How Parents' Communication Style Matters for Youths' Substance Use?

Parent–child communication and parent prevention strategies (e.g., targeted parent-adolescent communication on substance) are protective again substance us (Miller-Day & Kam, 2010). Families differ in their strategies and these differences are consequential for their children (Cohen, & Rice, 1997). In addition, this communication occurs with the context of various family communication environments (FCE; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990) that influence parent prevention strategies (PPS; Miller-Day, 2004). Thus, it is important to understand not only how parents and children discuss topics such as drugs but the environments that shape those conversations.

Empirical studies showed that there were four distinct subgroups of FCE (Miller-Day et al., 2011) that differ in their effects on parent-child communication (Miller-Day, 2008)..  Thus, we anticipate that there will be subgroups of FCE and PPS that influence youth substance use. As a result, we extend previous research to explore: 1) whether there are distinct subgroup based on their FCE and PPS, and 2) whether substance use trajectories differ across subgroups.

Seven eighty four students at 11 public schools in Pennsylvania and Ohio filled out a survey at the beginning of 7^th grade and at the end of the same 7th and 8^thgrades. The sample was 49% female with a mean age of 12.3. 86% self-identified their racial/ethnic background as White. Latent profile analysis and growth mixture model (GMM) were conducted to answer research questions.

Four profiles are identified: Laissez-Faire (35.7%), Protective (15.3%), Pluralistic (31%), and Consensual (18%) Overall, Laissez-Faire profile had the lowest scores on all family communication measurements whereas consensual profile had the highest scores for family communication. Protective profile had relatively low scores on parental communication openness, medium scores on structural traditionalism, high scores on conformity and avoidance, and second highest scores on targeted parent adolescent ATOD communication measurements. Finally, Pluralistic profile had relatively high parental communication openness and avoidance, medium scores on structural traditionalism, low scores on conformity, and second lowest scores on targeted parent adolescent ATOD communication. GMM showed that lifetime substance use in Laissez-Faire profile was greater than for youth in other profiles at the wave1 and the average rate of lifetime alcohol/tobacco use in Laissez-Faire profile significantly grew faster compared with consensual profile.

Findings indicate that, consistent with previous theory, there were four family communication patterns. Although lifetime substance use increased over times, different rate of lifetime substance use were observed depending on the profile.