Communication Research

Communication Research http://crx.sagepub.com/

Encouraging Mexican-Heritage Youth to Intervene When Friends Drink: The Role of Targeted Parent-Child Communication Against Alcohol Jennifer A. Kam, Bridget Potocki and Michael L. Hecht Communication Research published online 14 May 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0093650212446621 The online version of this article can be found at: http://crx.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/13/0093650212446621

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Communication Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://crx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 14, 2012 What is This?

Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on December 3, 2013

XXX10.1177/0093650212446621Communication ResearchKam et al. © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Encouraging MexicanHeritage Youth to Intervene When Friends Drink: The Role of Targeted Parent-Child Communication Against Alcohol

Communication Research XX(X) 1–21 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0093650212446621 http://crx.sagepub.com

Jennifer A. Kam1, Bridget Potocki2, and Michael L. Hecht3

Abstract Drawing from primary socialization theory, we hypothesized that as Mexican-heritage youth engage in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, they are more likely to disapprove of and consider the negative consequences of drinking alcohol. In turn, such antialcohol perceptions are likely to encourage them to intervene if a friend was to drink alcohol. The analyses were based on self-reported longitudinal data from 1,149 Mexican-heritage youth in sixth to eighth grades (M = 12 years, SD = .61). As males and females engaged in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, they were more likely to consider the negative consequences of alcohol consumption. Consequently, they reported that they would be more likely to intervene by talking to the friend or an adult. Disapproving of alcohol consumption played a minor role for male and female Mexicanheritage youth. Keywords primary socialization theory, parent-child communication, friend intervention, alcohol, youth, Mexican

1

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA 3 The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA 2

Corresponding Author: Jennifer A. Kam, Department of Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Il 61821, USA Email: [email protected]


2

Communication Research XX(X)

According to primary socialization theory (PST), parents function as pro- or antialcohol socialization agents by shaping youth’s alcohol-related attitudes, norms, intentions, and behaviors (Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998; Oetting, Donnermeyer, & Deffenbacher, 1998a). Past research reveals that parent-child communication plays a particularly crucial role in the socialization process, with more recent studies emphasizing the importance of parents’ alcohol-specific messages as predictors of youth’s alcohol consumption (Boone & Lefkowitz, 2007; Reimuller, Hussong, & Ennett, 2011). Thus Miller-Day and her colleagues developed the concept, “targeted parent-child communication about alcohol,” to address the conversations that parents have with their offspring specifically about alcohol (Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004; Miller-Day & Kam, 2010). Targeted parentchild communication about alcohol originally referred to “sit down” conversations with children about alcohol use (Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004), but this conceptualization has been extended to refer to one time or ongoing, direct or indirect conversations particularly about alcohol (Kam, 2011). Since parents may provide pro- or antialcohol messages (Reimuller et al., 2011), the current study uses the term, targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, to focus on parents’ antialcohol messages. This type of communication may include parents warning their offspring about the negative consequences of drinking alcohol, conveying disapproval of underage alcohol consumption, and describing family rules restricting alcohol consumption (Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004). Such messages are likely to encourage youth to consider the negative consequences of alcohol and develop antialcohol attitudes, norms, intentions, and behaviors (Miller-Day & Kam, 2010). In addition to parents, PST suggests that friends act as socialization agents that communicate norms regarding alcohol use and other risky behaviors (Oetting et al., 1998a). Past research (e.g., Ennett, Bauman, Foshee, Pemberton, & Hicks, 2001; Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004) and PST (Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998) often regard parents as antialcohol socialization agents, with friends more frequently thought of as negative influences that encourage drinking alcohol (e.g., Chuang, Ennett, Bauman, & Foshee, 2009). Consistent with this notion, Real and Rimal (2007) found that the more often college students talked to their friends about drinking, the more likely the college students were to consume alcohol. Busse, Fishbein, Bleakley, and Hennessy (2010) revealed how conversations with friends about sex were related to sexual intercourse initiation among youth. Clearly, then, friends may encourage youth to engage in risky behaviors; however, preliminary evidence suggests that some youth may actually prevent and/or intervene in friends’ alcohol use and other risky behaviors (Flanagan, Elek-Fisk, & Gallay, 2004; Menegatos, Lederman, & Hess, 2010). When considering the process leading up to intervening, youth are likely to develop antialcohol use perceptions and reflect on the negative consequences of drinking from engaging in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol (Miller-Day & Kam, 2010). As youth form antialcohol perceptions and consider the risks, their negative perceptions toward alcohol may have carry over effects and benefit not only themselves but also their friends. In short, we seek to extend PST and past research by examining whether youth (sixth-eighth grades) engaging in targeted parent-child communication


3

Kam et al.

against alcohol are more likely to disapprove of and consider the negative consequences to drinking alcohol, and in turn, whether they are more likely to intervene if a friend was to consume alcohol.

Drawing From Primary Socialization Theory PST suggests that through communication, family, peers, and school are proximal factors (i.e., primary socialization agents) that directly shape youth’s perceptions and behaviors regarding substance use and delinquent behavior (Oetting, 1999; Oetting et al., 1998a). Socialization agents influence perceptions that favor or oppose substance use and delinquent behavior; however, youth are more likely to form favorable perceptions regarding such behaviors when they have poor relationships with family and school but strong relationships with delinquent peers (Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998). PST suggests that as youth experience adolescence, they are at greater risk of engaging in problem behaviors because of developmental changes related to puberty, the weakening of family and school bonds, and the strengthening of delinquent peer influences (Oetting, 1999). Oetting and Donnermeyer (1998) initially developed the theory to focus on substance use and delinquent behavior, and much of the research on PST (e.g., Donohew, Clayton, Skinner, & Colon, 1999; Higgins, Ricketts, Marcum, & Mahoney, 2010; López et al, 2001) continues to focus on these negative outcomes. Yet, among a sample of predominantly African American and European American youth, Paek, Reber, and Lariscy (2011) recently discovered that as youth received health information from interpersonal and media agents, they reported higher levels of health literacy. The results indicated that interpersonal and media agents can socialize adolescents in positive ways. Similarly, the current study extends PST and communication theory by considering how targeted parentchild communication against alcohol not only directly encourages youth to form antialcohol perceptions, but also may indirectly benefit their friends by inspiring youth to intervene if a friend was to drink alcohol.

General Parent-Child Communication and Targeted Parent-Child Communication Against Alcohol Miller-Day and her colleagues (e.g., Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004; Miller-Day & Kam, 2010) developed the construct, targeted parent-child communication against alcohol because previous research primarily focused on general forms of parent-child communication such as openness and frequency. General parent-child communication has great utility for communication theory and prevention science. For example, among a sample of predominantly African American and European American youth, Kafka and London (1991) found that general parent-child communication was negatively related to alcohol use. Further, it is possible that parents are more likely to engage in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol if they have frequent and open conversations with their children. Past findings, however, on general parent-child communication have led substance use prevention programs to offer vague advice such as “talk to your kids” and “be


4


open and supportive” (Boone & Lefkowitz, 2007, p. 1039). Consequently, parents are left knowing that they should talk to their children, but not knowing exactly what they should say to their children about alcohol and other risky behaviors (Reimuller et al., 2011). Although general parent-child communication plays a significant role in communication theory and alcohol-abuse prevention, a growing body of literature indicates that the specific messages matter, as well (Miller-Day & Kam, 2010; Reimuller et al., 2011). Through videotaping and coding conversations among mostly European American mother-daughter dyads, Boone and Lefkowitz (2007) showed that mothers spent most of the time asking their children questions about the availability of substances at school, the different types of substances, and ways to avoid substance use. Reimuller et al. (2011) found by surveying predominantly European American and African American parentchild dyads that parents’ permissive messages were associated with increased substance use, particularly for youth who had prior experience with alcohol consumption, whereas messages concentrating on the negative consequences of substance use did not significantly predict youth’s alcohol use. In short, past research on parent-child communication points to the importance of considering specific messages.

The Effects of Targeted Parent-child Communication Against Alcohol on Antialcohol Norms and Risk Assessments In the context of parent-child communication regarding emotions, Cervantes (2002) suggested that such conversations encourage youth to reflect on their own emotions, the results of their emotions, and social norms regarding emotion displays. Similarly, given the types of messages that targeted parent-child communication against alcohol includes, youth are likely to consider their own beliefs about drinking alcohol and reflect on the consequences of drinking alcohol (Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004). Targeted parent-child communication against alcohol provides youth with messages that communicate specific goals (e.g., not to consume alcohol) and encourages them to contemplate potential negative consequences of their behaviors, thus promoting personal antialcohol norms and antialcohol risk assessments (Miller-Day & Kam, 2010).

Developing Personal Antialcohol Norms Rooted in moral judgment, personal antialcohol norms refer to youth’s own internal values and beliefs against alcohol use (Kam, Matsunaga, Hecht, & Ndiaye, 2009). More specifically, personal norms focus on youth’s acceptance or rejection of alcohol separate from external rewards like social acceptability or social sanctions (Elek, Miller-Day, & Hecht, 2006). Targeted parent-child communication against alcohol contributes to the formation of personal antialcohol norms because parents’ messages are rooted in moral codes based on their culture (Oetting, 1999). For example, language socialization theory describes how children gain insight into a culture’s worldview and contribute to that


5

Kam et al.

worldview as they learn the language of that cultural group through interpersonal interactions (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Similarly, parents’ culturally based moral codes regarding alcohol consumption become evident as parents encourage their children to consider how drinking alcohol at a young age may be right or wrong, harmful or helpful. When parents explain the family rules against alcohol consumption or clearly convey their disapproval of drinking alcohol, parents shape youth’s own antialcohol perceptions over time (Miller-Day & Kam, 2010). Youth are likely to internalize the messages that they receive from their parents against alcohol and translate such messages into their own personal antialcohol norms (Oetting, Donnermeyer, Trimble, & Beauvais, &1998b).

Developing an Antialcohol Risk Assessment In addition to morally evaluating alcohol consumption, targeted parent-child communication against alcohol encourages youth to consider the potential negative consequences that may result from consuming alcohol at their age. This reflection process, stimulated by targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, is an antialcohol risk assessment. More specifically, risk assessment refers to perceptions of the severity and likelihood of an unwanted outcome occurring if one was to engage in a particular behavior or if a certain event was to occur (Fischhoff, Bostrom, & Quadrel, 1993; Slovic, 1999). By engaging in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, the negative consequences of drinking alcohol are likely to become more salient, given that during such conversations, parents often emphasize the harm that could occur from drinking alcohol or express disapproval of drinking alcohol (Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004). Since targeted parent-child communication against alcohol is a socialization process, youth learn to develop antialcohol risk assessments by considering the negative repercussions to consuming alcohol at their age.

When Are Youth Likely to Intervene in a Friend’s Alcohol Consumption? Targeted parent-child communication against alcohol teaches youth about moral codes of conduct and reminds them to consider the potential problems that may arise from drinking alcohol (Miller-Day & Kam, 2010). Among Mexican-heritage youth, Kam et al. (2009) found that as youth developed such personal antialcohol norms and formed an antialcohol risk assessment, they were less likely to drink alcohol. Having antialcohol perceptions often protects youth from engaging in subsequent alcohol use (Elek et al., 2006; Kam et al., 2009), but such antialcohol perceptions also may encourage youth to help their friends if they decide to drink alcohol. Friendships are characterized by caring for each other’s well being, providing social support, protecting each other, and defending each other when needed (Flanagan et al., 2004). Given the nature of friendships, antialcohol perceptions are likely to translate into concern for the friend who drank alcohol. Research on intervening in a friend’s drinking behaviors is limited, but the few studies (e.g., Flanagan et al., 2004; Menegatos et al., 2010) that have considered the role of friends as antialcohol socialization or intervening agents, indicate that friends can help.


6


Despite the dearth number of studies that have been conducted on friend intervention, Flanagan et al. (2004) described three types of intervention strategies and one nonintervention strategy. In particular, youth may engage in intervention strategies by directly expressing concern to their friend about his/her drinking, asking a parent (or another adult) for assistance, or ending the friendship (Syvertsen, Flanagan, & Stout, 2009). As a nonintervention strategy, youth may ignore the friend’s drinking behavior. Yet, the more negative perceptions youth have about alcohol, the more motivated they will be to help their friend out of concern for their friend’s well-being, and the less likely they will be to ignore their friend’s drinking.

A Focus on Mexican-Heritage Youth To date, much of the research on parent-child communication about alcohol and friend intervention strategies has focused primarily on European American or African American/ black samples. The present study, however, concentrates on Mexican-heritage youth because U.S. national survey data (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2010) found that more Latino youth reported drinking alcohol than European American and African American/black youth. More specifically, 19% of 8th grade Latinos had consumed alcohol in the 30 days prior to completing the survey compared to 15% of European American and 12% of African American/black 8th grade students. Nearly 12% of Latino 8th grade students had more than five drinks in the two weeks prior to completing the survey compared to 8% of European American and 5% of African American/black 8th grade students (Johnston et al., 2010). Alcohol-use rates are higher among Latino youth. Yet, Latinos form a heterogeneous group, and Mexican-heritage youth constitute the largest group of Latino youth in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Thus, a number of researchers (e.g., Delgado, Updegraff, Roosa, & Umaña-Taylor, 2011; Umaña-Taylor, Updegraff, & Gonzales-Backen, 2010) have argued for investigating within-ethnic variability. Despite Mexican-heritage youth’s alarming rates of alcohol consumption, past research on parent-child communication and friend influences in alcohol-related contexts has provided little information about how such socialization agents operate among Latino samples, and more specifically, Mexican-heritage youth. Elder et al. (2000) is one of the first studies to consider parent-child communication about substance use among a sample of Latino youth. The authors found that having consumed alcohol or smoking cigarettes was related to less frequent general parent-child communication. With a sample of predominantly Latino youth, Miller-Day and Kam (2010) discovered that while frequency of parent-child communication about alcohol (e.g., “How much have your parents talked with you about alcohol use?”), openness in parent-child communication (e.g., “At least one of my parents listens to my point of view.”), and targeted parent-child communication against alcohol (e.g., “At least one of my parents tells me he or she would be disappointed in me if I drink alcohol.”) were negatively related to the belief that drinking alcohol has positive consequences, targeted parent-child communication against alcohol exhibited the larger association. Moreover, targeted parent-child communication against alcohol was the only variable that was significantly negatively related


7

Kam et al.

to drinking alcohol. Finally, for the Latino college students in Reid-Quiñones’ (2011) study, receiving messages about the negative consequences of drinking alcohol was related to lower levels of weekly alcohol consumption, while messages encouraging Latino college students to refrain from using substances for religious beliefs or out of respect for parents were not significantly related to alcohol use. Such findings demonstrate the relevancy of targeted parent-child communication against alcohol for Latino samples; however, they do not shed light on friend intervention strategies, which to the authors’ knowledge, have not been examined among Latinos. Mexican-heritage youth warrant particular attention because of their higher rates of alcohol consumption compared to European American and African American/black youth, but also because of certain traditional Mexican cultural values that may make PST particularly salient to them. PST (Oetting, 1999) suggests that parents, school, and peers are the most influential sources that shape pro- or antialcohol perceptions and behaviors. Among traditional Mexican culture, interpersonal bonds are particularly important because of values such as familismo, respeto, and personalismo that emphasize close interdependent relationships with family and friends, respect for adult figures, and an appreciation for personal relationships and personal character (Cervantes, 2002; UmañaTaylor et al., 2010). If parents engage in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, the deep concern and respect for adult figures mean that Mexican-heritage youth may seriously reflect on the messages and internalize them. When considering the cultural context, values such as familismo, respeto, and personalismo emphasize concern for one’s nuclear family, extended family, and friends (Cervantes, 2002). Their concern for others and their antialcohol perceptions may make Mexican-heritage youth more likely to intervene if their friend was to drink alcohol.

Sex Differences in Communication and Antialcohol Perceptions Past research indicates that sex differences exist with respect to parent-child communication (Ennett et al., 2001), and such variations may have implications for youth’s personal antialcohol norms and antialcohol risk assessments. Among Latino mother-child dyads, Guilamo-Ramos (2010) found that mothers were more likely to self-disclose to daughters, rather than to sons, regarding the mothers’ past experiences with smoking cigarettes and sexual intercourse. Guilamo-Ramos (2010) suggested that mothers feel more comfortable discussing these personal topics with their daughters, which may have implications for sex differences linking targeted parent-child communication against alcohol with personal antialcohol norms and antialcohol risk assessment. If sex differences exist for targeted parent-child communication against alcohol and males are not as likely to engage in such conversations, they may not be as likely to form personal antialcohol norms or antialcohol assessments. In turn, they may not be as likely to intervene if a friend drank alcohol. In addition to variations in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, the few studies that have considered friend intervention strategies found sex differences, but


8


all the studies’ samples comprised of mostly European American participants. Flanagan et al. (2004) found that female youth were more likely than males to report that they would intervene by speaking to a friend if he/she consumed alcohol at a party. In a study on college students’ strategies for staying safe when drinking, female participants, rather than male participants, emphasized maintaining open communication with friends who were drinking (Menegatos et al., 2010). Female participants also were more likely to help someone even if that person was a stranger, whereas male participants thought that taking care of the person who had too much to drink should depend on their relationship with that person. Concurrently, Syvertsen et al. (2009) found that males were more likely to ignore a friend’s dangerous behavior. Since past research identified sex differences in parentchild communication and friend intervention strategies, it is likely that their relationships will differ by sex. Yet, to the authors’ knowledge, such differences have yet to be examined among Mexican-heritage youth. Thus, we developed the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: For Mexican-heritage youth, targeted parent-child communication against alcohol indirectly affects friend intervention strategies through personal antialcohol norms and antialcohol risk assessment such that Hypothesis 1a: Targeted parent-child communication against alcohol is positively related to personal antialcohol norms and antialcohol risk assessment. Hypothesis 1b: In turn, personal antialcohol norms and antialcohol risk assessment are positively related to talking to the friend, talking to an adult, and ending the friendship, but negatively related to ignoring the situation. Hypothesis 2: The mediation model will operate differently for male and female Mexican-heritage youth. To test the two hypotheses, the present investigation uses self-reported longitudinal data from public middle school students during springs 2006, 2007, and 2008, which were waves 3, 5, and 6 of a large-scale evaluation of a substance use prevention program funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The present study extends PST and communication theory by examining how parents can use targeted parent-child communication against alcohol to protect their children against underage drinking and possible alcohol abuse, as well as to indirectly protect their children’s friends. Further, this investigation contributes to communication theory and prevention science by emphasizing the importance of alcohol-specific messages. Finally, past friend intervention studies were comprised of predominantly European American samples, with the present investigation being one of the first to consider a sample of Mexican descent.

Method Participants This study’s analyses are based on data from 1,149 Mexican-heritage youth in 6th through 8th grades attending one of 23 public middle schools in Phoenix, AZ. At wave 3


9

Kam et al.

(February-May 2006), the entire sample included 1,478 students, 841 by wave 5 (February-May 2007), and 891 by wave 6 (January-March 2008). Students were allowed to enter the study or drop out at any wave. At wave 3, 1,149 Mexican-heritage youth completed the survey, which decreased to 636 in wave 5, and then increased to 668 by wave 6. In border communities, like Phoenix, people often travel back and forth, which may explain the attrition among Mexican-heritage youth. Some students also were retained in their prior grade level or absent on the survey date, despite efforts to follow-up with them. With the attrition across the waves, it should be noted that the findings are not generalizable to all Mexican-heritage youth. At wave 3, 48% of the students were male and 52% were female. Their mean age was 12 years (SD = .61). Thirty-six percent of the youth self-identified as Mexican and 64% identified as Mexican American or Chicano. Among the 1,149 Mexican-heritage youth, 73% were born in the U.S., 26% in Mexico, and 1% either did not know or were born in another country. In contrast, 24% of the youth reported that their mother was born in the U.S., 69% in Mexico, and 7% either did not know or reported that their mother was born in another country. Regarding their father’s nativity, 19% reported that their father was born in the United States, 72% in Mexico, and 9% did not know where their father was born or reported that their father was born in another country. Among the sample of Mexican-heritage youth, 18% had lived in the U.S. for 5 years or less, 17% for 6-10 years, and 66% for more than 10 years. As an indication of socioeconomic status, 75% participated in a free lunch program, 18% in a reduced-cost lunch, and 7% did not participate in any lunch program.

Procedures Prior to implementing the study, approval was obtained from the human subjects institutional review board. Afterward, parents provided informed consent and students provided informed assent. Project personnel administered the questionnaire to students in homeroom, science, or health class. Students took approximately 45 minutes to complete the survey, which was printed in English and Spanish. Rogler’s (1989) back-translation method was used. At wave 3, 95% of the youth completed the survey in English.

Measures Students received a survey with questions on targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, personal antialcohol norms, antialcohol risk assessment, and friend intervention strategies. The items were modified for age appropriateness based on feedback from teachers. Subsets of scales were used because of the schools’ time constraints and because of the developmental needs of this age group (See Table 1 for descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations). To assess the scales, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used based on Hu’s and Bentler’s (1999) model fit criteria. A well-fitting model should have a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .06, a comparative fit index (CFI) ≥ .95, and the


10


Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations Variable 1. TPCCA 2. PERNORM 3. RISKASSESS 4. TFRIEND 5. TADULT 6. ENDFRIEND 7. IGNORE

Means (SD) Means (SD) for Males for Females 3.62 (1.0) 3.43 (.81) 1.90 (1.1) 2.91 (1.1) 2.85 (1.2) 2.40 (1.2) 2.59 (1.1)

1

3.73 (.94) .93/.92 3.39 (.83) .13* 2.11 (.92) .23** 3.53 (1.0) .14* 3.14 (1.2) .15* 1.93 (1.0) –.01 2.21 (1.1) –.11

2

3

4

.13* –– .28** .21** .17* .10 .06

.22** .36** .93/.88 .27** .22** .02 .05

.27** .24** .34** .90/.86 .82** .51** .38**

5

6

.25** .10 .27** .01 .27** –.05 .76** .21** .92/.92 .35** .58** .92/.94 .40** .63**

7 –.05 –.05 –.11 –.02 .14** .56** .90/.88

Note: Males’ bivariate correlations are listed under the diagonal, and females’ bivariate correlations are listed above the diagonal. For multi-item scales, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are listed in the diagonal for males, followed by alpha coefficients for females. TPCCA = targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, PERNORM = personal antialcohol norm, RISKASSESS = antialcohol risk assessment, TFRIEND = talk to the friend, TADULT = talk to an adult, ENDFRIEND = end the friendship, and IGNORE = ignore friend’s drinking. *p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.

standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < than .08. A full measurement model was examined, which included all the latent factors and their corresponding indicators (targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, antialcohol risk assessment, talking to a friend, talking to an adult, ending the friendship, and ignoring the friend’s drinking). The omnibus model fit the data well: χ2(549) = 1107.09, p < .05; RMSEA = .03, 95% CI = [.027, .032]; CFI = .96. Higher scores represent more targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, personal antialcohol norm, antialcohol risk assessment, friend intervention strategies, and ignoring. Targeted parent-child communication against alcohol. Nine items were used to measure targeted parent-child communication against alcohol (for a detailed description of the items, see Miller-Day & Kam, 2010). Youth first read an introduction: Most kids do not drink alcohol, but parents may talk with them about drinking alcohol so that kids can make healthy choices. Please answer the following questions based on the parents you spend the most time with. How much do you agree with the following for at least one of your parents?” Using a 5-point scale (1 = disagree a lot to 5 = agree a lot), students responded to questions such as “At least one of my parents” . . .”has warned me about the dangers of drinking alcohol,” “shows me information on the web, TV, or in the news about the dangers of drinking alcohol,” and “tells me he or she would be disappointed in me if I drink alcohol” (Cronbach’s α = .92). Personal antialcohol norm. One item was used from Hansen and Graham (1991) to measure the degree to which youth personally believed alcohol consumption was unacceptable for youth their age. The question asked, “Is it ok for someone your age to drink alcohol?” Youth responded using a 4-point scale (1 = definitely ok to 4 = definitely not ok).


11

Kam et al.

Antialcohol risk assessment. Five items were used to measure antialcohol risk assessment. These five items were created specifically for the large-scale evaluation of the substance use prevention program and were based on specific content of the curriculum that encouraged reflecting on the negative consequences of drinking alcohol (Dunn & Goldman, 1996; MacKinnon et al., 1991). The items were based on a 4-point scale (0 = not at all to 3 = a lot). Youth were asked, “If someone offered you alcohol, how much would you consider each of the following before accepting or rejecting the offer?” Sample questions included “I would think about what it might do to my health (e.g., risks of brain damage or liver disease),” “I would think about the possibility that I might get arrested,” and “I would think about the possibility that my parents might find out and punish me” (Cronbach’s α = .91). Friend intervention strategies. Eleven items were taken from Flanagan et al. (2004) to operationalize four ways in which youth could choose to intervene (or not intervene) if a friend drank beer at a party. The introduction was, “One of your friends was drinking beer at a party last weekend. Below are some things that a person might do when she/he finds out their friend was drinking. How likely is it that you would do each of the following?” Using a 5-point scale (1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely), youth responded to three questions to measure how likely they would be to talk to the friend (e.g., “Try to talk to your friend and try to get them to get help” and “Tell your friend you are worried about them”; Cronbach’s α = .90). Youth also responded to two items assessing how likely they would tell an adult about a friend’s drinking (“Go talk to an adult and ask them for help” and “Tell your parents and ask for help”; Cronbach’s α = .92). Finally, this study operationalized how likely youth would end the friendship, by asking three questions (e.g., “Stop being their friend” and “Stop hanging out with them”; Cronbach’s α = .93). Youth responded to three items assessing how likely they would ignore the friend’s drinking (e.g., “Ignore it because it’s none of your business” or “Ignore it because it won’t do any good”; Cronbach’s α = .89). Control variables. Mexican-heritage youth’s nativity, time spent in the U.S., participation in a school lunch program, and previous friend intervention strategies were accounted for in the analyses. Nativity was measured by asking youth, “Where were you born?” (1 = United States, 2 = Mexico). Youth reported on their time spent in the U.S. by answering the question, “How long have you lived in the United States” (1 = less than 1 year, 2 = between 1 and 5 years, 3 = between 6 and 10 years, 4 = more than 10 years, and 5 = all my life)? Finally, to assess participation in a school lunch program, youth were asked, “Do you get a free or reduced lunch at school” (1 = free lunch, 2 = reduced cost lunch, 3 = neither)? The four friend intervention strategies (measured at Wave 4) also were included to predict friend intervention strategies at wave 6, which provides further support for the proposed directionality of the paths in the mediation model.

Analysis Summary For the analyses, we used structural equation modeling in Mplus 6.0. Mardia’s coefficients for multivariate skewness (b1p = 449.26) and kurtosis (b2p = 1654.63) revealed


12


that the data were not normally distributed (DeCarlo, 1997). Thus, the maximum likelihood estimator with robust standard errors was used because it holds up against the nonnormally distributed data (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). Missingness across waves was addressed by using the full information maximum likelihood method (Graham, 2009). Since Mexican-heritage youth were recruited from 23 middle schools, we obtained intraclass correlations (ICC) for each variable to determine the amount of variance that could be attributed to school-level differences. All the values were less than 0.03. To account for the multilevel-structured data, we used TYPE=COMPLEX in Mplus 6.0, which calculates the standard errors and a chi-square test while considering the nonindependence of observations (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). Because the data come from a large-scale evaluation of a substance use prevention program, the 23 schools were randomly assigned to a control group and two program conditions. The original purpose of this large project was to assess the efficacy of a culturally grounded substance use prevention program and to determine the appropriate age at which youth should receive the program. The present investigation was not intended to evaluate the substance use prevention program. Nevertheless, to consider program effects, paths were examined from a dichotomized condition variable (control = 0; program = 1) to all other variables in the mediation model. The condition variable did not have a significant effect on any of the variables and was excluded from the multigroup mediation analyses. Multigroup mediation analyses were conducted to simultaneously test the two hypotheses. Paths were examined from targeted parent-child communication against alcohol to personal antialcohol norm and antialcohol risk assessment, personal antialcohol norm and antialcohol risk assessment to friend intervention or nonintervention strategies, and targeted parent-child communication against alcohol to friend intervention or nonintervention strategies. To assess indirect effects, Preacher and Hayes (2008) suggest using bootstrapping to obtain bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs), but Mplus 6.0 does not allow for bootstrapping with TYPE = COMPLEX (code to account for the multilevelstructured data). Instead, we used PRODCLIN (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood, 2007), which handles the nonnormality in the product of coefficients’ distribution and computes asymmetric 95% CIs. Indirect effects were considered significant when zero was not within the asymmetric 95% CI. For multigroup mediation analyses, a restricted model was examined in which all the parameters were constrained to be equal across sex. An unrestricted model was then inspected, where all the parameters were freely estimated. We then calculated a chi-square difference test (Kline, 2005).

Results For preliminary analyses, independent sample t tests revealed that significant differences existed between male and female Mexican-heritage youth with respect to antialcohol risk assessment, t(491) = –2.37, p < .05; M = 1.90, SD = 1.1 vs. M = 2.11, SD =.92, talking to the friend, t(507) = –6.99, p < .05; M = 2.91, SD = 1.1 vs. M = 3.53, SD = 1.0, talking to an adult, t(529) = –2.84, p < .05; M = 2.85, SD = 1.2 vs. M = 3.14, SD = 1.2, ending the friendship, t(494) = 4.96, p < .05; M = 2.40, SD = 1.2 vs. M = 1.93, SD = 1.0, and ignoring


13

Kam et al. Wave 3

Wave 5

Wave 6 .07ns, .23*** .10ns, .22**

.14†, .09ns

Talk to the Friend 2 R = .11, .23

.24*, .30***

.17**, .23***

Personal AntiAlcohol Norm 2 R = .05, .06

.11†, .18**

Talk to an Adult 2 R = .09, .16

.21*, .16*

Targeted Parentchild Communication against Alcohol

.13†, .01ns

.26***, .29**

Anti-alcohol Risk Assessment 2 R = .07, .10

.03ns, -.15†

.12†, -.13† -.09ns, .16**

-.23***, -.02ns

End the Friendship 2 R = .03, .05

Ignore the Friend’s Drinking 2 R = .06, .04

Figure 1. A multigroup mediation model of targeted parent-child communication against alcohol and friend (non)intervention strategies

Note: Standardized estimates are first listed for male Mexican-heritage youth, followed by female Mexican-heritage youth (bold). For visual clarity, only significant paths and correlations are shown in this figure; however, all the direct and indirect paths were modeled during the analyses. Mexican-heritage youth’s nativity, time spent in the U.S., participation in a school lunch program, and prior friend intervention strategies were accounted for in this model. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the friend’s drinking, t(516) = 4.23, p < .05; M = 2.59, SD = 1.1 vs. M = 2.21, SD = 1.1. No other significant differences were found. To test the hypotheses, we examined a restricted mediation model: χ2(1443) = 2476.41, p < .05; RMSEA = .04, 95% CI = [.033, .038]; CFI = .93; SRMR = .08, followed by an unrestricted model: χ2(1356) = 2288.57, p < .05; RMSEA = .04, 95% CI = [.032, .037]; CFI = .94; SRMR = .07. The chi-square difference test, based on the log likelihood formula (Muthén & Muthén: www.statmodel.com/), indicated that the unrestricted model significantly improved the fit, thereby providing support for sex differences: χ2diff(87) = 189.57, p < .05. The RMSEA was well below .06, the CFI value was nearly .95, and the SRMR was less than .08; therefore, the unrestricted model yielded an acceptable fit (see Figure 1). The asymmetric 95% CIs revealed that among male Mexican-heritage youth, personal antialcohol norm was not a significant mediator. Although targeted parent-child communication against alcohol was positively related to personal antialcohol norm for males, personal antialcohol norm was only marginally significantly or not at all significantly related to the intervention or nonintervention strategies. Among female Mexican-heritage youth, however, personal antialcohol norm mediated the effect of targeted parent-child


14


communication against alcohol on talking to an adult (95% CIFemales = [.01064, .08103]). For females, targeted parent-child communication against alcohol was positively related to personal anti-alcohol norm, which in turn, was positively related to talking to an adult. No other mediation was found with respect to personal antialcohol norm for females. For antialcohol risk assessment, the significant and nonsignificant indirect effects were the same for males and females. For both male and female Mexican-heritage youth, antialcohol risk assessment mediated targeted parent-child communication against alcohol’s effect on talking to the friend (95% CIMales = [.00163, .14146]; 95% CIFemales = [.02983, .15843]) and talking to an adult (95% CIMales = [.00950, .11212]; 95% CIFemales = [.00540, .10472]). As male and female youth engaged in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, they were more likely to reflect on the negative consequences of drinking alcohol. In turn, they were more likely to talk to the friend and talk to an adult. Nevertheless, antialcohol risk assessment did not significantly mediate targeted parent-child communication against alcohol’s effect on ending the friendship or ignoring the friend’s drinking. Hence, this study received partial support for the first hypothesis and full support for the second one. In regard to male Mexican-heritage youth, the model explained 5% of the variance in personal antialcohol norm, 7% of antialcohol risk assessment, 11% of talking to the friend, 9% of talking to an adult, 3% of ending the friendship, and 6% of ignoring the situation. For female youth, the model explained 6% of the variance in personal antialcohol norm, 10% of antialcohol risk assessment, 23% of talking to the friend, 16% of talking to an adult, 5% of ending the friendship, and 4% of ignoring the situation.

Discussion Consistent with PST (Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998), we found that among Mexicanheritage youth, parents functioned as antialcohol socialization agents through targeted parent-child communication against alcohol. As Mexican-heritage youth engaged in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, they were more likely to disapprove of and consider the negative consequences of drinking alcohol. Our results also revealed that targeted parent-child communication against alcohol not only benefited Mexicanheritage youth in promoting antialcohol perceptions, but also had carryover effects for their friends by encouraging youth to intervene and discourage drinking. Such findings provide support for interventions that enhance targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, with patterns only slightly differing by sex.

Sex Differences and Similarities in the Mediation Model For males and females, targeted parent-child communication against alcohol predicted personal antialcohol norm and antialcohol risk assessment. Not only does this finding support PST, but it also informs past research on parent-child communication among predominantly European American and African American samples (Ennett et al., 2001; Reimuller et al., 2011). Ennett and her colleagues found little support for the protective nature of alcohol-specific messages, yet the present investigation indicates that targeted


15

Kam et al.

parent-child communication against alcohol, at a minimum, predicts antialcohol perceptions for Mexican-heritage youth. Further, when extending PST and communication theory by examining how antialcohol use perceptions can, in turn, predict friend intervention and nonintervention strategies, unique results emerged. Although personal antialcohol norm was a significant mediator for females of Mexican descent, it was not a significant mediator for males. In contrast, there were no sex differences for the effects of antialcohol risk assessment, which mediated targeted parent-child communication against alcohol’s effects on talking to a friend or an adult for both males and females. Based on the moral aspect of personal antialcohol norm (Elek et al., 2006) and concern for others that is characteristic of friendships (Flanagan et al., 2004), we originally hypothesized that Mexican-heritage youth would intervene if a friend drank alcohol. Yet, traditional Mexican cultural values such as familismo, respeto, and personalismo emphasize the importance of loyalty among nuclear family, extended family, and friends, as well as respect for others (Kam et al., 2009). Thus, it is possible that male Mexican-heritage youth may not have intervened, even though they disapproved of drinking alcohol, because they did not want to impose their own moral values on their friends or disrespect their friend. Sex comparisons for the effects of targeted parent-child communication against alcohol revealed one distinction for female and male Mexican-heritage youth. Personal antialcohol norm was a significant mediator for females, but only with respect to talking to an adult. Females engaging in targeted parent-child communication against alcohol were more likely to disapprove of drinking alcohol, and in turn, more likely to talk to an adult if a friend drank alcohol. This finding is consistent with past research (Flanagan et al., 2004; Syvertsen et al., 2009) primarily on European American youth that found females to be more likely to intervene in a friend’s risky behaviors or dangerous plans compared to males. Yet one question emerges: Why did personal antialcohol norm only mediate the effects of targeted parent-child communication against alcohol on talking to an adult and no other intervention strategies? When female Mexican-heritage youth disapproved of drinking alcohol, it is possible that they would not want to directly impose their personal antialcohol norm on their friend by directly talking to the friend or ending the friendship. Their moral code, however, would motivate them to do more than ignore the situation. The cultural value, personalismo, emphasizes not only the importance of close interpersonal relationships, but also the preservation of personal character within relationships (Cervantes, 2002). The easiest solution, then, without immediately or directly imposing their personal antialcohol norm on a friend, would be to talk to an adult for advice. In turn, talking to an adult would allow female Mexican-heritage youth to demonstrate their disapproval of the act, while not directly threatening or damaging their interpersonal relationship. In contrast to personal antialcohol norm, antialcohol risk assessment appeared more motivational for both male and female Mexican-heritage youth to talk to the friend or an adult if a friend was to drink alcohol. As males and females engaged in targeted parentchild communication against alcohol, they were more likely to reflect on the negative consequences of consuming alcohol. In turn, they were more likely to talk to the friend


16


or an adult, but less likely to end the friendship or ignore the situation. While personal antialcohol norm is defined as the extent to which youth perceive drinking as unacceptable, antialcohol risk assessment refers to reflecting on the negative consequences of drinking alcohol. Male and female Mexican-heritage youth may not have wanted to impose their personal antialcohol norm on their friend; however, when considering all the different threats to their own health and well-being, males and females may have been more likely to use such risks as justification and motivation for talking to the friend or an adult. The cultural value, respeto, may have been salient among males and females. Friends who choose to consume alcohol do not display respect for self because of the potential, dangerous consequences that may be incurred when drinking alcohol. In knowing that drinking can lead to a number of undesirable outcomes, males and females of Mexican-heritage youth may have perceived their friend as requiring even more of their intervention efforts. They also may have thought their friend would be more accepting of it, knowing their good intentions. Having concern for their friend’s well-being also may explain why neither personal antialcohol norms nor antialcohol risk assessment were significantly related to ending the friendship or ignoring the friend’s drinking. Such findings may imply that both males and females tend to view friendships as a loyal bond. Moreover, traditional Mexican cultural values such as familismo, respeto, and personalismo often emphasize interdependence, support, and loyalty not only among family but also among friends (Cervantes, 2002; UmañaTaylor et al., 2010). In adhering to such cultural norms, Mexican-heritage youth may have been more determined not to abandon their friend if he/she was to drink alcohol.

Theoretical and Practical Implications Through this study, we extended PST and communication theory in several ways. First, we examined a particularly salient vehicle of parental influence in the form of targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, which is a content-specific conceptualization of alcohol-related conversations between parents and their offspring. Second, using longitudinal data from Mexican-heritage youth, we demonstrated how alcohol-specific conversations encourage Mexican-heritage youth to disapprove of and consider the negative consequences of drinking alcohol, which is consistent with and extends PST. This finding has theoretical and practical implications because it provides more specificity to PST and communication theory, offers evidence for the benefits of incorporating alcoholspecific messages, and informs prevention science. Tenets of PST suggest that parents shape youth’s perceptions regarding delinquent behaviors (Oetting et al., 1998a), but the current study illustrates how this process is carried out for Mexican-heritage youth. In addition to emphasizing the importance of parents, this study’s results demonstrated that parental influence affects the second primary factor in youth behavior, friends, by increasing the likelihood of males and females intervening in a friend’s drinking. Research on communication about alcohol (e.g., Ennett et al., 2001; Miller-Day & Dodd, 2004; Miller-Day, 2002; Miller-Day, 2008) often concentrates only on one type of interpersonal socialization agent: parents. PST often positions friends as negative


17

Kam et al.

influences and concentrates on youth’s associations with delinquent peer clusters. Yet, the present investigation demonstrates how friends also may shape antialcohol perceptions and intervene by preventing or stopping youth from drinking alcohol (Kafka & London, 1991; Flanagan et al., 2004). The findings also reveal the benefits to intervention processes beginning with parents. Targeted parent-child communication against alcohol indirectly encouraged friend intervention strategies; this finding held when male and female Mexican-heritage youth considered the negative consequences of alcohol consumption. Consequently, this study revealed the similar ways in which this mediator operated for males and females, informing not only theory but also practice. When applying this study’s findings to alcohol prevention and intervention programming, it is crucial to address the similar needs of male and female Mexican-heritage youth with respect to antialcohol risk assessment, while also considering the unique needs in regard to personal antialcohol norms. Such findings indicate what factors to encourage in alcohol-abuse prevention and intervention programing for youth of Mexican descent.

Limitations and Future Research Despite this study’s contributions, one limitation stems from the hypothetical scenario of the friend intervention measures. Syvertsen et al. (2009) pointed out that youth may overestimate how likely they would be to intervene when reflecting on hypothetical scenarios. A discrepancy may exist between intentions to intervene and actual intervening behaviors. Second, the intervention measures focused participants on a particular context (a party) and a specific substance (beer). It is possible that the context such as where the drinking occurred and the type of alcoholic beverage that was consumed influenced which intervention strategy youth chose to employ. Third, three of the friend intervention measures were double-barreled (e.g., “Try to talk to your friend and try to get them to get help.”), which means this study’s findings do not shed light on situations where youth may only talk to a friend but not seek help or vice versa. Lastly, personal antialcohol norm was only operationalized with one item, which does not indicate the reasons why Mexican-heritage youth in this study disapproved of alcohol consumption for kids their age. A more comprehensive measure of personal antialcohol norm could determine whether Mexican-heritage youth disapproved of drinking alcohol because of, for example, its illegal nature for their age group or for religious reasons. Future research is needed to incorporate a scale of personal antialcohol norm, use non-double-barreled items, and determine whether targeted parentchild communication against alcohol exhibits indirect effects on friend intervention behaviors in a larger context outside of hypothetical scenarios and the party setting. Furthermore, this study focused on intended intervention strategies without determining whether such strategies actually stop friends from consuming alcohol. The present investigation, as well as Flanagan et al. (2004) and Syvertsen et al. (2009), suggested that intervention strategies are more effective than ignoring the situation. These studies, however, examined factors that predicted intervention strategies; they did not directly test what types of intervention strategies were more successful in stopping friends from


18


engaging in risky behaviors. Further research is needed to identify specific messages that youth can use to prevent or stop friends from drinking, while saving face and preserving the friendship. Otherwise, youth may not be inclined to intervene. Another limitation is this study’s self-reported data from youth for all the variables, thereby ignoring the parents’ perspective with respect to communication about alcohol and excluding observational data. As Boone and Lefkowitz (2007) pointed out, selfreported data regarding parent-child communication are based on youth’s memories and may reflect biases regarding what youth believe they should discuss with parents. Obtaining observational data that capture youth’s conversations with parents about alcohol may be a less biased predictor of antialcohol perceptions and friend intervention strategies. To date, however, few studies have linked observational data on parent-child communication against alcohol with antialcohol perceptions and behaviors. Lastly, future research should consider how frequency, openness, and targeted parentchild communication against alcohol work together to predict antialcohol perceptions and behaviors. PST (Oetting et al., 1998a) suggests that youth are less likely to engage in problem behaviors when they maintain a strong bond with their parents, and general parent-child communication may be characteristic of that type of bond. Past studies (e.g., Elder et al., 2000; Kafka & London, 1991) have provided evidence for the protective nature of general parent-child communication, which may enhance the effects of targeted parent-child communication against alcohol.

Concluding Remarks In the U.S., more Latino youth have reported alcohol consumption and binge drinking compared to European and African American youth (Johnston et al., 2010), and early initiation by any youth confers serious health and behavioral risks (Stipek, de la Sota, & Weishaupt, 1999). To address this public health concern, we used PST to identify how parents of Mexican-heritage youth may not only promote antialcohol perceptions among these youth, but how these antialcohol perceptions may lead them to intervene if a friend drank alcohol. Proponents of PST suggest that parents are proximal socialization agents that shape youth’s attitudes, norms, intentions, and behaviors (Oetting et al., 1998a). Yet, the results indicate an even more powerful ripple effect that goes beyond Mexicanheritage youth’s own perceptions of alcohol use but extends to the second major PST influence: friends. Such findings highlight the importance of targeted parent-child communication against alcohol, as well as the nuanced nature of antialcohol perceptions and friend intervention strategies for males and females of Mexican descent.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their feedback on this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


19

Kam et al. Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was supported by Grant No. R01 DA005629 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to The Pennsylvania State University. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References Boone, T. L. & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2007). Mother-adolescent health communication: Are all conversations created equally? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 1038-1047. Busse, P., Fishbein, M., Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2010). The role of communication with friends in sexual initiation. Communication Research, 37, 239-255. Cervantes, C. A. (2002). Explanatory emotion talk in Mexican immigrant and Mexican American families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24, 138-163. Chuang, Y-C., Ennett, S.T., Bauman, K.E., & Foshee, V.A. (2009) Relationships of adolescents’ perceptions of parental and peer behaviors with cigarette and alcohol use in differential neighborhood contexts. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1388-1398. DeCarlo, L. T. (1997). On the meaning and use of kurtosis. Psychological Methods, 2, 292-307. Delgado, M. Y., Updegraff, K. A., Roosa, M. W., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2011). Discrimination and Mexicanorigin adolescents’ adjustment: The moderating roles of adolescents’, mothers’, and fathers’ cultural orientations and values. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 125-139. Donohew, L., Clayton, R. R., Skinner, W. F., & Colon, S. (1999). Peer networks and sensation seeking: Some implications for primary socialization theory. Substance Use and Misuse, 34, 1013-1023. Dunn, M. E., & Goldman, M. S. (1996). Empirical modeling of an alcohol expectancy memory network in elementary school children as a function of grade. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 4, 209-217. Elder, J., Campbell, N., Litrownik, A., Ayala, G., Slymen, D., Parra-Medina, D., & Lovato, C.Y. (2000). Predictors of cigarette and alcohol susceptibility and use among Hispanic migrant adolescents. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 31, 115-123. Elek, E., Miller-Day, M., & Hecht, M. L. (2006). Influences of personal, injunctive, and descriptive norms on early adolescent substance use. Journal of Drug Issues, 36, 147-172. Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Foshee, V. A., Pemberton, M., & Hicks, K. (2001). Parent–child communication about adolescent tobacco and alcohol use: What do parents say and does it affect youth behavior? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63, 48-62. Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Quadrel, M. J. (1993). Risk perception and communication. Annual Review of Public Health, 14, 183-203. Flanagan, C. A., Elek-Fisk, E., & Gallay, L. S. (2004). Friends don’t let friends …or do they? Developmental and gender differences in intervening in friends’ ATOD use. Journal of Drug Education, 34, 351-371. Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549-576. Guilamo-Ramos, V. (2010). Dominican and Puerto Rican mother-adolescent communication: Maternal selfdisclosure and youth risk intentions. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32, 197-215.


20


Hansen, W. B., & Graham, J. W. (1991). Preventing alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use among adolescents: Peer pressure resistance training versus establishing conservative norms. Preventive Medicine, 20, 414-430. Higgins, G.E., Ricketts, M.L., Marcum, C.D., & Mahoney, M. (2010). Primary socialization theory: An exploratory study of delinquent trajectories. Criminal Justice Studies, 23(2), 133-146. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2010). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2009. Volume I: Secondary school students. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Kafka, R. R., & London, P. (1991). Communication in relationships and adolescent substance use: The influence of parents and friends. Adolescence, 26, 587-598. Kam, J. A. (2011). Identifying changes in youth’s subgroup membership over time based on their targeted communication about substance use with parents and friends. Human Communication Research, 37, 324-349. Kam, J. A., Matsunaga, M., Hecht, M. L., & Ndiaye, K. (2009). Extending the theory of planned behavior to predict alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use among youth of Mexican heritage. Prevention Science, 10, 41-53. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. López, J. S., Martinez, J. M., Martin, A., Martin, J. M., Martin, M. J., & Scandroglio, B. (2001). An exploratory multivariate approach to drug consumption patterns in young people based on primary socialization theory. Substance Use & Misuse, 36, 1611-1649. MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384-389. MacKinnon, D. P., Johnson, C. A., Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., Hansen, W. B., Flay, B. R., & Wang, E. (1991). Mediating mechanisms in a school-based drug prevention program: One year effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project. Health Psychology, 10, 164-172. Menegatos, L., Lederman, L. C., & Hess, A. (2010). Friends don’t let Jane hook up drunk: A qualitative analysis of participation in a simulation of college drinking-related decisions. Communication Education, 59, 374-388. Miller-Day, M. (2002). Parent-adolescent communication about alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 604-616. Miller-Day, M. (2008). Talking to youth about drugs: What do youth say about parental strategies? Family Relations, 57, 1-12. Miller-Day, M., & Dodd, A. H. (2004). Toward a descriptive model of parent-offspring communication about alcohol and other drugs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 69-91. Miller-Day, M., & Kam, J. A. (2010). More than just openness: Developing and validating a measure of targeted parent-child communication about alcohol. Health Communication, 25, 293-302. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Oetting, E. R. (1999). Primary socialization theory. Developmental stages, spirituality, goverment institutions, sensation seeking, and theoretical implications. V. Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 947-982. Oetting, E. R., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (1998). Primary socialization theory: The etiology of drug use and deviance. I. Substance Use & Misuse, 33, 995-1026. Oetting, E. R., Donnermeyer, J. F., & Deffenbacher, J. L. (1998a). Primary socialization theory: The influence of the community on drug use and deviance. III. Substance Use & Misuse, 33, 995-1026. Oetting, E. R., Donnermeyer, J. F., Trimble, J. E., & Beauvais, F. (1998b). Primary socialization theory: Culture, ethnicity, and cultural identification. The links between culture and substance use. IV. Substance Use & Misuse, 33, 2075-2107.


21

Kam et al.

Paek, H-J., Reber, B.H., & Lariscy, R.W. (2011). Roles of interpersonal and media socialization agents in adolescent self-reported health literacy: A health socialization perspective. Health Education Research, 26(1), 131-149. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. Real, K., & Rimal, R. N. (2007). Friends talk to friends about drinking: Exploring the role of peer communication in the theory of normative social behavior. Health Communication, 22, 169-180. Reid-Quiñones, K. (2011). Parent-child communication about substance use: Experiences of Latino emerging adults. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10156/3539 Reimuller, A., Hussong, A., & Ennet, S. T. (2011). The influence of alcohol-specific communication on adolescent alcohol use and alcohol-related consequences. Prevention Science, 12, 389-400. Rogler, L. H. (1989). The meaning of culturally sensitive research in mental health. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 296-303. Schieffelin, B. B. & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15, 163-191. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689-701. Stipek, D., de la Sota, A., & Weishaupt, L. (1999). Life lessons: An embedded classroom approach to preventing high-risk behaviors among preadolescents. Elementary School Journal, 99, 433-451. Syvertsen, A. K., Flanagan, C. A., & Stout, M. D. (2009). Code of silence: Students’ perceptions of school climate and willingness to intervene in a peer’s dangerous plan. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 219-232. Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Updegraff, K. A., & Gonzales-Backen, M. A. (2010). Mexican-origin adolescent mothers’ stressors and psychosocial functioning: Examining ethnic identity affirmation and familism as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 140-157. U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). The American Community—Hispanics: 2004 (American Community Survey Reports). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce

Bios Jennifer A. Kam earned her PhD from the Pennsylvania State University and is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Champaign, IL, USA. Her research examines the effects of cultural stressors on adolescents’ mental health and risky behaviors. She also studies the protective nature of interpersonal communication. Bridget Potocki earned her BA at Minnesota State University Moorhead and is currently a Master’s student in the School of Communication at The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA. Her research interests focus on how interpersonal and mediated communication impact perceptions of stigma. Michael L. Hecht earned his PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is a Distinguished Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences and Crime, Law, and Justice at the Pennsylvania State University. His research involves culturally-grounded substance use prevention programing for underserved adolescents.
