D

Tk

JC

a

ARR2AA

KOMPPA

1

ishbmuPiiPlt

h0

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelAD-5394; No. of Pages 6

Drug and Alcohol Dependence xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

j ourna l h o me pa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /drugalcdep

he power of the proposition: Frequency of marijuana offers, parentalnowledge, and adolescent marijuana use

ason T. Siegel ∗, Cara N. Tan, Mario A. Navarro, Eusebio M. Alvaro, William D. Cranolaremont Graduate University, 150 E 10th St. , Claremont, CA 91711, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 29 April 2014eceived in revised form6 November 2014ccepted 27 November 2014vailable online xxx

eywords:fferingarijuana

arental monitoringarental knowledge

a b s t r a c t

Background: The frequency with which adolescents are offered marijuana has been investigated as apredictor of marijuana use. The current study was designed to test whether the number of marijuanaoffers received provides an indirect path between parental knowledge and adolescents’ marijuana use.Methods: Data from the nationally representative National Survey of Parents and Youth were exam-ined. Analysis 1 tested the association between frequency of being offered marijuana and adolescents’(N = 4264) marijuana usage in the subsequent year. Analysis 2, spanning a three-year time frame, testedwhether the frequency of marijuana offers at the second year of the panel study bridged the relationshipbetween parental knowledge in Year 1 and marijuana use in Year 3.Results: Analysis 1 indicated that the frequency with which adolescents were offered marijuana pre-dicted usage one year later, after controlling for previous usage and nine other common predictors ofmarijuana use. Analysis 2 revealed an indirect relationship between parental knowledge and use through

dolescent drug use the number of marijuana offers the adolescent received.Conclusion: There was a strong link between the number of offers received and adolescents’ future mar-ijuana use. Higher parental knowledge predicted reductions in offer frequency, which was associatedwith lower levels of marijuana use. Reducing the number of marijuana offers an adolescent receivescould serve as a useful focus for intervention programs targeting parents.

© 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Marijuana use is associated with many undesirable outcomes,ncluding inferior academic achievement (Bryant et al., 2003), riskyexual behavior (Bryan et al., 2012), increased tobacco and alco-ol use (Siegel et al., 2013), and greater vulnerability to addictiveehaviors (Hurd et al., 2014). Adolescent usage is particularly detri-ental as it affects neurocognitive development, with younger

sers at proportionally greater risk of harm (Gruber et al., 2012).redictors of marijuana use that traditionally garner attentionnclude parental knowledge (Lac and Crano, 2009), sensation seek-ng (Eisenman et al., 1980), and peer norms (Elliott and Carey, 2012;edersen et al., 2013). The effect of the frequency with which ado-escents are offered marijuana has received less attention, and ishe focus of the current research.

Please cite this article in press as: Siegel, J.T., et al., The power of the

and adolescent marijuana use. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2015), http://dx

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 520 975 6264.E-mail address: Jason.Siegel@cgu.edu (J.T. Siegel).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.11.035376-8716/© 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.1. Being offered marijuana as a predictor of use

Wagner and Anthony (2002) credit Frost (1927) with introduc-ing the concept of exposure opportunity. Opportunity is crucialbecause “Being presented with an opportunity to use drugs is thefirst step of drug involvement . . . drug use is only possible givenexposure to drug use opportunities” (Benjet et al., 2007, p. 128).Beyond opportunity (i.e., being around others who are using adrug), being offered marijuana amplifies drug use cues (Wertz andSayette, 2001). Thus, adolescents predisposed to risky behaviormay be more likely to act on their predilection when an offer ismade (Voelkl and Frone, 2000), and even those who may neverhave considered marijuana use might otherwise accede, if offered.

In support of the importance of whether adolescents receiveoffers to use marijuana in relation to future use, Ellickson et al.’s(2004) 30 school study indicated that merely being offered mar-ijuana predicted current use, and use one year later. In researchon secondary school students, Manning et al. (2001) reported that

proposition: Frequency of marijuana offers, parental knowledge,.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.11.035

65.9% of users reported using marijuana as a result of an offer. Gradyet al. (1986) found that 58% of 8th graders from two New Englandtowns reported being offered marijuana, and approximately 65%accepted the offer.

ING ModelD

2 hol De

1

iitmiJhobklpoapup

mkk2sbiwupttKso2aeabpoap

1

gbmisahtotaoafbk

2.3.5. Parental knowledge ( ̨ = 0.75, r = 0.60). Parental knowledge was measured

ARTICLEAD-5394; No. of Pages 6

J.T. Siegel et al. / Drug and Alco

.2. Parental knowledge, offering, and marijuana use

Greater parental knowledge (i.e., awareness of the child’s activ-ties; Stattin and Kerr, 2000) is a commonly noted protective factorn research on adolescent marijuana use (Lac and Crano, 2009). Evenhough peers are highly influential in adolescence, parents still hold

ajor sway over their children’s decisions, including those involv-ng drug use (Blake et al., 2001; Fletcher et al., 1998; Krosnick andudd, 1982; Lamb and Crano, 2014; Li et al., 2002). In addition toighlighting the utility of investigating the number of marijuanaffers adolescents receive, the current study assesses whethereing offered marijuana provides an indirect path between parentalnowledge and later marijuana use. If the number of times an ado-escent is offered marijuana provides an indirect path betweenarental knowledge and marijuana use, the utility of the constructf marijuana offers will not only be highlighted, it also will offer

potential approach for future prevention efforts. Working witharents to minimize the likelihood that their children will be in sit-ations in which marijuana is likely to be offered, for example, mayrove an effective prevention strategy.

Previous studies offer reason to suspect that frequency ofarijuana offers indeed provides an indirect path from parental

nowledge to marijuana use. An association between parentalnowledge and substance use has been identified (Lac and Crano,009). Not every longitudinal study supports a direct relation-hip between parental knowledge and use (Tebes et al., 2011),ut such a relationship has been indicated (Abar et al., 2014) and

ndirect effects have been reported by Cleveland et al. (2005),ho found an effect of parental knowledge and reduced substancese through reduced susceptibility. Further, although focused onarental monitoring (i.e., parental tracking and surveillance) ratherhan the more global construct of knowledge (i.e., awareness ofhe child’s activities; e.g., Crouter and Head, 2002; Stattin anderr, 2000), Pinchevsky et al. (2012) reported a negative relation-hip between parental monitoring in high school and marijuanaffers when students attended university (also see Chen et al.,005). Further, as noted, a relationship between offers receivednd marijuana use was reported by Ellickson et al. (2004). How-ver, whether the number of offers an adolescent receives providesn indirect path from knowledge to use is relatively untested. Ifeing offered marijuana is a mediator of the relationship betweenarental knowledge and marijuana use, it will highlight the “powerf the proposition” (i.e., the importance of being offered marijuanas a predictive variable), and provide insight into future preventionrograms.

.3. The current study

Using a nationally representative sample of adolescents, the firstoal of the present research is to examine the lagged associationsetween the number of marijuana offers received and adolescentarijuana use, and to compare this relationship with those involv-

ng more common predictors (e.g., tobacco and alcohol use, refusalkills, and delinquency). Although frequency of offers has beenssociated with current and future marijuana use, study samplesave been relatively small or constrained geographically. Further,he predictive association of offers with marijuana use has onlyccasionally been inspected over and above other common predic-ors of use, such as alcohol and tobacco use, family communication,nd academic achievement (e.g., Ellickson et al., 2004). As a sec-nd appraisal of the importance of the frequency with which an

Please cite this article in press as: Siegel, J.T., et al., The power of the

and adolescent marijuana use. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2015), http://dx

dolescent is offered marijuana, and to explore a potential pathor parent-based prevention efforts, we also determine whethereing offered marijuana provides an indirect path between parentalnowledge and marijuana use.

PRESSpendence xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

2. Methods

2.1. Respondents and sampling procedure

Data from a nationally representative sample of 9–18-year olds in the UnitedStates (N = 8117) were used. The survey was conducted in conjunction with theNational Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, a social intervention that used nearlyall known mass-media to persuade adolescents to avoid illicit substances (Horniket al., 2003). Respondents were randomly selected from 81,000 households within90 geographic areas (90 of 100 Primary Sampling Units; see National Institute onDrug Abuse, 2006, for a detailed description of the sample, instrument, and the datacollection procedures). The overall cross-sectional response rate for all youth (ages9–18) at each round, defined as the product of: (a) the percent of sampled householdsthat were eligible, (b) the eligible households that completed the screening roster,(c) eligible households selected for follow-up, and (d) completion rate of youth inthe round, was 64% in round 1. Follow-up response rates for eligible participantswere 86.3%, 92.3%, and 93% in rounds 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

2.2. Respondents and interview procedure

At respondents’ households, interviewers obtained non-sensitive data (e.g.,demographic information) via a computer-assisted personal interview; audio-computer-assisted self-interviewing was used for sensitive data such asdrug-relevant perceptions and behaviors. From November 1999 to June 2003, fourinterviews were administered in respondents’ homes at approximately yearly inter-vals. For present purposes, to minimize respondent loss only the first three roundsof data are used (respondents aged-out of the study at 19 years of age). Childrenbetween the ages of 9–11 answered abbreviated surveys and were excluded fromthe analyses.

For Analysis 1, 4264 respondents who participated in the Year 1 (Y1) and Year2 (Y2) interviews were used. Analysis 2 used individuals who participated in Years1–3 (N = 3540). The sample dropped from 8117 to 4264 primarily due to the removalof the 9–11-year old participants. In Y1, 36.8% (n = 2985) were 9–11. Using a maxi-mum likelihood estimator that accounts for missing data, attrition rates were 16.96%(n = 871) from Y1 to Y2, and 16.98% (n = 724) from Y2 to Year 3 (Y3). A large portionof these dropouts were due to aging out (n = 333 in Y2, n = 359 in Y3), as only those18 or younger were eligible to participate. Of the base sample from Y1, approxi-mately half was male (51.4%). The mean age at the first measurement point was14.83 (SD = 1.91) years, and grew by approximately one year as the survey pro-gressed. Racial/ethnic makeup of the sample was as follows: 66.6% White, 14.8%African-American; 14.6% Latino; and 4.0% other. All participants were exposed tothe media campaign either through mass media channels, or during data collectionthat included exposing adolescents to anti-drug advertisements and asking for anevaluation of the messages.

2.3. Measures

In developing predictive models, many variables commonly associated withmarijuana use were included in addition to offers. These include gender (Voelkl andFrone, 2000), age and delinquency (Treno et al., 2008), tobacco use (Smart, 1977),alcohol use (Siegel et al., 2013), parental knowledge (Abar et al., 2014), academicperformance (Bergen et al., 2005; Cox et al., 2007), sensation seeking (Eisenmanet al., 1980; Palmgreen et al., 2001), and refusal strength (e.g., Botvin, 2000).

2.3.1. Offers. Being offered marijuana was measured by a single item: “How manytimes in the last 30 days have you been offered marijuana?” Responses could rangefrom 1 (never) to 5 (5 or more times).

2.3.2. Demographics. Age and gender were recorded for use as covariates.

2.3.3. Marijuana use. A single score of marijuana use was compiled from threeitems. All respondents were asked, “Have you ever, even once, smoked marijuana?”Those responding “no” were given a score of 0; those responding “yes” were asked,“How long has it been since you last used marijuana?” Those responding “More than12 months ago” were given a score of 0; those responding “during the last 30 days”or “More than 30 days ago but within the last 12 months” were asked, “During the last12 months, how many times have you used marijuana?” Answers were scored asfollows: 1 (1–2 times), 2 (3–5 times), 3 (6–9 times), 4 (10–19 times), 5 (20–39 times),or 6 (40 or more times).

2.3.4. Academic performance. Academic performance was measured by a singleitem: “Which of the following best describes your average grade in school?” Thissingle item measure was on a scale from 1 (D {69 or below}) to 9 (A {93–100}).

proposition: Frequency of marijuana offers, parental knowledge,.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.11.035

by the following two items: “In general, how often does at least one of your{parents/caregivers}:” “Know what you are doing when you are away from home?”and “Have a pretty good feeling of your plans for the upcoming day?” For both ques-tions, the response options ranged from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (always oralmost always).

ING ModelD

hol De

2ituaas

2siAafic

2seeaa

2mdjd

2pi

2orb1

2

ntsumpsw(

wmwjariB0ctmit

3

fsptrto

ARTICLEAD-5394; No. of Pages 6

J.T. Siegel et al. / Drug and Alco

.3.6. Refusal strength ( ̨ = 0.92). A 5-item scale measured refusal strength. Itemsncluded: “How sure are you that you can say no to marijuana, if you really wantedo, if:” “You are at a party where people are using it.” “A very close friend suggests youse it.” “You are home alone and feeling sad or bored.” “You are on school propertynd someone offers it.” And, “You are hanging out at a friend’s house whose parentsren’t home.” Responses ranged from 1 (not at all sure I can say no) to 5 (completelyure I can say no).

.3.7. Delinquency ( ̨ = 0.53). Delinquency was measured with the following 3-itemcale: “During the last 12 months, how often have you:” “Gotten into a serious fightn school or at work?” “Taken something not belonging to you worth under $50?”nd, “Damaged school property on purpose?” Responses could range from 1 (not atll) to 5 (5 or more times). Due to a lack of gender invariance, “Gotten into a seriousght in school or at work?” was removed, resulting in a slight reduction of internalonsistency from � = 0.56 to 0.53.

.3.8. Sensation seeking ( ̨ = 0.81). Sensation seeking was measured by a 4-itemcale: “Do you disagree or agree with the following statements:” “I would like toxplore strange places.” “I like to do frightening things.” “I like new and excitingxperiences, even if I have to break the rules.” And, “I prefer friends who are excitingnd unpredictable.” Responses could range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (stronglygree).

.3.9. Marijuana approval ( ̨ = 0.84, r = 0.72). A 2-item scale was used to measurearijuana approval. These items were: “Do you disapprove or approve of people

oing each of the following:” “Trying marijuana once or twice,” and, “Using mari-uana nearly every month for 12 months.” Responses could range from 1 (stronglyisapprove) to 5 (strongly approve).

.3.10. Cigarette use. A single item measured cigarette use: “Have you ever smokedart or all of a cigarette?” Responses could range from 1 (never) to 5 (I have smoked

n the last 30 days).

.3.11. Alcohol use. Alcohol use was measured by two items. “Have you ever, evennce, had a drink of any alcoholic beverage, that is, more than a few sips?” Thoseesponding “yes” were asked “How long has it been since you last drank an alcoholiceverage, more than a few sips?” Responses on the derived scale could range from

(no) to 4 (during the last 30 days).

.4. Analytic plan

Two sets of analyses were conducted. The first set of analyses tested whetherumber of marijuana offers was predictive of subsequent marijuana use after con-rolling for a host of other variables previously shown to predict marijuana use. Theecond set of analyses tested whether there was an indirect effect on marijuanase of parental knowledge through number of marijuana offers. Structural equationodeling (SEM) was used for both sets of analyses so that constructs with multi-

le items could be modeled latently, and so that the indirect effect in the secondet of analyses could be tested directly. Due to high levels of skew, sensitivity testsere conducted using non-transformed, natural log transformed, and dichotomized

using median split) measures of marijuana use and number of offers received.All analyses were conducted with mPlus version 7.2 using jackknife replicate

eights, which retained the nationally representative feature of the results. Maxi-um likelihood estimation was used, as other forms of estimation were not possiblehen using replicate weights. Chi-square fit values produced by mPlus when using

ackknife replicate weights are not valid; however, Stapleton (2008) has suggested method of adjusting these values to be more accurate. The chi-square valueseported below have been adjusted using her method. Assumptions of measurementnvariance and normality were tested, and adjustments were made if necessary.efore examining fit indices, the baseline model (i.e., all structural paths fixed at.00) was examined. When the RMSEA of the baseline model is less than 0.158 it isomputationally impossible for incremental measures of fit such as the CFI and TLIo exceed 0.90 (Kenny, 2014). In such cases, CFI and TLI values may not be as infor-

ative in indicating the model’s goodness of fit to the data. Finally, modificationndices were inspected for theoretically relevant changes to the model, which wereested using adjusted chi-square values.

. Results

All constructs measured with more than one item were testedor measurement invariance with respect to gender. The factortructure was not significantly different between male and femalearticipants for all scales except delinquency. To address this issue,

Please cite this article in press as: Siegel, J.T., et al., The power of the

and adolescent marijuana use. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2015), http://dx

he item “Gotten into a serious fight in school or at work” wasemoved. Being offered marijuana and marijuana use were posi-ively skewed. The majority of participants reported receiving noffers in the past 30 days (76.0% in Y1 and 69.1% in Y2). Similarly,

PRESSpendence xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3

the majority of participants reported that they had not used mar-ijuana in the past year (77.9% in Y2 and 72.3% in Y3). Due to thesehigh levels of skew, sensitivity tests were conducted using non-transformed, natural log transformed, and dichotomized (usingmedian split) measures of marijuana use and number of offersreceived. As the pattern of results was maintained with trans-formed and non-transformed variables, only the results using thenon-transformed variables are reported.

In both sets of analyses, the latent variable covariance matrixwas not positive definite. This problem likely was caused by thelatent variables measured with only two-items. This can resultin instability of the model because the variable cannot be identi-fied without borrowing information from other parts of the model.Therefore, variables with only two indicators (i.e., parental knowl-edge, delinquency, and marijuana approval) were aggregated bytaking the mean of the two items. When the models were runwith these new aggregated variables, the latent covariance matrixwas positive definite, allowing for accurate maximum likelihoodestimation.

3.1. Analysis 1

A structural equation model was tested using jackknife replicateweights with marijuana use in the past 12 months at Y2 regressedon variables taken from Y1 of the NSPY dataset, including: mar-ijuana use, number of marijuana offers in the past 30 days, age,gender, academic success, refusal strength, delinquency, sensa-tion seeking, marijuana approval, cigarette use, and alcohol use.Latent factors were used to measure refusal strength and sensationseeking (see Table 1 for factor loadings). Fit indices suggest an ade-quate fit of the model to the data (�2[113] = 818.28, RMSEA = 0.04,CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98). As none of the modification indices were the-oretically acceptable, no changes were made to the model. Beingoffered marijuana was a significant predictor of marijuana use at Y2,z = 3.76, p < 0.001, even after controlling for marijuana use reportedat Y1, age, gender, academic success, refusal strength, delinquency,sensation seeking, marijuana approval, cigarette use, and alcoholuse. Holding other variables in the model constant, for every addi-tional time a person was offered marijuana, predicted marijuanause increased by 0.16 (SE = 0.04) on average. Other variables thatsignificantly predicted marijuana use included past marijuana use,marijuana approval, cigarette use, alcohol use, academic success,and delinquency (see Table 2).

3.2. Analysis 2

Assessments of the proposed relationships were conductedusing structural equation modeling with jackknife replicateweights. It was predicted that parental knowledge at Y1 wouldindirectly influence frequency of marijuana use at Y3, through thenumber of offers received at Y2. Frequency of marijuana use, num-ber of marijuana offers in the past 30 days, age, gender, academicsuccess, refusal strength, delinquency, sensation seeking, mari-juana approval, cigarette use, and alcohol use at Y1 were usedas covariates of marijuana use at Y3. Latent factors were usedto measure refusal strength and sensation seeking (see Table 1for factor loadings). The baseline model had a RMSEA value of0.108; as this value was less than 0.158, values for incremen-tal measures of fit such as the CFI and TLI could not exceed0.90 (Kenny, 2014). Fit indices suggest an adequate fit of themodel to the data (�2[130] = 1049.76, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.85,TLI = 0.82). As illustrated in Fig. 1, the direct path was not sta-

proposition: Frequency of marijuana offers, parental knowledge,.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.11.035

tistically significant, z = 0.746, p = 0.456, but a test of the indirecteffect indicated that being offered marijuana provides an indirectpath between parental knowledge and marijuana use, z = −5.52,p < 0.001. On average, those who reported higher levels of parental

ARTICLE IN PRESSG ModelDAD-5394; No. of Pages 6

4 J.T. Siegel et al. / Drug and Alcohol Dependence xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Table 1Factor loadings for refusal strength and sensation seeking for Study 1 and Study 2.

Study 1 Study 2

� (SE) p-Value � (SE) p-Value

Refusal strengthAt a party. . . people are using 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)Very close friend suggests 1.03 (0.03) <0.001 1.02 (0.03) <0.001Home alone. . . feeling sad orbored

0.96 (0.04) <0.001 0.95 (0.04) <0.001

School property. . . someoneoffers

0.75 (0.04) <0.001 0.77 (0.04) <0.001

Friend’s. . . parents aren’thome

1.14 (0.04) <0.001 1.12 (0.04) <0.001

Sensation seekingExplore strange places 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)Do frightening things 1.22 (0.03) <0.001 1.14 (0.04) <0.001New and excitingexperiences

1.24 (0.05) <0.001 1.26 (0.05) <0.001

Friends. . .exciting/unpredictable

1.00 (0.04) <0.001 1.00 (0.04) <0.001

Note: � = unstandardized factor loading estimate; SE = standard error of the � estimate. For full items, see Section 2.3.

Table 2Coefficients for variables at Year 1 predicting marijuana use at Year 2.

Standardized coefficient Unstandardized coefficient SE p-Value

Offered marijuana 0.117 0.158 0.042 <0.001Past marijuana use 0.468 0.581 0.047 <0.001Age −0.013 −0.011 0.016 0.475Gender 0.013 0.043 0.043 0.312Academic success −0.034 −0.027 0.011 0.013Refusal strength 0.002 0.005 0.037 0.896Delinquency 0.062 0.172 0.060 0.004Sensation seeking 0.011 0.024 0.048 0.621Marijuana approval 0.049 0.090 0.037 0.014

N

koqmjmTreawmm

Fmca

Cigarette use 0.197 0.255Alcohol use 0.060 0.085

ote: SE = standard error of the unstandardized coefficient estimate.

nowledge were offered marijuana less frequently, and thoseffered marijuana more frequently were more likely to subse-uently use marijuana. Modification indices suggested addingarijuana use at Y1 as a covariate of being offered mari-

uana at Y2. While this significantly improved the fit of theodel (�2

change[1] = 157.47, p < 0.0001, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.88,LI = 0.85), the pattern of effects remained the same. The direct pathemained non-significant, z = 0.726, p = 0.468, while the indirectffect remained statistically significant, z = −3.459, p = 0.001. On

Please cite this article in press as: Siegel, J.T., et al., The power of the

and adolescent marijuana use. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2015), http://dx

verage, those who reported higher levels of parental knowledgeere offered marijuana less frequently, and those who were offeredarijuana more frequently were more likely to subsequently usearijuana (see Fig. 1).

ig. 1. Unstandardized coefficients and standard errors for the indirect effect of parentarijuana use, age, gender, academic success, refusal strength, delinquency, sensation see

ovariates of marijuana use at Year 3 (Y3). Coefficients and standard errors in parenthesest Year 2 (Y2). *p < .001.

0.056 <0.0010.029 0.003

4. Discussion

Prevention specialists have focused on many variables to under-stand and reduce adolescent drug use, but the influence of thenumber of marijuana offers adolescents receive has garnered rel-atively little attention (e.g., Pinchevsky et al., 2012; Wagner andAnthony, 2002). The results of the current study indicate that agreater focus on the number of marijuana offers an adolescentreceives could be beneficial as frequency off offers represents an

proposition: Frequency of marijuana offers, parental knowledge,.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.11.035

important determinant of marijuana use.The first analysis examined whether the number of times an

adolescent was offered marijuana predicted marijuana use one yearlater. To offer a staunch assessment of the association between

al knowledge through number of times offered marijuana on marijuana use. Pastking, marijuana approval, cigarette use, and alcohol use at Year 1 (Y1) were used as

reflect the addition of marijuana use at Y1 as a covariate of being offered marijuana

ING ModelD

hol De

ntau2DMmua2aaqOnyEigiinc

riafotaSoiraarEttife

4

larai(mnstaoaeasb

ARTICLEAD-5394; No. of Pages 6

J.T. Siegel et al. / Drug and Alco

umber of offers and marijuana use, we assessed the predic-ive strength of the offers received over and above the varianceccounted for by several typically explored predictors of marijuanase. These include academic success (Englund and Siebenbruner,012; Vaughan et al., 2011), delinquency (Becker et al., 2012;oherty et al., 2008), tobacco use (Fielder et al., 2013; Goncy andrug, 2013), alcohol use (Leonard et al., 2013; Pacek et al., 2012),arijuana approval (e.g., Malmberg et al., 2012), past marijuana

se (e.g., Siegel et al., 2013), refusal strength (e.g., Hansen, 1992),nd sensation seeking (Eisenman et al. 1980; Palmgreen et al.,001). The current results indicate that when all of these vari-bles are entered simultaneously, prior marijuana use, marijuanapproval, cigarette use, alcohol use, academic success, and delin-uency remained significant predictors of future marijuana use.ver and above the influence of these significant predictors, theumber of marijuana offers received was predictive of use oneear later. The current finding is in accord with the results ofllickson et al. (2004) which indicated that being offered marijuanan 7th and 8th grade was predictive of use in 9th grade and 10thrade, over and above a host of covariates (e.g., cigarette use, mar-juana approval, and academic achievement). As Ellickson et al.’snvestigation was limited to schools in California and Oregon, theationally representative nature of the data in the current researchomplements their findings.

To further investigate importance of the number of offerseceived, frequency of offers received was proposed to indirectlynfluence the established relationship between parental knowledgend marijuana use. To offer a strong test of the importance of offerrequency, this set of analyses also controlled for the same rangef variables as Study 1 (e.g., prior use, cigarette use, and sensa-ion seeking). As predicted, Y1 parental knowledge (i.e., parentalwareness of the child’s whereabouts; Crouter and Head, 2002;tattin and Kerr, 2000) was associated with the frequency of beingffered marijuana at Y2. The current study complements the find-ngs of Pinchevsky et al.’s (2012) investigation, which indicated aelationship between parental monitoring (i.e., parental trackingnd surveillance) and the receipt of a marijuana offer. Furthermore,s indicated in the first analysis, the number of marijuana offerseceived at Y2 was predictive of increased marijuana use at Y3 (seellickson et al., 2004, for a similar result). Adding to the literature,he analysis revealed an indirect effect from parental knowledgeo substance use through frequency of offers received. This find-ng highlights the critical association between offers received anduture marijuana use, and indicates that improving parental knowl-dge could attenuate the number of offers adolescents receive.

.1. Limitations

The findings are based on a set of secondary analyses of aarge, nationally representative, longitudinal data set. There aredvantages with such an approach (e.g., high generalizability,ich data, large samples, and longitudinal design), but there alsore limitations. Even though the measures used offered insightnto adolescent marijuana use, internal consistency in one casei.e., delinquency) was lower than desired, and variables that

ay have been useful additions (e.g., marijuana availability) wereot available. Further, physiological measures of use would havetrengthened certainty of interpretations, even though steps wereaken to minimize the influence of social desirability of responses,nd self-report of drug use has been recognized as a valid meansf assessing use (Katz et al., 1997; Wilcox et al., 2013). Andditional limitation is that the design of the study was non-

Please cite this article in press as: Siegel, J.T., et al., The power of the

and adolescent marijuana use. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2015), http://dx

xperimental, and thus, causal claims based on the analyses arembiguous. A final limitation is that we examined the relation-hip between parental knowledge and offers received, as well asetween parental knowledge and substance use, as unidirectional.

PRESSpendence xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 5

Recent scholarship has suggested a bi-directional relationshipbetween parental knowledge and adolescent delinquency (Kerret al., 2010; Siegel et al., 2013). Even though we did not havethe statistical power to perform the cross-lagged analysis neces-sary to assess the bi-directional relationship, future studies couldoffer a more nuanced understanding of the relationships pre-sented by modeling the bidirectional, as well as the unidirectionalrelationships.

4.2. Implications

The current study highlights the extent to which marijuana useis associated with an important contextual feature—the numberof marijuana offers an adolescent receives. Offer frequency waspredictive of future use over and above variables long associatedwith usage, including prior use, age, gender, academic success,refusal strength, cigarette use, and alcohol use. Moreover, the num-ber of marijuana offers received partially explains the relationshipbetween parental knowledge and frequency of marijuana use. Eventhough there have been prior investigations into the number ofoffers received (Wertz and Sayette, 2001) and the broader con-struct of exposure opportunity (Wagner and Anthony, 2002), thecurrent results indicate that greater attention to the number ofoffers received is warranted. Follow-up studies can investigate whysome adolescents are more likely to be affected by offers than oth-ers, the extent to which the source of the offer wields influence, andwhether the current results are generalizable to other substances.

Further, the results indicate that intervention and preventionprograms could possibly benefit by focusing attention on teach-ing parents to minimize the contexts in which adolescents areoffered marijuana. Intervention and prevention programs that edu-cate parents as to the best ways to increase their knowledge oftheir adolescents’ whereabouts could indirectly reduce marijuanause by reducing the number of marijuana offers received. Giventhat parents sometimes feel incapable of influencing the behav-ior of their adolescents (e.g., Hockenberry-Eaton et al., 1996; Lamband Crano, 2014; Reinisch, 1990), interventions that emphasize themeans of increasing parental knowledge and provide parents withinformation regarding the importance of reducing the number oftimes their offspring are offered marijuana could be both welcomeand effective.

Role of funding source

Funding for this study was provided by NIDA Grant R01DA030490; NIDA had no further role in analysis and interpretationof data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit thepaper for publication.

Contributors

Jason Siegel conceptualized the study with contributions fromCara Tan, Mario Navarro, Eusebio Alvaro, and William Crano.Mario Navarro managed the literature searches and summariesof previous related work. All authors contributed to the dataanalysis plan. Cara Tan analyzed the data. Jason Siegel and CaraTan wrote the first draft of the manuscript. William Crano,with contributions from Mario Navarro and Eusebio Alvaro,edited the manuscript. All authors have approved the finalmanuscript.

proposition: Frequency of marijuana offers, parental knowledge,.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.11.035

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

ING ModelD

6 hol De

A

Uon

R

A

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

C

C

C

C

D

E

E

E

E

F

F

FG

G

G

H

ARTICLEAD-5394; No. of Pages 6

J.T. Siegel et al. / Drug and Alco

cknowledgments

Preparation of this research was supported by a grant from the.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA030490). The contentsf this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do notecessarily reflect the views of the Institute.

eferences

bar, C.C., Jackson, K.M., Wood, M., 2014. Reciprocal relations between perceivedparental knowledge and adolescent substance use and delinquency: the mod-erating role of parent–teen relationship quality. Dev. Psychol. 50, 2176–2187.

ecker, S.J., Nargiso, J.E., Wolff, J.C., Uhl, K.M., Simon, V.A., Spirito, A., Prinstein, M.J.,2012. Temporal relationship between substance use and delinquent behavioramong young psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents. J. Subst. Abuse Treat. 43,251–259.

enjet, C., Borges, G., Medina-Mora, M.E., Blanco, J., Zambrano, J., Orozco, R., Feliz,C., Rojas, E., 2007. Drug use opportunities and the transition to drug use amongadolescents from the Mexico City Metropolitan Area. Drug Alcohol Depend. 90,128–134.

ergen, H.A., Martin, G., Roeger, L., Allison, S., 2005. Perceived academic performanceand alcohol, tobacco and marijuana use: longitudinal relationships in youngcommunity adolescents. Addict. Behav. 30, 1563–1573.

lake, S.M., Simkin, L., Ledsky, R., Perkins, C., Calabrese, J.M., 2001. Effects of aparent–child communications intervention on young adolescents’ risk for earlyonset of sexual intercourse. Fam. Plann. Perspect. 33, 52–61.

otvin, G.J., 2000. Preventing drug abuse in schools: social and competence enhance-ment approaches targeting individual-level etiologic factors. Addict. Behav. 25,887–897.

ryan, A.D., Schmiege, S.J., Magnan, R.E., 2012. Marijuana use and risky sexualbehavior among high-risk adolescents: trajectories, risk factors, and event-levelrelationships. Dev. Psychol. 48, 1429–1442.

ryant, A.L., Schulenberg, J.E., O’Malley, P.M., Bachman, J.G., Johnston, L.D., 2003.How academic achievement, attitudes, and behaviors relate to the course ofsubstance use during adolescence: a 6-year, multiwave national longitudinalstudy. J. Res. Adolesc. 13, 361–397.

hen, C.Y., Storr, C.L., Anthony, J.C., 2005. Influences of parenting practices on therisk of having a chance to try cannabis. Pediatrics 115, 1631–1639.

leveland, M.J., Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M., Pomery, E.A., Brody, G.H., 2005. The impactof parenting on risk cognitions and risk behavior: a study of mediation andmoderation in a panel of African American adolescents. Child Dev. 76, 900–916.

ox, R.G., Zhang, L., Johnson, W.D., Bender, D.R., 2007. Academic performance andsubstance use: findings from a state survey of public high school students. J.School Health 77, 109–115.

router, A.C., Head, M.R., 2002. Parental monitoring and knowledge of children. In:Bornstein, M.H. (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting. Psychology Press, New York, pp.461–483.

oherty, E., Green, K.M., Ensminger, M.E., 2008. Investigating the long-term influ-ence of adolescent delinquency on drug use initiation. Drug Alcohol Depend. 93,72–84.

isenman, R., Grossman, J.C., Goldstein, R., 1980. Undergraduate marijuana use asrelated to internal sensation novelty seeking and openness to experience. J. Clin.Psychol. 36, 1013–1019.

llickson, P.L., Tucker, J.S., Klein, D.J., Saner, H., 2004. Antecedents and outcomes ofmarijuana use initiation during adolescence. Prev. Med. 39, 976–984.

lliott, J.C., Carey, K.B., 2012. Correcting exaggerated marijuana use norms amongcollege abstainers: a preliminary test of a preventive intervention. J. Stud. Alco-hol Drugs 73, 976–980.

nglund, M.M., Siebenbruner, J., 2012. Developmental pathways linking exter-nalizing symptoms, internalizing symptoms, and academic competence toadolescent substance use. J. Adolesc. 35, 1123–1140.

ielder, R.L., Carey, K.B., Carey, M.P., 2013. Hookah, cigarette, and marijuana use:a prospective study of smoking behaviors among first-year college women.Addict. Behav. 38, 2729–2735.

letcher, A.C., Darling, N., Steinberg, L., 1998. 16 Parental monitoring and peerinfluences on adolescent substance use. In: McCord, J. (Ed.), Coercion and Pun-ishment in Long-term Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.259–271.

rost, W.H., 1927. Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Vol. 2. Nelson, London.oncy, E.A., Mrug, S., 2013. Where and when adolescents use tobacco, alcohol, and

marijuana: comparisons by age, gender, and race. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 74,288–300.

rady, K., Gersick, K.E., Snow, D.L., Kessen, M., 1986. The emergence of adolescent

Please cite this article in press as: Siegel, J.T., et al., The power of the

and adolescent marijuana use. Drug Alcohol Depend. (2015), http://dx

substance use. J. Drug Educ. 16, 203–220.ruber, S.A., Sagar, K.A., Dahlgren, M.K., Racine, M., Lukas, S.E., 2012. Age of onset of

marijuana use and executive function. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 26, 496-306.ansen, W.B., 1992. School-based substance abuse prevention: a review of the state

of the art in curriculum, 1980–1990. Health Educ. Res. 7, 403–430.

PRESSpendence xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Hockenberry-Eaton, M., Richman, M.J., DiIorio, C., Rivero, T., Maibach, E., 1996.Mother and adolescent knowledge of sexual development: the effects of gender,age, and sexual experience. Adolescence 31, 35–47.

Hornik, R., Maklan, D., Cadell, D., Prado, A., Barmada, C., Jacobsohn, L., Orwin, R., San-jeev, S., Zador, P., Southwell, B., Zanutto, E., Baskin, R., Chu, A., Morin, C., Taylor,K., Steele, D., 2003. Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-drug Campaign: FourthSemi-annual Report of Findings. Executive Summary. NIDA/NIH, Rockville.

Hurd, Y.L., Michaelides, M., Miller, M.L., Jutras-Aswad, D., 2014. Trajectory of adoles-cent cannabis use on addiction vulnerability. Neuropharmacology 76, 416–424.

Katz, C.M., Webb, V.J., Gartin, P.R., Marshall, C.E., 1997. The validity of self-reportedmarijuana and cocaine use. J. Crim. Just. 25, 31–41.

Kenny, D.A., 2014. Measuring Model Fit. http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm(accessed 28.07.14).

Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Burk, W.J., 2010. A reinterpretation of parental monitoring inlongitudinal perspective. J. Res. Adolesc. 20, 39–64.

Krosnick, J.A., Judd, C.M., 1982. Transitions in social influence at adolescence: whoinduces cigarette smoking? Dev. Psychol. 18, 359–368.

Lac, A., Crano, W.D., 2009. Monitoring matters meta-analytic review reveals thereliable linkage of parental monitoring with adolescent marijuana use. Perspect.Psychol. Sci. 4, 578–586.

Lamb, C.S., Crano, W.D., 2014. Parents’ beliefs and children’s marijuana use: evidencefor a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. Addict. Behav. 39, 127–132.

Leonard, K.E., Smith, P.H., Homish, G.G., 2013. Concordant and discordant alcohol,tobacco, and marijuana use as predictors of marital dissolution. Psychol. Addict.Behav. 28, 780–789.

Li, X., Stanton, B., Galbraith, J., Burns, J., Cottrell, L., Pack, R., 2002. Parental monitoringintervention: practice makes perfect. J. Nat. Med. Assoc. 94, 364–370.

Malmberg, M., Overbeek, G., Vermulst, A.A., Monshouwer, K., Vollebergh, W.M.,Engels, R.E., 2012. The theory of planned behavior: precursors of marijuana usein early adolescence? Drug Alcohol Depend. 123, 22–28.

Manning, V., Best, D., Rawaf, S., Rowley, J., Floyd, K., Strang, J., 2001. Drug use inadolescence: the relationship between opportunity, initial use and continuationof use of four illicit drugs in a cohort of 14–16-year-olds in South London. DrugEduc. Prev. Policy 8, 397–405.

National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2006. User’s Guide for the Evaluation of theNational Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign: Restricted Use Files for the NationalSurvey of Parents and Youth (NSPY), Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4,. Westat, Rockville, MD.

Pacek, L.R., Malcolm, R.J., Martins, S.S., 2012. Race/ethnicity differences betweenalcohol, marijuana, and co-occurring alcohol and marijuana use disorders andtheir association with public health and social problems using a national sample.Am. J. Addict. 21, 435–444.

Palmgreen, P., Donohew, L., Lorch, E.P., Hoyle, R.H., Stephenson, M.T., 2001. Tele-vision campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: tests of sensation seekingtargeting. Am. J. Public Health 91, 292–296.

Pedersen, E.R., Miles, J.N., Hunter, S.B., Osilla, K.C., Ewing, B.A., D’Amico, E.J., 2013.Perceived norms moderate the association between mental health symptomsand drinking outcomes among at-risk adolescents. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 74,736–745.

Pinchevsky, G.M., Arria, A.M., Caldeira, K.M., Garnier-Dykstra, L.M., Vincent, K.B.,O’Grady, K.E., 2012. Marijuana exposure opportunity and initiation during col-lege: parent and peer influences. Prev. Sci. 13, 43–54.

Reinisch, J.M., 1990. The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex. Macmillan, London.Siegel, J.T., Crano, W.D., Alvaro, E.A., Lac, A., Hackett, J.D., Hohman, Z., 2013. Differen-

tiating common predictors and outcomes of marijuana initiation: a retrospectivelongitudinal analysis. Subst. Use Misuse 49, 30–40.

Smart, R.G., 1977. Perceived availability and the use of drugs. Bull. Narc. 29, 59–63.Stapleton, L.M., 2008. Variance estimation using replication methods in struc-

tural equation modeling with complex sample data. Struct. Equat. Model. 15,183–210.

Stattin, H., Kerr, M., 2000. Parental monitoring: a reinterpretation. Child Dev. 71,1072–1085.

Tebes, J., Cook, E., Vanderploeg, J., Feinn, R., Chinman, M., Shepard, J., Brabham, T.,Connell, C., 2011. Parental knowledge and substance use among African Amer-ican adolescents: influence of gender and grade level. J. Child Fam. Stud. 20,406–413.

Treno, A.J., Ponicki, W.R., Remer, L.G., Gruenewald, P.J., 2008. Alcohol outlets, youthdrinking, and self reported ease of access to alcohol: a constraints and opportu-nities approach. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 32, 1372–1379.

Vaughan, E.L., Kratz, L., d’Argent, J., 2011. Academics and substance use among Latinoadolescents: results from a national study. J. Ethnic Subst. Abuse 10, 147–161.

Voelkl, K.E., Frone, M.R., 2000. Predictors of substance use at school among highschool students. J. Educ. Psychol. 92, 583–592.

Wagner, F.A., Anthony, J.C., 2002. Into the world of illegal drug use: exposure oppor-tunity and other mechanisms linking the use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, andcocaine. Am. J. Epidemiol. 155, 918–925.

proposition: Frequency of marijuana offers, parental knowledge,.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.11.035

Wertz, J.M., Sayette, M.A., 2001. A review of the effects of perceived drug use oppor-tunity on self-reported urge. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol 9, 3–13.

Wilcox, C.E., Bogenschutz, M.P., Nakazawa, M., Woody, G., 2013. Concordancebetween self-report and urine drug screen data in adolescent opioid dependentclinical trial participants. Addict. Behav. 38, 2568–2574.