Health Education Research, Vol. 14, No. 6, 765-775,
December 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press
Associations between parent awareness, monitoring, enforcement and adolescent involvement with alcohol
Department of Health Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, and
1 Prevention Research Branch, Division of Epidemiology, Statistics and Prevention Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In a statewide random telephone survey of 454 parents and their 14- to 19-year-old adolescents, we examined the associations between various parenting strategies and self-reported teen drinking. Less teen drinking was associated with parents' reports of checking to see if other parents would be present at teen parties, particularly among White parents. Parents' monitoring of teens' activities was associated with feelings of competence at doing so. There was, however, no difference in drinking between teens with parents who did or did not report restricting their teens due to teen misbehavior. These findings suggest that a proactive parental monitoring approach may be associated with less adolescent drinking. Prospective research is needed to clarify the causal relationship between parental monitoring, efficacy and teen alcohol-related behavior.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The proportion of US teenagers who report ever having tried alcohol is 81% and approximately 50% of 12th grade students report drinking within the past month (Johnston et al., 1996
). Parents are an important influence on their adolescent children's involvement with alcohol, including binge drinking and impaired driving (Deakin and Cohen, 1986; Kandel and Andrews, 1987; Barnes and Farrell, 1992; Beck and Lockhart, 1992; Ary et al., 1993; Donovan, 1993; Barnes et al., 1994; Beck and Thombs, 1996; Beck and Treiman, 1996; Thombs, 1997). However, evidence shows that parents are sometimes unaware of their teen's involvement with alcohol. For instance, two separate surveys of parents of teenage children found that parents were much more likely to believe that their children's friends drink and drive than they were to believe that their own children did. Further, only a small percentage of these parents believed that their teens had ever come home intoxicated, despite acknowledging that they had been to a party where alcohol was present (Beck, 1990; Beck et al., 1995).
Further evidence of parental underestimation came from a recent survey of parents and their teenage children (Haynie et al., 1999). The results showed that parents significantly underestimated the prevalence of teen alcohol-related risk behavior. For instance, while 71% of the teens in this sample reported that they had been to places where other teens were drinking, only 54% of the parents were aware of this. Similar discordance between teen and parent reports were observed for drinking at home without permission (26 versus 15%), drinking alcohol while outside the home (48 versus 21%) and riding with an alcohol-impaired driver (23 versus 18%).
Parental monitoring has been shown to be protective against adolescent alcohol and substance use (Galambos and Maggs, 1991; Barnes and Farrell, 1992; Jackson et al., 1994; Chilcoat et al., 1995; Beck et al., 1997). Recently, Beck et al. (Beck et al., 1997) found that parents who said they supervised teen parties in their home were less likely to report that their teen had ever come home intoxicated than parents who reported that they did not supervise parties. Parents who supervised parties were also more likely to feel that underage drinking is a serious problem and to feel more comfortable discussing drinking with their children than parents who did not supervise parties. Interestingly, there was no difference between parents who took a more punitive approach to enforcing rules about underage drinking and those who took a less punitive approach concerning their perceptions of alcohol misuse by their teens. Hence, active monitoring, as opposed to a policy of restrictive enforcement, may be the better parenting strategy for preventing underage alcohol misuse. Haynie et al. (Haynie et al., 1999) found that most parents reported using mainly passive monitoring strategies, such as asking their teens how they spend their free time, and few parents reported taking active strategies such as contacting other parents for information or actually going where the teen was supposed to be.
Beck and Lockhart (Beck and Lockhart, 1992) described the theoretical importance of parental awareness, monitoring and enforcement to underage drinking. In this model, parents are characterized in terms of their degree of involvement and awareness of underage drinking, including frequency of monitoring and enforcement of family rules. Awareness refers to the degree to which parents accurately know about their adolescents' alcohol involvement. There is ample reason to believe that parents with low levels of awareness are unlikely to consider teenage drinking a personally relevant problem or take preventive action. In contrast, a high level of awareness is likely to lead to acceptance and heightened feelings of personal susceptibility to threats posed by underage drinking. High levels of acceptance, when accompanied by a commitment to act and feelings of self-efficacy, should lead to strong parental action characterized by active monitoring and enforcement of family policies. The model predicts that the most immediate parental determinant of adolescent alcohol misuse is the frequency of these actions.
The purpose of this investigation was to examine associations between parental characteristics and adolescent alcohol involvement, using data collected in a previous dyadic survey of parents and teens (Haynie et al., 1999). The previous survey was primarily concerned with documenting the type and frequency of these protective actions, and examining the concordance of reported parenting behaviors between parents and teenage children. Thus, the main focus was on parent–teen comparisons. The current investigation compared the behavior of parents whose children reported drinking with those who did not.
In this study we were interested in four research questions. Specifically, we examined whether there was an association between (1) parental awareness of teen drinking and teen drinking, (2) reported parental monitoring and teen drinking, (3) the frequency of parental monitoring and self-efficacy for monitoring, and (4) parental enforcement practices and teen drinking.
|
Method |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
A computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) was conducted using a random sample of Maryland parents and their children. Households were defined as eligible if a parent and at least one adolescent, aged 14–19 years, resided in the home 2 weeks or more per month. Businesses, fax or answering machines, or residences that were unable to be contacted after five call-back attempts, were deemed ineligible, as were respondents who could not complete the survey due to language barriers or illness. Parents or legal guardians were asked for their consent to be interviewed as well as to have their teenage child interviewed. Only those giving their consent to both terms were interviewed. If more than one adolescent between the ages of 14 and 19 lived in the home, one was chosen as the target adolescent using a random selection grid. On average, each parent interview lasted about 30 min. Teens were interviewed 2–3 weeks after parents and their interviews. On average, each teen interview lasted about 20 min.
A total of 10574 phone contacts were made. This did not include 3606 attempts in which no contact was made because: the numbers were not in service at the time (1619), the respondent was unable to be reached after five or more call backs (1530), the number belonged to a computer/fax/modem (342), answering machine (54) or the respondent was unable to be reached within the field time (61). The contacts included 8272 calls to ineligible households that did not have a parent or child in the appropriate age range, 1346 calls to a business, 332 households that were eligible but the parent refused to participate, 119 calls to people who could not complete the survey because of an illness, language barrier or a hearing problem and 505 calls to eligible households where parents completed the survey. This produced a parent response rate of 60.3%, which was derived by dividing the 505 participants by the 837 eligible households (332 refusers + 505 participants). There were 455 interviews completed with teens. Data on the drinking status of one teen was missing. Therefore 454 matched parent–adolescent pairs comprised the data set for this investigation.
The procedures used in this investigation have been reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Boards at both the University of Maryland and the National Institutes of Health.
Measures
Drinking status of teens was determined by their response to four questions: in the last 12 months, (1) how often did you drink alcohol; (2) how often did you drink alcohol at home; (3) how often did you drink alcohol while out; and (4) in the last 30 days, how often did you drink alcohol? Response options ranged from `never' to `5 or more times a week'. Teens were classified as non-drinkers if they responded `never' to all four questions and were classified as drinkers if any response indicated alcohol use.
Monitoring was measured by six questions that asked how often the parent: monitors who their teen spends free time with, monitors how the teen spends their free time, sets a time when the teen is expected home, monitors when the teen comes home, determines if other parents are present at teen parties and supervises teen parties when given in their home. Response options were `always', `sometimes', `never' and `don't know'. For each item, parents were classified into two categories, those who always monitor and those who monitor less than always.
Parental enforcement was measured by several open-ended questions pertaining to a variety of adolescent risky behaviors (riding with a drinking driver, gone to places where other teens are drinking, came home unacceptably late, gone to places that were off limits, spent time with people who were off limits, drank at home without permission and drank while out). For each behavior, parents were asked either a hypothetical question (e.g. what they would do if they found out that their teen had been drinking while out) or they were asked an actual question (e.g. what they did the last time their teen was drinking while out?) depending on their report of whether the behavior had ever occurred. Parent comments to these questions were recorded verbatim by telephone interviewers. Interviewers used standardized probes to elicit detailed responses. For instance, if a parent responded with a general answer such as, `I would ground [teen]', the interviewer asked for an example of what privileges would be restricted and for how long. Responses were categorized by one coder using a system developed from a pilot study (n = 55) of these questions. Parents were allowed to make as many statements as necessary and every statement was coded into one category. Thus, respondents could have a different number of codes assigned to their comments. Twenty percent of the responses were coded by a second coder to assess coding reliability, resulting in an average inter-rater agreement of 94%. Reliability for individual items ranged from 83 to 100%.
For the purposes of this investigation, the parents' coded responses for each behavior were grouped into one of two enforcement categories (restrictor versus non-restrictor). Restrictors gave any response indicating they would ground adolescents by restricting them to their room, preventing them from going out or other loss of privileges (e.g. use of car, phone or recreational activities). Non-restrictors gave responses that were not codable as restrictions of any sort and included primarily actions such as talking to or lecturing the teen, contacting authorities (e.g. police, school officials, other parents, etc.) or nothing.
Parental monitoring self-efficacy was measured by a series of items that were worded to match the six monitoring behaviors. For instance, one item was worded `How confident are you that you can find out who your teen spends his/her free time with?'. Response options were `very confident', `somewhat confident', `not confident at all' and `don't know'. For each item, parents were classified into two categories, those who said very confident and those who said they were not very confident (which included the other responses).
For parents whose teens had engaged in some form of risk activity, parental awareness was assessed. Parents whose teens did not report engaging in the risk behavior were not included. Awareness was defined by comparing the teens' reports of their behavior with their parents' estimates of whether they thought their teen had engaged in these activities in the last 12 months. In separate questions, teens were asked if they had ever engaged in five alcohol-specific risk behaviors: drinking and driving, drank at home without permission, drank while out, rode with a drinking driver, and gone to places where other teens were drinking. They were also asked if they had ever engaged in five non-alcohol-related risk behaviors: came home late, gone to places that were off limits, spent time with people who were off limits, gone to an unsupervised party and had a party without permission. For each behavior, parents were defined as aware if they were accurate (i.e. consistent with their teen) in reporting that their teens had engaged in these risky activities. Parents were defined as unaware if they reported that their teen had not engaged in the behavior but their teens reported that they had. Parents and teens who were consistent in agreeing that the teen had not engaged in these behaviors were not included in these analyses, as the primary focus of this investigation was upon parental awareness of risk, not awareness of the absence of risk. We also excluded those cases where the parent thought the teen had engaged in these behaviors, but the teen said he/she had not. This inconsistency varied with each behavior. For the alcohol-specific risk behaviors, this resulted in excluding five cases for drinking and driving, 13 cases for drinking while out, 26 cases for drinking at home, and 38 cases for riding with a drinking driver and ever gone to places where other teens were drinking. For the non-alcohol-related risk behaviors there was greater variability, and resulted in excluding seven cases for ever had a party without permission, 15 cases for gone to an unsupervised party, 61 cases for came home late, 78 cases for spent time with people who were off limits and 79 cases for gone to places that were off limits. Our assumption was that teens who stated that they had engaged in any of these risk behaviors would contain relatively few false positives (i.e. most or all of these teens would be telling the truth), whereas those who did not report engaging in these behaviors might contain an unknown and perhaps larger number of false negatives, making it difficult to determine parental accuracy in these cases.
Analysis
Each research question was tested by comparing parents of drinkers and non-drinkers, using the 
2 test. When significant differences were found, separate comparisons were made within age (14–15 versus 16–19) and ethnic group (White versus Black). The possibility that the significant relationships found were spurious due to associations with a third parent variable was tested using 2 analyses. Parent education (college graduate versus less than college graduate) and family structure (married versus not married) were considered possible third variables. In no instance was a significant association found, therefore none of these analyses are reported below. Bonferroni's correction was applied within each set of analyses to protect against committing a Type I error. The level of significance determined by this correction will vary depending upon the number of comparisons being made within each set of analyses.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Sample
The characteristics of the study participants may be found in Table I
. Parents were primarily married or cohabiting (84%) and female. Teens were more likely to be drinkers if they were older and White.
|
Parental awareness
Teen non-drinking was significantly associated with lower levels of parental awareness of their teen: having gone to other places where teens are drinking, having gone to an unsupervised party and having had a party at home without permission (Table II
).
|
Among non-drinkers, there were no significant differences for age or ethnicity. Among drinkers, parents of younger teens were significantly less likely to be aware than parents of older teens that their teen had gone to an unsupervised party (12.7 versus 46.7%, P < 0.007), and Black parents were significantly less likely to be aware that their teen had been drinking while out than White parents (12.0 versus 41.8%, P < 0.004).
Parental monitoring
Always checking to see if other parents would be present at teen parties was significantly associated with lower levels of reported teenage drinking (Table III).
|
A separate set of analyses suggested that among older (16–19 years) teens, an association existed such that non-drinkers were more likely than drinkers to have parents who always of monitored how teens spent their free time (70.6 versus 54.0%, P < 0.02) and check on the presence of other parents at teen parties (86.4 versus 67.1%, P < 0.02). However, these differences were not significant with Bonferroni's correction and must be viewed cautiously.
Further analyses revealed that among White parents only, there was an association such that non-drinkers were more likely than drinkers to have parents always monitored when teens come home (95.6 versus 84.8%, P < 0.004) and check on the presence of other parents at teen parties (97.6 versus 78.0%, P < 0.0001). These findings indicate that there is an association between parental monitoring and teen drinking; however, this appears to be confined to White parents.
Parental monitoring self-efficacy
Frequent parental monitoring was associated with stronger feelings of self-efficacy in five different measures. Self-efficacy was not associated with knowing with whom their teen spends free time (Table IV).
|
This same pattern of results was found among parents of older teens. Among parents of younger teens, stronger self-efficacy was significantly (P < 0.008) associated with always setting a time when their teen is expected home (87.0% very confident versus 65.2% not very confident) and always knowing when their teen comes home (94.0% very confident versus 60.0% not very confident).
Among White parents, these five significant relationships (as shown in Table IV
) were found (with supervising teen parties approaching significance). Among Black parents, stronger self- efficacy was significantly (P < 0.0001) associated with always knowing when their teen comes home (90.0% very confident versus 28.6% not very confident).
Parental enforcement
There was no association between parental enforcement and reported teen drinking. This was true regardless of whether the event was hypothetical or actual.
Given this lack of association, analyses by age and ethnic group were not done. However, across drinker status, parents of older teens were significantly more likely than parents of younger teens to say they would restrict in response to the hypothetical question: `What would you do if you found out that your teen had been drinking and driving?' (73.2 versus 55.0%, P < 0.002). White parents were significantly more likely than Black parents to say they would restrict in response to the hypothetical question: `What would you do if you found out that your teen had been drinking while out?' (48.4 versus 25.7%, P < 0.002).
An additional set of analyses (Table V) was done to determine if there was an association between enforcement style and actual versus hypothetical nature of the teen misbehavior. Parents (of drinkers and non-drinkers alike) who responded to the hypothetical questions were significantly more likely to say that they would restrict than parents who reported that their child had actually ridden with a drinking driver and gone to places where other teens drink. Parents of drinkers were also more likely to say they would restrict in the hypothetical case if they reported that their child had actually been drinking while out.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This investigation was one of the few studies to include a randomly selected, state-wide sample of parents and their teens. Yet, its limitations need to be acknowledged. First, this was a cross-sectional study and, as such, we cannot ascribe causality to the findings presented here. Future research should employ longitudinal designs with multiple repeated measures of parent and child behavior. Second, telephone surveys may under-represent certain people (e.g. those without telephones). More importantly, such survey methods may yield a biased sample by under-representing certain groups, such as truly dysfunctional (e.g. alcoholic) parents or those who are reluctant to talk about their parenting strategies and/or their children. The extent to which self-selection bias exists in our sample is unknown, although the response rate of 60% for parents suggests that this is possible. However, the purpose of this survey was not to establish point-prevalence estimates of teen alcohol abuse and parental actions. It was to establish if there was a relationship between these variables, measured at one point in time. Future research needs to examine a wider array of parenting strategies and employ designs that will uncover the developmental nature of parenting practices as they evolve over time in response to different patterns of adolescent behavior. Third, all of our measures of parental involvement were single item indicators. Future research needs to develop and validate scales of parental involvement with known psychometric properties which can reliably capture this wider array of parenting strategies. Finally, self-report data can produce a potential reporting bias in that parents and teens may be prone to give more socially desirable answers. This may have produced a conservative bias to our findings, which would make detecting differences less likely. We found significant associations between parents of drinking and non-drinking teens despite this tendency, which underscores the importance of these findings in this under investigated area.
Awareness
Parents of non-drinkers were less likely than parents of drinkers to know their teen had gone to places where other teens drink or to know their teen had gone to an unsupervised party. They were also less likely to know that their teen had ever given an unsupervised party. However, due to infrequent reporting of giving unsupervised parties among the non-drinkers, caution is needed when interpreting this last finding. One explanation for this finding may be in the way that we defined awareness. We were interested only in whether parents accurately knew if their teen had engaged in any of these risk behaviors. Thus awareness of risk behavior was the perspective from which we defined parents. We did not include parents whose teens did not report risk behavior. Future research should examine parenting strategies among parents whose level of awareness of risk varies by whether their child is at risk or not and whether they are aware of it or not. Four types of parents could be defined: those who are accurately aware that their teen is not engaging in risk, those who are unaware that their teen is engaging in risk, those who are aware that their teen is engaging in risk and those who think their teen is engaging in risk but really is not.
Regardless of the perspective used, parental awareness of adolescent alcohol-related risk taking was low. With the exception of knowing if their teen had been to places where other teens were drinking, parent awareness was less than 40%. Although there appeared to be greater awareness for non-alcohol-specific risk behaviors such as coming home late and spending time with people who were off limits, parental awareness never reached 60% for any of these behaviors.
These findings indicate the need to increase parental awareness of their teens' behavior. Although much information is currently being targeted to parents of high school students to make them aware of underage drinking, the effectiveness of this strategy could be improved if the type of information was made more relevant. As discussed elsewhere (Beck et al., 1995), information that is delivered to parents must be presented in such a way as to tie in with local facts. Thus, information regarding alcohol use and trends specific to the teen's high school should be more salient to parents than information that comes from the federal, state or even county level. Acceptance should increase as parents begin to personalize the risk (Weinstein, 1988). Unfortunately, constraints in many communities obstruct researchers from obtaining information on underage drinking and other risk activities through the use of school surveys. Nevertheless, health educators need to work with high schools in such a way that allows sensitive and meaningful information to be obtained and incorporated into comprehensive, multi-channeled, parent programs.
Monitoring
Non-drinking among adolescents was associated with parental monitoring, but not parental imposition of restrictions should misbehavior occur. The monitoring behavior that showed the strongest association with teen drinking status was finding out if parents or other responsible adults would be present at a party the teen wished to attend. One way of thinking about parental monitoring is along an active–passive dimension. Calling other parents, whom one may or may not know well, represents a more active or committed form of monitoring than merely setting a time for a teen to be home at night and noting when he or she does come home. In retrospect, it is not surprising that the monitoring strategy which entailed a significant effort showed the strongest relationship to teen drinking status, whereas the more passive, less effortful activities were not as strongly related.
In a previous analysis, Haynie et al. (Haynie et al., 1999) found that most of the monitoring behaviors that parents reported involved talking to teen (to find out `who they spend free time with, where they are going, how long they will be gone and when they will be back') and knowing teen's friends (e.g. `if I don't meet teen's friends s/he doesn't go out with them, I meet his/her friends and hopefully I know that they are the kind of people I want my teen to hang out with'). Many of these monitoring strategies seem to require less effort than more active responses such as being physically present (primarily reported by parents who had actually supervised a party given in their home). This is consistent with Social Cognitive Theory and specifically adaptations of it to the role of parental influence on adolescent drinking as espoused in Problem Behavior Theory (Jessor, 1984, 1987) and other models of parent involvement (Beck and Lockhart, 1992). Further research will be needed to determine if increasing the frequency of active parental monitoring leads to a reduction of teen involvement with alcohol, as well as with other risk behaviors.
Monitoring self-efficacy
As expected, parents with higher levels of monitoring self-efficacy were more likely to report consistent monitoring activities. Consistent parental monitoring activities, in turn, were associated with a lower likelihood of teen drinking. The cross-sectional nature of these data do not allow us to infer the causal direction of this relationship (i.e. whether self-efficacy leads to monitoring or successful monitoring strengthens self-efficacy). The most likely explanation is that the relationship between monitoring and self-efficacy is reciprocal. Those parents who monitor consistently develop self- efficacy and those who do not develop self-efficacy, stop monitoring.
The literature on Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1986) shows how efficacy expectations can be instilled, generalized and maintained. There is little debate concerning the techniques by which this can happen. The unresolved issue is how such training can be delivered in a way that meaningfully influences parents. Reaching, let alone impacting parents, is a difficult undertaking. It appears that no one delivery channel will be sufficient; a variety of strategies must be delivered at various ecological levels (McLeroy et al., 1988; Simons-Morton et al., 1995). At the interpersonal level, these could include direct delivery of information to the parents in their homes. At the community and organizational level, it could include the use of community and organizational outlets such as schools, businesses and churches. Finally, mass-mediated channels such as television and radio hold the greatest potential for reaching the largest number of parents (Beck, 1990; Beck et al., 1991, 1995). The coordinated use of multiple delivery channels which convey a consistent set of messages about specific parental monitoring skills will be necessary to have any meaningful impact.
Enforcement
The enforcement findings were very consistent with findings from a previous parent survey (Beck et al., 1996), in which no relationship was found between these measures and perceptions of adolescent alcohol misuse. The findings from the present investigation showed that parents of non-drinkers were no more likely to enforce adolescent misbehaviors through punitive restrictions than parents of drinkers. These enforcement strategies, which are a response to some transgression, may be contrasted with the monitoring strategies. Monitoring activities are more likely to be proactive in that they reduce the opportunities for misbehavior. As such, it would seem that parent education in this domain should place more emphasis on skills that would increase their ability to do primary prevention and limit the opportunities for risk rather than reactively respond in a punitive fashion. This is critical given that training parents how to enforce family rules concerning drinking may be difficult. Our data suggest that parents who have not yet encountered the problem (i.e. have dealt with it only hypothetically) are more likely to state that they would take a restrictive punitive approach to their teenager's alcohol misbehavior. However, among those who have actually dealt with the situation, the tendency was to be less punitive. This did not appear to vary meaningfully between parents of drinkers and non-drinkers nor by ethnicity or age of teen. Thus, parents who have yet to encounter a situation of adolescent risk talk of restrictive enforcement, but when confronted with misbehavior, their tendency is to be less restrictive. Although seemingly in conflict with the assumptions of parental control in Problem Behavior Theory (Jessor, 1984), these findings may indicate that control in the form of proactive monitoring may be more important than control in the form of reactive and punitive restrictions.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Ary D., Tildesley E., Hops H., et al. (1993) The influence of parent, sibling, and peer modeling and attitudes on adolescent use of alcohol. International Journal of the Addictions, 28, 853–880.[Web of Science][Medline]
Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barnes, G. M. and Farrell, M. P. (1992) Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 763–776.
Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P. and Banerjee, S. (1994) Family influences on alcohol and other problem behaviors among black and white adolescents in a general population sample. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 183–201.
Beck, K. H. (1990) Monitoring parent concerns about teenage drinking: a random digit dial telephone survey. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 16, 109–124.[Web of Science][Medline]
Beck, K. H. and Lockhart, S. J. (1992) A model of parental involvement in adolescent drinking and driving. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 35–51.
Beck, K. H. and Thombs, D. L. (1996) Preventing adolescent DWI and RWID: safety education implications for parents. Health Education Monograph, 14, 4–10.
Beck, K. H. and Treiman, K. A. (1996) The relationship of social context of drinking, perceived social norms, and parental influence to various drinking patterns of adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 633–644.[Web of Science][Medline]
Beck, K. H., Summons, T. G. and Matthews, M. P. (1991) Monitoring parent concerns about teenage drinking and driving: a focus group interview approach. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 37, 46–57.
Beck, K. H., Scaffa, M., Swift, R. and Ko, M. (1995) A survey of parent attitudes and practices regarding underage drinking. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 315–334.
Beck, K. H., Ko, M. and Scaffa, M. E. (1997) Parental monitoring, acceptance and perceptions of teen alcohol misuse. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21, 26–32.
Chilcoat, H. D., Dishion, T. J. and Anthony, J. C. (1995) Parent monitoring and the incidence of drug sampling in urban elementary school children. American Journal of Epidemiology, 141, 25–31.
Deakin, S. and Cohen, E. (1986) Alcohol attitudes and behaviors of freshmen and their parents. Journal of College Student Development, 27, 490–495.
Donovan, J. E. (1993) Young adult drinking driving: behavioral and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 54, 600–613.[Web of Science][Medline]
Galambos, N. L. and Maggs, J. L. (1991) Out-of-school care of young adolescents and self-reported behavior. Developmental Psychology, 27, 644–655.
Haynie, D. L., Beck, K. H., Crump, A. D., Shattuck, T. and Simons-Morton, B. (1999) Parenting strategies regarding teen behavior: parent and teen perceptions. American Journal of Health Behavior, 23, 403–414.
Jackson, C., Bee-Gates, D. J. and Henriksen, L. (1994) Authoritative parenting, child competencies, and initiation of cigarette smoking. Health Education Quarterly, 21, 103–116.[Web of Science][Medline]
Jessor, R. (1984) Adolescent development and behavioral health. In Matarazzo, J. D., Weiss, S. M., Herd, A., Miller, N. E. and Weiss, S. M. (eds), Behavioral Health: A Handbook of Health Enhancement and Disease Prevention. Wiley, New York.
Jessor, R. (1987) Risky driving and adolescent problem behavior: an extension of adolescent problem behavior theory. Alcohol Drugs and Driving, 3, 1–11.
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M. and Bachman, J. G. (1996) National Survey Results on Drug use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975–1995. Vol. 1: Secondary Schools. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, NIH publ. no. 96-4139.
Kandel, D. and Andrews, K. (1987) Processes of adolescent socialization by parents and peers. International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 319–342.[Web of Science][Medline]
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A. and Glanz, K. (1988) An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 25, 351–377.
Simons-Morton, B. G., Greene, W. H. and Gottlieb, N. H. (1995) Introduction to Health Education and Health Promotion, 2nd edn. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.
Thombs, D. L. (1997) Perceptions of parent behavior as correlates of teenage alcohol problems. American Journal of Health Behavior, 21, 279–288.
Weinstein, N. D. (1988) The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 7, 355–386.[Web of Science][Medline]
Received on March 26, 1998; accepted on March 1, 1999
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Jarvinen and J. Ostergaard Governing Adolescent Drinking Youth Society, March 1, 2009; 40(3): 377 - 402. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. L. Tragesser, F. Beauvais, R. C. Swaim, R. W. Edwards, and E. R. Oetting Parental Monitoring, Peer Drug Involvement, and Marijuana Use Across Three Ethnicities Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, November 1, 2007; 38(6): 670 - 694. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A. Cottrell, S. Branstetter, L. Cottrell, C. V. Harris, C. Rishel, and B. F. Stanton Development and Validation of a Parental Monitoring Instrument: Measuring How Parents Monitor Adolescents' Activities and Risk Behaviors The Family Journal, October 1, 2007; 15(4): 328 - 335. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. L. Hartos, K. H. Beck, and B. G. Simons-Morton Parents' Intended Limits on Adolescents Approaching Unsupervised Driving Journal of Adolescent Research, September 1, 2004; 19(5): 591 - 606. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B G Simons-Morton, J L Hartos, W A Leaf, and K H Beck Promoting parental management of teen driving Inj. Prev., September 1, 2002; 8(90002): ii24 - 31. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. H. Beck, J. Hartos, and B. Simons-Morton Teen Driving Risk: The Promise of Parental Influence and Public Policy Health Educ Behav, February 1, 2002; 29(1): 73 - 84. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||