Skip to main content

Hanging out with the wrong crowd: How much difference can parents make in an urban environment?


This longitudinal study of youths growing up in an urban area tests whether and by how much increased levels of supervision and monitoring by parents might influence levels of affiliation with delinquent and deviant peers—possibly our most sturdily replicated proximal determinant of early-onset illegal drug use and associated conduct problems in adolescence, aside from aggression and rule-breaking in childhood. Standardized interviews were used to assess parenting, affiliation with deviant peers, and other characteristics of the urban-dwelling youths in this epidemiologically defined sample (>70% African American heritage). Longitudinal analyses and generalized estimating equation (GEE) methods were used to estimate prospective relationships across the transition from late childhood into early adolescence. Results from the longitudinal analyses showed that higher levels of monitoring signaled later lower levels of affiliation with deviant peers, even with statistical adjustment for multiple covariates (\=−0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]=−0.07 to −0.02; P=.001). Closer parental supervision at ages 8–9 years was linked to subsequently lower levels of deviant peer affiliation (\=−0.05; 95% CI=−0.08 to −0.01), and subsequent age-associated increases in levels of parental supervision from year to year were followed by decreases in levels of affiliation with deviant peers (\=−0.12; 95% CI=−0.15 to −0.09). The main evidence from this study indicates that maintenance of parental supervision and monitoring through the transition from childhood to adolescence may yield important reductions in levels of affiliation with deviant peers, even in the context of our urban and sometimes socially disadvantaged community environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Kandel D. Adolescent marihuana use: role of parents and peers. Science. 1973;181: 1067–1070.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kandel DB. Family and peer processes in adolescent drug use. In: Mednick SA, Harway M, Finello KM, eds. Handbook of Longitudinal Research, Vol. 2 Teenage and Adult Cohorts. New York, NY: Praeger; 1984;18–33.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kandel DB. On processes of peer influences in adolescent drug use: a developmental perspective. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse. 1985;4:139–163.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hawkins JD, Lishner DM, Catalano RF, Howard MO. Childhood predictors of adolescent substance abuse: toward an empirically grounded theory. J Child Contemp Soc. 1985;18:11–48.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Patterson GR, DeBaryshe BD, Ramsey E. A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. Am Psychol. 1989;44:329–335.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Dishion TJ. Peer context of troublesome behavior in children and adolescents. In: Leone P, ed. Understanding Troubled and Troublesome Youth, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1990: 128–153.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dishion TJ, Capaldi D, Spracklen KM, Li F. Peer ecology of male adolescent drug use. Dev Psychopathol. 1995;7:803–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dishion TJ, Patterson M, Stoolmiller M, Skinner ML. Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Dev Psychol. 1991; 27:172–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Metzler CW, Noell J, Biglan A, Ary D, Smolkowski K. The social context for risky behavior among adolescents. J Behav Med. 1994;17:419–438.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Duncan SC, Duncan TE, Biglan A, Ary D. Contributions of the social context to the development of adolescent substance use: a multivariate latent growth modeling approach. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1998;50:57–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Chilcoat HD, Dishion TJ, Anthony JC. Parent monitoring and the incidence of drug sampling in urban elementary school children. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;141:25–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chilcoat HD, Anthony JC. Impact of parental monitoring on initiation of drug use through late childhood. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1996;35:91–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kellam SG, Anthony JC. Targeting early antecedents to prevent tobacco smoking: findings from an epidemiologically based randomized field trial. Am J Public Health. 1998; 88:1490–1495.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kellam SG, Werthamer-Larsson L, Dolan LJ, et al. Developmental epidemiologically based preventive trials: baseline modeling of early target behaviors and depressive symptoms. Am J Community Psychol. 1991;19:563–584.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Hunter A, Pearson J, Ialongo N, Kellam S. Parenting alone to multiple caregivers: child care and parenting arrangements in black and white urban families. Fam Relat. 1998; 47:343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ialongo N, Werthamer L, Brown HB, Kellam S, Wai SB. The proximal impact of two first grade preventive interventions on early risk behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and antisocial behavior. Am J Community Psychol. 1999;27:599–642.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kellam SG, Branch JD, Agrawal KC, Engsminger ME. Mental Health and Going to School: The Woodlawn Program of Assessment, Early Intervention, and Evaluation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kellam SG, Ensminger ME, Simon MB. Mental health in first grade and teenage drug, alcohol, and cigarette use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1980;5:273–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kellam SG, Brown CH, Fleming JP. Developmental epidemiological studies of substance use in Woodlawn: implications for prevention research strategy. NIDA Res Monogr. 1982;41:21–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Diggle PJ, Liang KY, Zeger SL. Analysis of Longitudinal Data. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Capaldi DM, Patterson GR. Psychometric Properties of 14 Latent Constructs From the Oregon Youth Study. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Werthamer-Larsson L, Kellam S, Wheeler L. Effect of first-grade classroom environment on shy behavior, aggressive behavior, and concentration problems. Am J Community Psychol. 1991;19:585–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Werthamer-Larsson LA. The Epidemiology of Maladaptive Behavior in First Grade Children [doctoral dissertation]. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS. Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Crum RM, Lillie-Blanton M, Anthony JC. Neighborhood environment and opportunity to use cocaine and other drugs in late childhood and early adolescence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996;43:155–161.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kaplan HB, Martin SS, Robbins C. Pathways to adolescent drug use: self-derogation, peer influence, weakening of social controls, and early substance use, J Health Soc Behav. 1984;25:270–289.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Harter S. Self-Perception Profile for Children. Denver, CO: University of Denver; 1985.

  28. 28.

    Ensminger ME, Brown CH, Kellam SG. Social control as an explanation of sex differences in substance use among adolescents. NIDA Res Monogr. 1984;49:296–304.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Khoury EL. Are girls different? A developmental perspective on gender differences in risk factors for substance use among adolescents. In: Vega WA, Gil AG, eds. Drug Use and Ethnicity in Early Adolescence. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1998;95–123.

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS. Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:1049–1060.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software. Release 6.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Dishion TJ, Li F, Spracklen KM, Brown G, Haas E. The measurement of parenting practices in research on adolescent problem behavior: a multimethod and multitrait analysis. NIDA Res Monogr. 1999;177:260–293.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Chilcoat HD, Breslau N, Anthony JC. Potential barriers to parent monitoring: social disadvantage, marital status, and maternal psychiatric disorder. J Am Acad of Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1996;35:1673–1682.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Neiderhiser JM, Reiss D, Hetherington EM, Plomin R. Relationships between parenting and adolescent adjustment over time: genetic and environmental contributions. Dev Psychol. 1999;35:680–692.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ary DV, Duncan TE, Biglan A, Metzler CW, Noell JW, Smolkowski K. Development of adolescent problem behavior. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1999;27:141–150.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Storr CL, Ialongo NS, Kellam SG, Anthony JC. A randomized controlled trial of two primary school intervention strategies to prevent early onset tobacco smoking. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;66:51–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to James C. Anthony PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lloyd, J.J., Anthony, J.C. Hanging out with the wrong crowd: How much difference can parents make in an urban environment?. J Urban Health 80, 383–399 (2003).

Download citation


  • Adolescence
  • Deviant peer affiliation
  • Parent monitoring
  • Urban