Effects of Single Parent Families on Children's Education

Subst Use Misuse. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 Apr xiii.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC3075408

NIHMSID: NIHMS286042

Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use: An Exploration of Single-Parent Families

Abstract

Data from the 2004 Monitoring the Time to come survey examined a nationally representative cross-sectional sample of 8th to 12th course adolescents in rural and urban schools from beyond the Usa (N = 37,507). Results found that drug use among daughters living with unmarried fathers significantly exceeded that of daughters living with unmarried mothers, while gender of parent was not associated with sons' usage. This distinction in adolescent drug use between mother-merely versus male parent-only households is largely overlooked in contemporary studies. Factors responsible for variations in sons' and daughters' usage in single-parent families have of import implications for future drug prevention efforts.

Keywords: marijuana, amphetamine, inhalant abuse, divorce, father–child relations, family relations

Introduction

Despite recent ameliorating trends, illicit drug use among adolescents continues to persist at relatively high levels (Substance Corruption and Mental Wellness Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2006). Health consequences notwithstanding, early inhalant, marijuana, or amphetamine use often heralds more dangerous deviant behavior and drug involvement with the passage of time (Fergusson and Horwood, 1997; Haggard-Grann, Hallqvist, Langstrom, and Moller, 2006; Johnson, Schutz, Anthony, and Ensminger, 1995; Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman, and Schulenberg, 2005). In some studies, amphetamine and other drug utilize has been linked to increases in tearing behavior (Haggard-Grann et al., 2006). Even after controlling for age, didactics, and ethnicity, enquiry suggests that chronic inhalant users demonstrate greater levels of cognitive impairment and less effective working memories than chronic cocaine users (Rosenberg, Grigsby, Dreisbach, Busenbark, and Grigsby, 2002). It has also been established that early-onset cigarette and alcohol apply amidst adolescents strongly predicts later marijuana use (Griffin, Botvin, Scheier, and Nichols, 2002). Johnson et al. (1995) establish that early-onset inhalant users were 9 times more probable than inhalant nonusers to adopt heroin use later in life. Although the contribution of various private and contextual factors including family dynamics, academic motivation, perceptions of harm associated with employ, delinquency, and peer amalgamation straight influence substance initiation and use, more frequent drug utilize during early on periods of adolescence appears to lead to increased dependency in adulthood (Becker and Grilo, 2007; Fisher, Miles, Austin, Camargo, and Colditz, 2007; Hu, Davies, and Kandel, 2006; Miller and Miller, 1997; Oetting and Webb, 1992; Pagare, Meena, Singh, and Saha, 2004).

Current trends suggest that overall drug utilize is on the decline, but the proportion of youth continuing to initiate illicit substance use remains troubling. Co-ordinate to a contempo survey, youth perception of harm associated with illicit substance use (e.m., marijuana) remains low, whereas corruption of inhalants is at a recent all-time high (Johnston et al., 2005). In 2004, approximately 1.4 million adolescents reported past yr methamphetamine use (SAMHSA, 2005), and near 2.one million youth across the United States engaged in marijuana use for the first time (Johnston et al., 2005).As a result of these trends, researchers increasingly have targeted adolescent substance users.

Research has shown that adolescents from single-parent households are more prone to delinquent behaviors, including drug and booze use (Amato and Keith, 1991; Amey and Albrecht, 1998; Barrett and Turner, 2006; Bjarnason et al., 2003a; Eitle, 2006; Hoffman, 2002; Selnow, 1987). Although some researchers maintain that household composition has relatively petty predictive utility with regard to adolescent problem behavior (Gfroerer and de la Rosa, 1993; Ford-Gilboe, 2000; Robins and Przybeck, 1987), their observations conflict sharply with findings from many other studies, which signal that children who alive with only one parent are more decumbent to emotional distress, negative beliefs, delinquency, and drug utilize (Booth and Amato, 2001; Cairney, Boyle, Offord, and Racine, 2003; Chilcoat and Anthony, 1996; Cummings, Keller, and Davies, 2005; Demo and Acock, 1988; Flewelling and Bauman, 1990; Florsheim, Tolan, and Gorman-Smith, 1998; Griffin, Botvin, Scheier, Diaz, and Miller, 2000; Murray, Kiryluk, and Swan, 1985; Newcomb and Bentler, 1988; Wells and Rankin, 1991; Zill, 1988). Relative to intact families, children of unmarried-parent families mostly are more than probable to exist resource deprived (Amato and Keith, 1991), especially in female-headed households (Amato, 2000), and receive less intense and less consistent monitoring, all of which take been associated with boyish drug utilise (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994).

It bears mentioning that although research has focused primarily on negative youth outcomes associated with unmarried-parent status, positive outcomes too may exist associated with such family structures. Following the dissolution of high-disharmonize or volatile marriages, children often report feelings of relief and lower levels of stress, low, and anxiety (Amato, 1987; Amato, Loomis, and Booth, 1995; Davies and Cummings, 1994; Emery, 1999; Jekielek, 1998; Kelley, 2003). In such mail-divorce circumstances, the resulting single-parent dynamic may exist a preferable environment for children's well-being and may place them at less risk for developing emotional or other dysfunctional bug.

A central focus of this study serves to highlight important differences among family structures, and single-parent families in particular. Inside each category of family structure—female parent-only, male parent-only, and dual-parent households—heterogeneity amid groups is considerable and varies with the addition of factors such equally martial conflict, history of divorce, presence of a nonbiological parent or extended family unit members, ethnicity, political affiliation, socioeconomic status, and other cultural variables.

Although empirical investigations have explored such differences among dual-parent households, researchers have only begun to claiming general assumptions that mother-only and male parent-only families are relatively homogeneous with respect to children's behaviors and subsequent outcomes. Certain theoretical models designed to come to terms with the unmarried-parent family structure human relationship have focused on the gender (mis)match of parent and child. Whereas some studies advise that neither parent is advantaged (Downey, 1994; Robins and Przybeck, 1987), others discover that mothers (Ambert, 1982; Demuth and Dark-brown, 2004; McArdle et al., 2002)—or fathers (Amato, 2000; McLanahan and Booth, 1989)—may exist more constructive in protecting children from drug use. Considerable show has emerged indicating that adolescents who live in mother-but households are less probable to engage in deviant behavior and drug utilize than children from father-only households (Demuth and Brown, 2004; Lee, Burkam, Zimiles, and Ladewski, 1994; Needle, Su, and Doherty, 1990). Compared to single mothers, unmarried fathers have been shown to communicate less often with their children (Ambert, 1982). This outcome, in combination with studies suggesting that mothers provide better overall supervision than fathers and stronger affective and interpersonal bonds with their children, gave rise to what is known as the maternal hypothesis which holds that youth living with just their mothers are less probable to become involved in delinquent beliefs than those living with merely their fathers (Downey, Ainsworth-Darnell, and Dufur, 1998; Eitle, 2006; Hoffman, 1994; Hoffman and Johnson, 1998; McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994).

Conversely, some researchers maintain that same-sex parent–child pairings take the best chance of shielding children from drug use (Powell and Downey, 1997). Edifice upon this assumption, Eitle (2006) found that girls living in father-only households were more prone to deviant behavior than boys. These results are largely explained past what is known every bit the same-sex hypothesis, which holds that children of the same sex as their single parent are less probable to feel socioemotional disadvantage than children raised by a parent of the contrary sex (Santrock and Warshak, 1979; Warshak, 1992). Such research may explain the results of Camara and Resnick (1989), who plant that boys in female parent-merely homes and girls in father-only homes exhibited more aggressiveness and lower overall self-esteem. On the whole, research has largely failed to support one position over the other, possibly owing to various shortcomings of before studies, which were variously undermined by small samples, inadequate statistical analyses, not distinguishing father-but from mother-just unmarried-parent households, or failing to investigate the potentially critical relationships between the child'due south historic period, sex, family status, and substance usage (Florsheim et al., 1998; Hetherington and Stanley-Hagan, 1999; Hoffman, 1993, 1995; Bricklayer, Cauce, Gonzalez, and Hiraga, 1994; O'Connor, Thorpe, Dunn, and Golding, 1999).

To outset these issues, our research made use of the 2004 Monitoring the Future data prepare, which included near 50,000 respondents (Johnston et al., 2005). Ii primal bug were investigated in the analysis: the kickoff was concerned with differences in illicit drug utilize in youth from intact versus single-parent households. This assay expands the usual unmarried-drug examination past including usage measures of inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines, the illicit drugs nearly normally used by adolescents. Nosotros expect results will replicate earlier findings, which demonstrated greater drug usage in single-parent households. Our research extends previous studies by searching for interactions of respondents' age, sexual practice, and family construction with usage of the various illicit substances. The second issue addressed in the analysis is concerned with male and female person adolescents' usage in same-sex versus opposite-sex single-parent households; it also considers the interactive association of the child's age with the other predictors of drug use. This approach was designed to resolve earlier shortcomings: information technology makes use of a large youth sample; it differentiates single-father from single-female parent households; it crosses this differentiation with the sex and (gauge) age of the child; and it uses powerful statistical models to investigate usage differences of drugs most commonly used by adolescents.

On the basis of considerable research, nosotros expect that the analysis volition reveal that older youth (H_i) and youth living in female parent-just and father-simply households volition report higher lifetime levels of drug apply than peers living in dual-parent households beyond all three drugs (H₂). Further, cartoon upon the maternal hypothesis, which holds that because mothers are more than constructive than fathers in building and maintaining close interpersonal bonds with their children, they are more than constructive than fathers at precluding drug use (Downey et al., 1998; Eitle, 2006; Hoffman and Johnson, 1998), nosotros predict that youth from father-only households will exhibit more all-encompassing substance utilize than those from mother-only or dual-parent households (H_three). Equally an extension of the same-sexual practice hypothesis (Santrock and Warshak, 1979;Warshak, 1992), which holds that children volition be more receptive to parents of the aforementioned sexual practice, we look that female adolescents in female parent-only households will study lower levels of substance use than those living with their fathers (H₄). However, we do not wait males to show this oppositional pattern of greater drug use when living with their mothers (H₅). This departure from the same-sex hypothesis is based on the premise derived from thematernal hypothesis that mothers cultivate closer relationships and monitor their children more closely than fathers (Downey et al., 1998; Eitle, 2006). As such, drug usage of males in unmarried-mother households volition exist attenuated, opposite to expectations of the same-sex hypothesis, and this reduction will tend to diminish the reward derived of same-sex pairings in begetter-but households.

Method

Sample Design

In the Monitoring the Future surveys, data are collected annually in surveys administered in schools across the United States. The 2004 survey includes information on eighth, 10th, and twelfth graders (N = 49,474). Among others, the comprehensive measures administered involve reports of respondents' grade in school, sex, and household composition (mother-only, father-only, or dual-parent household) (Table 1). Respondents reported their frequency of lifetime inhalant, marijuana, and amphetamine use. Due to casewise deletion in the multivariate analysis to be reported, the actual number of usable participants was reduced to 37,507. Of these adolescents, approximately 78% reported living in a dual-parent household. This is comparable to the percentage of youth living in dual-parent households found in the full sample. For each substance, lifetime employ ranged from 0 (no usage) to vi (40 or more occasions). Lifetime use is more appropriate than the unremarkably employed past 30-day use indicator, as irregular or infrequent use escapes detection with truncated (30-mean solar day) time frames (Ramirez et al., 2004).

Table 1

Demographic breakdown of sample categorized by sexual practice, grade, and parent status (Due north = 49,474)

		Family unit structure
Sex	Class	Mother-simply	Father-merely	Dual-parent	Neither
Male	8th	1,260	359	half-dozen,192	70
	10th	ane,278	342	half-dozen,054	79
	twelfth	i,268	336	iv,825	402
Female	eighth	1,619	267	6,468	90
	10th	one,553	251	6,195	112
	12th	1,599	269	5,058	411

Results

A multivariate analysis of variance(MANOVA)was conducted to investigate the clan of family unit structure (dual-parent, mother-but, father-but), respondent's sex activity, and grade in school (8th, 10th, 12th). Dependent variables were lifetime employ of marijuana, inhalants, and amphetamines. Of the 37,507 children with consummate data in the written report, approximately 78% reported living in a dual-parent household. Of the 8,334 children living with only i parent, 82.5% resided in mother-just households.

The MANOVA revealed statistically significant multivariate chief furnishings for child'south sex,Wilks' λ = i.00, F(3, 37487) = 26.69, grade,Wilks' λ = .97, F(6, 74947) = 179.08, and family structure, Wilks' λ = .99, F(half-dozen, 74947) = 69.45 (all p < .001). It also disclosed a statistically significant sex activity × grade interaction effect, Wilks' λ = ane.00, F(6, 74947) = 3.25, p < .05; a statistically pregnant grade × family structure interaction, Wilks' λ = one.00, F(12, 99181) = 4.93, p <.001; and a statistically significant sex × family structure interaction upshot, Wilks' λ = ane.00, F(6, 74947) = 3.95, p < .001.

Univariate Main Furnishings

Sex

Inspection of statistically significant multivariate effects by drug-specific univariate ANOVA revealed a variable pattern of usage. Boys (M = two.07, SD = i.96) reported significantly greater marijuana utilize than girls (M = 1.82, SD = 1.69), F(1, 37489) = 24.55, p < .001, just girls (M = one.26, SD = .91) used significantly more amphetamines than boys (One thousand = 1.22, SD = .85), F(1, 37489) = 23.39, p < .001. No differences were found on inhalant use.

Class

A master outcome of grade emerged in the univariate analyses of each of the drugs. For marijuana and amphetamines, each successive grade reported significantly greater usage (Table ii). For these 2 substances, all between-course comparisons were significantly dissimilar (p < .001). A different design emerged in the inhalant analysis, where 8th graders reported significantly greater lifetime inhalant usage than either the 10th or twelfth grade students (both p < .001), who did non differ.

Table two

Mean (standard departure) usage by drug, across grade

	Academic grade
	8th	10th	12th
Marijuana	1.43a (1.24)	2.16b (1.99)	two.65c (ii.25)
Inhalants	i.32a (0.92)	1.24b (0.81)	1.21b (0.76)
Amphetamines	1.15a (0.67)	1.27b (0.94)	1.38c (1.14)

Family structure

Univariate analyses revealed meaning differences associated with family structure on marijuana, inhalants, and amphetamines, F(two, 37489) = 202.02, 6.56, 14.86, respectively (all p < .001). Exam of mean differences (Table 3) revealed that substance utilise of respondents in father-just family unit structures significantly exceeded that of children in either dual-parent or female parent-only families on all three of the substances nether study. In add-on, children from dual-parent families used significantly less marijuana or amphetamines than respondents from mother-merely families. These two groups did not differ on inhalant use.

Table 3

Drug use differences across family structure

	Family construction
Drug	Mother-only	Father-merely	Dual-parent
Marijuana	2.26a (ii.04)	2.59b (ii.26)	1.83c (1.74)
Inhalants	1.28a (0.89)	one.35b (1.02)	1.26a (0.83)
Amphetamines	i.28a (0.95)	i.35b (ane.05)	i.24c (0.86)

Univariate Interaction Effects

Sexual activity of respondent × Grade

All of the statistically meaning principal effects were moderated by interactions. The significant multivariate sex × grade interaction effect was the effect of mounting sex differences in marijuana use every bit adolescents grew older (Table four, top). Univariate ANOVA indicated that boys used significantly more marijuana than girls in 8th grade, F(i, 15634) = 26.51, 10th grade, F(1, 15328) = 89.39, and 12th course, F(ane, 6539) =76.17 (all p < .001). For inhalants and amphetamines, the grade × sexual practice interaction effects were not statistically significant.

Tabular array 4

Mean marijuana utilize differences equally a function of the interaction of class × sex of respondent (superlative section) and grade × family construction (bottom department)

	Bookish class
	eighth	10th	12th
Sex
Boys	1.48a (1.32)	2.32b (2.11)	2.89c (2.twoscore)
Girls	1.38d (1.16)	ii.01e (ane.85)	2.41f (two.08)
Family structure
Mother-just	i.67a (one.55)	2.56b (2.19)	2.82c (2.31)
Begetter-only	1.92d (1.81)	2.96e (2.39)	iii.19e (ii.48)
Dual-parent	1.35f (1.11)	2.03thou (1.89)	2.56h (two.21)

Family structure × Grade

For marijuana, the univariate family unit structure × grade interaction also proved statistically meaning. Within each year, average marijuana use differed significantly as a office of family structure, F(2, 15633) = 126.40, F(two, 15327) = 129.24, F(2, 6538) = 16.89 (all p < .001), for 8th, 10th, and twelfth grades, respectively (come across Tabular array 4, bottom). Results of simple furnishings analyses revealed that children of father-only single-parent families were significantly more prone to marijuana employ than children from mother-only single-parent family structures, whose marijuana usage, in turn, significantly exceeded that of children of dual-parent families (all p < .001). The grade × family structure was not statistically meaning in the analyses of inhalant or amphetamine utilise.

Family unit structure × Sex activity of respondent

Beyond each substance, univariate analyses of the statistically significant multivariate family construction × sexual activity of kid interaction revealed a like pattern. For marijuana, the elementary univariate family structure × sex interaction was statistically significant, F(2, 37501) = 8.40, p < .001. Marijuana usage of boys in single-male parent family structures exceeded that of boys from dual-parent families, but did not differ from that of boys in mother-only family structures (Table 5). The picture was unlike for girls, still. Simple furnishings analyses revealed that girls living in male parent-just family structures used significantly more marijuana than girls living in unmarried-female parent families or in dual-parent households. Marijuana usage of girls in unmarried-father households was comparable to that of boys in the same family construction.

Table 5

Mean usage differences associated with the interaction of respondent sex × family structure

		Family unit construction
Drug	Sex	Mother-only	Father-only	Dual-parent
Marijuana	Male	2.42a (2.nineteen)	two.54a (2.26)	1.97b (1.88)
	Female	2.13c (ane.91)	two.66a (2.26)	i.lxxd (1.58)
Inhalants	Male	1.28a (0.91)	1.30a (0.94)	1.27a (.86)
	Female person	1.29a (0.86)	1.42b (1.11)	ane.25a (.eighty)
Amphetamines	Male person	one.24a (0.90)	1.28a (0.96)	1.21a (0.83)
	Female person	1.30b (0.99)	i.45c (1.16)	ane.24d (0.88)

For inhalants, the unproblematic univariate family construction × sex interaction also was statistically significant, F(ii, 37501) = 4.75,p < .05. As illustrated in Table 5, family structure was not associated with variations in boys' usage. As with marijuana, still, girls living in male parent-only family structures used significantly more than inhalants than those in mother-just or dual-parent households. In addition, boilerplate inhalant use of girls from single-begetter households significantly exceeded that of boys from single-father households.

This same pattern was found in the analysis of the statistically meaning family construction × sexual activity interaction on amphetamine use, F(2, 37501) = iv.51, p < .05. As with inhalants, family construction was not associated with usage variations for boys. Amphetamine usage of girls living in single-father households, notwithstanding, significantly exceeded that of girls in mother-just or dual-parent households and of boys in single-father households also.

Discussion

The pattern of results reinforced and extended before findings. Our analyses indicated that children from intact families used significantly less inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines than children from unmarried-parent families. As hypothesized (H₁), older children reported greater lifetime marijuana and amphetamine use. This inequality was reversed for inhalants, where the youngest group reported the greatest usage. Two different lines of enquiry anticipated this result. The showtime holds that a cohort deviation distinguishes the youngest from the 2 older groups of students, with the youngest students beingness more prone to inhalant use than the two older groups. This possibility is consistent with cyclical trends establish in the Monitoring the Future survey which suggests a recent upsurge in eighth graders', but not older students', inhalant usage (Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, and Schulenberg, 2004).A second possibility is suggested in recent research indicating that older respondents are reluctant to admit to using inhalants, as inhalants are regarded equally existence a "kid'southward drug" (Crano, Siegel, Alvaro, and Patel, 2007; Siegel, Alvaro, Patel, and Crano, 2009). Consistent with expectations, analysis also showed that children in single-parent families used significantly more inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines than peers from intact (dual-parent families) (H₂). This finding points to the desirability of simultaneous inclusion of more than than a unmarried drug in enquiry. Children from unmarried-parent families were at substantially greater risk of drug involvement than children of dual-parent families, and this generalization held across multiple substances.

Besides as predicted (H₃), children in father-only households reported substantially more inhalant, marijuana, and amphetamine use than children in either female parent-just or dual-parent households. Shut exam of the interaction of kid'due south and single-parent's sex demonstrated that this divergence was largely attributable to the usage behavior of girls living with their fathers. As expected (H_four), this subset of girls engaged in significantly more illicit drug use than girls living with their mothers or in dual-parent households. Perhaps even more noteworthy was the finding that inhalant and amphetamine apply of girls living in father-only households exceeded that of boys in similar living contexts, and matched marijuana usage of boys living in male parent-but family structures. Equally predicted (H₅), boys' illicit drug usage was unrelated to the sex of the custodial parent in unmarried-parent households.

Findings from this study may supply a useful improver to the literature. A large national sample of adolescents was surveyed, and a lifetime drug use measure was used to outset potential insensitivity of shorter duration indicators. The usage information involved the three nearly common illicit drugs used by youth, and the analytic methodology was both standard and powerful. Although a large sample enhanced the likelihood of statistically significant results, it did non dictate the pattern of predicted differences that were confirmed almost without exception.

On the footing of our findings, it is evident that 8th through 12th graders in unmarried-parent families are at considerably greater gamble for use of inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines. Although the sex of custodial parent for boys in single-parent families is relatively uninformative with regard to drug use, a key finding from the data indicates that girls living with merely their fathers are at significantly greater risk for illicit drug use than girls living with only their mothers. Across every category—inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines—girls in father-merely households used significantly more than illicit substances than girls in mother-only or dual-parent households. Although prior research has found that youth from nonintact families might exist more prone to deviant behavior such every bit drug employ (Amey, and Albrecht, 1998; Barrett and Turner, 2006; Bjarnason et al., 2003b; Flewelling and Bauman, 1990; Hoffman, 2002), the refinement of the unmarried-parent category is a novel approach not common to other studies of this nature. Considerable research is available to help answer the question how dual-parent families differ from one another by collapsing such a category into never-divorced/traditional, step-parent/remarried, and foster dual-parent families, yet the same scrutiny has failed to cross over into the single-parent domain. Equally such, little research is bachelor that highlights how mother-simply, male parent-only, neither-parent, widowed single-parent, sole-custody parent, and never-married single-parent households may differ. Just as not all dual-parent households are the aforementioned, it can be argued as well that not all single-parent households are the aforementioned. Every bit data from the current study suggest, important variations practice in fact emerge among different single-parent families. Despite long-standing interest in family structure, research continues to overlook the diverse nature of single-parent families.

Limitations

Although it is reasonable to underscore the importance of these findings, caution is required in their interpretation. Every bit this study is a secondary data analysis and makes use of an existing data gear up, the survey items were not designed specifically to serve the electric current written report's research questions. With this limitation in mind, it was not possible for the current written report to include items such equally parental zipper and warmth, sibling relationships, or other potentially influential social and demographic features into the analyses. For instance, some researchers have expressed the demand for future written report on adolescent development within the context of single-parent environments that differ by race or ethnic condition (Eitle, 2006; Thomas, Farrell, and Barnes, 1996), but owing to limitations in the information set up this was not viable. Farther, as this study makes use of existing data, it is uncertain how participants from the original written report will benefit directly from their participation in this subsequent enquiry, an important ethical concern raised in earlier commentaries (east.g., Kleinig and Einstein, 2006). This concern was taken into consideration in the design of the present analysis, and we believe the benefits of this study will foster a greater understanding of the relatively unacknowledged differences between single-parent households and their possible association with differences in their furnishings on youth.

It as well should be emphasized that results from this study do not support the interpretation that fathers' deportment in unmarried-parent families are the cause of their daughters' usage problems, whatever more than than they suggest that fathers are more likely to be assigned custody of troublesome, drug-using daughters. Either of these causal possibilities would produce the blueprint of results found here, and neither is supported unequivocally by the analyses.

Although the causal operator in these results cannot be specified, this ambiguity does not diminish the importance of the differences institute in the patterns of illicit drug use among female parent-only, father-only, and dual-parent households. Indeed, such causal ambiguity may have a positive consequence, every bit a goad for further inquiry. Previous investigations established that children from intact families engage in less illicit substance use than children from single-parent homes (Amato and Keith, 1991; Amey and Albrecht, 1998; Barrett and Turner, 2006; Bjarnason et al., 2003a; Hoffman, 2002), but differences between the usage patterns of boys and girls in single-parent homes, across the range of popular illicit substances, have largely been disregarded. Understanding the causes of boyish differences in drug employ associated with family structure could greatly facilitate efforts of drug prevention and cessation. Despite increases in the surveillance of substance use trajectories and continued interest in the office of family structure on youth evolution, inquiry specifically exploring the touch of single-parent households on adolescent substance employ is lacking. If it were determined that a famine of constructive communication or overly lenient parental monitoring were associated with heightened drug utilise of girls in begetter-only households, and then steps could be taken to help educate unmarried fathers virtually potential pitfalls they faced and behaviors that might mitigate these dangers. Conversely, if it were established that single fathers are assigned custody only of the most troubled of daughters, this information, besides, could be used to develop preventive parental actions. This research points to the potential risks inherent in the single father–daughter association and may hopefully serve every bit a springboard for future enquiry across a multitude of domains and diverse populations.

RÉSUMÉ

Construction familiale et consommation de drogues chez les adolescents: Une etude des familles monoparentales

La "2004 Monitoring the Future Survey" examine united nations échantillon d'adolescents scolarisés, âgés entre 13 et 18 ans, en ville ou en milieu rural (N = 37 507). Cet échantillon est représentatif de la population américaine. La consommation de drogues chez les filles vivant avec un père célibataire est significativement plus élevée que celle des filles vivant avec une mère célibataire. En revanche, le sexe du parent célibataire n'impacte pas l'usage de drogues pour les garçons. Cette différence concernant la consommation de drogues chez les adolescents issus de familles monoparentales (mère célibataire vs. père célibataire) n'a pas encore été traitée intensivement. Les facteurs responsables de ces variations dans 50'usage de drogues chez les filles et garçons issus de familles monoparentales ont d'importantes implications pour les efforts de prévention. Le financement de cette recherche a été possible grâce au "National Constitute on Drug Abuse" (5R01DA020879-02).

RESUMEN

Estructura de la familia y el consumo de drogas: United nations estudio de familias monoparentales

Datos de la encuesta "2004 para monitorear el futuro" se examinó una muestra de adolescentes de escuelas rurales y urbanas de los grados 8th a 12th en representación nacional de los EEUU (N = 37,507). Los resultados indicaron que las hijas que viven solo con su padre, usan más drogas ilegales que las hijas que viven solo con su madre. No hay una diferencia para los hijos que viven solos con su padre o solo con su madre. La diferencia entre el uso de drogas durante la adolescencia en las casa donde se vive solo con un padre o una madre se ha descuidado en todos los estudios actuales. Los factores responsables en las variaciones del uso de las drogas entre los hijos due east hijas tienen implicaciones muy importantes y se deben tomar en cuenta para reducir los usos de drogas en el futuro. El financiamiento para esta investigación es apoyada por el Instituto Nacional de Abuso de las Drogas (5R01DA020879-02).

Acknowledgments

This projection was supported by the National Found on Drug Abuse (NIDA; R01 DA 02879). Its contents are solely the responsibleness of the authors and exercise non necessarily represent the position of NIDA or the Section of Health and Human Services.

Glossary

Early-onset utilise	Engaging in illicit drug use in early adolescence (i.e., before 16 years of age).
Inhalant use	The use of harmful but legal products to accomplish an intoxicating high, including aerosols, gum, pigment thinner, and other common household products.
Intact families	Families or households that have never been disrupted by divorce, death of a parent, or other parental absence.
Nonuser	An individual who has never engaged in illicit substance employ.
Perceptions of harm	An individual's subjective cess regarding the likelihood of potential risks apropos harmful behavior such as illicit substance utilize.
User	An private who has engaged in illicit substance use one or more times.

Biographies

Vanessa Hemovich, B.A., M.A. Her research interests focus on the bear upon of family dynamics on the development of youth, addictive behaviors among adolescent populations, as well as damage reduction and relapse prevention. In addition to her work every bit a research associate at both the University of Washington's Addictive Behaviors Inquiry Eye and Claremont Graduate Academy, she is currently pursuing her Ph.D. in applied social psychology with an accent on health behavior.

William D. Crano, A.B., G.S., Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at Claremont Graduate University. His research interests include social influence, the impact of minorities on the beliefs and deportment of the majority, and the development of persuasive and instructional information to forestall drug corruption in children and adolescents. He is a fellow of the APA and APS, has been a NATO Senior Scientist, a Fulbright Senior Fellow to Brazil, and a liaison scientist in the behavioral sciences for the Office of Naval Research, London. He has also served as the Chair of the Executive Committee for the Guild of Experimental Social Psychology and as Director of the Program in Social Psychology at National Science Foundation.

References

• Amato PR. Children'south reactions to parental separation and divorce: the views of children and custodial mothers. Australian Periodical of Social Issues. 1987;22:610–623. [Google Scholar]
• Amato PR. The consequences of divorce for children and adults. Journal of Union and Family. 2000;62:1269–1287. [Google Scholar]
• Amato PR, Keith B. Parental divorce and the well-existence of children: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1991;110:26–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Amato PR, Loomis L, Booth A. Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being during early on adulthood. Social Forces. 1995;73:895–915. [Google Scholar]
• Ambert AM. Differences in children's behavior toward custodial mothers and custodial fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family unit. 1982;44:73–86. [Google Scholar]
• Amey CH, Albrecht SL. Race and ethnic differences in adolescent drug use: the impact of family structure and quantity and quality of parental interaction. Journal of Drug Issues. 1998;28:283–298. [Google Scholar]
• Barrett AE, Turner RJ. Family unit structure and substance use in adolescence and early machismo: examining explanations for the relationship. Addiction. 2006;101:109–120. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Becker DF, Grilo CM. Ethnic differences in the predictors of drug and alcohol corruption in hospitalized adolescents. American Periodical on Addictions. 2007;16:389–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bjarnason T, Andersson B, Choquet M, Elekes Z, Morgan Thou, Rapinett G. Culture, family construction and adolescent alcohol use: multilevel modeling of frequency of heavy drinking among 15–16 twelvemonth old students in 11 European countries. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2003;64:200–208. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bjarnason T, Davidaviciene AG, Miller P, Nociar A, Pavlakis A, Stergar E. Family structure and adolescent cigarette smoking in eleven European countries. Addiction. 2003;98:815–824. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Booth A, Amato PR. Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce well-beingness. Journal of Union & the Family unit. 2001;63:197–212. [Google Scholar]
• Cairney J, Boyle M, Offord DR, Racine Y. Stress, social support, and depression in single and married mothers. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2003;38:442–449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Camara KA, Resnick G. Styles of disharmonize resolution and cooperation between divorced parents: effects on child behavior and aligning. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 1989;59:560–575. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chilcoat HD, Anthony JC. Touch of parent monitoring on initiation of drug utilise through late childhood. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Boyish Psychiatry. 1996;35:91–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Crano WD, Siegel JT, Alvaro EM, Patel NM. Overcoming adolescents' resistance to anti-inhalant appeals. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2007;21:516–524. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Cummings EM, Keller PS, Davies P. Towards a family unit process model of maternal and parental depressive symptoms: exploring multiple relations with child and family functioning. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2005;46:479–489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Davies PT, Cummings EM. Marital conflict and kid adjustment: an emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Message. 1994;116:387–411. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Demo DH, Acock Air conditioning. The impact of divorce on children. Journal of Union and the Family. 1988;fifty:619–648. [Google Scholar]
• Demuth S, Brownish SL. Family unit structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: the significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Enquiry in Crime and Delinquency. 2004;41:58–81. [Google Scholar]
• Downey DB. The school performance of children from unmarried-mother and single-father families: economic or interpersonal depravation? Journal of Family Issues. 1994;15:129–147. [Google Scholar]
• Downey DB, Ainsworth-Darnell JW, Dufur MJ. Sex activity of parent and children's well-beingness in single-parent households. Journal of Spousal relationship and the Family. 1998;60:878–893. [Google Scholar]
• Eitle D. Parental gender, unmarried-parent families, and malversation: exploring the moderating influence of race/ethnicity. Social Science Inquiry. 2006;35:727–748. [Google Scholar]
• Emery RE. Marriage, divorce, and children'due south aligning. 2nd ed. Yard Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999. [Google Scholar]
• Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. Early on onset cannabis use and psychosocial aligning in young adults. Addiction. 1997;92:279–296. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fisher LB, Miles IW, Austin SB, Camargo CA, Colditz GA. Predictors of initiation of alcohol employ among United states of america adolescents: findings from a prospective cohort study. Archives of Pediatrics & Boyish Medicine. 2007;161:959–966. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Flewelling RL, Bauman KE. Family structure equally a predictor of initial substance use and sexual intercourse in early adolescence. Periodical of Marriage and the Family. 1990;52:171–181. [Google Scholar]
• Florsheim P, Tolan P, Gorman-Smith D. Family relationships, parenting practices, the availability of male person family unit members, and the behavior of inner-urban center boys in single-mother and two-parent families. Child Development. 1998;69:1437–1447. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ford-Gilboe Yard. Dispelling myths and creating opportunity: a comparison of the strengths of single-parent and two-parent families. Advances in Nursing Science. 2000;23:41–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Gfroerer J, de la Rosa Thousand. Protective and risk factors associated with drug use among Hispanic youth. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 1993;12:87–107. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Griffin KW, Botvin GJ, Scheier LM, Diaz T, Miller NL. Parenting practices as predictors of substance use, delinquency, and aggression among urban minority youth: moderating effects of family unit structure and gender. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2000;14:174–184. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Griffin KW, Botvin GJ, Scheier LM, Nichols TR. Factors associated with regular marijuana use amidst loftier schoolhouse students: a long-term follow-up study. Substance Apply and Misuse. 2002;37:225–238. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Haggard-Grann U, Hallqvist J, Langstrom N, Moller J. The part of alcohol and drugs in triggering criminal violence: a case-crossover study. Addiction. 2006;101:100–108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hetherington Due east, Stanley-Hagan M. The aligning of children with divorce parents: a risk and resiliency perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1999;forty:129–140. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hoffman JP. Exploring the direct and indirect family unit furnishings on boyish drug utilize. Journal of Drug Issues. 1993;23:535–557. [Google Scholar]
• Hoffman JP. Investigating the age effects of family structure on adolescent marijuana use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1994;23:215–235. [Google Scholar]
• Hoffman JP. The effects of family unit structure and family unit relations on boyish marijuana use. Periodical of the Addictions. 1995;30:1207–1241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hoffman JP. The community context of family construction and adolescent drug use. Journal of Union and Family. 2002;64:314–330. [Google Scholar]
• Hoffman JP, Johnson RA. A national portrait of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and the Family unit. 1998;60:633–645. [Google Scholar]
• Hu MC, Davies M, Kandel DB. Epidemiology and correlates of daily smoking and nicotine dependence among young adults in the U.s.a.. American Journal of Public Health. 2006;96:299–308. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jekielek South. Parental conflict, marital disruption and children's emotional well-being. Social Forces. 1998;76:905–936. [Google Scholar]
• Johnson EO, Schutz CG, Anthony JC, Ensminger ME. Inhalants to heroin: a prospective analysis from adolescence to adulthood. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1995;40:159–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. [Retrieved February 28, 2005]; Overall teen drug use continues gradual decline: but utilize of inhalants rises. 2004 from www.monitoringthefuture.org.
• Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use: overview of central findings, 2004. Bethesda, Physician: National Found on Drug Corruption; 2005. (NIH Publication No. 05-5726) [Google Scholar]
• Kelley JB. Changing perspectives on children'southward adjustment following divorce: a view from the United States. Childhood. 2003;10:237–254. [Google Scholar]
• Kleinig J, Einstein South. Ethical considerations for intervening in drug employ: policy, research, and handling issues. Huntsville, TX: Role of International Criminal Justice; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Lee VE, Burkam DT, Zimiles H, Ladewski B. Family construction and its effect on behavioral and emotional problems in immature adults. Periodical of Inquiry on Adolescence. 1994;4:405–437. [Google Scholar]
• McArdle P, Wiegersma A, Gilvarry E, Kolte B, McCarthy S, Fitzgerald M, et al. European adolescent substance employ: the roles of family construction, function and gender. Addiction. 2002;97:329–336. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McLanahan SS, Booth K. Mother-only families: issues, prospects, and politics. Journal of Spousal relationship and the Family. 1989;51:557–580. [Google Scholar]
• McLanahan SS, Sandefur GD. Growing up with a single-parent: what helps, what hurts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Academy Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
• Mason CA, Cauce AM, Gonzalez N, Hiraga Y. Adolescent problem behavior: the effect of peers and the moderating office of father absenteeism and the female parent–child relationship. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1994;22:723–743. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Miller DS, Miller TQ. A exam of socioeconomic status every bit a predictor of initial marijuana use. Addictive Behaviors. 1997;22:479–489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Murray MS, Kiryluk S, Swan AV. Relation betwixt parents' and children's smoking behavior and attitudes. Journal of Epidemiology and Customs Health. 1985;39:169–174. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Needle RH, Su S, Doherty WJ. Divorce, remarriage, and adolescent substance apply: a prospective longitudinal study. Periodical of Marriage and the Family unit. 1990;52:157–169. [Google Scholar]
• Newcomb Doctor, Bentler PM. The impact of family unit context, deviant attitudes, and emotional distress on adolescent drug employ: longitudinal latent-variable analyses of mothers and their children. Journal of Research in Personality. 1988;22:154–176. [Google Scholar]
• O'Connor T, Thorpe Grand, Dunn J, Golding J. Parental divorce and adjustment in adulthood: findings from a community sample. Journal of Kid Psychology and Psychiatry. 1999;forty:777–790. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Oetting Eastward, Webb J. Psychosocial characteristics and their links with inhalants: a inquiry agenda. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Press Role; 1992. (National Constitute on Drug Abuse [NIDA] Research Monograph 129) [Google Scholar]
• Pagare D, Meena G, Singh M, Saha R. Risk factors of substance use among street children from Delhi. Indian Pediatrics. 2004;41:221–225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Powell B, Downey DB. Living in single-parent households: an investigation of the aforementioned-sex hypothesis. American Sociological Review. 1997;62:521–539. [Google Scholar]
• Ramirez JR, Crano WD, Quist R, Burgoon M, Alvaro E, Grandpre J. Acculturation, familism, parental monitoring, and knowledge as predictors of marijuana and inhalant apply in adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behavior. 2004;xviii:3–eleven. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Robins LN, Przybeck TR. Age of onset of drug use every bit a factor in drug and other disorders. In: Jones CL, Battjes RJ, editors. Etiology of drug abuse: implications for prevention. Washington, DC: U.Due south. Government Printing Office; 1987. (NIDA Research Monograph No. 56, DHHS Publication No. ADM 85-1335) [Google Scholar]
• Rosenberg NL, Grigsby J, Dreisbach J, Busenbark D, Grigsby P. Neuropsychologic impairment and MRI abnormalities associated with chronic solvent abuse. Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology. 2002;40:21–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Santrock JW, Warshak RA. Father custody and social development in boys and girls. Periodical of Social Issues. 1979;35:112–125. [Google Scholar]
• Selnow GW. Parent–child relationships and single and two parent families: implications for substance usage. Journal of Drug Pedagogy. 1987;17:315–326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Siegel JT, Alvaro EM, Patel N, Crano WD. "… y'all would probably desire to exercise it. Cause that'due south what made them pop": Exploring perceptions of inhalant utility amidst young adolescent non-users and occasional users. Substance Employ and Misuse. 2009;44:597–615. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA] Rockville, MD: 2005. Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Utilise and Health: national findings. (Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-25, DHHS Publication No. SMA 05-4062) [Google Scholar]
• Substance Abuse and Mental Wellness Services Administration [SAMHSA] Rockville, MD: 2006. Results from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: national findings. (Office of Practical Studies, NSDUH Series H-30, DHHS Publication No. SMA 06-4194) [Google Scholar]
• Thomas K, Farrell Chiliad, Barnes Grand. The effects of unmarried-mother families and nonresidential fathers on delinquency and substance corruption in Black and White adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family unit. 1996;58:884–894. [Google Scholar]
• Warshak RA. The custody revolution: the father factor and the motherhood mystique. New York: Poseidon; 1992. [Google Scholar]
• Wells LE, Rankin JH. Families and malversation: a meta-assay of the touch on of cleaved homes. Social Problems. 1991;38:71–93. [Google Scholar]
• Zill N. Behavior, achievement, and health bug among children in stepfamilies: findings from a national survey of child health. In: Hetherington EM, Arasteh JD, editors. Touch on of divorce, single parenting, and stepparenting on children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988. pp. 325–368. [Google Scholar]

paynetakintime.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075408/