Differential Effects of Parental Controls on Adolescent Substance Use: For Whom is the Family Most Important?
- 1.1k Downloads
Social control theory assumes that the ability of social constraints to deter juvenile delinquency will be invariant across individuals. This paper tests this hypothesis and examines the degree to which there are differential effects of parental controls on adolescent substance use.
Analyses are based on self-reported data from 7,349 10th-grade students and rely on regression mixture models to identify latent classes of individuals who may vary in the effects of parental controls on drug use.
All parental controls were significantly related to adolescent drug use, with higher levels of control associated with less drug use. The effects of instrumental parental controls (e.g., parental management strategies) on drug use were shown to vary across individuals, while expressive controls (e.g., parent/child attachment) had uniform effects in reducing drug use. Specifically, poor family management and more favorable parental attitudes regarding children’s drug use and delinquency had stronger effects on drug use for students who reported greater attachment to their neighborhoods, less acceptance of adolescent drug use by neighborhood residents, and fewer delinquent peers, compared to those with greater community and peer risk exposure. Parental influences were also stronger for Caucasian students versus those from other racial/ethnic groups, but no differences in effects were found based on students’ gender or commitment to school.
The findings demonstrate support for social control theory, and also help to refine and add precision to this perspective by identifying groups of individuals for whom parental controls are most influential. Further, they offer an innovative methodology that can be applied to any criminological theory to examine the complex forces that result in illegal behavior.
KeywordsSocial control theory Adolescent substance use Risk and protective factors Regression mixture models
A version of this paper was presented at the 2011 Society for Prevention Research Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. This research was supported by grant #R01 HD054736, M. Lee Van Horn (PI), funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Data for the paper are from the Diffusion Study, J. David Hawkins (PI), funded by Grant #R01 DA10768 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
- Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Arthur MW, Hawkins JD, Pollard JA, Catalano RF, Baglioni AJ Jr (2002) Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: the Communities That Care Youth Survey. Eval Rev 26(6):575–601Google Scholar
- Catalano RF, Hawkins JD (1996) The social development model: a theory of antisocial behavior. In: Hawkins JD (ed) Delinquency and crime: current theories. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 149–197Google Scholar
- Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS (1985) Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- George MRW, Yang N, Van Horn ML, Smith J, Jaki T, Feaster D, et al (in press) Using regression mixture models with non-normal data: examining an ordered polytomous approach. J Stat Comput SimGoogle Scholar
- Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
- Hagan J, Gillis AR, Simpson J (1987) Class in the household: a power-control theory of gender and delinquency. AJS 92(4):788–816Google Scholar
- Hirschi T (1969) Causes of delinquency. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE (2010) Monitoring the Future: National results on adolescent drug use: overview of key findings, 2009. National Institute on Drug Abuse, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
- Kornhauser R (1978) Social sources of delinquency. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M (1986) Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of the research, vol 7. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 29–149Google Scholar
- Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Rutter M, Silva P (eds) (2001) Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2010) Mplus (Version 6). Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- Nylund K, Masyn K (2007) Covariates and growth mixture modeling: early simulation results into the mystery of when and how to include covariates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Reckless W (1961) The crime problem, 3rd edn. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Tittle CR (1995) Control balance: toward a general theory of deviance. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar