The Role of the Family in Promoting Responsible Substance Use in Adolescence

This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013- 9737-y The role of the family in promoting responsible substance use in adolescence Antonia Jiménez-Iglesias · Carmen Moreno · Francisco Rivera · Irene García-Moya Brief running head: Family and adolescents’ substance use Corresponding author. A. Jiménez-Iglesias. Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Seville. Mailing address: C/ Camilo José Cela, s/n. 41018 Sevilla. E-mail address: [email protected]. C. Moreno · I. García-Moya. Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, University of Seville. Sevilla, Spain. F. Rivera. Department of Psychology, University of Huelva, Huelva, Spain ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research has been funded by an agreement signed between the Spanish Ministry of Health, Social Policy and Equality, and the University of Seville (Spain). 2 The role of the family in promoting responsible substance use in adolescence Abstract The aim of this study was to examine the role of family dimensions in tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis use among adolescents. Furthermore, we investigated how demographic variables (adolescents’ gender and age) influence substance use and moderate the relationship between family dimensions and substance use. The sample consisted of 14,825 adolescents aged 13-14, 15-16, and 17-18 who participated in the 2006 edition of the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study in Spain. The HBSC-2006 questionnaire included demographic variables (gender and age), substance use variables (tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis use), and family dimensions (parental affection, parental promotion of autonomy, family activities, adolescent disclosure, parental solicitation, and parental knowledge). The results indicated that adolescent disclosure, family activities, and parental knowledge had a significant effect on substance use. Specifically, maternal variables were shown to be slightly more relevant than paternal variables. Additionally, substance use was higher in older adolescents than in younger adolescents, and boys smoked less than girls. The discussion focused on how family dimensions promoted responsible substance use in adolescence. Keywords: adolescence; family dimensions; tobacco use; alcohol use; cannabis use 3 INTRODUCTION Adolescence is a decisive stage in the learning and consolidation of healthy habits that define a lifestyle. Experimentation with unhealthy behaviours usually begins in early adolescence (Pastor, Balaguer, & García-Merita, 1999), possibly because adolescents tend to seek new experiences and are unable to accurately calculate the risks associated with some behaviours (Oliva & Parra, 2004). Therefore, adolescence is the most suitable stage of life to avoid or change any unhealthy habits that might be adopted, such as substance use, considering that these behaviours condition the development of either a healthy or unhealthy lifestyle in adulthood (Elliot, 1993). The most used substances among adolescents are tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis (Currie et al., 2008; Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009; Moreno et al., 2011). The prevalence of use for these substances in the last 30 days among Spanish adolescents is 58.5%, 32.4%, and 20.1% for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, respectively, whereas the prevalence of use other substances is between 0.5% and 2% (Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009). For this reason, only these substances are analysed in this research. Concerning gender differences, research has found differences between boys and girls in substance use. Boys drink more alcohol (Currie et al., 2008; Hibell et al., 2009; Moreno et al., 2011) and take more illegal drugs (Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009; Hibell et al., 2009; Moreno et al., 2011). Cannabis use, in particular, is higher in boys than in girls (Currie et al., 2008; Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009; Moreno et al., 2011; Observatorio Europeo de las Drogas y las Toxicomanías, 2010). On the other hand, girls smoke more tobacco than boys (Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009; Hibell et al., 2009; Moreno et al., 2011). In spite of these differences between girls and boys, there are also studies that have found similarities. Regarding alcohol use, the percentage of boys and girls who use alcohol is similar, especially for alcohol use at least once in the life and during the last 30 days (Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009). With respect to cannabis use, girls are as likely to use cannabis at least once in their life and during the last 30 days as boys (Currie et al., 2008). Moreover, there are differences related to the age at which adolescents use substances, with evidence indicating that substance use increases during adolescence. It is clear that tobacco use, 4 alcohol use, and cannabis use are greater in older adolescents than in younger adolescents (Currie et al., 2008; Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009; Moreno et al., 2011). On the other hand, the efforts of parents to prevent behaviour problems and promote positive development in their adolescents has become a very important area of current research in developmental psychology (Kerr, Stattin, & Engels, 2008). The quality of the parent-child relationship is important for adolescent development (E. C. Hair, Moore, Garrett, Ling, & Cleveland, 2008; E. C. Hair et al., 2009), although the relationships with both parents are important, the maternal influence is slightly higher than the paternal influence (E. C. Hair et al., 2008). From a typological approach, adolescents with authoritative parents are more welladjusted, as indicated by their lower substance use (Oliva & Parra, 2004), and negligent mothers are more damaging to adolescents’ adjustment than negligent fathers (Simons & Conger, 2007). This research does not take into account the typological approach; instead, it uses the dimensional approach because this study analyses important dimensions of the authoritative style in adolescence (affection, promotion of autonomy, family activities, solicitation, disclosure, and knowledge) and their influence on substance use among adolescents. To understand the real importance of various family dimensions, it is necessary to distinguish between these dimensions and between the maternal and paternal dimensions (Smetana, Campione-Barr, & Metzger, 2006). Good parent-child relationships help to reduce substance use (E. C. Hair et al., 2009; Kuntsche, Van Der Vorst, & Engels, 2009; Ramos, Moreno, Rivera, & López, 2011; Secades-Villa, Fernández-Hermida, & Vallejo-Seco, 2005), as does time spent in activities with family (Coley, Votruba-Drzal, & Schindler, 2008; Secades-Villa et al., 2005; Sweeting, West, & Richards, 1998). Perhaps, the perception of a positive family climate during family activities helps to increase the protective effect of these activities with regard to substance use (White & Halliwell, 2010). Moreover, effective parental habits have a considerable protective effect on adolescents’ substance use (Macaulay, Griffin, Gronewold, Williams, & Botvin, 2005). Affectionate parents (Li, Mao, Stanton, & Zhao, 2010; Martínez Álvarez, Fuertes Martín, Ramos Vergeles, & Hernández Martín, 2003; Parra & Oliva, 2006; Rodrigo et al., 2004) who properly promote the autonomy of their adolescent children have been shown to be associated with lower substance use by adolescents (Goldstein, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2005). 5 The researchers argue that a close parent-child relationship creates a situation where the parents are psychologically present when their adolescents are tempted to engage in risk behaviours. Adolescents most likely think about the disappointment or embarrassment that their parents would have if parents know about their misbehaviour, which could dissuade them from engaging in these behaviours (Kerr & Stattin, 2003). Furthermore, if they engage them, they will assess their misbehaviour in a more negative way (Kiriakidis, 2006). In addition, parental monitoring, such as parental solicitation (that is, the parental skills related to asking children for information), is associated with lower substance use by adolescents (Laird, Marrero, & Sentse, 2010; Li et al., 2010; Martínez Álvarez et al., 2003; Parra, & Oliva, 2006). Parents’ efforts of tracking and monitoring are necessary to deter adolescents from risk behaviours and to promote positive behaviour patterns (Barnes, Hoffman, Welte, Farrell, & Dintcheff, 2006; Brown, Mounts, Lamborn, & Steinberg, 1993; Ghandour, 2009; Oliva & Parra, 2004). Adolescent disclosure also contributes to lower substance use (Engels, Finkenauer, Kerr, & Stattin, 2005; Ghandour, 2009; Jiménez-Iglesias, Moreno, Granado-Alcón, & López, 2012; Keijsers, Branje, VanderValk, & Meeus, 2010; Stavrinides, Georgiou, & Demetriou, 2010). If adolescents trust in their parents to disclose information about their lives, parents can guide their adolescents and protect them from behaviour problems. On the contrary, if adolescents do not share this information, it is more likely that they remain involved in risky behaviours without considering the negative consequences (Marshall, Tilton-Weaver, & Bosdet, 2005). Therefore, the secrecy or the concealment is associated with a higher engagement in problem behaviours among adolescents (Kerr, Stattin, & Burk, 2010; Laird & Marrero, 2010). Parental solicitation and adolescent disclosure reflect a high quality of parent-child communication (Keijsers et al., 2010), which is a protective factor for substance use (Harakeh, Scholte, Vermulst, De Vries, & Engels, 2010; Jiménez-Iglesias, Moreno, Granado-Alcón, et al., 2012). Finally, all of these family dimensions, especially a parent-child relationship that is close and communicative, promote parental knowledge (Bumpus & Rodgers, 2009; Crouter & Head, 2002). Parental knowledge allows parents to be informed about the lives of their children. This is particularly important during adolescence because this is a period in which opportunities for taking part in problematic activities increase, while direct parental supervision decreases (Jacobson & Crockett, 2000). In this sense, parental knowledge has been identified as an important component of effective 6 parenting, as it is related to lower substance use (Coley et al., 2008; Jiménez-Iglesias, Moreno, Granado-Alcón, et al., 2012; Li, Feigelman, & Stanton, 2000; Li, Stanton, & Feigelman, 2000; Rai et al., 2003; Richards, Miller, O’Donnell, Wasserman, & Colder, 2004; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2006; Tebes et al., 2011). Considering the literature discussed here, the aim of this study is to examine how different variables related to the family context (parental affection, parental promotion of autonomy, adolescent disclosure, parental solicitation, and family activities) are associated with tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis use and how the demographic variables influence substance use and moderate the relationship between family dimensions and substance use. Furthermore, we investigate whether the substance use variance that cannot be explained by these family dimensions can be explained by perceived parental knowledge. The influence of parental knowledge is evaluated because the aforementioned family dimensions influence parental knowledge (Jiménez-Iglesias, Moreno, García- Moya, & Ramos, in press). These objectives are achieved by analysing the maternal and paternal variables separately and together to evaluate the influence of the mother and father on substance use in adolescents. METHOD Participants The sample consisted of 14,825 boys and girls aged 13-14, 15-16, and 17-18, who were selected for the 2006 edition of the WHO international survey Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) in Spain. Measures The HBSC-2006 questionnaire for Spain was used. The Research Ethical Committee of the University of Seville approved the questionnaire. For this study, demographic variables were used (gender and age), and family and substance use variables were included. Perceived parental affection and perceived parental promotion of autonomy. These variables were used as scales based on the dimensions of affection and the promotion of autonomy, respectively, from the Parental Bonding Inventory-Brief Current form, PBI-BC by Klimidis, Minas, and Ata, 1992 (the HBSC-PBI). The following items were used to obtain the perceived maternal and paternal affection scale: “My mother / father… helps me as much as I need / is loving / understands my problems and worries / makes me feel better when I am upset”. The following items were used to 7 obtain perceived maternal and paternal promotion of autonomy: “My mother / father… lets me do the things I like doing / likes for me to make my own decisions / tries to control everything I do / treats me like a baby”. Family activities. This variable concerns the frequency with which shared family activities are performed and is based on the items used by Sweeting et al. (1998) as well as items created in the HBSC study to indicate adolescents’ enjoyment of participating in such activities. These items included watching TV or a video together / playing indoor games together / eating a meal together / going for a walk together / going places together / visiting friends or relatives together / playing sports together / sitting and talking about things together. Perceived parental knowledge. This variable was created as a scale of a series of items taken from the instrument designed by Brown et al. (1993): “How much does your mother / father really know about……? who your friends are? / how you spend your money? / where you are after school? / where you go at night? / what you do with your free time?”. Perceived sources of parental knowledge. This variable included adolescent disclosure (“In general, my mother / father knows about these things because… she / he asks me directly and I tell her / him”) and parental solicitation (“In general, my mother / father knows about these things because… I tell her / him spontaneously, even if she / he doesn’t ask”). Tobacco use. This variable, which was created by the HBSC study, was devised using a numerical value to recode the weekly use of the following item (Hublet & Godeau, 2005): “How often do you smoke tobacco at present?” Alcohol use. This item also concerns a variable that was created by the HBSC study when the initial data were collected and its use in this study includes recoding it into numerical values concerning the weekly use (Schmid, Fotiou, Godeau, Simons-Morton, & Hublet, 2005) “Maximum frequency of current use of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, liquor, alcopops, and others)”. Cannabis use. This issue was taken from the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs, ESPAD (Hibell et al., 2000). The item, namely cannabis use in the last twelve months, is as follows “Have you ever taken cannabis in the last 12 months?”. Procedures The HBSC study indicates three basic conditions that must be met: the schoolchildren must answer the questionnaire, the anonymity of their answers must be scrupulously respected and maintained, 8 and the questionnaires must be administered by trained interviewers within the school context (Currie et al., 2008). To achieve the objectives of this study, correlations between variables and multiple linear regression analysis were performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 18 program. The regression method used to select the independent variables was an ‘introduction’ that was performed at different stages by including the variables in different steps. The demographic variables were included first, the family dimensions were introduced second, and in the third step, the interactions of two variables, one demographic variable and one variable of family dimensions, were included. The third step analysed whether the demographic variables in this study (gender and age) had a moderating effect on the relationship between the family dimensions and substance use. Following this analysis, another multiple linear regression analysis was performed to adjust the variables related to substance use. Finally, the unstandardised residual dependant variable was kept aside to analyse the influence of parental knowledge after the effect of the other family variables had been eliminated (J. F. Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2008). The statistical F-test was used to analyse the significance of any increase obtained by introducing variables into the equation. The coefficient of determination R2 was analysed to obtain the quality of the regression equation (J. F. Hair et al., 2008). According to Cohen’s recommendations (1988), the clinical relevance (R2) was classified as negligible (0 to 0.019), small (0.02 to 0.129), medium (0.13 to 0.259), and large (0.26 and above) (Cohen, 1988). The standardised beta coefficients (β) and the semi-partial correlations were analysed for each independent variable (J. F. Hair et al., 2008). RESULTS The correlation results between the family dimensions and substance use are shown in table 1. Tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis use in adolescents were negatively related to all variables of maternal and paternal family context (except alcohol and cannabis with parental promotion of autonomy). The most significant correlations were substance use with maternal and paternal knowledge. Additionally, the maternal variables were shown to be slightly more relevant than the paternal variables. Insert table 1. 9 Tobacco use The first multiple linear regression analysis of tobacco use with maternal variables indicated that the most relevant variables were age, gender, adolescent disclosure to mothers, and family activities. To verify this result, another multiple linear regression analysis was conducted (see table 2), the model with non-important variables was significant, F (18, 12834) = 6.77, p < .001, but with a negligible clinical relevance (∆R2 = .009). Then, the model composed of age, gender, adolescent disclosure to mothers, and family activities was significant, F (5, 12852) = 235.86, p < .001, with a small clinical relevance (R2 = .08). Insert table 2. Adolescents who provided information to their mothers (β = -.09, t = -10.38, p < .001, rs2 = .01) and took part in family activities (β = -.07, t = -8.05, p < .001, rs2 = .01) presented lower tobacco use. Moreover, boys smoked less than girls (β = -.10, t = -11.71, p < .001, rs2 = .01), and the adolescents aged 13-14 (β = -.28, t = -26.82, p < .001, rs2 = .05) and those aged 15-16 (β = -.15, t = - 14.24, p < .001, rs2 = .01) smoked less than the 17-18 year olds. Regression of maternal knowledge on residual tobacco use resulted in a model with a small clinical relevance (R2 = .02) and significant, F (1, 12677) = 299.53, p < .001. Therefore, maternal knowledge was important for tobacco use. The first multiple linear regression analysis on tobacco use with paternal variables indicated that the most relevant variables were gender, age, and family activities. To confirm the relevance of these variables, another multiple linear regression analysis was performed, as shown in table 3. The model including gender, age, and family activities was significant, F (4, 12261) = 248.21, p < .001, with a small clinical relevance (R2 = .08). In a second step, the remaining variables produced a significant model, F (19, 12242) = 7.67, p < .001, but with negligible clinical relevance (∆R2 = .01). Insert table 3 Gender was an important factor in tobacco use, and boys smoked less than girls (β = -.08, t = -9.31, p < .001, rs2 = .01). Regarding age, the adolescents aged 13-14 (β = -.28, t = -25.84, p < .001, rs2 = .05) and those aged 15-16 (β = -.15, t = -13.94, p < .001, rs2 = .02) smoked less than the 17-18 year olds. Moreover, the adolescents who took part in family activities (β = -.10, t = -11.22, p < .001, rs2 = .01) used less tobacco. 16 (Dubas & Gerris, 2002; Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2006). When times are spent together, adolescent disclosure and parental solicitation are more likely to occur (Keijsers et al., 2010). Both dimensions, adolescent disclosure and parental solicitation, are important ways of obtaining knowledge, and they are usually used by mothers. Therefore, these dimensions also explain why mothers have more knowledge about their children than fathers (Crouter, Bumpus, Davis, & McHale, 2005; Waizenhofer, Buchanan, & Jackson-Newsom, 2004). The greater occurrence of disclosure to mothers and the increased maternal knowledge allow mothers have more information about their adolescents and more effectively promote responsible substance use by adolescents. Participation in family activities specifically was associated with less tobacco and cannabis use by adolescents. Time shared with family protects adolescents from substance use (Coley et al., 2008; Secades-Villa et al., 2005; Sweeting et al., 1998). During family activities, family members can transmit attitudes, values, opinions, etc., that are likely to oppose substance use. Furthermore, if adolescents perceive a positive family climate during family activities, the protective effect of these activities on substance use will increase (White & Halliwell, 2010). Therefore, the most important family dimensions for substance use were adolescent disclosure, participation in family activities (mainly for tobacco and cannabis use), and especially parental knowledge. However, when the significance of family dimensions of this study on wellbeing was analysed, the most relevant family dimensions were family activities (as for substance use), parental promotion of autonomy, and especially parental affection (Jiménez-Iglesias, Moreno, Ramos, & Rivera, 2012). On the other hand, the demographic variables in this study (gender and age) did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the family dimensions and substance use (that is, neither age nor sex influenced the relationship between family dimensions and substance use), but individually they were associated with adolescents’ substance use, as shown in previous studies. Age-related differences were particularly significant with regard to adolescents’ substance use. The younger adolescents (aged 13-14 and 15-16 years old) used less tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis (Currie et al., 2008; Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009; Moreno et al., 2011) than the older adolescents (aged 17-18 years old). Therefore, during adolescence, substance use seems to follow an upward trajectory, where adolescents begin experimenting with tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis, leading to greater substance use (Kandel & Jessor, 2002; Simões et 17 al., 2012). Furthermore, the use of these substances makes the use of another substances easier (Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1998). On the contrary, no gender-related differences were found in substance use among adolescents with the exception of tobacco, for which girls were found to smoke more than boys, which is consistent with previous studies (Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009; Hibell et al., 2009; Moreno et al., 2011). The lack of gender-related differences in the use of alcohol (Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas, 2009) and cannabis (Currie et al., 2008) observed in this study has previously been highlighted in other studies. Perhaps this is because substance use among girls is increasing rapidly (Moreno et al., 2011) and has been shown to equal that of boys with the highest consumption (Simons-Morton et al., 2009). Moreover, attitudinal differences between boys and girls must also be considered. Although, boys have a favourable aptitude to use substances, especially illegal substances and alcohol while girls show more resistance to substance use and a greater awareness of substance use problems, girls have lower risk perceptions, greater curiosity, and a greater desire to experiment with legal substances, such as alcohol and tobacco (Moral Jiménez, Ovejero Bernal, Castro, Rodríguez Díaz, & Sirvent-Ruiz, 2011). Some limitations must be considered. The cross-sectional design has more limited validity than a longitudinal design. A cross-sectional design does not allow the identification of causality relationships or knowledge of the direction of the relationships between the variables. In this research, the influence of parents on adolescents’ substance use was analysed, but the direction of the relationship cannot be determined. Parents who are able to influence their children also show a willingness to be influenced by their children (Maccoby, 2003). Additionally, parental and adolescent influences are inseparable as these relationships are continuously dynamic. It can be difficult to know who influenced first or how much (Shanahan & Sobolewski, 2003). The fact that all the information in this study comes from one source, namely, male and female adolescents, may result in exaggeration of the relationships between the different variables and reveal only the adolescents’ perceptions of parental behaviour. However, adolescents are the most reliable, objective source of information and are least influenced by social desirability (Parra & Oliva, 2006). Furthermore, their ideas about adolescence are more positive and consistent with the results of the current research than parents’ ideas (Ridao & Moreno, 2008). Finally, their perception of the parental message determines the efficacy of parental socialisation (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). 18 Another weakness of this study is the fact that the explained variance of the regression analysis was not sufficiently high, possibly because, from a systematic-ecological point of view that considers multiple contexts of influence (Bronfrenbrenner, 1979), only the family context has been taken into consideration. In fact, in our qualitative study in which adolescents were asked about the influences of different variables on their substance use, they stated that their friends have a greater effect than their own relatives (Jiménez-Iglesias, 2011). Relationships with peers during adolescence have a greater relevance (Brown, 2004; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006) and the peer group represents an important determinant of adolescents’ substance use (Bahr, Hoffmann, & Yang, 2005; Ramos et al., 2011; Sánchez-Queija, Moreno, Muñoz-Tinoco, & Pérez Moreno, 2007; Windle, 2000). Nevertheless, positive parental practices promote desirable behavioural patterns and associations with prosocial peer groups (Brown et al., 1993; Goldstein et al., 2005; Mounts, 2008). The greatest strength of this study is that the HBSC study provides a well-rounded view of family and adolescents, and the sampling favoured the generalisation of the results. Therefore, this study has provided additional information about the dimensions of the family associated with responsible tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis use in adolescents, taking into account the gender and age differences. This is a particularly important area for current research in developmental psychology (Kerr et al., 2008). Furthermore, interventions should be conducted in the main contexts of development, such as family context, with the objective of preventing problems and promoting health and well-being in these contexts (Stattin & Kerr, 2009). In fact, working with families is an effective way to reduce substance use (Koutakis, Stattin, & Kerr, 2008), and this study proposes which family dimensions (adolescent disclosure, family activities, and parental knowledge) should be especially considered when intervening in adolescents’ substance use. REFERENCES Bahr, S. J., Hoffmann, J. P., & Yang, X. (2005). Parental and peer influences on the risk of adolescent drug use. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 529-551. doi: 10.1007/s10935-005-0014-8 Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2006). Effects of parental monitoring and peer deviance on substance use and delinquency. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 1084-1104. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00315.x Bronfrenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, England: Harvard University Press. 19 Brown, B. B. (2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 363-394). New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons. Brown, B. B., Mounts, N., Lamborn, S. D., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence. Child Development, 64, 467-482. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 8624.1993.tb02922.x Bumpus, M. F., & Rodgers, K. B. (2009). Parental knowledge and its sources examining the moderating roles of family structure and race. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 1356-1378. doi: 10.1177/0192513X09334154 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. Hillsdale, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coley, R. L., Votruba-Drzal, E., & Schindler, H. S. (2008). Trajectories of parenting processes and adolescent substance use: Reciprocal effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 613-625. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9205-5 Crouter, A. C., Bumpus, M. F., Davis, K. D., & McHale, S. M. (2005). How do parents learn about adolescents’ experiences? Implications for parental knowledge and adolescent risky behavior. Child Development, 76, 869-882. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00883.x Crouter, A. C., & Head, M. R. (2002). Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 3. Being and becoming a parent (2nd ed., pp. 461-483). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Currie, C., Nic Gabhainn, S., Godeau, E., Roberts, C., Smith, R., Currie, D.,… Barkenow, V. (2008). Inequalities in young people's health: HBSC international report from the 2005/06 Survey. Health policy for children and adolescents (Report No. 5). Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe. Delegación del Gobierno para el Plan Nacional sobre Drogas (2009). Informe de la Encuesta Estatal sobre Uso de Drogas en Estudiantes de Enseñanzas Secundarias (ESTUDES) 2008. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Sanidad y Política Social. Dubas, J. S., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2002). Longitudinal changes in the time parents spend in activities with their adolescent children as a function of child age, pubertal status, and gender. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 415-427. doi: 10.1037//0893-3200.16.4.415 20 Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., & Hops, H. (1998). Progressions of Alcohol, Cigarette, and Marijuana Use in Adolescence. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21, 375-388. doi: 10.1023/A:1018730814379 Elliot, D. S. (1993). Health-enhancing and health-compromising lifestyles. In S. G. Millstein, A. C. Petersen, & E. O. Nightingale (Eds.), Promoting the health of adolescents: New directions for the twenty-first century (pp.119-150). New York, EE.UU.: Oxford University Press. Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2005). Illusions of parental control: Parenting and smoking onset in Dutch and Swedish adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1912-1935. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02202.x Ghandour, L. A. (2009). Young adult alcohol involvement: The role of parental monitoring, child disclosure, and parental knowledge during childhood. Dissertation Abstracts International: Sección B. Sciences and Engineering, 69(12), 7391. Goldstein, S. E., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents, peers, and problem behavior: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of relationship perceptions and characteristics on the development of adolescent problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 41, 401-413. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.401 Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child’s internalization values: A reconceptualization of currents points of view. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4-19. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4 Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Garrett, S. B., Ling, T., & Cleveland, K. (2008). The continued importance of quality parent-adolescent relationships during late adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 187-200. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00556.x Hair, E. C., Moore, K. A., Hadley, A. M., Kaye, K., Day, R. D., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Parent marital quality and the parent-adolescent relationship: Effects on adolescent and young adult health outcomes. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 218-248. doi: 10.1080/01494920902733567 Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2008). Análisis multivariante (5th ed.). Madrid, Spain: Prentice Hall. Harakeh, Z., Scholte, R. H. J., Vermulst, A. A., De Vries, H., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). The relations between parents’ smoking, general parenting, parental smoking communication, and 21 adolescents’ smoking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 140-165. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00626.x Hawkins, D. N., Amato, P. R., & King, V. (2006). Parent-adolescent involvement: The relative influence of parent gender and residence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 68, 125-136. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00238.x Hayes, L., Hudson, A., & Matthews, J. (2003). Parental monitoring: A process model of parentadolescent interaction. Behaviour Change, 20, 13-24. doi: 10.1375/bech.20.1.13.24844 Hayes, L., Hudson, A., & Matthews, J. (2004). Parental monitoring behaviors: A model of rules, supervision, and conflict. Behavior Therapy, 35, 587-604. doi: 10.1016/S0005- 7894(04)80033-9 Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnasson, T., Kokkevi, A., & Morgan, M. (2000). The 1999 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) Report. Alcohol and other drug use among students in 30 European countries. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN) and The Pompidou Group at the Council of Europe. Hibell, B., Guttormsson, U., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., & Kraus, L. (2009). The 2007 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) Report. Substance use among students in 35 European countries. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs (CAN). Hublet, A., & Godeau, E. (2005). HBSC Research Protocol for 2005/06 Survey. Section 2. Scientific rationales for focus areas: Tobacco use. Unpublished manuscript. Jacobson, K. C., & Crockett, L. J. (2000). Parental monitoring and adolescent adjustment: An ecological perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10, 65-97. doi: 10.1207/SJRA1001_4 Jiménez-Iglesias, A. (2011). Dimensiones familiares relevantes en la consecución del conocimiento parental y sus repercusiones sobre el ajuste adolescente. Un análisis internacional, nacional y local sobre la familia en la adolescencia. (Doctoral Thesis). University of Seville, Seville. Jiménez-Iglesias, A., Moreno, C., García-Moya, I., & Ramos, P. (in press). How can parents obtain knowledge about their adolescent children? Infancia y Aprendizaje. 22 Jiménez-Iglesias, A., Moreno, C., Granado-Alcón, M. C., & López, A. (2012). Parental knowledge and adolescent adjustment (substance use and Health-Related Quality of Life). The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 132-144. doi: 10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n1.37297 Jiménez-Iglesias, A., Moreno, C., Ramos, P., & Rivera, F. (2012). What family dimensions are important for health-related quality of life in adolescence? Manuscript submitted for publication. Kandel, D. B. & Jessor, R. (2002). The gateway hypothesis revisited. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Stages and pathways of drug involvement. Examining the gateway hypothesis (pp. 365-373). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., VanderValk, I. E., & Meeus, W. (2010). Reciprocal effects between parental solicitation, parental control, adolescent disclosure, and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 88-113. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00631.x Kerr, M. & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reaction? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics. The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 121-151). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kerr, M., Stattin, H. & Burk, W. J. (2010). A reinterpretation of parental monitoring in longitudinal perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 39-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1532- 7795.2009.00623.x Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2008). Introduction: What’s changed in research on parenting and adolescent problem behavior and what needs to change? In M. Kerr, H. Stattin, & R. C. M. E. Engels (Eds.), What can parents do? New insights into the role of parents in adolescent problem behavior (pp. 1-8). London, England: John Wiley & Sons. Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (1999). To know you is to trust you: Parents' trust is rooted in child disclosure of information. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 737-752. doi: 10.1006/jado.1999.0266 Kiriakidis, S. P. (2006). Perceived parental care and supervision: Relations with cognitive representations of future offending in a sample of young offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 187-203. doi: 10.1177/0306624X05278517 23 Klimidis, S., Minas, I. H., & Ata, A. W. (1992). The PBI-BC: A brief current form of the parental bonding instrument for adolescent research. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 33, 374-377. doi: 10.1016/0010-440X(92)90058-X Koutakis, N., Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2008). Reducing youth alcohol drinking through a parent-targeted intervention: The Örebro prevention program. Addiction, 103, 1629-1637. doi: 10.1111/j.1360- 0443.2008.02326.x Kuntsche, E., Van Der Vorst, H., & Engels, R. (2009). The earlier the more? Differences in the links between age at first drink and adolescent alcohol use and related problems according to quality of parent-child relationships. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 346-354. Retrieved from http://www.jsad.com/ Laird, R. D. & Marrero, M. D. (2010). Information management and behavior problems: Is concealing misbehavior necessarily a sign of trouble? Journal of Adolescence, 33, 297-308. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.05.018 Laird, R. D., Marrero, M. D., & Sentse, M. (2010). Revisiting parental monitoring: Evidence that parental solicitation can be effective when needed most. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1431-1441. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9453-5 Laird, R. D., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Parents’ monitoring-relevant knowledge and adolescents’ delinquent behavior: Evidence of correlated developmental changes and reciprocal influences. Child Development, 74, 752-768. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00566 Li, X., Feigelman, S., & Stanton, B. (2000). Perceived parental monitoring and health risk behaviors among urban low-income African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 43-48. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00077-4 Li, X., Mao, R., Stanton, B., & Zhao, Q. (2010). Parental, behavioral, and psychological factors associated with cigarette smoking among secondary school students in Nanjing, China. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 308-317. doi: 10.1007/s10826-009-9299-1 Li, X., Stanton, B., & Feigelman, S. (2000). Impact of perceived parental monitoring on adolescent risk behavior over 4 Years. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 49-56. doi: 10.1016/S1054- 139X(00)00092-6 24 Macaulay, A. P., Griffin, K. W., Gronewold, E., Williams, C., & Botvin, G. J. (2005). Parenting practices and adolescent drug-related knowledge, attitudes, norms and behavior. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 49, 67-83. Retrieved from: http://www.jadejournal.com/ Maccoby, E. E. (2003). The gender of child and parent as factors in family dynamics. In A.C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family dynamics. The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 191-206). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marshall, S. K., Tilton-Weaver, L. C., & Bosdet, L. (2005). Information management: Considering adolescents’ regulation of parental knowledge. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 633-647. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.008 Martínez Álvarez, J. L., Fuertes Martín, A., Ramos Vergeles, M., & Hernández Martín, A. (2003). Consumo de drogas en la adolescencia: importancia del afecto y la supervisión parental. Psicothema, 15, 161-166. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com/ Moral Jiménez, M. V., Ovejero Bernal, A., Castro, Á., Rodríguez Díaz, F. J., & Sirvent-Ruiz, C. (2011). Modificación de actitudes hacia el consumo de sustancias en adolescentes: seguimiento de las diferencias inter-género. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11, 291- 311. Retieved from http://www.aepc.es/ijchp/ Moreno, C., Ramos, P., Rivera, F., Muñoz-Tinoco, V., Sánchez-Queija, I., Granado, M. C., & Jiménez-Iglesias, A. (2011). Desarrollo adolescente y salud en España. Resumen del estudio Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC - 2006). Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad. Mounts, N. S. (2008). Linkages between parenting and peer relationships: A model for parental management of adolescents’ peer relationships. In M. Kerr, H. Stattin, & R. C. M. E. Engels (Eds.), What can parents do? New insights into the role of parents in adolescent problem behaviors (pp. 163-189). London, England: John Wiley & Sons. Observatorio Europeo de las Drogas y las Toxicomanías (OEDT) (2010). Informe anual 2010. El problema de la drogodependencia en Europa. Luxembourg: Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea. Oliva, A. & Parra, Á. (2004). Contexto familiar y desarrollo psicológico durante la adolescencia. In E. Arranz (Ed.), Familia y desarrollo psicológico (pp. 96-123). Madrid, Spain: Pearson Prentice- Hall. 25 Oliva, A., Parra, Á., Sánchez-Queija, I., & López, F. (2007). Estilos educativos materno y paterno: Evaluación y relación con el ajuste adolescente. Anales de Psicología, 23, 49-56. Retrieved from http://www.um.es/analesps/ Parra, Á., & Oliva, A. (2006). Un análisis longitudinal sobre las dimensiones relevantes del estilo parental durante la adolescencia. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 29, 453-470. doi: 10.1174/021037006778849594 Pastor, Y., Balaguer, I., & García-Merita, M. L. (1999). Estilos de vida y salud. Valencia, Spain: Albatros. Piko, B. F., & Kovács, E. (2010). Do parents and school matter? Protective factors for adolescent substance use. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 53-56. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.08.004 Rai, A. A., Stanton, B., Wu, Y., Li, X., Galbraith, J., Cottrell, L.,… Burns, J. (2003). Relative influences of perceived parental monitoring and perceived peer involvement on adolescent risk behaviors: An analysis of six cross-sectional data sets. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 108- 118. doi: 10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00179-4 Ramos, P., Moreno, C., Rivera, F., & López, A. (2011). The classification of Spanish adolescents based on substance consumption patterns and the analysis of the relationships within their social developmental contexts. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14, 734-745. Retrieved from http://www.ucm.es/info/Psi/docs/journal/ Richards, M. H., Miller, B. V., O’Donnell, P. C., Wasserman, M. S., & Colder, C. (2004). Parental monitoring mediates the effects of age and sex on problem behaviors among African American urban young adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 221-233. doi: 10.1023/B:JOYO.0000025321.27416.f6 Ridao, P., & Moreno, C. (2008). Percepción de los adolescentes y sus progenitores de la adolescencia como etapa evolutiva. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 31, 499-513. doi: 10.1174/021037008786140904 Rodrigo, M. J., Máiquez, M. L., García, M., Mendoza, R., Rubio, A., Martínez, A., & Martín, J. C. (2004). Relaciones padres-hijos y estilos de vida en la adolescencia. Psicothema, 16, 203- 210. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.com/ 32 TABLE 3 Multiple linear regression analysis of tobacco use with paternal dimensions B Error β rs2 p Model adjusted Boy -0.39 0.04 -.08 .01 .000 13-14 years -1.40 0.05 -.28 .05 .000 15-16 years -0.72 0.05 -.15 .02 .000 Family activities -0.06 0.01 -.10 .01 .000 Contrast model Boy -0.36 0.04 -.07 .01 .000 13-14 years -1.41 0.06 -.28 .05 .000 15-16 years -0.73 0.05 -.15 .01 .000 Family activities -0.07 0.01 -.13 .003 .000 Paternal affection -0.08 0.10 -.02 .00 .412 Paternal promotion of autonomy -0.17 0.10 -.03 .00 .094 Paternal solicitation -0.09 0.05 -.04 .00 .086 Adolescent disclosure to fathers -0.05 0.06 -.02 .00 .385 Paternal affection x Boy 0.14 0.10 .02 .00 .165 Paternal promotion of autonomy x Boy 0.07 0.10 .01 .00 .508 Paternal solicitation x Boy 0.13 0.05 .03 .00 .011 33 B Error β rs2 p Adolescent disclosure to fathers x Boy -0.03 0.05 -.01 .00 .513 Family activities x Boy 0.003 0.01 .004 .00 .784 Paternal affection x 13-14 years -0.25 0.13 -.03 .00 .048 Paternal promotion of autonomy x 13-14 years -0.07 0.13 -.01 .00 .597 Paternal solicitation x 13-14 years -0.05 0.06 -.01 .00 .419 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x 13-14 years -0.05 0.07 -.01 .00 .433 Family activities x 13-14 years 0.06 0.01 .07 .001 .000 Paternal affection x 15-16 years 0.08 0.12 .01 .00 .532 Paternal promotion of autonomy x 15-16 years -0.03 0.12 -.004 .00 .806 Paternal solicitation x 15-16 years -0.14 0.06 -.03 .00 .026 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x 15-16 years -0.09 0.07 -.02 .00 .189 Family activities x 15-16 years 0.02 0.02 .03 .00 .103 34 TABLE 4 Multiple linear regression analysis of tobacco use with maternal and paternal dimensions B Error β rs2 p Model adjusted Boy -0.48 0.04 -.10 .01 .000 13-14 years -1.45 0.05 -.29 .06 .000 15-16 years -0.73 0.05 -.15 .02 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers -0.29 0.02 -.12 .01 .000 Contrast model Boy -0.43 0.04 -.09 .01 .000 13-14 years -1.42 0.06 -.28 .05 .000 15-16 years -0.75 0.05 -.15 .02 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers -0.22 0.06 -.09 .001 .000 Maternal affection 0.08 0.14 .01 .00 .594 Paternal affection -0.20 0.12 -.04 .00 .083 Maternal promotion of autonomy -0.39 0.13 -.07 .001 .002 Paternal promotion of autonomy -0.02 0.12 -.003 .00 .888 Maternal solicitation -0.05 0.07 -.02 .00 .437 Paternal solicitation -0.09 0.06 -.03 .00 .120 Adolescent disclosure to fathers 0.06 0.07 .03 .00 .328 35 B Error β rs2 p Family activities -0.06 0.01 -.10 .001 .000 Maternal affection x Boy 0.13 0.14 .01 .00 .368 Paternal affection x Boy 0.12 0.11 .02 .00 .274 Maternal promotion of autonomy x Boy 0.18 0.13 .02 .00 .154 Paternal promotion of autonomy x Boy -0.01 0.12 -.002 .00 .912 Maternal solicitation x Boy -0.09 0.06 -.02 .00 .153 Paternal solicitation x Boy 0.17 0.06 .04 .001 .003 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x Boy 0.03 0.06 .01 .00 .562 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x Boy 0.003 0.06 .001 .00 .961 Family activities x Boy -0.01 0.01 -.01 .00 .485 Maternal affection x 13-14 years -0.04 0.18 -.004 .00 .809 Paternal affection x 13-14 years -0.19 0.15 -.02 .00 .199 Maternal promotion of autonomy x 13-14 years 0.37 0.16 .04 .00 .021 Paternal promotion of autonomy x 13-14 years -0.24 0.15 -.02 .00 .115 Maternal solicitation x 13-14 years 0.02 0.08 .003 .00 .837 Paternal solicitation x 13-14 years -0.05 0.07 -.01 .00 .518 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x 13-14 years 0.05 0.07 .01 .00 .479 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x 13-14 years -0.10 0.08 -.02 .00 .198 Family activities x 13-14 years 0.06 0.02 .07 .001 .000 36 B Error β rs2 p Maternal affection x 15-16 years -0.10 0.17 -.01 .00 .542 Paternal affection x 15-16 years 0.15 0.14 .02 .00 .261 Maternal promotion of autonomy x 15-16 years -0.02 0.15 -.002 .00 .909 Paternal promotion of autonomy x 15-16 years 0.02 0.14 .002 .00 .918 Maternal solicitation x 15-16 years -0.16 0.08 -.03 .00 .039 Paternal solicitation x 15-16 years -0.08 0.07 -.02 .00 .244 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x 15-16 years 0.04 0.07 .01 .00 .611 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x 15-16 years -0.11 0.08 -.03 .00 .141 Family activities x 15-16 years 0.03 0.02 .03 .00 .074 37 TABLE 5 Multiple linear regression analysis of alcohol use with maternal dimensions B Error β rs2 p Model adjusted 13-14 years -1.33 0.03 -.42 .12 .000 15-16 years -0.57 0.03 -.19 .02 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers -0.22 0.01 -.14 .02 .000 Contrast model 13-14 years -1.30 0.03 -.41 .11 .000 15-16 years -0.57 0.03 -.19 .02 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers -0.26 0.03 -.17 .01 .000 Boy 0.08 0.03 .03 .001 .002 Maternal affection -0.06 0.07 -.02 .00 .426 Maternal promotion of autonomy 0.05 0.06 .02 .00 .426 Maternal solicitation -0.11 0.04 -.06 .001 .003 Family activities -0.02 0.01 -.05 .00 .024 Maternal affection x Boy 0.21 0.07 .04 .001 .003 Maternal promotion of autonomy x Boy -0.12 0.06 -.02 .00 .060 Maternal solicitation x Boy -0.13 0.03 -.04 .001 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x Boy -0.04 0.03 -.02 .00 .192 38 B Error β rs2 p Family activities x Boy 0.002 0.01 .004 .00 .728 Maternal affection x 13-14 years -0.10 0.09 -.01 .00 .303 Maternal promotion of autonomy x 13-14 years 0.07 0.08 .01 .00 .403 Maternal solicitation x 13-14 years 0.15 0.04 .04 .001 .001 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x 13-14 years 0.18 0.04 .07 .002 .000 Family activities x 13-14 years -0.001 0.01 -.001 .00 .948 Maternal affection x 15-16 years -0.04 0.09 -.01 .00 .656 Maternal promotion of autonomy x 15-16 years -0.06 0.08 -.01 .00 .465 Maternal solicitation x 15-16 years 0.03 0.04 .01 .00 .466 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x 15-16 years 0.11 0.04 .05 .001 .001 Family activities x 15-16 years 0.01 0.01 .01 .00 .512 39 TABLE 6 Multiple linear regression analysis of alcohol use with paternal dimensions B Error β rs2 p Model adjusted 13-14 years -1.33 0.03 -.42 .12 .000 15-16 years -0.58 0.03 -.19 .02 .000 Adolescent disclosure to fathers -0.17 0.01 -.11 .01 .000 Contrast model 13-14 years -1.30 0.03 -.41 .11 .000 15-16 years -0.56 0.03 -.19 .02 .000 Adolescent disclosure to fathers -0.19 0.03 -.12 .002 .000 Boy 0.15 0.03 .05 .003 .000 Paternal affection -0.05 0.06 -.02 .00 .379 Paternal promotion of autonomy 0.12 0.06 .04 .00 .044 Paternal solicitation -0.01 0.03 -.01 .00 .767 Family activities -0.02 0.01 -.06 .001 .006 Paternal affection x Boy 0.03 0.06 .01 .00 .648 Paternal promotion of autonomy x Boy 0.04 0.06 .01 .00 .515 Paternal solicitation x Boy -0.01 0.03 -.003 .00 .828 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x Boy -0.05 0.03 -.02 .00 .138 40 B Error β rs2 p Family activities x Boy 0.002 0.01 .01 .00 .716 Paternal affection x 13-14 years 0.10 0.08 .02 .00 .192 Paternal promotion of autonomy x 13-14 years -0.19 0.08 -.03 .00 .018 Paternal solicitation x 13-14 years -0.05 0.04 -.02 .00 .222 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x 13-14 years 0.09 0.04 .04 .00 .022 Family activities x 13-14 years 0.004 0.01 .01 .00 .603 Paternal affection x 15-16 years 0.09 0.07 .02 .00 .199 Paternal promotion of autonomy x 15-16 years -0.18 0.07 -.03 .00 .016 Paternal solicitation x 15-16 years -0.07 0.04 -.03 .00 .046 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x 15-16 years 0.11 0.04 .04 .001 .006 Family activities x 15-16 years -0.002 0.01 -.003 .00 .839 41 TABLE 7 Multiple linear regression analysis of alcohol use with maternal and paternal dimensions B Error β rs2 p Model adjusted 13-14 years -1.35 0.03 -.42 .12 .000 15-16 years -0.59 0.03 -.19 .03 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers -0.22 0.01 -.14 .02 .000 Contrast model 13-14 years -1.31 0.03 -.41 .11 .000 15-16 years -0.57 0.03 -.19 .02 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers -0.21 0.04 -.13 .002 .000 Boy 0.09 0.03 .03 .001 .000 Maternal affection -0.06 0.09 -.02 .00 .465 Paternal affection -0.09 0.07 -.03 .00 .173 Maternal promotion of autonomy -0.003 0.08 -.001 .00 .967 Paternal promotion of autonomy 0.14 0.07 .04 .00 .056 Maternal solicitation -0.13 0.04 -.06 .001 .002 Paternal solicitation 0.04 0.03 .02 .00 .262 Adolescent disclosure to fathers -0.08 0.04 -.05 .00 .035 Family activities -0.01 0.01 -.04 .00 .127 48 TABLE 10 Multiple linear regression analysis of cannabis use with maternal and paternal dimensions B Error β rs2 p Model adjusted 13-14 years -5.42 0.22 -.27 .05 .000 15-16 years -2.68 0.21 -.14 .01 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers -1.01 0.09 -.10 .01 .000 Family activities -0.18 0.02 -.08 .01 .000 Contrast model 13-14 years -5.10 0.23 -.25 .04 .000 15-16 years -2.39 0.22 -.12 .01 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers -1.96 0.25 -.19 .01 .000 Family activities -0.33 0.06 -.15 .003 .000 Boys 0.42 0.18 .02 .00 .017 Maternal affection 1.15 0.58 .05 .00 .046 Paternal affection -1.45 0.47 -.08 .001 .002 Maternal promotion of autonomy 0.26 0.52 .01 .00 .623 Paternal promotion of autonomy 1.97 0.49 .09 .001 .000 Maternal solicitation -0.01 0.27 .00 .00 .984 Paternal solicitation -0.84 0.23 -.08 .001 .000 49 B Error β rs2 p Adolescent disclosure to fathers 0.58 0.27 .06 .00 .029 Maternal affection x Boy 0.75 0.56 .02 .00 .186 Paternal affection x Boy 0.53 0.46 .02 .00 .244 Maternal promotion of autonomy x Boy 0.79 0.51 .02 .00 .118 Paternal promotion of autonomy x Boy -0.11 0.49 -.003 .00 .817 Maternal solicitation x Boy -0.69 0.26 -.04 .001 .007 Paternal solicitation x Boy 0.86 0.22 .06 .001 .000 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x Boy 0.22 0.24 .02 .00 .358 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x Boy -0.41 0.25 -.03 .00 .100 Family activities x Boy -0.07 0.05 -.02 .00 .113 Maternal affection x 13-14 years -2.15 0.72 -.05 .001 .003 Paternal affection x 13-14 years 0.96 0.59 .03 .00 .103 Maternal promotion of autonomy x 13-14 years 0.15 0.65 .004 .00 .822 Paternal promotion of autonomy x 13-14 years -2.38 0.62 -.06 .001 .000 Maternal solicitation x 13-14 years 0.30 0.33 .01 .00 .373 Paternal solicitation x 13-14 years 0.11 0.28 .01 .00 .690 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x 13-14 years 1.62 0.30 .10 .002 .000 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x 13-14 years -0.58 0.32 -.04 .00 .068 Family activities x 13-14 years 0.34 0.06 .10 .002 .000 50 B Error β rs2 p Maternal affection x 15-16 years -2.5 0.69 -.07 .001 .000 Paternal affection x 15-16 years 1.12 0.56 .04 .00 .044 Maternal promotion of autonomy x 15-16 years -0.002 0.62 .00 .00 .998 Paternal promotion of autonomy x 15-16 years -2.03 0.58 -.06 .001 .000 Maternal solicitation x 15-16 years -0.56 0.32 -.03 .00 .079 Paternal solicitation x 15-16 years 0.12 0.27 .01 .00 .656 Adolescent disclosure to mothers x 15-16 years 0.98 0.29 .06 .001 .001 Adolescent disclosure to fathers x 15-16 years -0.40 0.31 -.03 .00 .199 Family activities x 15-16 years 0.22 0.06 .06 .001 .001