Is parenting style a context for smoking-specific parenting practices?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.12.005Get rights and content

Abstract

This study examined whether global parenting style can be regarded as a context in which smoking-specific parenting practices relate to adolescent smoking cognitions and behaviors. Data were gathered through self-administered questionnaires from 482 adolescents aged 12–19 years, who participated in the Study of Medical Information and Lifestyles in Eindhoven (SMILE). We assessed parenting style dimensions (support, strict control, psychological control), smoking-specific parenting practices (parent-child communication about smoking, anti-smoking house rules, availability of tobacco products, non-smoking agreement), smoking-related cognitions according to the I-Change Model (attitude, social norm, self-efficacy, intention), and smoking behavior. Structural equation models were computed and compared for adolescents in different parenting climates. Results showed that communication and availability were related to adolescents’ attitude towards smoking. Availability was additionally associated with reduced self-efficacy to refrain from smoking. Attitude and self-efficacy were subsequently related to intention to smoke, which in turn was related to smoking behavior. No direct relations were found between anti-smoking parenting practices and adolescent smoking behavior. These results were not dependent on the parenting climate. Parenting style thus did not serve as a context for smoking-specific parenting practices, indicating that these facets of parenting operate independently, and that anti-smoking parenting practices may be effective regardless of parenting climate.

Introduction

Although the hazardous health consequences of smoking are well-known, adolescents continue to take up smoking, which underlines the need for insight into its explanatory factors (STIVORO—rookvrij, 2004, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1994). The role of parents has been studied for many years and several relevant aspects of parenting behavior have emerged, including the global parenting climate in which a child is reared and smoking-specific parenting practices (e.g., Jackson and Henriksen, 1997, O’Byrne et al., 2002). According to Darling and Steinberg (1993) “Parenting style alters the parents’ capacity to socialize their children by changing the effectiveness of their parenting practices”. From this perspective, parenting style can be thought of as a contextual variable that moderates the relationship between anti-smoking parenting practices and adolescent smoking behavior. The current study tested this idea, while also accounting for smoking-related cognitions in explaining adolescent smoking behavior.

Whereas parenting style is considered to represent a global emotional climate in which a family functions, parents can also socialize their children in a more content-specific manner, whereby anti-smoking parenting practices encompass those aspects of socialization aimed at discouraging adolescent smoking (Darling and Steinberg, 1993). Previous studies have related smoking-specific practices to adolescent smoking and inconsistent patterns have emerged. Content-specific parental monitoring efforts are commonly considered key factors in explaining and deterring adolescent smoking behavior and include parent–child communication about substance use and substance-specific rules (Chilcoat and Anthony, 1996, Juon et al., 2002, Huver et al., in press-b). Parent-child communication about smoking, for example, has been favorably associated with a decrease in smoking rates (Engels and Willemsen, 2004, Fearnow et al., 1998, Chassin et al., 1998), although unfavorable effects have also been reported (Harakeh et al., 2005, Ennett et al., 2001). Furthermore, house rules about smoking in the home have been linked to a reduced risk of adolescent smoking (Jackson and Henriksen, 1997, Henriksen and Jackson, 1998, Andersen et al., 2004), but less conclusive evidence has also been found (Den Exter Blokland et al., 2006, Huver et al., 2006, Harakeh et al., 2005). In addition to these monitoring practices, the availability of cigarettes in the household has been related to increased adolescent smoking, and parental attempts to reduce availability have been shown to be beneficial (Engels et al., 2005, Engels and Willemsen, 2004, Jackson, 1997, Ma et al., 2003), although a longitudinal study failed to find any effects (Den Exter Blokland et al., 2006). Finally, parents often try to get their children to enter into non-smoking agreements by offering the prospect of rewards for non-smoking. In 2004, 27% of Dutch youths aged 10–19 engaged in some form of a non-smoking agreement (STIVORO—rookvrij, 2005), but the effectiveness of these strategies is questionable (Huver et al., 2006, Harakeh et al., 2005). Summarizing, it seems that parental socialization efforts may be beneficial in some circumstances, but the contradictory results of previous studies suggest that more insight into these circumstances is needed. Contrary to common belief, although parental modeling of smoking behavior is a major factor in their children's smoking behavior (Andrews et al., 1993, Avenevoli and Merikangas, 2003), it cannot necessarily explain these inconsistent effects of parenting practices (Jackson and Henriksen, 1997, Huver et al., in press-b).

According to Darling and Steinberg (1993), the effects of parenting practices depend on the global parenting climate. Parents can be classified as authoritative, permissive, authoritarian, rejecting, or neglectful, based on scores on the dimensions underlying the parenting style, namely support, strict control, and psychological control (Baumrind, 1971, Baumrind, 1966, Maccoby and Martin, 1983, Steinberg et al., 1989, Den Exter Blokland et al., 2001, Goossens and Beyers, 1999). First, support refers to the affective component of parenting. Second, strict control comprises general parental knowledge of children's whereabouts and active behavioral monitoring efforts undertaken to gain this knowledge (Stattin and Kerr, 2000) and has proven an important factor in adolescent smoking initiation and escalation (Steinberg et al., 1994). Psychological control refers to the intrusive and manipulative parental control over their children's psychological world, consisting of thoughts and feelings (Gray and Steinberg, 1999, Barber, 2002). Authoritative parenting and its underlying dimensions (high support, high strict control, low psychological control) have been found to have favorable effects on adolescent smoking (Huver et al., in press-a, Jackson et al., 1998, Radziszewska et al., 1996, Glendinning et al., 1997, Pierce et al., 2002, Simons Morton, 2002, O’Byrne et al., 2002, Gray and Steinberg, 1999).

In addition to aspects of parenting considered to explain adolescent smoking, social cognition theories suggest that smoking is the result of social-cognitive factors (e.g., Ajzen, 1991, Conrad et al., 1992). According to the I-Change Model (Integrated Model for Change, De Vries et al., 2003), the set of cognitions (attitude, perceived social influences and self-efficacy expectations) influences the intention to smoke, in turn predicting smoking behavior. Attitudes consist of the advantages and disadvantages a person perceives with regard to smoking. Perceived social norm is a form of social influence pertaining to perceptions of what others would expect one to do. Finally, self-efficacy has been described as the estimated ability to engage in a certain behavior (Bandura, 1986), in this case refraining from smoking. Previous studies suggest that the effects of parenting style on adolescent smoking may be mediated by these cognitive factors (Harakeh et al., 2004). In another study among the current sample, the authors examined associations of parental support, strict control, and psychological control with adolescent smoking cognitions and behavior (Huver et al., in press-a). While support was not significantly associated with smoking behavior and psychological control related directly to increased lifetime smoking, an inverse relation was found between strict control and smoking, which was partly mediated by cognitions. With respect to smoking-specific parenting, Otten et al. (in press) found that these practices, assessed by parental reactions to smoking, house rules on smoking, and communication about smoking, were indeed predictive of adolescents’ smoking-related cognitions. Associations of the frequency and content of parental communication with attitude, social norms regarding smoking, and self-efficacy have also been reported elsewhere (Huver et al., 2006). In this prospective study, aspects of parent-child communication on smoking behavior were mediated by cognitions. These findings suggest that effects of smoking-specific parenting operating on adolescent smoking behavior are mediated by smoking-related cognitions.

We propose a model (Fig. 1) to test the idea of parenting style as a context for smoking-specific parenting practices in relation to adolescent smoking cognitions and behavior. In this model, socialization is related to adolescent smoking cognitions and behavior. The model was tested for adolescents experiencing either high or low levels of parental support, strict control, or psychological control. We hypothesized that (a) parental anti-smoking socialization would be related to adolescent smoking cognitions and behavior and that (b) these relations would be moderated by the parenting climate they take place in, with anti-smoking socialization being most beneficial to adolescents experiencing the high support, high strict control and low psychological control characterizing authoritative parenting.

Section snippets

Sample and procedures

In May 2003, 482 adolescents aged 12–19 years took part in the Study of Medical Information and Lifestyles in Eindhoven (SMILE) by filling out self-administered questionnaires. SMILE is a joint project of Maastricht University and 23 family physicians from seven medical practices located in Eindhoven, a city of approximately 200,000 inhabitants situated in the southern part of the Netherlands. Family physicians provided participant addresses. The 16-page questionnaire took 30–45 min to complete,

Descriptives

The adolescents taking part in the SMILE study had a mean age of 15.35 years (S.D. = 2.02), and slightly more girls than boys (55.6%) took part in the study. Participants were mostly of Dutch origin (90.5%), and most of them indicated that they had some kind of religious background (54.4%). Never smokers made up 60.2% of the sample, 31.6% were occasional smokers and 8.2% were regular smokers. Whereas 60.2% of the respondents indicated not to have smoked any cigarettes in their lifetime, 20.2% had

Discussion

The main goal of this study was to assess whether general parenting, as assessed by support, strict control, and psychological control, could be considered a context for smoking-specific parenting practices (communication about smoking, house rules, availability of tobacco products, non-smoking agreements). A model of smoking-specific socialization and adolescent smoking cognitions and behavior was proposed, which was then compared for respondents experiencing high or low support, strict

Acknowledgement

The Study of Medical Information and Lifestyles in Eindhoven (SMILE) is not externally funded.

References (74)

  • H.S. Juon et al.

    A longitudinal study of developmental trajectories to young adult cigarette smoking

    Drug Alcohol Depend.

    (2002)
  • S.P. Kremers et al.

    Motivational stages of adolescent smoking initiation: predictive validity and predictors of transitions

    Addict. Behav.

    (2004)
  • S.P. Kremers et al.

    “Kicking the initiation”: do adolescent ex-smokers differ from other groups within the initiation continuum?

    Prev. Med.

    (2001)
  • S.P. Kremers et al.

    Subtypes within the precontemplation stage of adolescent smoking acquisition

    Addict. Behav.

    (2001)
  • S.P. Kremers et al.

    Model of unplanned smoking initiation of children and adolescents: an integrated stage model of smoking behavior

    Prev. Med.

    (2004)
  • G.X. Ma et al.

    Ethnic differences in adolescent smoking behaviors, sources of tobacco, knowledge and attitudes toward restriction policies

    Addict. Behav.

    (2003)
  • J.P. Pierce et al.

    Does tobacco marketing undermine the influence of recommended parenting in discouraging adolescents from smoking?

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    (2002)
  • M.R. Andersen et al.

    Antismoking parenting practices are associated with reduced rates of adolescent smoking

    Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med.

    (2004)
  • J.A. Andrews et al.

    Parental influence on early adolescent substance use: specific and nonspecific effects

    J. Early Adolesc.

    (1993)
  • S. Avenevoli et al.

    Familial influences on adolescent smoking

    Addiction

    (2003)
  • D.L. Bandalos et al.

    Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling

  • A. Bandura

    The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory

    J. Soc. Clin. Psychol.

    (1986)
  • B.K. Barber

    Intrusive Parenting: How Psychological Control Affects Children and Adolescents

    (2002)
  • K.E. Bauman et al.

    Family matters: a family-directed program designed to prevent adolescent tobacco and alcohol use

    Health Prom. Pract.

    (2001)
  • D. Baumrind

    Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior

    Child Dev.

    (1966)
  • D. Baumrind

    Current patterns of parental authority

    Dev. Psychol.

    (1971)
  • K.A. Bollen

    Structural Equations with Latent Variables

    (1989)
  • J. Brehm

    A Theory of Psychological Reactance

    (1966)
  • B.B. Brown et al.

    Parenting practices and peer group affiliation in adolescence

    Child Dev.

    (1993)
  • B.M. Byrne

    Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming

    (1998)
  • L. Chassin et al.

    Parenting style and smoking-specific parenting practices as predictors of adolescent smoking onset

    J. Pediatr. Psychol.

    (2005)
  • L. Chassin et al.

    Maternal socialization of adolescent smoking: the intergenerational transmission of parenting and smoking

    Dev. Psychol.

    (1998)
  • K.M. Conrad et al.

    Why children start smoking cigarettes: predictors of onset

    Br. J. Addict.

    (1992)
  • N. Darling et al.

    Parenting style as context: an integrative model

    Psychol. Bull.

    (1993)
  • H. De Vries et al.

    The European Smoking Prevention Framework Approach (EFSA): an example of integral prevention

    Health Educ. Res.

    (2003)
  • Den Exter Blokland, E., Hale, W.W., Meeus, W., Engels, R.C.M.E., in press. Parental support and control and early...
  • E.A. Den Exter Blokland et al.

    Parental anti-smoking socialization: associations between parental anti-smoking socialization practices and early adolescent smoking initiation

    Eur. Addict. Res.

    (2006)
  • Cited by (39)

    • Concurrent and Prospective Associations Between Substance-Specific Parenting Practices and Child Cigarette, Alcohol, and Marijuana Use

      2018, Journal of Adolescent Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      These prior studies on smoking rules were cross sectional, however, and included limited measures—if any—of confounds like those included here. The one study we found that included measures of general parenting practices found no link between household smoking rules and child intention to smoke or smoking behavior [37]. Parent provision of substances was rare in this sample, with 12% of parents reporting allowing their child to drink alcohol and 2% of parents allowing their child to use cigarettes.

    • School Disciplinary Style and Adolescent Health

      2018, Journal of Adolescent Health
    • Choosing adolescent smokers as friends: The role of parenting and parental smoking

      2013, Journal of Adolescence
      Citation Excerpt :

      This instrument asks adolescents to report on their parents' parenting behaviors. In previous studies, Cronbach's alphas ranged from 0.74 to 0.83 for psychological control, from 0.72 to 0.86 for parental support, and from 0.70 to 0.85 for behavioral control (Beyers & Goossens, 1999; Huver, Engels, Vermulst, & de Vries, 2007; Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991). The first parenting dimension, Psychological control was assessed with six statements such as ‘My parents act in a cold and unfriendly manner if I do something they do not like’.

    • Authoritative parenting style and adolescent smoking and drinking

      2012, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      Adolescents perceived more negative family interactions and less positive identification with parents reported more contemporaneous alcohol and cigarette use (Gutman et al., 2010). Our hypothesis that authoritative parenting style might serve as a protective factor was generally confirmed similar to previous studies (e.g., Huver et al., 2007; Jackson, 2002; Pierce et al., 2002). However, this role was less impressive in monthly smoking prevalence and lifetime drinking occurrence, particularly in terms of parents' demandingness.

    • Parental and child fruit consumption in the context of general parenting, parental education and ethnic background

      2012, Appetite
      Citation Excerpt :

      For descriptive purposes only, child fruit consumption was dichotomised into those who consumed less than 14 pieces per week and those who consumed 14 or more pieces per week, according to the recommended Dutch norms of two pieces of fruit per day (Richtlijnen Voedselkeuze (Nutrition Guidelines), 2009). The parenting style of the primary caregiver was measured using the Dutch translation (Beyers & Goossens, 1999) of an instrument based on earlier work by Steinberg et al. (Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1989), which is used in many studies worldwide (Beyers & Goossens, 1999; Huver, Engels, Vermulst, & De Vries, 2007a; Kremers et al., 2003; Pearson, Atkin, Biddle, Gorely, & Edwardson, 2010). This 22-item measure assessed three parenting-style dimensions (support, behavioural control and psychological control) using a response scale ranging from −2 (completely disagree) to +2 (completely agree).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text