.02, OR = .98, p = .940). For smoking-specific punishment, there were no significant effects in either subgroup, but the interaction was caused by differences in the direction of the (nonsignificant) effects (nonsmoking families, = –.24, OR = .79, p = .384; smoking families, = .33, OR = 1.39, p = .212).
Tests of Mediated Effects
Do Smoking-Specific Parenting Practices Account for the Effects of Parenting Style on Adolescent Smoking?
To test this parameter, we used multiple group path analyses with Mplus software (Muthen & Muthen, 1998). These analyses tested the indirect effects of general parenting style (represented in the model by three dummy coded variables) through smoking-specific punishment or discussion (in separate models) on smoking increase in families in which neither parent smoked versus families that had at least one smoking parent. We divided the sample by parent smoking using a multiple group analysis because of our finding (reported above) that the effects of smoking-specific parenting practices varied as a function of parent smoking. Indeed, as expected based on these findings, there was a significant model, 2(7) = 19.46, p = .007, that indicates that the pathways were not invariant across parent smoking. Covariates were child age, parent education, family structure, and baseline smoking. The purpose of these multiple group path analyses was to provide the path estimates required to test the significance of the mediated effects. Standard errors for the mediated effects were calculated using an extension of the multivariate delta method (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). These models were estimated only for adolescents’ reports because mothers’ reports of smoking-specific parenting practices did not predict adolescent smoking, either as a main effect or as an interaction with parent smoking.
The tests for the significance of mediated effects indicated that the mediated effects of smoking-specific discussion and punishment were generally nonsignificant. Only one marginally significant mediating pathway was identified for discussion between the parenting style dummy variable representing indulgent parenting relative to disengaged parenting and smoking increase for families in which a parent smoked (path estimate/standard error = 1.74, p < .10).2 Thus, there was no strong evidence that smoking-specific parenting practices mediated the effects of parenting style on adolescent smoking.
Does Parenting Style Moderate the Effect of Smoking-Specific Parenting Practices on Adolescent Smoking Increase?
To test this parameter, we estimated four logistic regression models (separately for discussion and punishment and for adolescents’ and mothers’ reports). In addition to the main effects of the covariates (described earlier), the main effects of parenting style (three dummy coded variables), and the main effects of either discussion or punishment (in separate models), we also tested the interaction of each dummy coded parenting style variable with discussion or punishment (in separate models). There were no significant interactions in any of the models. Thus, there was no evidence that parenting style moderated the relation between smoking-specific parenting practices and adolescent smoking increase.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodResultsDiscussionAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
The current study tested the roles of general parenting styles and smoking-specific parenting practices in prospectively predicting smoking among adolescent nonsmokers. The first finding of note was that general parenting did significantly predict smoking. As hypothesized, and consistent with the broader literature on adolescent substance use in general (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992
) and adolescent smoking in particular ( Jackson et al., 1994), adolescents who received low levels of parental behavioral control and acceptance (i.e., whose families were disengaged) showed the greatest prevalence of smoking onset. It is noteworthy that these findings were produced above and beyond the effects of parental smoking, parental education, family structure, and initial baseline smoking, providing a stringent test of parenting influences. However, also as predicted, these relations were stronger when adolescents’ perceptions of parenting were considered. When mothers’ reports were considered, the pattern was in the same direction, but only one pairwise difference was marginally significant. This difference across reporters is also consistent with previous research. For example, similar to our findings, Pelegrina et al. (2003) reported low agreement between adolescents and their parents about parenting characteristics, with reports producing stronger prediction of academic competence. Interestingly, this was true even when academic competence was rated by teachers, suggesting that the finding could not be attributed to method variance. In our data, the fact that adolescents’ reports predicted their smoking more strongly than did parents’ reports might indicate that parenting style is effective only to the extent that it is perceived by the adolescent, or it might indicate that the effects of parenting style are weak and are partially inflated by the effects of method variance. However, given Pelegrina et al.’s findings, method variance alone is not likely to explain the stronger predictive power of adolescents’ perceptions.
These findings also support the rationale for family-based intervention as a way of deterring adolescent smoking. If interventions can succeed in increasing parental acceptance and behavioral control, rates of adolescent smoking onset might be lowered. Indeed, significant effects of parenting programs on subsequent adolescent substance use have been reported, even when substance use was not an outcome that was targeted for intervention (e.g., Wolchik et al., 2002). Moreover, because the effects of general parenting style did not significantly vary with parental smoking status, these benefits were not limited to nonsmoking families. Thus, family-based interventions that affect general parenting could prove beneficial even in homes where parents themselves smoke.
General parenting style was also related to smoking-specific parenting practices such that children in the least optimal parenting environment (disengaged families) also generally received the lowest levels of smoking-specific discussion and punishment (in both mother and adolescent reports of discussion and in adolescent reports of punishment). These relations might be expected because parents who do not generally provide high levels of nurturance or behavioral control to their adolescents should also be less likely to provide either positive or punitive socialization about any one behavior in particular. However, although general parenting styles were related to smoking-specific parenting practices, the magnitude of the association was relatively modest, and smoking-specific parenting practices were not simple reflections of broader parenting styles. A similar finding of the relative independence of broad parenting styles and specific parenting practices has been reported for other domains of child outcomes (Mize & Pettit, 1997). Indeed, in the broader social psychological literature, available evidence suggests that relations between general and specific attitudes and behaviors are also modest (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Thus, although parents may be generally accepting or generally controlling, this does not mean that they will exhibit the same extent of acceptance or control in the particular domain of their adolescent’s cigarette smoking.
Given this modest relation between general parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices, it is not surprising that our mediational models showed that the effects of general parenting style on adolescent smoking could not be explained by their associated levels of smoking-specific discussion and punishment. Rather, both general parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices were unique (though correlated) prospective predictors of adolescent smoking. Adolescents in disengaged families are at risk for smoking (and other problem behaviors) not just because their parents provide low levels of antismoking socialization, but perhaps for several other reasons. For example, the low levels of parental monitoring and behavioral control in disengaged families may allow adolescents to be exposed to peer contexts that support smoking (and other problem behaviors). Moreover, low levels of parental acceptance in disengaged families might make adolescents less motivated to comply with parental values and rules (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994).
The fact that smoking-specific parenting practices were unique predictors of adolescent smoking (above and beyond general parenting style) might suggest that they are useful targets for preventive intervention. Indeed, because smoking-specific parenting practices may be easier to influence than are more general parenting styles, it is tempting to conclude that interventions should focus only on these more specific aspects of parenting behavior. However, other aspects of our findings suggest that such a recommendation would be premature. First, smoking-specific parenting practices could not account for the effects of general parenting style on adolescent smoking. As others have argued (Darling & Steinberg, 1993; Jaccard, Dittus, & Gordon, 1998), the general family environment and overall quality of the relationship between the adolescent and the parent must be considered, not just the parent/adolescent communication about specific problem behaviors. Second, the effects of smoking-specific parenting practices were detectable only in adolescents’ perceptions of parenting. This replicates previous findings for other forms of problem behavior ( Jaccard et al., 1998) and suggests that parents’ efforts at providing smoking-specific punishment and discussion may not necessarily be translated into an effective deterrent for adolescent smoking unless they are also perceived by the adolescent him or herself. Alternatively, these effects of smoking-specific parenting practices in adolescents’ reports could be inflated by method variance. Finally, unlike the effects of general parenting style, the effects of smoking-specific parenting practices were qualified by parent smoking status, such that smoking-specific discussion was effective only when provided by nonsmoking parents. These findings suggest that interventions that are focused solely on smoking-specific parenting practices could be limited in their success to a subgroup of families and that the families who are most at risk (because they contain a smoking parent) would derive the least benefit. The finding that smoking-specific punishment showed a paradoxical tendency to escalate smoking among adolescents in families with a smoking parent replicates Ennett, Bauman, Foshee, et al.’s (2001) finding. Although this relation was not statistically significant in either Ennett et al.’s study or in the current data, it does suggest caution in recommending punitive strategies to parents who themselves smoke.
Finally, we found no evidence of interactions between general parenting styles and smoking-specific parenting practices in prospectively predicting adolescent smoking. Thus, our data provided no evidence that general parenting style moderated the effects of smoking-specific parenting practices on adolescent smoking. However, given the relatively low power of such interaction tests, it would be premature to dismiss the possibility that general parenting styles could serve as moderators of the effects of smoking-specific parenting practices.
Although the current study contributed to the literature by using a longitudinal design and multiple reports of both general and smoking-specific parenting, it is also important to consider some of its limitations. First, the relatively small number of participants who increased their smoking precluded the possibility of disaggregating transitions to first cigarette from transitions to experimental smoking and to regular smoking, and stage models hypothesize that predictors can have different effects at different stages of the smoking acquisition process (Mayhew, Flay, & Mott, 2000). This constraint also limited our ability to model developmental differences (or gender differences) in the smoking onset process. Second, the size of the sample also precluded disaggregating ex-smoking from never-smoking parents, and the socialization of ex-smoking parents may have different effects. Third, the sample was predominantly non-Hispanic white, so that generalization to other ethnic groups is not possible. Fourth, although the size of the sample provides ample statistical power for detecting main effects and interactions of moderate magnitude, it is not optimal for detecting small interaction effects or the multiple mediational chains that might occur if both maternal and paternal smoking-specific socialization were tested as mediators. Finally, no observational measures of parenting were included, and these measures might produce different findings and provide a better understanding of the discrepancies that we observed between adolescent and parent reports.
In short, the current study tested the role of general parenting styles and smoking-specific parenting practices in prospectively predicting adolescent smoking. Results suggested that disengaged parenting, which provides low levels of acceptance and behavioral control, increases risk for adolescent smoking onset. Moreover, although general parenting was related to smoking-specific punishment and discussion, its effects on adolescent smoking could not be fully explained by smoking-specific parenting practices. Rather, both general parenting styles and smoking-specific parenting practices had unique effects on adolescent smoking, although the effects of smoking-specific parenting were statistically reliable only in adolescents’ reports, and the effects of smoking-specific parenting practices were significant only in families with nonsmoking parents. These findings suggest that interventions targeted solely at smoking-specific parenting practices may not be sufficient to deter adolescent smoking and that attempts to change more general parent acceptance and behavioral control may be warranted, even though they may be more difficult to achieve.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodResultsDiscussionAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
This research was supported by grant DA13555 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Thanks go to Alma Taubensee for help in data collection.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
1 Adolescent and parent smoking were dichotomized because of their distributions. Only 20% of initial adolescent nonsmokers were nonabstainers at follow-up, suggesting that adolescent smoking was best represented by abstinence versus any smoking. For parents, fewer than 5% of smokers reported frequencies less than daily, suggesting that adult current smoking was best represented by abstinence versus regular smoking.
2 Because these analyses considered mothers’ reports on themselves but adolescents’ reports on both parents (aggregated), we also repeated the analyses using the adolescents’ report of just the mothers’ parenting. The general pattern of results was the same, although the effects were somewhat weaker (as would be expected when the influence of fathers’ parenting was not considered). In one notable exception, in the Mplus analyses of the mediating effects of smoking-specific discussion, there was an additional significant mediated effect among families with a smoking parent. That is, smoking-specific discussion also significantly mediated the effect of general parenting on adolescent smoking in authoritarian families (versus disengaged families, z = 2.05, p = .04).
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodResultsDiscussionAcknowledgmentsReferences |
|---|
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Andersen, M., Leroux, B., Marek, P., Peterson, A., Kealey, K., Bricker, J., et al. (2002). Mothers’ attitudes and concerns about their children smoking: Do they influence kids? Preventive Medicine, 34, 198–206.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Ary, D., Duncan, T., Duncan, S., & Hops, H. (1999). Adolescent problem behavior: The influence of parents and peers. Behavior Research and Therapy, 37, 217–230.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Ashery, R., Robertson, E., & Kumpfer, K. L. (Eds.). (1998). Drug abuse prevention through familyintervention (NIDA Research Monograph 177). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Bates, J. E. (1994). Youth Characteristics Questionnaire (YCQ) (Short Form) scoring and psychometric information. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Baumrind, D. (1985). Familial antecedents of adolescent drug use: A developmental perspective. In C. L. Jones & R. L. Battjes (Eds.), Etiology of drug abuse: Implications for prevention (NIDA Research Monograph 56, pp. 3–14). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Baumrind, D. (1991). The influences of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use.Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 56–95.[Abstract]
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Rose, J., Sherman, S. J., & Prost, J. (2002). Parental smoking cessation and adolescent smoking. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 485–496.
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J., Corty, E., & Olshavsky, R. (1984). Predicting the onset of smoking in adolescents: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 224–243.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Todd, M., Rose, J., & Sherman, S. J. (1998). Maternal socialization of adolescent smoking: The intergenerational transmission of parenting and smoking. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1189–1201.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Darling N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487–496.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Ennett., S. T., Bauman, K. E., Foshee, V. A., Pemberton, M., & Hicks, K. (2001). Parent–child communication about adolescent tobacco and alcohol use: What do parents say and does it affect youth behavior? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 48–62.[CrossRef]
Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Pemberton, M., Foshee,V. A., Chuang, Y.-C., King, T., et al. (2001). Mediation in a family-directed program for prevention of adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Preventive Medicine, 33, 333–346.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Feinberg, M., Neiderhiser, J., Howe, G., & Hetherington, E. (2001). Adolescent, parent, and observer perceptions of parenting: Genetic and environmental influences on shared and distinct perceptions. Child Development, 72, 1266–1284.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Fleming, C., Kim, H., Harachi, T., & Catalano, R. (2002). Family processes for children in early elementary school as predictors of smoking initiation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 184–189.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, R. (1985). Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1015–1024.
Grusec, J., & Goodnow, J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4–19.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Hawkins, J., Catalano, R., & Miller, J. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64–105.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jaccard, J., Dittus, P., & Gordon, V. (1998). Parent–adolescent congruency in reports of adolescent sexual behavior and in communications about sexual behavior. Child Development, 69, 247–261.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jackson, C., Bee-Gates, D., & Henricksen, L. (1994). Authoritative parenting, child competencies, and initiation of cigarette smoking. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 103–116.[Web of Science][Medline]
Jackson, C., & Henricksen, L. (1997). Do as I say: Parent smoking, antismoking socialization, and smoking onset among children. Addictive Behaviors, 22, 107–114.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Koppstein, A. (2001). Tobacco use in America: Findings from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Analytic Series: A-15, DHHS Publication No. SMA 02–3622). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies.
Lamborn, S., Mounts, S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. (1991). Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 62, 1049–1065.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lynch, B., & Bonnie, R. (1994). Growing up tobacco free: Preventing nicotine addiction in children and youths. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.
MacKinnon, D., Lockwood, C., Hoffman, J., West, S., & Sheet, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Mayhew, K., Flay, B., & Mott, J. (2000). Stages in the development of adolescent smoking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 59, S61–S81.
Mize, J., & Pettit, G. (1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother-child relationship style, and children’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development, 68, 312–332.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.
Pelegrina, S., Garcia, A., Linares, M., & Casanova, P. (2003). Adolescents and their parents’ perceptions about parenting characteristics: Who can better predict the adolescent’s academic competence? Journal of Adolescence, 26, 651–665.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Schaefer, E. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 413–424.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Smith, G. M., & Fogg, C. P. (1979). Psychological antecedents of teen-age drug use. Research in Community and Mental Health, 1, 87–102.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Darling, N., Mounts, N., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Over-time change in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–770.[Web of Science][Medline]
Stice, E., Barrera, M., & Chassin, L. (1993). The relation of parental control and social support to adolescent externalizing outcomes: A longitudinal examination of curvilinear effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 609–629.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tein, J., Roosa, M., & Michaels, M. (1994). Agreement between parent and child reports on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 341–355.[CrossRef]
Wald, N., Idle, M., Boreham, J., & Bailey, A. (1981). Carbon monoxide in breath in relation to smoking and carboxyhaemoglobin levels. Thorax, 36, 366–369.
Wolchik, S., Sandler, I., Millsap, R., Plummer, B., Greene, S., Anderson, E., et al. (2002). Six-year follow-up of preventive interventions for children of divorce: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288, 1874–1881.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. R. Ginsburg, D. R. Durbin, J. F. Garcia-Espana, E. A. Kalicka, and F. K. Winston Associations between parenting styles and teen driving, safety-related behaviors and attitudes. Pediatrics, October 1, 2009; 124(4): 1040 - 1051. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Jackson and D. M. Dickinson Developing parenting programs to prevent child health risk behaviors: a practice model Health Educ. Res., August 6, 2009; (2009) cyp039v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. A. W. den Exter Blokland, R. C. Engels, Z. Harakeh, W. W. Hale III, and W. Meeus If Parents Establish a No-Smoking Agreement With Their Offspring, Does This Prevent Adolescents From Smoking? Findings From Three Dutch Studies Health Educ Behav, August 1, 2009; 36(4): 759 - 776. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. E. Gilman, R. Rende, J. Boergers, D. B. Abrams, S. L. Buka, M. A. Clark, S. M. Colby, B. Hitsman, A. N. Kazura, L. P. Lipsitt, et al. Parental Smoking and Adolescent Smoking Initiation: An Intergenerational Perspective on Tobacco Control Pediatrics, February 1, 2009; 123(2): e274 - e281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Otten, R. C. M. E. Engels, and R. J. J. M. van den Eijnden General parenting, anti-smoking socialization and smoking onset Health Educ. Res., October 1, 2008; 23(5): 859 - 869. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. P. Tercyak, M. T. Britto, K. M. Hanna, P. J. Hollen, and M. M. Hudson Prevention of Tobacco Use Among Medically At-risk Children and Adolescents: Clinical and Research Opportunities in the Interest of Public Health J. Pediatr. Psychol., March 1, 2008; 33(2): 119 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Davis, B. Gance-Cleveland, S. Hassink, R. Johnson, G. Paradis, and K. Resnicow Recommendations for Prevention of Childhood Obesity Pediatrics, December 1, 2007; 120(Supplement_4): S229 - S253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Rodriguez, D. Romer, and J. Audrain-McGovern Beliefs About the Risks of Smoking Mediate the Relationship Between Exposure to Smoking and Smoking Psychosom Med, January 1, 2007; 69(1): 106 - 113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. A. Dalton, A. M. Adachi-Mejia, M. R. Longacre, L. T. Titus-Ernstoff, J. J. Gibson, S. K. Martin, J. D. Sargent, and M. L. Beach Parental Rules and Monitoring of Children's Movie Viewing Associated With Children's Risk for Smoking and Drinking Pediatrics, November 1, 2006; 118(5): 1932 - 1942. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||