1. The significance of parenting
behaviors and substance use in
adolescents
HEA 479
TARA LEE BURKE
KATHRINE RODRIGUEZ
JAMES GRIFFIN
DANIELLE BANUELOS
CANDICE HOBDY

2. Background
Substance use is very popular among 23.9 million Americans (9.2% of the populations adolescences
between the ages 12 and older) making it an extensive problem (DrugFacts: Nationwide Trends, 2014).
Research conducted in 27 countries found that higher parental awareness and understanding led to lower levels
of tobacco use(Poms, Flemings, Jacobsen 2012).
Found that a low level of parental monitoring leads to an increased use of substances among adolescents
(Merril, 2010).
A study of 295 kindergarten and 1st grade students show that 21% of children reported having initiated
substance abuse by age 12.
Parenting behaviors has been found to predict the psychosocial development, academic performance,
behavior problems, social competence, and substance abuse in adolescents (Montgomery et al, 2008).

3. PRIMARY: Family Stress will be associated with tobacco use.
SECONDARY: The association between family stress and tobacco use differs by gender.
IV: Family Stress, DV: Tobacco use
PRIMARY: Parental support will be associated with tobacco use.
SECONDARY: The association between parental support and substance use will differ by country.
IV: parental support, DV: Tobacco use
Main Research Hypothesis:
There is an association between parental behaviors
and substance use in European adolescents.
IV: Parental Behaviors DV: Substance Use

4. Hypotheses cont.
PRIMARY: Strictness of family rules will be associated with alcohol use.
SECONDARY: The association between strictness of family rules and alcohol use will differ by country.
IV: Strictness of family rules, DV: Alcohol use
PRIMARY: Strictness of family rules will be associated with marijuana use.
SECONDARY: The association between strictness of family rules and marijuana use will differ by
country.
IV: Strictness of family rules, DV: Marijuana use
PRIMARY: Family Stress will be associated with substance use.
SECONDARY: The association between family stress and substance use will differ by gender.
IV: Family Stress, DV: Substance use

5. Method and Sample
 The sample consisted of 472 Italian and Dutch adolescents, living in
the northwest of Italy and the northeast of The Netherlands, and
was reasonably balanced for country (52% Italian, 48% Dutch),
gender (52% male, 48% female), age (mean age = 17.4 (S.D. = 1.4)).
 Diverse types of secondary schools participated in the study high
educational tracks (25.3%) and schools that focused on technical
training (74.7%).

6. Measures
 Measures used in this study were derived from the Italian version of the Health
Behavior Questionnaire (Bonino, Cattelino and Ciairano, 2005).
 The scales and composite measures of the questionnaire are all theoretically-derived
from Jessor’s problem behavior theory (Jessor et al., 1991).
 Validity of the scales has been established across multiple studies and multiple
populations.

7. Histograms
Strictness of Family Rules
Parental Support
Family Stress

8. Results: Family Stress and Tobacco Use
Primary Hypothesis: A higher rate of family stress will be associated with
higher rate of tobacco use.
Correlation test showed there is no significant correlation between family
stress and tobacco use. r = .033, p>.05
Correlations
Family
Stress Tobacco
Spearman's rho
Family Stress
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .028
Sig. (2-tailed) . .876
N 471 33
Tobacco
Correlation Coefficient .028 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .876 .
N 33 33

9. Results: Family Stress and Tobacco Use
Secondary Hypothesis: The
association between family stress and
tobacco use differs by gender.
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std. Error
Differenc
e
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower Upper
Family Stress
Equal variances
assumed
11.698 .001 -4.581 469 .000 -.387 .084 -.552 -.221
Equal variances
not assumed
-4.579 451.60
5
.000 -.387 .084 -.552 -.221
Tobacco
Equal variances
assumed
.017 .896 1.572 31 .126 .889 .566 -.264 2.042
Equal variances
not assumed
1.560 7.342 .161 .889 .570 -.446 2.223
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Family Stress
male 236 1.83 .823 .054
female 235 2.22 1.000 .065
Tobacco
male 6 3.00 1.265 .516
female 27 2.11 1.251 .241
 Independent t tests
show that there is a
significant difference
in the means for
family stress in terms
of gender however
there is not a
significant difference
in the means of
tobacco use in terms
of gender.

10. Results: Parental Support and Tobacco Use
Primary Hypothesis: A higher rate of parental support will be associated with a lower rate
of tobacco use.
Correlation test revealed that there is no significant correlation between parental support
and tobacco use r= -2.66, p>.05
Tobacco Parental
Support
Tobacco
Pearson Correlation 1 -.266
Sig. (2-tailed) .134
N 33 33
Parental Support
Pearson Correlation -.266 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .134
N 33 466

11. Results: Parental Support and Tobacco Use
Secondary Hypothesis: The association between high rates of parental support and low rates of
tobacco use will differ by country.
Results had an almost significant finding between country of origin and Italian adolescents.
(r=-.511, p>.090)
There is no significant correlation between country of origin and Dutch adolescents
(r=-.152, p>.509)
Tobacco Parental
Support
Tobacco
Pearson Correlation 1 -.511
Sig. (2-tailed) .090
N 12 12
Parental
Support
Pearson Correlation -.511 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .090
N 12 296
Italy
Tobacco Parental
Support
Tobacco
Pearson Correlation 1 -.152
Sig. (2-tailed) .509
N 21 21
Parental
Support
Pearson Correlation -.152 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .509
N 21 170
Holland

12. Results: Strictness of Family Rules and Alcohol Use
Primary Hypothesis: A higher rate of strictness of family rules will be associated with
lower rate of alcohol use among European adolescents.
A correlation test revealed that the strictness of family rules is significantly,
negatively correlated with alcohol use, r= -.307, p<.05.
As strictness of family rules increased, alcohol consumption decreased.
Correlations
Alcohol use
Strictness
Family Rules
Spearman's rho
Alcohol use
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.307**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000
N 399 371
Strictness Family
Rules
Correlation Coefficient -.307** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .
N 371 439
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

13. Results: Strictness of Family Rules and Alcohol Use
 Two Independent t-tests:
Revealed a significant mean
difference among Italy and
Holland in regards to the level
of strictness in their homes
and a significant mean
difference among Italy and
Holland in regards to the level
of alcohol use.
Secondary Hypothesis: The association
between high rates of strictness of
family rules and low rates of alcohol
use will differ by country.
Group Statistics
country N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Alcohol use
Italy 272 2.90 1.343 .081
Holland 127 3.53 1.463 .130
Strictness
Family Rules
Italy 281 19.47 4.147 .247
Holland 158 16.41 3.591 .286
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower Upper
Alcohol use
Equal variances
assumed
1.14
5
.285 -4.244 397 .000 -.631 .149 -.923 -.338
Equal variances
not assumed
-4.114 228.30
8
.000 -.631 .153 -.932 -.329
Strictness
Family Rules
Equal variances
assumed
6.14
4
.014 7.765 437 .000 3.055 .393 2.282 3.828
Equal variances
not assumed
8.083 365.54
0
.000 3.055 .378 2.312 3.798

14. Results: Strictness of Family Rules and Marijuana Use
Correlations
Marijuana Strictness
Family Rules
Spearman's rho
Marijuana
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.123*
Sig. (2-tailed) . .010
N 467 437
Strictness Family
Rules
Correlation Coefficient -.123* 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .
N 437 439
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Primary Hypothesis: Higher rate of strictness of family rules will be associated with lower rate
of marijuana use
There is a statistically (p<0.5) significant negative correlation between strictness of
family rules and marijuana use (r = -.123).
Other studies have shown adolescents who come from high control families used drugs
significantly less than those from low control families (Montgomery et al., 2008).

15. Results: Strictness of Family Rules and Marijuana Use
Secondary Hypothesis: The association
between high rates of strictness of family
rules and low rates of marijuana use will
differ by country.
Group Statistics
country N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Marijuana
Italy 298 1.79 1.151 .067
Holland 169 1.39 .817 .063
Strictness
Family Rules
Italy 281 19.47 4.147 .247
Holland 158 16.41 3.591 .286
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
taile
d)
Mean
Differe
nce
Std.
Error
Differe
nce
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Marijuana
Equal variances
assumed
67.576 .000 3.963 465 .000 .398 .100 .201 .595
Equal variances
not assumed
4.343 442.141 .000 .398 .092 .218 .578
Strictness
Family
Rules
Equal variances
assumed
6.144 .014 7.765 437 .000 3.055 .393 2.282 3.828
Equal variances
not assumed
8.083 365.540 .000 3.055 .378 2.312 3.798
 Significant mean difference
between country of origin
and marijuana use.
 Significant mean difference
between country of origin
and strictness of family rules.

16. Results: Family Stress and Substance Use
Primary Hypothesis: Is there an association between family stress and all substance use.
My correlation test revealed that family stress is significant and significant with substance use r=.139,
p< .05
As all drug use increases so does family stress.
Correlations
Family Stress Substance Use
Spearman's rho
Family Stress
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .139**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .002
N 471 470
Substance use
Correlation Coefficient .139** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .
N 470 471
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

17. Results: Family Stress and Substance Use
Secondary Hypothesis: Is there a
significance in the means of high
substance use and family stress
among genders.
 The t test shows that there
is a significance difference
in the means of family
stress among males and
females. This test also,
shows the significant
difference of substance
use among males and
females.
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
All_Drug_use
male 236 5.7415 3.90484 .25418
female 235 5.1021 4.40937 .28764
Family_Stress
male 236 1.83 .823 .054
female 235 2.22 1.000 .065
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
All_Drug_use
Equal variances assumed .762 .383 1.666 469 .096 .63940 .38375 -.11469 1.39349
Equal variances not assumed 1.666 461.768 .096 .63940 .38385 -.11492 1.39371
Family_Stress
Equal variances assumed 11.698 .001 -4.581 469 .000 -.387 .084 -.552 -.221
Equal variances not assumed -4.579 451.605 .000 -.387 .084 -.552 -.221

18. Strengths & Limitations
STRENGTHS:
Increased the knowledge of why adolescents start to use illicit substances.
Demonstrates to parents their ability to positively influence their children's behavior.
LIMITATIONS:
Conducted a secondary research design.
Does not take into account the cultural beliefs each country has toward the substances
surveyed. Does each culture view the substances as harmful as the US do?

19. References
1. DrugFacts. (2014). Nationwide Trends. Retrieved from National Institute on Drug Abuse.
2. Montgomery, C., & Fisk, J. E., & Craig, L. (2008). The effects of perceived parenting style on the propensity
for illicit drug use: the importance of parental warmth and control. Drug & Alcohol Review, 27(6), 640-649.
3. Bares, C. B., & Delva, J., & Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Andrade, F. (2011). Family and parenting characteristics
associated with marijuana use by Chilean adolescents. Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation, 2:1-11.
4. MacCoun, R., & Reuter, P. (2001). Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes.
5. Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press). 2010 October; 56(4): 529–556.
6. Laghi, F., Baiocco, R., Lonigro, A., Capacchione, G., & Baumgartner, E. (2012). Family functioning and binge
drinking among italian adolescents. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(8), 1132-1141.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105311430005

20. References
7. Jacobsen, K. H., Poms, L. W., & Fleming, L. C. (). Parenting Practices and Tobacco Use in Middle School
Students in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Journal of School Health, 83, 353-363.
8. Kaplow, J., Curran, P., Dodge, K., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (0005, November 21).
Abstract. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Retrieved May 1, 2014, from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758661/
9. Twomey, J., LaGasse, L., Derauf, C., Newman, E., Shah, R., Smith, L., Arria, A., Huestis, M.,
DellaGrotta, S., Roberts, M., Dansereau, L., Neal, C., & Lester., B. Prenatal
Methamphetamine Exposure, Home Environment, and Primary Caregiver Risk Factors Predict Child
Behavioral Problems at 5 Years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 83, 64-72.
10. Putnick, D., Bornstein, M., Hendricks, C., Painter, K., Suwalsky, J., & Collins, W. Stability, Continuity, and
Similarity of Parenting Stress in European American Mothers and Fathers Across Their Child's Transition
to Adolescence. Taylor & Francis, 10, 60-77.

21. Thank you!