Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 127–132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Addictive Behaviors

Parents' beliefs and children's marijuana use: Evidence for a self-fulfilling prophecy effect Christopher S. Lamb, William D. Crano ⁎ Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA 91711, United States

H I G H L I G H T S • • • •

Parental expectancies were associated with children's marijuana initiation or cessation. Negative parental expectancies were linked to later rise in adolescents' marijuana use. Positive parent expectancies were linked to later decline in adolescents' marijuana use. Children's usage was unrelated to their estimates of parents' knowledge of their use.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Keywords: Self-fulfilling prophecy Adolescents Marijuana Secondary analysis Panel survey Drug misuse

a b s t r a c t Parents' beliefs about their children's involvement in aberrant behaviors are variable and sometimes inaccurate, but they may be influential. This study is concerned with inconsistencies between parents' estimates and their children's reports of marijuana use, and children's subsequent usage one year later. The self-fulfilling prophecy hypothesis suggests that discrepancies between parents' beliefs and children's behaviors could have detrimental or beneficial outcomes, depending on the inconsistency. This possibility was investigated with data from a panel survey of a nationally representative sample of parents and their adolescent children (N = 3131). Marijuanaabstinent adolescents in the first year (T1) of the survey were significantly more likely to initiate use over the next year if they were characterized by parents as users at T1; conversely, adolescent marijuana users at T1 were significantly less likely to continue usage in the second year if they were labeled by parents as abstinent at T1 (both p b .001). Odds that abstinent children whose parents believed they used marijuana would initiate use a year later (T2) were 4.4 times greater than those of abstinent respondents whose parents judged them abstinent. Odds of self-reported users quitting by T2 were 2.7 greater if parents believed they had not used at T1. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Illicit substance use by adolescents is an acknowledged social concern, and millions are spent annually to prevent its initiation by youth. Preventive approaches ranging from school based programs to community interventions to national media blitzes have been implemented in recent years, but even in combination most have not had broad and lasting impact. In 2012, reported lifetime marijuana use of a nationwide US sample of 8th graders was 15.2%; the proportion rose to 33.8% for 10th graders, and 45.2% for 12th graders (Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2013), rates that have remained relatively stable over the past decade (SAMHSA, 2011). Adolescent marijuana usage is regrettable, as the drug is associated with a range of negative consequences and complications, including learning deficits, inferior school achievement, greater risks of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, and more positive evaluations of other illicit and illegal substances (Brook, ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (W.D. Crano). 0306-4603/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.009

Adams, Balka, & Johnson, 2002; Crano, Siegel, Alvaro, Lac, & Hemovich, 2008; Kandel, 2003; Lundqvist, 2005; Lynskey, Coffey, Degenhardt, Carlin, & Patton, 2003; Skenderian, Siegel, Crano, Alvaro, & Lac, 2008). An important factor in drug prevention involves a consistent feature of most adolescents' family environments, their interactions with parents (throughout, the term parents refers to parents or guardians) (Borawski, Ievers-Landis, Lovegreen, & Trapl, 2003; Hemovich, Lac, & Crano, 2011; Svensson, 2000). A meta-analysis involving more than 35,000 independent observations found that adolescents' estimates of parents' knowledge of their unsupervised behaviors unfailingly and significantly associated with lower levels of marijuana use (Lac & Crano, 2009), a result consistent with prior research (e.g., Hemovich et al., 2011; Ramirez et al., 2004). Tight parental monitoring can prove to be a two-edged sword, however, and thus a cautionary note must be sounded insofar as parents' perceptions may prove inaccurate, and inaccurate impressions may have unanticipated and unintended effects. The present research is designed to investigate the link between incongruence of parents' beliefs and children's self-reports of marijuana use with later usage. It is designed to determine if a self-fulfilling prophecy

128

C.S. Lamb, W.D. Crano / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 127–132

effect operates, whereby parents' mistaken assumptions of their children's marijuana use are associated with subsequent initiation. Also, it seeks to ascertain if parents' mistaken assumptions of their children's abstinence are linked with later attenuation of use or abstinence in their marijuana-using offspring. The parent–child interaction provides an ideal venue in which to study this issue. Swann and Ely (1984) found behavioral confirmation of expectations most likely when perceivers were “certain of their expectancies and targets [were] uncertain of their self-conceptions” (p. 1287), a description that fits many parent–child exchanges on issues concerned with illicit substance use, and is consistent with Jussim's (2012, p. 408) view that “unclear self-perceptions render targets more susceptible to confirming perceivers' expectations”. 1.1. The self-fulfilling prophecy Developed by Merton (1948), a self-fulfilling prophecy is an erroneous belief or expectation that leads to its fulfillment. Only erroneous expectations can be established as self-fulfilling. If there were no inaccurate perceptions, there would be no self-fulfilling prophecy because there would be no discrepancy between perception and reality (Jussim, 1991). Self-fulfilling prophecies are of particular interest in the present research, as it is concerned with the association of parents' views of their children's marijuana use when these views conflict with youths' self-reports. The issue is critical, as parents are among the adolescent's most significant social referents, and are extraordinarily influential on their offspring's drug involvements (Hassandra et al., 2011; Maldonado-Molina, Reingle, Delcher, & Branchini, 2011; Miller, Siegel, Hohman, & Crano, 2013). Extrapolating from the self-fulfilling prophecy literature suggests that parents who mistakenly assume their children use drugs may inadvertently promote the very problem they seek to avert. By the same logic, the model suggests the possibility that parents who mistakenly believe their children are drug avoidant may foster cessation in their marijuana-using children. From Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) onward, researchers have shown significant associations between authorities' expectations and children's behavior across a range of issues, including alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use, as well as academic achievement (Doran, Schweizer, & Myers., 2012; Doran, Schweizer, & Myers, 2011; Guyll, Madon, Prieto, & Scherr, 2010; Madon et al., 2008; Nash, McQueen, & Bray, 2005; Simons-Morton, 2004). Investigating the self-fulfilling effects of parents' expectations on their (7th grade) children's alcohol use one year later, for example, Madon, Guyll, Spoth, and Willard (2004) found parents' negative expectancies (overestimates of usage) more strongly confirmed than positive expectancies (underestimates), though both types were related significantly to use. Adolescent marijuana misuse introduces complexities that may differ from those encountered in research on alcohol use. Although neither substance may be used legally by minors, there are exceptions to the alcohol prohibition in 31 states, whereas in no state is adolescent marijuana use legal. Marijuana is more stigmatized, and considerably less normative than alcohol use in adolescence (Johnston et al., 2013), and so initiating use may be more personally significant than usage frequency, which may be a function of availability. For these reasons, study of the association of parental beliefs and adolescents' marijuana use deserves attention, both in terms of its link with usage frequency, and with usage initiation or cessation. This research is designed to investigate frequency of marijuana use and its initiation or cessation. 1.2. Hypotheses In Analysis 1, self-reports of marijuana use in the first year (T1) of a nationally representative longitudinal panel survey were used to categorize youth as users or nonusers. Crossed with this variable were parents' reported beliefs of their children's usage status, also collected at T1. For some youth, self-reports of abstinence at T1 coincided with parents'

reports; for others, they did not (i.e., at T1 parents reported they believed their children had used marijuana in the past 12 months despite the children's disclaimers). The analysis was designed to determine if the discrepancies between parents' beliefs and their children's selfreports at T1 were linked to frequency of marijuana use at T2. At T2, youth who admitted to using marijuana in the prior year are expected to be more frequent users than those who reported abstinence at T1 (H1). Children of parents who believed they had used marijuana in the past year also are expected to exhibit greater frequency of marijuana use (H2). Based on the self-fulfilling prophecy, it is hypothesized that “misdiagnosed” self-reported abstinent adolescents (at T1) will report higher levels of marijuana use at T2 than will those whose parents' beliefs matched their children's reports of abstinence. T2 marijuana use of “misdiagnosed” youth who reported use at T1 will be lower than that of T1 users whose parents reported that their children had initiated use at T1 (H3). Analysis 2 is similar to the first, but is focused on the association between adolescent's T2 marijuana-initiation or cessation (vs. frequency) and parents' estimates of their T1 usage. The self-fulfilling prophecy holds that among T1 abstinent adolescents, those whose parents report the belief that they had used marijuana will be more likely to initiate use at T2 than those whose parents who believed their children were marijuana-abstinent (H4). Among adolescents reporting marijuana use at T1, those with parents whose beliefs were inconsistent with their admissions of usage will be more likely to discontinue use relative to their peers whose parents suspected their having used (H5). 2. Material and methods The data used in the analyses were drawn from the restricted archive of the National Survey of Parents and Youth (NSPY), which was conducted in the evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2006; see also www.mediacampaign.org). Detailed descriptions of the sample, instrument, and data collection procedures are available elsewhere (Crano et al., 2008; NIDA, 2006). 2.1. Respondents The first two years of the four-year panel study were chosen to maximize sample size. Data from adolescents whose age ranged from 12 to 17 years at the beginning of the survey were used. Nine to 11-year olds were not used as they completed different surveys from the older participants, and 18-year olds were not used as they would have aged out of the sample by the second year. The resulting sample (N = 3131) involved all parent–child pairs with complete data on all variables of interest at T1. Table 1 summarizes age, gender, and racial breakdowns of adolescents and parents. 2.2. Procedure Interviewers obtained written and verbal consent from adolescents and parents before initiating the interview. To help ensure honest answers, they interviewed parents and children separately. Items relating to substance use were collected via audio computer-assisted selfTable 1 Demographic breakdown of the parent–child sample (N = 3131). Feature

Youth

Parents

Age Male Female White Black Asian Hispanic

13.6 years (SD = 1.5) 1604 (51.2%) 1527 (48.8%) 2163 (69.1%) 422 (13.5%) 120 (3.8%) 426 (13.6%)

41.8 (SD = 6.6) 1077 (34.4%) 2054 (65.6%) 2201 (70.3%) 407 (13.0%) 123 (3.9%) 484 (12.8%)

C.S. Lamb, W.D. Crano / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 127–132

interviews, which allowed respondents to answer confidentially, using a touch screen interface. 2.3. Missing data For analytic purposes, only youth with usage data at T2 were used. More than 90% of the T1 sample of youth provided this information (N = 3131), a response rate greater than 91%. 2.4. Measures 2.4.1. Youth marijuana use at T1 Adolescents were asked “Have you ever, even once, used marijuana during the last 12 months?”. This dichotomous measure served as the study's operational definition of respondents' reported marijuana use at T1, an independent variable in the analyses. 2.4.2. Frequency of youth marijuana use at T2 Approximately one year after the first measurement round, youth were asked, “How long has it been since you last smoked marijuana?”. Frequency of use was scaled as follows: if respondents reported not having used marijuana in the past 12 months, they received a score of 0. Otherwise, they received scores of 1 (1–2 times), 2 (3–5 times), 3 (6–9 times), 4 (10–19), 5 (19–39 times), or 6 (40 or more times). 2.4.3. Parents' or guardians' estimates of children's marijuana use at T1 At T1, parents were asked “How many times, if any, do you think [child's name] has used marijuana during the last 12 months?”. Allowable responses could range from 1 (never), 2 (once or twice), 3 (a few times), to 4 (many times). Any estimate beyond never was taken as an indication that the parent thought his or her child had used marijuana in the prior year. The dichotomized measure was used as an independent variable in the analyses. 2.4.4. Demographics and other control variables Sex of responding parent and youth, youth's age, and youth's evaluation of friends' delinquency level (0 = never, 6 = more than seven times) were assessed for control purposes, as were the youth's selfreported delinquent behaviors (1 = not at all, 5 = five or more times) and alcohol use (1 = never used, 4 = used during the last 30 days). In addition, to measure adolescents' estimates of their parents' knowledge of their illicit substance use, youth were asked, “If you used marijuana, inhalants, or other drugs, how likely is it that at least one of your [parents/caregivers] would know about it?”. Responses were made on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all likely), 2 (only slightly likely), 3 (somewhat likely), 4 (quite likely) to 5 (very likely). 3. Results 3.1. Analysis 1 In Analysis 1, parents' beliefs regarding their children's marijuana use status at T1 (has used, has never used) and their children's T1 self-reports of use (used, never used) were entered as the independent variables in a 2 × 2 univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA): the covariates youth's age, sex, alcohol use, delinquency, peer delinquency, and reporting parent sex were used to control for factors that might have had an effect on marijuana use at T2. The dependent measure was frequency of use at T2. The data were weighted (via WesVar 4.2) so as to be nationally representative of the population of US 12 to 17 year-old youth. The ANCOVA disclosed a significant main effect of youth's age, F(1, 100) = 4.91, p b .05: older adolescents reported higher levels of marijuana use at T2 than younger respondents. Youth reporting higher levels of delinquency and alcohol use at T1 also reported greater marijuana

129

use at T2, F(1, 100) = 33.02, 32.11, respectively, both p b .001. The peer delinquency, sex of parent, and sex of child covariates were not statistically significant. The analysis also disclosed two statistically significant main effects of the theoretically central predictor variables: confirming H1, youth reporting marijuana use at T1 reported significantly more frequent use at T2 (weighted M = 5.41) than T1 abstinent youth (weighted M = 2.75) F(1, 100) = 99.80, p b .0001. Parents' T1 estimates of their children's use also were significantly associated with children's frequency of reported use at T2, F(1, 100) = 5.50, p = .021. Confirming H2, children of parents who expressed the belief that their children had used marijuana at T1 reported more frequent use of marijuana at T2 (weighted M = 4.67) than youth whose parents believed their children had been marijuanaabstinent (weighted M = 2.49). The interaction of these two predictors was statistically significant, F(1, 100) = 3.92, p b .05, and the resulting pattern supported H3. T1 nonusers whose parents' expressed the belief that their children had used marijuana at T1 used the drug significantly more frequently at T2 than those whose parents assumed they had not used at T1 (weighted M = .93, .32, respectively), F(1,100) = 3.77, p b .05. Users at T1 whose parents believed that they had used marijuana were more frequent marijuana users at T2 than those whose parents mistakenly believed they were abstinent at T1 (weighted M = 3.83, 2.35, respectively), F(1, 100) = 23.90, p b .001. 3.2. Analysis 2 Although the statistically significant effects of Analysis 1 supported H1 through H3, the ANCOVA results tell only part of the story. In this nationally representative sample of parents and their children, the analysis showed that parents' expectations were clearly linked to the frequency of children's subsequent marijuana use. An equally important issue, however, has to do with the congruence at T1 between parents' expectancies with their children's self-reports, and the youths' later (T2) cessation or initiation of marijuana use. Based on the self-fulfilling prophecy, H4 holds that marijuana-abstinent children of parents who believe them to be users will be more likely to initiate use than abstinent children whose parents believe them to be abstinent. Similarly, H5 holds that marijuana-using children of parents who believe them to be abstinent will be more likely to quit using the drug than marijuana-using children whose parents believe them to be users. The distinction between frequency of marijuana use and its initiation or cessation may have important implications for prevention, and thus encourages further analysis. Tests of differences between T2 usage proportions were used to examine the possibility that the self-fulfilling prophecy may influence marijuana initiation and cessation, in addition to frequency of use. The first test contrasted marijuana usage at T2 by self-reported T1 abstinent adolescents as a function of parents' T1 estimates of their use. The analysis revealed that only 10% (312 of 3072) of the T1 abstinent youth whose parents estimated that their children were abstinent had initiated marijuana use by T2. However, 33% (21 of 63) of the T1 abstinent youth whose parents reported they had used marijuana at T1 initiated marijuana use by the second measurement. The difference in these usage proportions was statistically significant and consistent with H4, z = 3.87, p b .0001; OR = 4.42, CI [2.59, 7.56]. A second test of differences between proportions was used to investigate marijuana use at T2 by the adolescents who at T1 reported usage in the prior 12 months. This analysis contrasted usage as a function of parents' T1 estimates of their children's use or nonuse. The analysis revealed that 37% (63 of 169) of the youth whose parents estimated at T1 that they were abstinent reported no usage at T2. In contrast, 18% (21 of 117) of the youth whose parents at T1 reported the belief that their children had used marijuana in the past year had quit in the interim between T1 and T2. These differences in T2 reported usage

130

C.S. Lamb, W.D. Crano / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 127–132

To provide some indication of the accuracy of parents' evaluations of their children's marijuana use, a correlational investigation was conducted to test the associations between youths' marijuana use, parents' reports of their children's use, and the children's estimates of the likelihood that their parents would know if they had begun to use. Using the weighted data, the correlational results indicated that parents' estimates of their children's usage at T1 were significantly associated with children's usage, r = .53, p b .0001, N = 3131. However, youth did not view their parents as particularly accurate. The relation between youths' marijuana usage and their estimates of their parents' likelihood of knowing that they had used the drug was not statistically significant, r = .005. Children's usage apparently was not strongly associated with their beliefs regarding parents' knowledge.

(admittedly non-abstinent) children had not used the drug in the prior 12 months. The third analysis suggested that the transmission of parental expectancies may involve far more subtle processes than overt communication. It disclosed a strong relation between parents' reported beliefs regarding their children's marijuana use over the past 12 months and the children's self-reports of usage over the same period. However, the relation between children's usage self-reports and their estimates of parents' likelihood of knowing whether or not they had initiated marijuana use was exceptionally weak. This pattern is not encouraging. The lack of association suggests a severe lack of communication between the parties. Parents were reasonably accurate in their assessments, yet their children thought otherwise. This would seem to indicate that parents did not discuss their positive or negative impressions to their children. Even so, though the children seemed unaware of them, parental impressions appeared to be clearly transmitted, because the youths' subsequent initiation or cessation of marijuana, and their frequency of use, were strongly associated with parental beliefs.

4. Discussion

4.1. Limitations

Along with considerable research that has implicated the effects of teacher expectancies on children's educational attainment (e.g., Cooper, 1983, 1993; Harris & Rosenthal, 1985; Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), many studies have shown a link between expectations and subsequent risk behaviors in youth. Research indicates that youths' expectancies affect their perceptions and evaluations of the physiological effects of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (Davis et al., 2010; Kahler et al., 2012; Metrik et al., 2012). The present research was directed toward a different feature of the expectancy phenomenon, the association of parents' beliefs regarding their children's marijuana abstinence or initiation and the children's subsequent usage over the next year. Broadly, the self-fulfilling prophecy hypothesis suggests that parents' expectancies will affect their children's marijuana use. The results of the research inform this general hypothesis, as they provide a more limited and, perhaps, more precise view of the link between parents' expectancies and their children's marijuana use. The first analysis indicated that adolescents' prior marijuana usage was powerfully predictive of their future usage, even after controlling for a host of important covariates, including age — but earlier studies have showed similar results. However, the analysis also indicated that parents' beliefs of their children's marijuana usage or abstinence were significantly related to their children's frequency of use one year later. Further, the interaction of these variables suggested that the effects were exacerbated by a lack of fit between parents' expectancies and children's initial reports of usage, a result that supports a self-fulfilling prophecy explanation. Jussim (1991, 2012) has argued cogently that a discrepancy between expectancy and reality must hold before a self-fulfilling prophecy effect can be established. In the present research, this requirement was met, and the predicted interaction was obtained. The expected effect showed that incongruity between parents' views and children's reports was associated with an accentuation or an attenuation of marijuana usage frequency, depending on the nature of the expectation. The second analysis provided evidence of parental expectancy effects when the outcome measure was concerned with initiation or cessation of marijuana use for initially abstinent or non-abstinent youth, respectively, rather than frequency of use. Considering initiation or cessation, the analyses disclosed that the odds that abstinent children whose parents believed otherwise would initiate marijuana use were 4.4 times greater than those of abstinent children whose parents' views were congruous with their reports. This result was reinforced in the analysis of T2 usage among adolescents who admitted marijuana use at T1. If the parents of these youths assumed at T1 that they had used marijuana in the past 12 months, their odds of continued use over the next year were 2.7 times greater than those of adolescents whose parents expressed the belief at T1 that their

This study was based on the assumption of validity of adolescents' reports of marijuana use or avoidance. If youth did not supply truthful answers, the results are not interpretable. Two observations argue against the plausibility of this alternative. First, considerable research suggests the validity of adolescents' self-reports of drug use (Denis et al., 2012; Hornik & Orwin, 2012; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Patrick et al., 1994; Richter & Johnson, 2001; Smith, McCarthy, & Goldman, 1995; Yang et al., 2006). Further, valid reportage would seem especially likely in the present instance, as parent and child data were collected separately and sensitive questions were posed and answered via audio computer assisted self-interviews. The second argument against the response invalidity hypothesis is found in the results of the first two analyses, which together weaken the alternative's plausibility. Analysis 1 replicates well-established findings in the literature. Results of Analysis 2 are consistent with the expectancy hypothesis, are logically consistent, and replicate and extend findings from related areas of research. Another limitation of the research results from its secondary analytic character, which did not allow for an experimental test of hypotheses. The analyses allow for confident inference of association, but not causation. However, the lagged approach used in the analysis provides clear indication that changes in predictor variables anticipated later outcomes, and though these outcomes cannot be interpreted causally, the results do not rule out such a possibility. The offset to this limitation is that the dataset used in the analysis was a carefully constructed panel survey designed to create a nationally representative sample of adolescents (12–17 year olds) and their parents. Collecting a comparably rich dataset would prove beyond the financial reach of almost anyone; the costs entailed in the use of secondary data are at least balanced by the quality and extensiveness of the data contained in the secondary archive.

proportions were statistically significant, and consistent with H5, z = 3.70, p b .0001; OR = 2.72, CI [1.54, 4.78]. 3.3. Analysis 3

4.2. Implications and conclusions The results may have important implications that argue for a focus on parental behavior as a profitable medium through which to foster youth drug prevention and cessation. Prior research (e.g., Yang et al., 2006; Stanton et al., 2000) has shown that parents are not particularly attuned to their children's risk behaviors, though adolescents' perceptions of the intensity of parental monitoring are related to their likelihood of their substance misuse (Lac & Crano, 2009). The present research indicated that parents were reasonably knowledgeable about their children's marijuana usage status, but that this knowledge was not communicated clearly to their children. This is not to imply that parents were not extraordinarily influential. The results suggest the possibility that even incorrect, subtle, and

C.S. Lamb, W.D. Crano / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 127–132

unspoken parental attributions can be conveyed, and they may have negative or positive repercussions. Children of parents who believed they were drug-free used less marijuana than children whose parents believed otherwise, and this result held whether or not the child had admitted to using marijuana in the past. That these results were obtained despite the finding that the majority of respondents did not believe that their parents could accurately gage their drug use suggests that although parents' prophecies may be transmitted subtly, their effects may be profound. These results do not counsel a Pollyanna-like approach to child rearing, in which children's behaviors are inevitably adjudged positively no matter their consequences and outcomes. Rather, the lesson that emerges is that parents can have a profound influence on their adolescent children's drug use, this influence can be delivered in subtle ways, and parents should know this. The lesson also counsels considerably greater communication between parents and their children about drug use, its dangers, and the parents' concern over their children's usage. This observation is not new, but one of its implications is, as it suggests that the enormously expensive prevention campaigns directed at youth might be more effective if focused on parents rather than youth. Parents who fail to communicate with their children whom they suspect of engaging in illicit drug use suggests that the parents are misinformed about the dangers of drug use, are indifferent, or do not know how to initiate and maintain the anti-drug conversation. Well-designed prevention campaigns directed at parents rather than children could address all of these issues, and provide the added benefit of presenting anti-drug information that youth would feel less inclined to resist (Crano, Siegel, Alvaro, & Patel, 2007). If this strategy was adopted, the cost–benefits ratio of youth marijuana prevention efforts might be substantially enhanced. Role of funding sources Funding for this study was provided by the NIDA Grant R01-DA030490. The NIDA had no role in the study design, the collection, the analysis or the interpretation of the data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the paper for publication. Contributors The authors, Christopher S. Lamb and William D. Crano, designed the study, conducted literature searches and analyses, and shared equally in the writing. Both authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Andrew Lac, Zachary Hohman, and Cara Tan who assisted at various points in the development of the manuscript.

References Borawski, E. A., Ievers-Landis, C. E., Lovegreen, L. D., & Trapl, E. S. (2003). Parental monitoring, negotiated unsupervised time, and parental trust: The role of perceived parenting practices in adolescent health risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(2), 60–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(03)00100-9. Brook, J. S., Adams, R. E., Balka, E. B., & Johnson, E. (2002). Early adolescent marijuana use: Risks for the transition to young adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 32(1), 79–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291701004809. Cooper, H. M. (1983). Teacher expectation effects. Applied Social Psychology Annual, 4, 247–275. Cooper, H. M. (1993). In search of a social fact: A commentary on the study of interpersonal expectations. In P. D. Blanck (Ed.), Interpersonal expectations: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 218–224). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Crano, W. D., Siegel, J. T., Alvaro, E. A., Lac, A., & Hemovich, V. (2008). The at-risk adolescent marijuana non-user: Expanding the standard user/non-user distinction. Prevention Science, 9, 129–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0090-0. Crano, W. D., Siegel, J. T., Alvaro, E. M., & Patel, N. M. (2007). Overcoming adolescents' resistance to anti-inhalant appeals. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 516–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.21.4.516. Davis, K. C., Norris, J., Hessler, D.M., Zawacki, T., Morrison, D.M., & George, W. H. (2010). College women's sexual decision making: Cognitive mediation of alcohol expectancy effects. Journal Of American College Health, 58(5), 481–489. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/07448481003599112. Denis, C., Fatséas, M., Beltran, V., Bonnet, C., Picard, S., Combourieu, I., et al. (2012). Validity of the self-reported drug use section of the Addiction Severity Index and

131

associated factors used under naturalistic conditions. Substance Use & Misuse, 47, 356–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2011.640732. Doran, N., Khoddam, R., Sanders, P. E., Schweizer, C. A., Trim, R. S., & Myers, M. G. (2012). A prospective study of the acquired preparedness model: The effects of impulsivity and expectancies on smoking initiation in college students. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028988. Doran, N., Schweizer, C. A., & Myers, M. G. (2011). Do expectancies for reinforcement from smoking change after smoking initiation? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25(1), 101–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020361. Guyll, M., Madon, S., Prieto, L., & Scherr, K. C. (2010). The potential roles of self-fulfilling prophecies, stigma consciousness, and stereotype threat in linking Latino/a ethnicity and educational outcomes. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 113–130. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01636.x. Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.97.3.363. Harrison, L., & Hughes, A. (1997). The validity of self-reported drug use: Improving the accuracy of survey estimates. US Department of Health, and Human Services. Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. Hassandra, M., Vlachopoulos, S. P., Kosmidou, E., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Goudas, M., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Predicting students' intention to smoke by theory of planned behaviour variables and parental influences across school grade levels. Psychology & Health, 26, 1241–1258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.605137. Hemovich, V., Lac, A., & Crano, W. D. (2011). Understanding early-onset drug and alcohol outcomes among youth: The role of family structure, social factors, and interpersonal perceptions of use. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 16, 249–267. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/13548506.2010.532560. Hornik, R., & Orwin, R. (2012). Robert Hornik and Robert Orwin on Stephen Magura's “Failure of intervention or failure of evaluation: A meta-evaluation of the national youth anti-drug media campaign evaluation”. Substance Use & Misuse, 47, 1436–1438. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2012.179723. Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P.M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2013). Monitoring the future national results on drug use: 2012 overview, key findings on adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection–construction model. Psychological Review, 98, 54–73. Jussim, L. (2012). Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kahler, C. W., Metrik, J., Spillane, N. S., Leventhal, A.M., McKee, S. A., Tidey, J. W., et al. (2012). Sex differences in stimulus expectancy and pharmacologic effects of a moderate dose of alcohol on smoking lapse risk in a laboratory analogue study. Psychopharmacology, 222, 71–80. Kandel, D. B. (2003). Does marijuana use cause the use of other drugs? Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 330. Lac, A., & Crano, W. D. (2009). Monitoring matters: Meta-analytic review reveals the reliable linkage of parental monitoring with adolescent marijuana use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 578–586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009. 01166.x. Lundqvist, T. (2005). Cognitive consequences of cannabis use: Comparison with abuse of stimulants and heroin with regard to attention, memory and executive functions. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 81(2), 319–330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.pbb.2005.02.017. Madon, S., Guyll, M., Buller, A. A., Scherr, K. C., Willard, J., & Spoth, R. (2008). The mediation of mothers' self-fulfilling effects on their children's alcohol use: Self-verification, informational conformity, and modeling processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 369–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.369. Madon, S., Guyll, M., Spoth, R., & Willard, J. (2004). Self-fulfilling prophecies: The synergistic accumulative effect of parents' beliefs on children's drinking behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 837–845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004. 00764.x. Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Reingle, J. M., Delcher, C., & Branchini, J. (2011). The role of parental alcohol consumption on driving under the influence of alcohol: Results from a longitudinal, nationally representative sample. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 2182–2187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.06.012. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193–210. Metrik, J., Kahler, C. W., Reynolds, B., McGeary, J. E., Monti, P.M., Haney, M., et al. (2012). Balanced placebo design with marijuana: Pharmacological and expectancy effects on impulsivity and risk taking. Psychopharmacology, 223, 489–499. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/s00213-012-2740-y. Miller, S. M., Siegel, J. T., Hohman, Z., & Crano, W. D. (2013). Factors mediating the association of the recency of parent's marijuana use and their adolescent children's subsequent initiation. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(3), 848–853. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032201. Nash, S. G., McQueen, A., & Bray, J. H. (2005). Pathways to adolescent alcohol use: Family environment, peer influence, and parental expectations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37(1), 19–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.06.004. National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA] (2006). User's guide for the evaluation of the national youth anti-drug media campaign. Rockville, MD: Westat. Patrick, D. L., Cheadle, A., Thompson, D. C., Diehr, P., Koepsell, T., & Kinne, S. (1994). The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1086–1093. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.10.010. Ramirez, J. R., Crano, W. D., Quist, R., Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E. M., & Grandpre, J. (2004). Acculturation, familism, parental monitoring, and knowledge as predictors of marijuana and inhalant use in adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164x.18.1.3.

132

C.S. Lamb, W.D. Crano / Addictive Behaviors 39 (2014) 127–132

Richter, L., & Johnson, P. B. (2001). Current methods of assessing substance use: A review of strengths, problems, and developments. Journal of Drug Issues, 31, 809–832. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Simons-Morton, B. (2004). Prospective association of peer influence, school engagement, drinking expectancies, and parent expectations with drinking initiation among sixth graders. Addictive Behaviors, 29(2), 299–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.addbeh.2003.08.005. Skenderian, J., Siegel, J. T., Crano, W. D., Alvaro, E., & Lac, A. (2008). Expectancy violations and adolescents' intentions to use marijuana. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 563–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013020. Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D.M., & Goldman, M. S. (1995). Self-reported drinking and alcohol-related problems among early adolescents: Dimensionality and validity over 24 months. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56, 383–394. Stanton, B. F., Li, X., Galbraith, J., Cornick, G., Feigelman, S., Kaljee, L., et al. (2000). Parental underestimates of adolescent risk behavior: A randomized, controlled trial of a pa-

rental monitoring intervention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26(1), 18–26. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(99)00022-1. Swann, W. B., & Ely, R. J. (1984). A battle of wills: Self-verification versus behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1287–1302. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1287. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2011). Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of national findings, NSDUH series H-41, HHS publication no. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Svensson, R. (2000). Risk factors for different dimensions of adolescent drug use. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 9, 67–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/ J029v09n03_05. Yang, H., Stanton, B., Cottrel, L., Kaljee, L., Galbraith, J., Li, X., et al. (2006). Parental awareness of adolescent risk involvement: Implications of overestimates and underestimates. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(3), 353–361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2005.12.008.

Parents' beliefs and children's marijuana use: evidence for a self-fulfilling prophecy effect.

Parents' beliefs about their children's involvement in aberrant behaviors are variable and sometimes inaccurate, but they may be influential. This stu...
216KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views