Adolescent family predictors of substance use during early adulthood: A theoretical model

Ad{. &ha\,. Res. Thu. Vol. 16. pp. 217-252. I994

Pergamon Copynght 0 I996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0146~6402l94 $26.00

0146-6402(94) 00002-6

ADOLESCENT FAMILY PREDICTORS OF SUBSTANCE USE DURING EARLY ADULTHOOD:

A THEORETICAL MODEL

Karla Klein, Rex Forehand, Lisa Armistead and Gene Brody Institute for Behavioral Research, Barrow Hall, University of Georgia, Athens,

GA 30602. U.S.A.

Abstract-One hundred and three subjects and their mothers were assessed at three points during adolescence and young adulthood in a longitudinal examination of the predictive and mediational relationships between family variables and substance abuse. Latent variable path analysis with partial least-squares estimation procedures (LVPLS) was utilized to test a theoretical model including constructs of family structure, family environment (maternal depressive mood and interparental conflict), mother/adolescent dynamics (mother/adolescent supportive relationship and maternal control), and substance abuse (problematic alcohol use and marijuana/hard drug use). Higher levels of interparental conflict were consistently related to poorer quality of the mother/adolescent relationship and stricter maternal control. As hypothesized, family environment variables mediated the impact of family structure, and mother/adolescent dynamics variables mediated the impact of the family environment. Results revealed notable differences between the trajectories for males and females, as well as between different types of substance abuse. Implications for substance abuse prevention efforts are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Substance abuse has become an issue of critical proportions, affecting Americans across social, economic, community and individual realms. The societal costs of alcohol and drug abuse are staggering. Substance abuse is highly correlated with a host of criminal and other dangerous activities, including violent crime, accidental injuries and fatalities, suicide, domestic violence, and high risk sexual practices (Rangel, 1992; U.S. House, 1992a). It is currently estimated that 50 to 70% of inmates in state and federal prison systems are serving time for a drug-related offense (Guarini, 1992; Levitsky, 1992), and a similar percentage have been regular drug users (Lipton, 1991). Statistics also indicate that approximately 50% of traffic fatalities are alcohol-related (Danforth, 1991).

Substance abuse also affects the workplace through increased absenteeism, accidents and health benefits costs; it is estimated that substance abusers incur 1.5-2.5 times the number of total occupational injuries and illnesses compared to non-substance abusers (Scannell, 1990). Finally, substance abuse is inextricably linked to health risks such as disease, brain damage and birth defects (U.S. House, 1992b), which exponentially increase its

217

218 K. Klein et al.

economic burden on society. For instance, it has been estimated that 85% of direct care costs of alcoholism is applied to secondary medical consequences, as opposed to treatment of alcoholism itself. Abuse of hard drugs carries similar secondary medical burdens: In 1990, $500 million was spent on neonatal care for drug-addicted babies alone (Levitsky, 1992).

Although the effects of substance abuse in our society are experienced by Americans of all ages, statistics indicate that this issue may be particularly salient during late adolescence and early adulthood. In 1991, 64% of 18-25 year-olds were currently using alcohol (Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1992), a proportion of particular significance since half of the young people in this age range fall below the legal drinking age. In addition, 13% of 18-25 year-olds reported current use of marijuana, compared to 4.3% of 12-17 year-olds and 3.3% of individuals over 25 years old (Statistical Abstracts of the U.S., 1992). Furthermore, 18-24 year-olds accounted for 33% of all arrests for drug abuse violations in 1990 (Statistical Abstracts of the U.S., 1992)) and they have represented a similarly disproportionate percentage of arrests for DUI. Although the 18-24 age range included only 16% of all licensed drivers in 1986, it accounted for 29% of DUI arrests (Statistical Abstracts of the U.S., 1992).

The transitional period between adolescence and adulthood has several features which may make it a particularly susceptible time for substance abuse to occur. In early adulthood, individuals typically begin to establish independence from the family by moving away from the family home, going to college, and/or joining the work force. Increased independence is accompanied by a reduction in the influence of parents on the activities of young adults in the forms of monitoring and day-to-day family interactions. Instead, young adults’ problem-solving abilities, personal experiences, and decision-making skills begin to take precedence in directing their choices of activities. The link between recently acquired autonomy and substance abuse may be strengthened when young adults reach the legal age of alcohol consumption, at which point some controlled substances become more accessible.

In light of the disproportionately high levels of young adult substance abuse demonstrated in recent U.S. statistics, the unique social changes which occur during the transition between late adolescence and early adulthood, and the overwhelming societal and personal costs of substance abuse during this critical point of development, it is clear that young adults should be specifically targeted in attempts to address problematic substance use. At present in the United States, such strategies have been limited to methods of intervention, such as allocating funds for the treatment of substance abusers in prisons, communities and workplaces (Statistical Abstracts of the U.S., 1992). However, the limited impact of

Ad&scent Family Predictors of Substance Use 219

such efforts is evidenced by reports that prisons are overcrowded with drug abusers and offenders, less than 10% of whom receive any form of treatment (Guarini, 1992). In addition, a critical lack of community treatment services exist, resulting in more drug-addicted Americans lacking treatment or on waiting lists than in drug treatment (U.S. House, 1992b).

It is clear that intervention in its current form is not a sufficiently powerful tool to combat this growing problem. Instead, attention should be focused on the development of strategies for substance abuse prevention. In this effort it is critical for longitudinal research to identify risk factors which occur early in the trajectory toward substance abuse. Although little research has specifically examined problematic substance use during late adolescence and early adulthood, studies of alcohol and drug use during adolescence have provided a foundation of knowledge for exploration of later developmental periods. Results of existing correlational and longitudinal research in this area have emphasized the influences of family structure and environment, parenting style, family relationships and peer variables throughout the adolescent years.

The nature of the relationship between family structure (marital status) and adolescent substance use has been examined in several studies yielding inconsistent findings. Although positive correlations between divorced status and adolescent drug use have been reported in the literature (Blechman, 1982; Brook, Whiteman, & Gordon, 1983; Flewelling & Bauman, 1990; Needle, Su & Doherty, 1990), several studies have found nonsignificant effects of marital status (Brody & Forehand, 1993; Hundleby & Mercer, 1987). This inconsistency has led to the proposal that family intactness is not the actual source of differences in adolescent drug and alcohol activities (i.e., Brody & Forehand, 1993). Instead, family characteristics, such as the presence of interparental conflict or parental psychopathology, specific patterns of parenting behaviors, and/or the quality of parent/adolescent relationship, may be the essential sources of differences.

Support for the importance of such family characteristics, relative to marital status, was provided in a recent one-year longitudinal study of Brody and Forehand (1993). The goal of this study was to clarify the unique contributions of family structure (intactness) and family processes (interparental conflict and qualities of the mother/adolescent relationship) in predicting adolescent substance use. The results revealed that mother/ adolescent conflict predicted adolescent alcohol use and maternal acceptance/ rejection of the adolescent predicted drug use; in contrast, family structure was not a significant predictor of adolescent substance use. Although interparental conflict did not emerge as a significant predictor, Brody and Forehand called for future investigation of the “possibility that the detrimental effects of interparental conflict may be mediated through

220 K. Klein et al.

parenting behavior or the quality of the parent-adolescent relationship, which in turn contribute unique variance to adolescent behavior” (p. 591).

The impact of interparental conflict has been examined in several studies with diverse outcome measures. High levels of interparental conflict and maternal depressive mood are not only associated with one another (Biglan, Hops, Sherman, Friedman, Arthur, & Osteen, 1985; Downey & Coyne, 1990), but also with children’s psychological adjustment and functioning, including internalizing problems, externalizing problems, social competence, and academic competence (see Downey & Coyne, 1990; Forehand, 1993; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1979; Patterson & Forgatch, 1990).

With regard to substance use, it has been found that conflict in the marriage is directly related to adolescent alcohol (Conger, Lorenz, Elder, Melby, Simons, & Conger, 1991) and marijuana use (Vicary & Lemer, 1986). In their study of early adolescent drinking among economically pressured rural families, Conger et al. (1991) predicted that financial hardship would increase the risk of adolescent problematic drinking primarily through its effect on parental mood and behavior. The authors proposed a process model which traced the paths from economic pressure to parental emotional distress (depressive/hostile mood) and hostile behaviors by parents toward their children and each other. Results revealed significant positive correlations between economic stress and parental depressive/hostile mood, between parental depressive/hostile mood and interparental hostile behaviors (conflict), and between interparental conflict, and adolescent problem drinking.

Related studies have revealed that parenting behaviors of parents who experience marital conflict and/or depression are more negative, controlling, and nonsupportive than the behavior of parents who are not experiencing these stressors (Brody, Neubaum, & Forehand, 1988; Downey & Coyne, 1990; Forehand, 1990). This has led researchers to postulate that the impact of marital conflict and/or maternal depression on adolescent substance use occurs primarily through its effect on parenting behaviors.

In fact, the literature has consistently revealed that aspects of parenting style are the strongest family predictors of substance use. Two dimensions of parenting style, parental support and control, have repeatedly emerged as the most salient aspects of parenting with regard to substance use. In their recent meta-analysis of studies on family socialization variables and adolescent drinking behavior, Foxcroft and Lowe (1991) concluded that these two dimensions have been labeled in the literature in diverse ways. Similarly, in a review of the child socialization literature, Rollins and Thomas (1979) categorized a total of 27 such labels into two dimensions: Support and Control Attempts. The Support dimension encompassed

Adolescent Family Predictors of Substance Use 221

variables such as Acceptance, Rejection, Warmth, Nurturance, Support and Hostility. The Control Attempts dimension included labels such as Permhsive, Authoritarian, Discipline, Restrictive, Control and Strictness. Foxcroft and Lowe (1991) summarize these two dimensions as follows: “Family Support comprises behaviours which foster in an individual feelings of comfort and belonging, and that he or she is basically accepted and approved of as a person by the parents and family. Family Control comprises family interactions which direct the behaviour of an individual in a manner desirable to the parents, or to the power base in the family” (p. 258).

Research has unfailingly demonstrated an association between parental support and adolescent substance use across time, ages of adolescents, and type of substance (alcohol, marijuana and hard drugs) (see Beschner & Friedman, 1985; Murray & Perry, 1985). In their three-year longitudinal study of 12, 15 and 18 year-olds, Johnson and Pandina (1991) found that in cross-sectional and cross-time analyses, parental warmth-hostility most often explained variations in adolescent alcohol, marijuana and other illicit drug use. Similarly, Vicary and Lerner’s (1986) longitudinal examination of substance use from early adolescence to late adolescence/young adulthood revealed that for older adolescents, maternal rejection during early childhood was associated with marijuana and alcohol use in adolescents 16 years and older. In addition, in a one-year longitudinal study of 11-15 year-olds, Brody and Forehand (1993) found that maternal acceptance- rejection predicted both drug use and affiliation with deviant peers. In demonstrating a similar association between parental support/nurturance and adolescent drinking, Barnes (1984) and Barnes, Farrell, and Cairns (1986) have suggested that this dimension of parenting style may serve a protective role against alcohol abuse: “Nurturance, then, emerges from this study as a key factor in ‘preventing’ problem drinking and problem behaviors in general. Stated differently, parental support serves as a good social control against deviance” (Barnes, 1984; p. 345).

In several studies, similar feelings of support and warmth felt between parents and adolescents have been conceptualized as the quality of the parent/adolescent relationship. The quality of this relationship has been generally defined as the strength of the parent/adolescent bond and how well they “get along”. As Kandel, Kessler, and Margulies (1978) pointed out: “It has . . . been proposed that irrespective of the particular standards of behavior or values upheld by parents, the quality of the bond between parent and child may have in itself a direct positive effect in restraining youth from engaging in various deviant or delinquent activities” (p. 16).

Research by Kandel et al. (1978) provided support for this proposal, revealing that the strongest predictor of adolescent initiation of hard drug use was lack of closeness to parents, followed by parental control.

222 K. Klein et al.

Several researchers have similarly found that positive family relationships, involvement and attachment are linked to a reduced likelihood of adolescents’ initiation into drug use (e.g., Hundleby & Mercer, 1987; Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Kim, 1979). In terms of alcohol use, Brody and Forehand (1993) found that high levels of mother/adolescent conflict were predictive of alcohol use problems.

Studies of outcome variables measuring general adjustment have revealed that the mother/adolescent relationship can serve as a moderator of the association between family environment stressors and adolescent functioning. In a recent study using path analytic techniques, Wierson and Forehand (1992) found a significant indirect path from interparental conflict, through adolescent perception of the mother/adolescent relationship, to adolescent cognitive competence and social competence. A call for further investigation of factors which influence and are influenced by the parent/adolescent relationship has been made by Wierson and Forehand (1992), as well as others (e.g., Tesser, Forehand, Brody, & Long, 1989).

In addition to investigations of the predictive roles of parental support and parent/adolescent relationship in predicting adolescent substance use, the role of parental control has also been widely documented in the literature (e.g., Foxcroft & Lowe, 1991). However, the nature of this association is not clear. Several studies have reported that strict parental control is associated with substance abuse. For instance, Kandel et al. (1978) reported in a two-wave study over 5-6 months that greater control exercized by parents (measured in terms of rules about friends and unilateral decisions) was predictive of adolescents initiating use of illicit drugs such as LSD, cocaine and heroin. Although Kandel et al. (1978), as well as Barnes, Farrell, and Windle (1989) and Hundleby and Mercer (1987), found no significant relationships between parental control and adolescent alcohol and marijuana use, Vicary and Lerner (1986) found that restrictive limit-setting during early childhood was associated with alcohol and marijuana use in early adulthood. In contrast, other researchers have reported an association between weak parental control/discipline and adolescent substance use (Beschner & Friedman, 1985; Dishion & Loeber, 1985; Murray & Perry, 1985). Alternatively, Barnes, Farrell, and Cairns (1986) observed a curvilinear relationship between parental control and adolescent drinking, such that alcohol abuse was higher when parental control was either high or low. Thus, the findings are mixed and inconclusive regarding the association between parental control and adolescent substance abuse.

Implications of the important role of parental support and the unclear role of parental control have led to suggestions that it may be the combination of these dimensions which is most powerful in predicting adolescent substance use. Further support for this line of inquiry has been


provided by research on children’s overall socialization, which has revealed that the interaction between high parental support and moderate levels of control is significantly associated with effective socialization (Rollins & Thomas, 1979). In terms of adolescent alcohol use, Barnes et al. (1986) examined the interaction of parental support and control and reported that, although the results did not reach statistical significance, observable patterns existed. Adolescent drinking was highest when maternal support and control were both low, and when paternal support was low and control was high. In addition, the lowest indication of problem drinking was found in families with high parental support and medium levels of control. The authors point out that further examination of this relationship is necessary.

In addition to the family characteristics mentioned above, two other areas have received particular attention to the literature on adolescent substance abuse which warrant comment. One such element is parental modeling of drug and alcohol use. While studies have consistently indicated that adolescent substance use is related to the alcohol and drug-related activities of their parents (Barnes et al., 1986; Hundleby & Mercer, 1987), this effect of modeling has often been shown to be less than or equal to, not necessarily greater than, the effects of other family variables. For example, Kandel et al. (1978) found that while parental modeling is important in predicting adolescent hard drug use, it is secondary in importance to other parent variables such as the parent/adolescent relationship and parental control. With particular relevance to the present investigation, Johnson and Pandina (1991) found in their longitudinal study that although parental alcohol and drug use was as important as parental support in forecasting alcohol consumption in younger adolescents, parenting style (warmth/hostility) was more predictive of alcohol and marijuana problems, particularly for older adolescents. These results indicate that the effects of parenting style may be manifested over time, and may be particularly salient during the transition from late adolescence to early adulthood.

The impact of affiliation with deviant and substance-using peers on adolescent substance use has also been consistently documented in the literature (e.g., Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Hundleby & Mercer, 1987; Kandel, 1980; Kandel et al., 1978). However, Foxcroft and Lowe (1991) report that although the influence of peers clearly increases throughout adolescence and early adulthood, “the influence of the family is still predominant” (p. 257). Rosenberg (1979) found that parents ranked higher than peers in interpersonal significance throughout adolescence. Similarly, Burke and Weir (1978) found that adolescent satisfaction with support from parents (especially mothers) was a better indicator of adolescent well-being than satisfaction with help from peers. Noller and Callan (1991) have remarked: “Although peers become more important for adolescents . . .

224 K. Klein et al.

there is little evidence that the peer group actually becomes more important than the family during adolescence” (p. 51).

Recent research has emphasized the relationship between family/parent and peer influences. Barnes et al. (1989) tested the symbolic interaction theory postulated by Peterson and Rollins (1987), which assumes that adolescent substance use is linked to the perception of the support and control provided by parents. This theory proposes that the degree to .which the adolescent perceives his/her parents as providers of support and inductive control determines the strength of the peer group’s influence on the adolescent. Parental support may be demonstrated through praise, physical affection and encouragement. Inductive control involves the explanation of limits, attempts to make the child aware of behavioral consequences, and generally placing demands upon the child’s reasoning abilities within the use of discipline. The more the adolescent perceives his/her parents as sources of these qualities, the more likely he/she is to comply with parental expectations; however, the more that the adolescent’s self-concept becomes anchored in peer group norms, the more likely he/she is to engage in problem behaviors such as substance use. In support of this theory, Barnes et al. (1989) found that when parental support was high, reliance upon peers for important life decisions and life view was low. In addition, adolescents who had a stronger peer than parent orientation were more likely to engage in problem behaviors. In general, it has been well-documented that disturbed parent/child relationships increase the likelihood that adolescents will affiliate with deviant peers (Kandel et al., 1978; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989).

This research, indicating that the extent and effects of peer influences stem from aspects of the family and parents, suggests that prevention efforts for problematic substance use should target the family. A further rationale for choosing family-related targets is that the family is a relatively more accessible vehicle for change than the peer group, which may be highly variable during adolescence. The literature outlined above indicates that family structure and environment, parenting style, and parent/adolescent relationship are among the most salient predictors of adolescent substance use. Although parental modeling and peers exert some influence on the drug and alcohol activities of adolescents, their influence is often secondary to and/or dependent upon the influence of these primary family factors. Therefore, the scope of the present examination will be limited to the effects of family structure, environment, and parent/adolescent dynamics on substance use during the transition from late adolescence to early adulthood.

Although research on the family variables delineated in this review has revealed that each can serve as a predictor of adolescent substance use, the exact process of the influence is not clear. However, a common mechanism has been proposed, and supported in some cases, for the influence of


each of the family/parenting variables on adolescent substance use. This mechanism can be described as a compromise, either direct or indirect, of the dynamics between the parent and adolescent. In other words, parental divorce may compromise the stability of the family environment through increased interparental conflict and/or maternal depression. An unstable family environment may compromise the dynamics between parents and adolescents, through a disrupted parent/child relationship or less than optimal levels of support or control provided by parents.

The present study longitudinally examined the nature and paths of the associations between family structure (marital status), family environment (maternal depressive mood and interparental conflict) and parent/adolescent dynamics (maternal support, mother/adolescent relationship, and maternal control) during adolescence, and substance abuse during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood. The first question to be addressed regards the aspects of parent/adolescent dynamics described above. Specifi- cally, although maternal support and mother/adolescent relationship have been conceptualized as discrete variables in the existing literature, it is arguable that they may represent overlapping indices of the parent/adolescent relationship. In other words, each of these measures may simply tap the degree to which there are good feelings between the parent and adolescent. Therefore, the manifest variables encompassing all of these aspects of mother/adolescent dynamics were factor-analyzed to clarify their conceptual basis.

The second goal of this investigation was to test a set of causal models which incorporated three phases of development from adolescence to young adulthood. It was proposed that family structure and family environment during adolescence would be predictive of subsequent mother/adolescent dynamics, which would predict substance abuse during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood. Specifically, it was expected that divorced family structure would be associated with higher levels of maternal depressive mood and interparental conflict, which would be predictive of less optimal subsequent mother/adolescent dynamics and more young adulthood substance abuse. In terms of mother/adolescent dynamics variables, high levels of support and relationship quality are clearly optimal. However, the literature has not provided a definitive indication of the optimal level of control. Based on literature relevant to young adults (Vicary & Lerner, 1986), it was tentatively hypothesized that higher levels of control would be associated with more substance abuse in the current study.

Existing research has suggested that the trajectories to various types of substance abuse may be influenced by different variables. For instance, Kandel et al. (1978) found that although the level of parental control was predictive of hard drug use, it was not a significant predictor of alcohol or marijuana use. In light of this evidence that different variables may

226 K. Klein et al.

be predictive of different types of substance use, two separate outcome variables were examined in the current study: problematic alcohol use, and marijuana/hard drug use.

Similarly, it has been suggested that gender differences should not be ignored in research on substance use. In a recent article, McMahon (1994) concludes that the majority of research examining externalizing outcome variables (such as substance abuse) has focused on the experiences of males, who typically exhibit higher levels of these problems. It is asserted that the variables and measures which have been conceptualized in the existing literature may be biased toward the experiences of males, and thus may or may not generalize to the experiences of females. Thus, it is crucial to examine possible gender differences in research on externalizing behaviors. In order to determine if family variables play different roles for males and females in the trajectories toward substance abuse, models were run separately by gender in the current study.

A final goal of this study was to examine indirect relationships between the family variables at three phases of development. It was proposed that family environment variables would mediate the relationships between family structure and mother/adolescent dynamics one year later, and that mother/adolescent dynamics would mediate the association between earlier family structure and environment, and subsequent substance abuse. This basic model, including the expected direction of relationships between variables, is presented in Figure 1. As the model illustrates, both direct and indirect paths between the variables were examined within the set of proposed models.

METHOD

Subjects

The participants in the present study were 103 Caucasian individuals (49 males and 54 females) and their mothers. Subjects were assessed at three points, with their ages ranging from 12.8 to 17.0 (X = 15.0; S.D. = 1.1) at the initial assessment.

Seventy-two of the participants had parents with intact marriages, and 31 had parents who were divorced within l-3 years before the family’s initial assessment. All subjects from divorced families resided with their mothers following the divorce.

The socio-economic levels of families were assessed using the Myers and Bean (1968) two-factor index of social position, which assigns a social position score ranging from 11-77 based on the educational and occupational status of the head of the household. In this classification system, lower scores indicate higher social position. The SES of the

Adolescent Family Predictors of Substance ” use 227

228 K. Klein et al

families participating in the current study ranged from 11 to 62 with a mean of 29.45 (S.D. = 14.78).

The families were initially recruited for participation in Phase 1 of the study through local newspaper advertisements and fliers distributed in schools and posted throughout the local community. These announcements requested mothers and adolescents to participate in a parent/ adolescent interaction study Some divorced families were contacted by mail and/or telephone after being identified through examination of courthouse records. Participating families were required to attend a 2-hour assessment session at a southeastern university for Phase 1 of the study. They were compensated $50 for their participation in Phase 1.

Families were recontacted one year later to participate in the Phase 2 assessment, which required families to attend a second 2-hour assessment. They were paid $50 for participation in Phase 2.

Finally, subjects were recontacted to participate in Phase 3 of the study approximately 5 years later, when adolescents had reached the age of 19 or had been out of high school for at least one year. Subjects’ ages ranged from 18.0 to 21.8 (X = 19.7; S.D. = .94) at Phase 3. Participants were relocated through a variety of procedures, including utilizing former addresses and phone numbers, and obtaining new addresses from family members, former/current employers, and/or a credit bureau. For Phase 3, each early adult participant was mailed questionnaires and asked to return them by mail. Subsequently, he/she was interviewed over the telephone by the University of Georgia Survey Research Center. Participants were compensated $80 for participation in Phase 3.

Phase 1 Measures: Family Structure and Environment

Family structure

Divorced or intact parental marital status was self-reported by the mother. Married families who divorced during the course of the study were excluded from the current sample in order to avoid the confound of changes in marital status.

Znterparental conflict

The Personal Data Form (PDF) was administered to the adolescent. The PDF is a 38-item inventory containing statements about the adolescent’s home and school life (Emery & O’Leary, 1982). Items are scored on a 0 (Not True), 1 (Sometimes True) and 2 (True) scale. Factor analysis of the PDF has revealed two primary factors: adolescent’s perceptions of marital conflict (Conflict Scale) and parental acceptance of the adolescent


(Acceptance Scale). The Conflict Scale has been shown to be internally consistent (alpha = .90) and to correlate significantly with parental report of conflict (r = .40 with Marital Adjustment Test; r = .48 with O’Leary- Porter Scale) (Emery & O’Leary, 1982). The Conflict Scale was utilized in the present study to assess the adolescent’s perceptions of interparental conflict.

The O’Leary-Porter Scale (OPS) was administered to the mother to assess the frequency of overt interparental conflict that occurs in front of the adolescent (Porter & O’Leary, 1980). The OPS is a lo-item measure in which the parent rates each item along a five-point Likert type scale with endpoints labeled “Very Often” and “Never”. Total OPS scores can range from 0 to 40, with lower scores indicating greater conflict. Porter and O’Leary (1980) report adequate reliability (e.g., test-retest reliability over a 2-week period of .96; Cronbach’s alpha of .86) and validity (e.g., correlation between the OPS and the Marital Adjustment Test of .63) data for the OPS.

Maternal depressive mood

The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was administered to the mother. The BDI is a 21-item instrument used to assess individual depression in adults (Beck, 1967). The BDI has been found to have acceptable levels of internal consistency (Chronbach’s alpha = .89) and validity (Metcalfe & Goldman, 1965; Williams, Barlow, & Agras, 1972).

Phase 2 Measures: MotherlAdolescent Dynamics

The Child’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) was administered to the adolescent and his/her mother with reference to maternal parenting behaviors. The revised short form of the CRPBI (Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970) yields scores for three factor-analytically derived dimensions of parenting behaviors including Acceptance/Rejection, Psycho- logical Control (versus Psychological Autonomy), and Lax Control (versus Firm Control). The Acceptance factor consists of items tapping parental acceptance of and closeness to the adolescent. The items comprising the Psychological Control factor relate to the use of anxiety/guilt induction as a method of discipline. The Lax Control factor consists of items measuring the degree to which the parent consistently regulates and monitors the activities and conduct of the adolescent. The internal consistency of each factor has been demonstrated (mean alphas for Acceptance, Psychological Control, and Lax Control are .87, .80, and .74, respectively), as well as convergent and discriminant validity (Schwartz, Barton-Henry, & Pruzinsky, 1985).

230

Maternal support

K. Klein et al.

The Acceptance factors of the adolescent-reported and the mother- reported CRPBI were utilized to assess maternal support of the adolescent.

The Acceptance Scale of the PDF (cited above) was used to assess the adolescent’s perceptions of maternal support. High internal consistency for the Acceptance Scale has been demonstrated (alpha = 37) (Emery & O’Leary, 1982).

Maternal control

The Psychological Control and Lax Control factors of the adolescent- reported and the mother-reported CRPBI were utilized to assess maternal control.

Motherladolescent relationship

The Interaction Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ) was administered to the adolescent and his/her mother to assess communication/conflict behavior between the mother and adolescent. The IBQ consists of 75 dichotomous items, each of which is endorsed “yes” or “no” depending upon whether the individual judges it to be mostly true or mostly false. IBQ scores tap each family member’s (a) appraisal of the other members’ behavior and (b) appraisal of the dyadic interaction between the two members. High scores indicate negative communication and low scores indicate positive communication. Internal consistency (alpha coefficients) has been found to be above .88 (Prinz, Foster, Kent, & O’Leary, 1979). Discriminant validity data have also been reported (Prinz et al., 1979; Robin & Weiss, 1980). The 20-item short form of the IBQ, which correlates .96 with the long form (Robin & Foster, 1989), was used in the current study.

The Issues Checklist (IC) was administered to the adolescent and his/her mother as an index of the quality of their relationship. The IC requires parents and adolescents to recall disagreements about 44 specific issues such as cleaning up the bedroom, homework, television, and drugs. For each topic, the respondent indicates whether or not the issue has been discussed during the past 2 weeks. For each topic that is endorsed positively, the respondent rates the degree of negative affect of the discussions on a five-point scale ranging from calm to angry, and estimates how often the topic has been broached. The IC can yield three scores for each family member: (a) the quantity of issues discussed, (b) the mean anger-intensity level of the endorsed issues, and (c) the weighted average of the frequency and anger-intensity level of the endorsed issues. High weighted frequency by anger-intensity scores are indicative of angry


arguments while low scores are indicative of calm discussions. The IC has been shown to have adequate discriminant validity (Robin & Weiss, 1980).

Problematic alcohol use

The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) was utilized to measure the young adult’s alcohol use and alcohol-related behaviors. The MAST is a 25 item, yes/no instrument in which the questions address alcohol-related behaviors, rather than simply the quantity of alcohol consumed. A score of more than four indicates possible alcoholism (Selzer, 1971). Evidence of the MAST’s validity was provided by Selzer (1971), who reported that the MAST discriminated between a group of known alcoholics and a control group. Selzer, Vinokur, and van Roijen (1975) also demonstrated substantial reliability and validity of the MAST.

Marijuanaihard drug use

The young adult’s use of marijuana and hard drugs was assessed with the National Youth Survey (NYS) and through a telephone interview. The NYS is a self-report scale consisting of 47 items tapping the full range of official acts that could lead to arrest. Acceptable reliability and validity for the NYS have been demonstrated (Elliott, Ageton, Huizinga, Knowles, & Canter, 1983). In the present study, three areas were assessed with the NYS, including the number of times marijuana was used during the past year, the frequency of hard drug use during the past year, and the number of different types of hard drugs which have been used in the past year.

In addition, young adults were interviewed in a Telephone Survey (TS) conducted by the University of Georgia Survey Research Center, a data collection agency specializing in social science research. Although the content of the interview encompassed many issues relating to the subject’s current lifestyle, four questions are relevant to the present study: “How many times during the last 30 days did you use marijuana/hard drugs?” and “Do you ever use marijuana/hard drugs?“. Subjects’ responses to the second questions were coded as a yes/no dichotomous variable.

Procedures

Project announcements instructed interested parties to contact the experimenter for further information. When contacted, the experimenter first determined the eligibility of the potential participants, based on factors such as the adolescent’s age and the marital status of the biological JABRT 16-4-8

232 K. Klein et al.

parents. For eligible families, the experimenter then described the project and scheduled an assessment appointment for the mother/adolescent dyads.

At the beginning of data collection sessions during Phases 1 and 2, the participants were presented with consent forms and a series of questionnaires in randomized order, and instructed to complete them independently. Families were mailed $50 for their participation in each of these assessments.

Upon reaching young adulthood, subjects were mailed a consent form and a packet of Phase 3 questionnaires. They were subsequently contacted by the Survey Research Center, and the telephone survey was conducted. Young adults were compensated $80 when their questionnaires had been returned to the experimenter and the telephone survey was completed.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and ranges of the individual measures separately by gender. Initially, t-tests were conducted on all the manifest variables to determine whether significant differences existed between males and females. Significant differences were revealed only on the MAST, with males reporting more problematic alcohol use during young adulthood than females (p < -05).

Next, exploratory factor analyses were conducted to determine whether the manifest variables measuring maternal support, mother/adolescent relationship, and maternal control represent a common theoretical construct or separate latent variables. Results of initial factor analyses, which were conducted separately by gender, are presented in Table 2. For females, measures of maternal support and mother/adolescent relationship loaded on the first factor, and measures of maternal control loaded on a second factor. Manifest variables for males loaded on the following four factors, based on informant: 1) Adolescent reports of maternal support and mother/adolescent relationship; 2) Adolescent reports of maternal control; 3) Mother reports of maternal support and mother/adolescent relationship; and 4) Mother reports of maternal control. One manifest variable was excluded from subsequent analyses for males due to its failure to load on a conceptually logical factor (see Table 2). Although factor analyses revealed different factor patterns for males and females, the variables measuring mother/adolescent dynamics consistently loaded onto two separate factors: Maternal Control and a composite of Mother/ Adolescent Supportive Relationship.

As the manifest variables loaded separately by informant for males, it was decided to include in the analyses only mother reports of Maternal Control and Mother/Adolescent Supportive Relationship. This decision

Tabl

e 1.

Mea

ns,

Stan

dard

D

evia

tions

an

d R

ange

s fo

r M

anife

st

Var

iabl

es,

by

Gen

der

Mal

es

Fem

ales

Man

ifest

va

riabl

e

PDF

(Con

flict

Sc

ale)

O

PS’

BD

I PD

F (A

ccep

tanc

e sc

ale)

C

RPB

I (A

ccep

tanc

e/re

ject

ion

scal

e)

CR

PBI

(Acc

epta

nce/

reje

ctio

n sc

ale)

IB

Q’

IBQ

’ Is

sues

ch

eckl

ist’

Issu

es

chec

klis

t1

CR

PBI

(Psy

chol

ogic

al

cont

rol

scal

e)

CR

PBI

(Psy

chol

ogic

al

cont

rol

scal

e)

CR

PBI

(Lax

/firm

co

ntro

l sc

ale)

C

RPB

I (L

ax/fi

rm

cont

rol

scal

e)

MA

ST

NY

S (M

ariju

ana

use

- pa

st

year

) TS

(M

ariju

ana

use

- pa

st

mon

th)

TS (

Ever

us

ed

mar

ijuan

a)

NY

S (H

ard

drug

us

e -

past

ye

ar)

NY

S (N

umbe

r of

typ

es

of d

rugs

us

ed)

TS

(Eve

r us

ed

hard

dr

ugs)

Info

rman

t

Ado

lesc

ent

Mot

her

Mot

her

Ado

lesc

ent

Ado

lesc

ent

Mot

her

Ado

lesc

ent

Mot

her

Ado

lesc

ent

Mot

her

Ado

lesc

ent

Mot

her

Ado

lesc

ent

Mot

her

You

ng

adul

t Y

oung

ad

ult

You

ng

adul

t Y

oung

ad

ult

You

ng

adul

t Y

oung

ad

ult

You

ng

adul

t

M S.

D.

Ran

ge

M S.

D.

4.24

4.

40

&17

3.

96

4.10

10

.51

5.18

2-

20

10.8

3 6.

13

6.76

7.

69

&36

6.

11

6.09

25

.10

3.80

13

-30

24.8

7 4.

13

9.24

3.

02

O-1

2 9.

26

3.16

25

.472

2.

202

21-2

92

25.3

1 2.

75

17.4

3 3.

99

2-21

16

.44

5.32

15

.80

3.71

5-

20

14.5

2 5.

33

27.2

2 7.

09

5-39

24

.59

7.46

26

.47

7.40

5-

38

27.9

4 5.

80

17.1

4 3.

53

11-2

8 17

.26

4.12

15.1

8 2.

41

11-2

1 16

.19

3.11

23

.10

3.96

12

-30

22.7

0 3.

42

23.0

4 2.

07

19-2

8 22

.83

2.36

2.

883

3.15

O

-18

1.57

3 1.

85

16.6

9 52

.58

O-3

00

3.80

14

.36

1.35

3.

79

c&15

0.

48

1.99

1.

29

0.46

l-2

1.

18

0.39

6.

29

20.7

3 (r

99

0.93

4.

12

0.43

0.

82

&3

0.22

0.

66

1.10

0.

31

l-2

1.09

1-

2

Ran

ge

O-1

6 I-

30

O-2

0 13

-30

&12

17

-29

1-21

l-2

0 1-

38

11-3

9 11

-28

11-2

5 15

-30

1629

O

-10

a-90

O

-13

l-2

O-2

9 &

3

‘Sco

ring

was

re

vers

ed

in o

rder

fo

r al

l m

anife

st

varia

bles

w

ithin

on

e la

tent

co

nstru

ct

to

be

scor

ed

in a

con

sist

ent

dire

ctio

n.

2Not

ut

ilize

d in

ana

lyse

s fo

r m

ales

. 3I

ndic

ates

si

gnifi

cant

di

ffer

ence

be

twee

n ge

nder

s (p

<

.05)

.

Tabl

e 2.

Fac

tor

Ana

lysi

s of

Mot

her/A

dole

scen

t D

ynam

ics

Var

iabl

es

by G

ende

r

Fem

ales

M

ales

Man

ifest

va

riabl

e In

form

ant

Fact

or

1 Fa

ctor

2

Fact

or

1 Fa

ctor

2

Fact

or

3 Fa

ctor

4

Mat

erna

l su

ppor

t va

riabl

es

PDF

(Acc

epta

nce

scal

e)

CR

PBI

(Acc

epta

nce/

reje

ctio

n sc

ale)

C

RPB

I (A

ccep

tanc

e/re

ject

ion

scal

e)

Mot

her/a

dole

scen

t re

latio

nshi

p va

riabl

es

IBQ

IB

Q

Issu

es c

heck

list

Issu

es c

heck

list

Mat

erna

l co

ntro

l va

riabl

es

CR

PBI

(Psy

chol

ogic

al

cont

rol

scal

e)

CR

PBI

(Psy

chol

ogic

al

cont

rol

scal

e)

CR

PBI

(Lax

/firm

con

trol

scal

e)

CPR

BI

(Lax

/firm

co

ntro

l sc

ale)

Ado

lesc

ent

.90

Ado

lesc

ent

.80

Mot

her

-57

Ado

lesc

ent

.89

.74

Mot

her

.75

.70

Ado

lesc

ent

.67

.42

Mot

her

.31

.88

Ado

lesc

ent

Mot

her

Ado

lesc

ent

Mot

her

S6

.71

.70

.67

.65

84

.79

80

.92

.86

.67’

?r

l

‘Thi

s va

riabl

e w

as e

xclu

ded

from

th

e an

alys

es

for

mal

es.


was based on two factors. First, maternal reports of these variables have typically been utilized in the literature. Second, this avoids the issue of common reporter variance (i.e., adolescents reporting family/parenting variables and substance use).

Based on the preliminary analyses, separate causal models were proposed for females’ Problematic Alcohol Use and Marijuana/Hard Drug Use during young adulthood and males’ Problematic Alcohol Use and Marijuana/ Hard Drug Use during young adulthood. Latent variable path analysis with partial least-squares estimation procedures (LVPLS) was utilized to test the hypothesized models. Structural equation modeling with partial least squares was developed by Wold (1980) as an alternative for data which do not meet the highly restrictive assumptions underlying more stringent maximum likelihood (ML) estimation techniques, such as LISREL (Falk & Miller, 1991). PLS is considered to be especially appropriate for evaluating models generated in social science research, due to its flexibility regarding issues such as sample size, non-interval level data, and correlated residuals among the manifest and latent variables (Falk, 1987).

PLS first evaluates the measurement or outer model via confirmatory factor analysis, producing a factor loading for each manifest variable which indicates how well it correlates with its respective latent variable. These loadings, which are presented in Table 3, may be considered approximations of first principal component loadings because they also take into account the hypothesized relations among the latent variables. It is important to note that in preparation for PLS analysis, three manifest variables (OPS, IBQ and IC) were recoded such that all variables representing the same construct would be scaled in the same direction. Examination of the factor loadings reveals that all of the manifest variables are reasonable indicators of their respective latent constructs. Loadings on latent constructs which are measured by a single manifest variable, such as Family Structure and Maternal Depressive Mood, are necessarily 1.0.

The LVPLS program uses composite weights to create these latent variables and to optimize linear relations between predictor and predicted components. Standardized regression coefficients for paths in each model are presented in Figures 2-5. Since PLS does not calculate standard errors for the path coefficients, significance tests for the effects are not available. However, effects can be compared to one another in terms of their relative magnitude. In addition, a somewhat arbitrary criterion of .20 or greater can be employed in order for a path to be considered as representative of an important or strong effect (Falk, 1987). In Figures 2-5, paths which meet this criteria are printed in boldface. Although these paths will be hereafter referred to as “significant” paths, a qualification of “likely to be significant” should technically be made. Also presented on each path in Figures 2-5 are zero-order correlations (I) between the latent variables

Tabl

e 3.

Fac

tor

Load

ings

of

Man

ifest

V

aria

bles

on

Lat

ent

Con

stru

cts,

by P

ropo

sed

Mod

el

Phas

e La

tent

co

nstru

ct

Fem

ales

Man

ifest

va

riabl

e(s)

In

form

ant

Alc

ohol

us

e

Mar

ijuan

a an

d ha

rd

drug

use

.

One

Fa

mily

stru

ctur

e In

terp

aren

tal

conf

lict

Mat

erna

l de

pres

sive

m

ood

Pare

nt’s

m

arita

l st

atus

PD

F (C

onfli

ct

scal

e)

OPS

B

DI

Mot

her

1.00

1.

00

Ado

lesc

ent

84

.76

Mot

her

.80

.88

Mot

her

1.00

1.

00

Two

Mot

her/a

dole

scen

t su

ppor

tive

rela

tions

hip

Mat

erna

l co

ntro

l

CR

PBI

(Acc

epta

nce

scal

e)

CR

PBI

(Acc

epta

nce

scal

e)

PDF

(Acc

epta

nce

scal

e)

IBQ

IB

Q

Issu

es

chec

klis

t Is

sues

ch

eckl

ist

CR

PBI

(Psy

ch.

cont

rol)

CR

PBI

(Psy

ch.

cont

rol)

CR

PBI

(Lax

/firm

co

ntro

l) C

RPB

I (L

ax/fi

rm

cont

rol)

Ado

lesc

ent

.90

Mot

her

.49

Ado

lesc

ent

.88

Ado

lesc

ent

.91

Mot

her

.76

Ado

lesc

ent

.64

Mot

her

.47

Ado

lesc

ent

.93

Mot

her

.75

Ado

lesc

ent

.78

Mot

her

.45

.91

.57

.91

?;:

.91

7:

.77

B

.58

3 .3

9 a

.92

. E

.80

.74

.38

Prob

lem

atic

al

coho

l us

e M

AST

Y

oung

ad

ult

1.00

Mar

ijuan

a an

d ha

rd

drug

use

N

YS

(Mar

. us

e -

past

yea

r)

TS

(Mar

. us

e -

past

m

onth

) T

S (E

ver

used

mar

ijuan

a)

NY

S (D

rug

use

- pa

st y

ear)

N

YS

(Num

ber

of t

ypes

of

har

d dr

ugs

used

) T

S (E

ver

used

ha

rd

drug

s)

You

ng

adul

t .9

4 Y

oung

ad

ult

.90

You

ng

adul

t .7

3 Y

oung

ad

ult

88

You

ng

adul

t .8

5

You

ng

adul

t .4

8

Tabl

e 3.

(C

ontin

ued)

Mal

es

Mar

ijuan

a 2

and

hard

0

Phas

e La

tent

co

nstru

ct

Man

ifest

va

riabl

e(s)

In

form

ant

Alc

ohol

us

e dr

ug

use

z d O

ne

Fam

ily

stru

ctur

e Pa

rent

al

mar

ital

stat

us

Mot

her

1.00

1.

00

; In

terp

aren

tal

conf

lict

OPS

M

othe

r 1.

00

1.00

:

Mat

erna

l de

pres

sive

m

ood

BD

I M

othe

r 1.

00

1.00

5

Two

Mot

her/a

dole

scen

t a

IBQ

M

othe

r 7.

5 .7

6 z

supp

ortiv

e re

latio

nshi

p Is

sues

C

heck

list

Mot

her

.92

.91

P

Mat

erna

l co

ntro

l 2

CR

PBI

(Psy

ch.

cont

rol)

Mot

her

.93

.90

$ C

RPB

I (L

ax/fi

rm

cont

rol)

Mot

her

.70

.74

%

Thre

e Pr

oble

mat

ic

alco

hol

use

MA

ST

You

ng

adul

t 1.

00

p a M

ariju

ana

and

hard

dr

ug

use

NY

S (M

ar.

use

- pa

st

year

) Y

oung

ad

ult

.83

t g TS

(M

ar.

use

- pa

st

mon

th)

You

ng

adul

t .3

3 TS

(E

ver

used

m

ariju

ana)

Y

oung

ad

ult

.55

2 N

YS

(Dru

g us

e -

past

ye

ar)

You

ng

adul

t .8

8 N

YS

(Num

ber

of t

ypes

Y

oung

ad

ult

.84

of h

ard

drug

s us

ed)

TS

(Eve

r us

ed

hard

dr

ugs)

Y

oung

ad

ult

.45

238 K. Klein et al.

and the proportion of variance (Z?2) that is accounted for in each criterion variable. Presented within each of the endogenous latent variables is the proportion of total variance that is accounted for by the sum of the paths pointing to it.

For each model generated by PLS, summary statistics are produced to indicate the overall quality of the model. First, an average of the communalities of manifest variables on their latent constructs is provided. This communality coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, with a higher value indicating a better outer model. In addition, an index of the overall model’s fit with the raw data is indicated by the coefficient RMS COV (EU), which stands for the root mean square of the covariance between the residuals of the manifest and latent variables. This coefficient would be 0 in a model that describes with complete accuracy the relationships between the variables. Falk (1987) suggests that a coefficient above .20 indicates a poor model, and a coefficient of, for example, .02 indicates a superior model. The communality coefficients in the present study range from .64 to .84, and the RMS COV (EU) indices range from .06 to .08, indicating a good fit for all models (see Figures 2-5).

Figure 2 reveals that 13% of the total variance in females’ Problematic Alcohol Use is accounted for by the paths specified in this model. Particularly strong paths are observed leading from Interparental Conflict to Mother/Adolescent Supportive Relationship (b = -.33; R2 = .106), to Maternal Control (b = .27; R2 = .068), and to Problematic Alcohol Use (b = -.22; R2 = .026). All significant paths in this model, as well as the remaining models, are in the hypothesized directions, except where noted. In this model, the relationship between Interparental Conflict and Problematic Alcohol Use is not in the expected direction; the coefficient indicates that lower levels of Interparental Conflict are associated with more Problematic Alcohol Use. The remaining paths in the model represent weak to moderate effects.

In Figure 3,33% of the variance is accounted for in females’ Marijuana/ Hard Drug Use. The strongest paths in this model lead from Interparental Conflict to Mother/Adolescent Supportive Relationship (b = -.33; R2 = .lOO) and to Maternal Control (b = .30; R2 = .081). In addition, a particularly strong path leads from Relationship to Marijuana/Hard Drug Use (b = -.59; R2 = .295).

For males, 15% of the variance is accounted for in males’ Problematic Alcohol Use (Figure 4). Strong paths in this model include Family Structure to Maternal Depressive Mood (b = .23; R2 = .053); Maternal Depressive Mood to Relationship (b = -.31; R2 = .096); Interparental Conflict to Relationship (b = -.25; R2 = .078) and to Maternal Control (b = .39; R2 = .144); and Relationship to Problematic Alcohol Use (b = -.29; R2 = .090). Interestingly, in this model a full indirect path

FIG

. 2.

Fe

mal

es’

Prob

lem

atic

A

lcoh

ol

Use

; co

mm

unal

ity

coef

ficie

nt

= .6

5;

RM

S C

OV

(E

,U)

= .0

7.

/

\ R

’=.W

4

Mat

erna

l -/

6Iot

h

Depr

essi

wa

l-27

R’-.

031

FIG

. 3.

Fem

ales

’ M

ariju

ana

& H

ard

Dru

g U

se;

com

mun

ality

co

effic

ient

=

.64;

R

MS

CO

V

(E,U

) =

.08.


Dep

ress

ive

Moo

d

R=-.l

U

FIG

. 5.

Mal

es’

Mar

ijuan

a &

Har

d D

rug

Use

; co

mm

unal

ity

coef

ficie

nt

= .6

7; R

MS

CO

V

(E,U

) =

48.

Adolescent Family Predictors of Substance Use

Table 4. Significant’ Indirect Paths, by Model

243

Females’ problematic alcohol use (Figure 2) (None)

Females’ marijuana and hard drug use (Figure 3) Interparental conflict - Mother/adolescent supportive relationship - Marijuana and hard drug use

Males’ problematic alcohol use (Mother reports) (Figure 4) Family structure - Maternal depressive mood - Mother/adolescent supportive relationship - Problematic alcohol use Interparental conflict - Mother/adolescent supportive relationship - Problematic alcohol use

Males’ marijuana and hard drug use (Mother reports) (Figure 5) Family structure - Maternal depressive mood - Mother/adolescent supportive relationship Family structure - Maternal depressive mood - Marijuana and hard drug use Interparental conflict - Maternal control - Marijuana and hard drug use

‘Since PLS does not calculate standard errors for path coefficients and, thus, does not provide significance tests for the path coefficients, the qualification “likely to be significant” technically should be made.

leads from Family Structure through Maternal Depressive Mood through Relationship to Problematic Alcohol Use.

Finally, Figure 5 indicates that 22% of the variance is accounted for in males’ Marijuana/Hard Drug Use. Strong paths include Family Structure to Maternal Depressive Mood (b = .23; R2 = .053); Maternal Depressive Mood to Relationship (b = -.31; R2 = .096) and to Marijuana/Hard Drug Use (b = .41; R2 = .135); Interparental Conflict to Relationship (b = -.25; R2 = .078) and to Maternal Control (b = .39; R2 = .144); and Maternal Control to Marijuana/Hard Drug Use (b = .27; R2 = .065).

As previously noted, all paths are in the expected direction, except where mentioned. A summary of significant indirect paths in each of the proposed models is presented in Table 4.

DISCUSSION

The present investigation was designed to address three major issues regarding the prediction of substance abuse during the transition from late adolescence to young adulthood: 1) Have the aspects of family dynamics, including parental support, parent/child relationship and parental control, been accurately conceptualized in the existing literature as three separate theoretical constructs, or do they actualIy represent overlapping dimensions of family dynamics ?; 2) Do direct predictive relationships exist between (a) family structure and environment during adolescence, (b) parent/

244 K. Klein et al.

adolescent dynamics one year later, and (c) substance abuse during young adulthood?; and 3) Do family environment variables and parent/ adolescent dynamics serve mediating roles within these paths?

With regard to the first issue, exploratory factor analyses of the measures of family dynamics revealed two notable results. First, these measures loaded on two factors: maternal support and mother/adolescent relationship loaded on a common factor, which was labeled Mother/ Adolescent Supportive Relationship; and Maternal Control. Thus, maternal support and mother/adolescent relationship do not appear to be separate constructs. This finding highlights the importance of relying upon empirical methods, rather than intuitive processes, in defining theoretical constructs.

Second, factor analyses of the family dynamics variables revealed distinctly different patterns for males and females. Although measures of family dynamics reported by adolescent girls and by their mothers loaded together on the two factors of Mother/Adolescent Supportive Relationship and Maternal Control, this was not the case for males. Instead, reports made by adolescent males and their mothers loaded on four separate Relationship and Maternal Control factors, based on informant. These findings emphasize the necessity of examining gender differences in psychological processes and outcomes. Such gender effects may be particularly pronounced during adolescence, a developmental period during which differences between males and females have been well documented in terms of psychological functioning (Forehand, Wierson, McCombs Thomas, Armistead, Kempton, & Neighbors, 1991), parent/ adolescent interactions (Tesser et al., 1989) and family processes (Lempers, Clark-Lempers, & Simon, 1989).

The finding that the perspectives of mothers and their adolescent boys differ with regard to mother/adolescent dynamics is not surprising. It is interesting to note that this discrepancy did not appear to exist between the perspectives of mothers and their adolescent daughters. Investigation of the reason for this differential effect of gender is outside of the scope of this paper. However, one plausible explanation is that adolescents identify with the views of the same sex parent. Thus, the reports of girls and their mothers merge to form unitary constructs. However, as father data are not currently available, it is not possible to thoroughly examine this hypothesis.

With regard to the second and third goals of the current study, results support the hypotheses that both direct predictive relationships and indirect paths exist between family variables during adolescence and substance abuse during young adulthood. Considering the longitudinal nature of this investigation, the four proposed causal models accounted for substantial amounts of variance in the criterion variables, ranging from 13 to 33%. In addition, summary indices of the models’ fit (i.e., high


communality coefficients and low root mean square residuals) indicate that they provide important information with regard to the prediction of substance abuse.

All significant paths in the proposed models emerged in the hypothesized directions, with the exception of the relationship between Interparental Conflict and female’s Problematic Alcohol Use. Although the reason for this aberrant finding is not clear, it is important to consider that the path coefficient between these variables is -.22, indicating only a weak to moderate relationship. In fact, this coefficient falls just above the arbitrary cutoff of .20 for a path to be considered interpretable.

In order to discuss the implications of the proposed models for males’ and females’ Problematic Alcohol Use and Marijuana/Hard Drug Use, the overall trends among direct and indirect paths must first be examined. It is logical for this discussion to begin with the family variables measured at the earliest point of longitudinal assessment: Family Structure and Family Environment. Consistent with existing literature (i.e., Brody & Forehand, 1993), results of the current study indicate that family process variables may be more useful in predicting substance abuse than marital status.

In this study, notable gender differences emerged in terms of the predictive roles of Family Structure and Maternal Depressive Mood. While Family Structure did not appear to be an important variable in the females’ models, it was related to one family environment variable for males: Maternal Depressive Mood. As expected, Family Structure did not have a direct effect on males’ alcohol or drug use; instead, its effect was mediated by Maternal Depressive Mood. In contrast, for females Maternal Depressive Mood was related neither to Family Structure nor to family dynamics variables.

Since no precedents for these specific gender differences have been reported in the literature thus far, some speculation about the current findings is warranted. t-Tests did not reveal significant differences between actual levels of the Family Environment variables reported for males and females, indicating that the observed gender effects stem from differences in the ways that males and females in this study have been influenced by Family Structure and Maternal Depressive Mood. It is possible that this effect may have been observed due to specific characteristics of the current investigation. This sample was composed of families in which a divorce had occurred within the past 36 months, and in which adolescents of divorced parents resided with their mothers. Perhaps male adolescents, as opposed to female adolescents, experience more or different types of stress in adjusting to this new living situation. It is clear that the current results may not generalize to all adolescents of divorced parents, such as those residing with their fathers. However, as a high ratio of children and

246 K. Klein et al.

adolescents with divorced parents reside with their mothers, these results should accurately reflect the experiences of such families.

Perhaps the most powerful finding with regard to family environment variables was that Interparental Conflict directly predicted both Mother/ Adolescent Supportive Relationship with Maternal Control in all of the proposed models. It seems that witnessing Interparental Conflict may be a particularly salient experience for adolescents in terms of its impact on parent/child dynamics, such that higher levels of conflict are associated with lower quality of the Mother/Adolescent Supportive Relationship and higher levels of Maternal Control. This finding is consistent with existing literature on the effects of family conflict (i.e., Brody & Forehand, 1993).

These results support the hypothesis that family environment variables would mediate the relationship between Family Structure and mother/ adolescent dynamics one year later. The next hypotheses to be considered involve the predictive roles of dynamics variables: Mother/Adolescent Supportive Relationship and Maternal Control. The most notable result in this regard is the robust indirect path from Interparental Conflict through Mother/Adolescent Supportive Relationship to females’ Marijuana/Hard Drug Use. This path accounted for almost 30 of the total 33% of variance accounted for in this model. It is important to consider that this pattern was not observed in the females’ model for Problematic Alcohol Use, which supports Kandel’s theory that different trajectories lead to different types of substance abuse (Kandel ef al., 1978). It appears that the mother/daughter relationship during adolescence has a unique influence on more severe types of females’ subsequent substance abuse.

In terms of Maternal Control, higher levels of Interparental Conflict were consistently related to higher levels of Maternal Control (i.e., mothers’ use of more psychological control and more firm control over adolescents) in the current study. Although a significant path between Maternal Control and substance abuse was found only in the model of males’ Marijuana/Hard Drug Use, a path approaching the .20 cut-off was observed in the model for females’ Poblematic Alcohol Use. The trend in this model was also in the expected direction, supporting the hypothesis that strict limit-setting and use of psychological control would be associated with higher levels of substance abuse. These results are logical in the context of the present examination; it might be expected that adolescents who have lived in atmospheres of strict rules and limits imposed by their parents may be less capable of making sound decisions regarding substance use when they acquire increased independence during young adulthood. Perhaps more moderate levels of parental control allow adolescents’ decision-making and self-control skills to develop more adequately in preparation for autonomous living. Alternatively,


substance use may represent a type of rebellion against strict control exerted by parents.

Overall, results indicate that mother/adolescent dynamics variables can serve direct and mediating roles in the prediction of males’ and females’ substance use. Mother/Adolescent Support was predictive of substance abuse in two models, and Maternal Control predicted substance abuse in one of the proposed models. These results are consistent with much of the existing literature. However, in contrast to much of the previous research in this area, the current results are based on longitudinal data, which allows investigation of whether the findings are consistent with hypothesized causal relationships.

Although the findings provide some support for the importance of maternal support and control in forecasting substance abuse, many of the paths leading from these two variables to substance use variables were not of a sufficient magnitude to be considered important. Several explanations may be considered for the absence of these relationships.

First, the unique nature of the current investigation may have influenced its results. Specifically, this study examined family characteristics over approximately a 6-year period during adolescence and young adulthood. Some evidence has suggested that the effects of parenting style may be manifested over time (Johnson & Pandina, 1991). However, it is possible that family dynamics continue to change markedly throughout development, such that the effects of Mother/Adolescent Supportive Relationship and/or Maternal Control during early to mid-adolescence are diluted by the point of late adolescence/young adulthood.

Alternatively, it is possible that the theoretical constructs utilized in the current study failed to capture the parent/adolescent dynamics which are most meaningful in predicting substance abuse. It has been suggested that an optimal parenting style is multi-dimensional, consisting of the combination of certain levels and/or types of support and control (i.e., Barnes, Farrell, & Cairns, 1986; Baumrind, 1971; Peterson & Rollins, 1987). In order to more precisely examine these constructs, further research needs to focus on the interactions among different aspects of parent/child dynamics in relation to other family variables.

Finally, it is possible that models incorporating only measures of the dynamics between the mother and adolescent do not provide adequate information about the adolescent’s parent/child experience. A study by Brody and Forehand (1990) found that in divorced families, the relationship between an adolescent and his/her noncustodial father was predictive of the adolescent’s psychological adjustment. It is likely that additional predictive information about young adult substance abuse would be provided by a model which took the father/adolescent relationship into account. JABRT 16.4-C

248 K. Klein et al.

A final question in the current investigation is whether there are consistent differences between the Problematic Alcohol Use and the Marijuana/Hard Drug Use models. Aside from the differences between females’ models of Problematic Alcohol Use and Marijuana/Hard Drug Use mentioned above, no major trends distinguished between paths leading to these two types of substance abuse. In general, results indicated that a variety of factors, including gender of adolescent and type of substance, influence the trajectories to substance abuse.

It is also important to note that a greater number of significant paths emerged in males’ than in females’ predictive models, although the amount of variance accounted for in males’ and females’ criterion measures was approximately the same. It is possible that this can be explained by the previously noted point raised by McMahon (1994); regarding the bias toward males in research on externalizing behaviors. In other words, the theoretical constructs which have been developed and examined in the literature, and form the basis of the current study, may not precisely measure the “active ingredients” which contribute to females’ substance abuse. Clearly, future research on substance abuse should attempt to clarify gender differences in trajectories to different types of problematic substance use.

As originally noted, it is crucial for behavioral research to identify factors which are predictive of early adult substance abuse, and thus which may be targeted in prevention strategies. The results of the current study have yielded useful implications for this effort by clarifying the influences of family variables on problematic alcohol and drug use. With one exception, high levels of interparental conflict in adolescence were associated, either directly or indirectly, with more alcohol and drug use during early adulthood. These results indicate that prevention efforts should be directed toward reducing conflict between parents, particularly that which occurs in front of the adolescent. Furthermore, parenting practices and family relationships may also be useful targets. It appears that facilitating the positive relationship between mothers and adolescents and, particularly for boys, moderating excessive maternal control, may reduce the risk of later substance abuse. Empirically validated programs, such as the one developed by Robin and Foster (1989), are currently available to reduce parent/adolescent conflict. The current results suggest that such programs could have positive long-term effects on early adults’ substance use habits. However, future research will need to directly address this question.

Some limitations of the current study should be noted when considering its findings. First, the sample consisted of middle class, Caucasian families drawn from the general community. Levels of young adult substance abuse, as well as variance in these outcome variables, were relatively


low for this sample. Therefore, results generated in this study may not be generalizable to other populations with different socio-economic and/or ethnic backgrounds, or more severe levels of substance abuse. Second, although multiple informants were utilized to form latent constructs whenever possible, the results of factor analyses necessitated the use of single indices of many measures (particularly for males). In addition, only paper and pencil measures were utilized in the current investigation. The inclusion of observational data would have provided useful objective information about family characteristics.

In summary, the results of the current study have provided some support for its hypotheses, and clarified useful directions for future research in this area. It is clear that research on substance use should examine the specific effects of variables such as gender and type of substance in order to yield useful information about the trajectories toward problematic substance use.

Acknowledgements-This research was supported, in part, by the William T. Grant Foundation and the University of Georgias’ Institute for Behavioral Research. Reprint requests can be addressed to either of the first two authors at the Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

REFERENCES Barnes, G. M. (1984). Adolescent alcohol abuse and other problem behaviors: Their

relationships and common parental influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 13, 329-348.

Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Cairns, A. (1986). Parental socialization factors and adolescent drinking behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 27-36.

Barnes, G. M., Farrell, M. P., & Windle, M. (1989). Parent-adolescent interactions in the development of alcohol abuse and other deviant behaviors. Family Perspective, 21, 321-344.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, 4(l), part 2.

Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Causes and weafmenr. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Beschner, G. & Friedman, A. (1985). Treatment of adolescent drug abusers. International Journal of the Addictions, 20, 971-993.

Biglan, A., Hops, H., Sherman, L., Friedman, L. S., Arthur, J., & Osteen, V. (1985). Problem solving interactions of depressed women and their spouses. Behavior Therapy, 16, 431-451.

Blechman, E. A. (1982). Conventional wisdom about familial contributions to substance abuse. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 9, 35-53.

Brody, G. H., & Forehand, R. (1990). Interparental conflict, relationship with the noncustodial father, and adolescent post-divorce adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 11, 139-147.

Brody, G. H., & Forehand, R. (1993). Prospective associations among family form, family processes, and adolescents’ alcohol and drug use. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 587-593.

250 K. Klein et al.

Brody, G. H., Neubaum, E., & Forehand, R. (1988). Serial marriage: a heuristic analysis of an emerging family form. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 211-222.

Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., & Gordon, A. S. (1983). Stages of drug use in adolescence: Personality, peer, and family correlates. Developmentul Psychology, 19, 269-277.

Burke, R., & Weir, T. (1978). Benefits to adolescents of informal helping relationships with parents and peers. Psychological Reports, 42, 1175-1184.

Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., Elder, G. H., Melby, J. N., Simons, R. L., & Conger, K. J. (1991). A process model of family economic pressure and early adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 430-449.

Danforth, J. C. (1991). Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions, Con- gressional Record.

Dishion, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent marijuana and alcohol use: The role of parents and peers revisited. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 11, 11-25.

Downey, G., & Coyne, J. C. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 50-76.

Elliott, D. S., Ageton, S. S., Huizinga, D., Knowles, B. A., & Canter, R. J. (1983). The prevalence and incidence of delinquent behavior: 19761980. Boulder, CO: Behavioural Research Institute.

Elliott, D. S., Huixinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Emery, R. E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1982). Children’s perceptions of marital discord and behavior problems of boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 10, 11-24.

Falk, R. F. (1987). A primer for soft-modeling. Berkeley, CA; University of California. Falk, R., & Miller, N. (1991). A soft models approach to family transitions. In

P. A. Cowan, & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Family transitions (pp. 273-301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flewelling, R. L., & Bauman, K. E. (1990). Family structure as a predictor of initial substance use and sexual intercourse in early adolescence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 171-181.

Forehand, R. (1990). Families with a conduct problem child. In G. H. Brody, & I. Sigel (Eds.), Methods of family research: Biographies of research projects: Vol. 2, clinical populations (pp. l-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Forehand, R. (1993). Family psychopathology and child functioning. Journal of Child and Family &dies, 2, 81-86. _ _ _-

Forehand. R.. Wierson. M.. McCombs Thomas. A.. Armistead. L.. Kemoton, T.. & Neighbors, B. (1991): The role of family strkssors and parent relationships’ on adolescent functioning. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 316-322.

Foxcroft, D. R., & Lowe, G. (1991). Adolescent drinking behaviour and family socialization factors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 255-273.

Guarini, F. J. (1992). Use of Unobligated Moneys in Customs Forfeiture Fund, Congressional Record.

Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M., & Cox, R. (1979). Family interaction and the social, emotional, and cognitive development of children following divorce. In V. Vaughn, & T. Brazelton (Ed%), The family: Setting priorities. New York, NY: Science and Medicine.

Hundleby, J. D., & Mercer, G. W. (1987). Family and friends as social environments and their relationship to young adolescents’ use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 151-164.

Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Johnson, V., & Pandina, R. J. (1991). Effects of the family environment on adolescent substance use, delinquency, and coping styles. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 17, 71-88.


Kandel, D. B., Kessler, R. C., & Margulies, R. Z. (1978). Antecedents of adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 13-K).

Kandel, D. (1980). Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annual Review Sociology, 6, 235-285.

Kim, S. (1979). An evaluation of Ombudsman Primary Prevention Program on Student Drug Abuse. Charlotte, NC: Charlotte Drug Education Center, Inc.

Lempers, J.. Clark-Lempers, D., & Simons, R. (1989). Economic hardship, parenting, and distress in adolescence. Child Development, 60, 25-39.

Levitsky, M. (1992). U.S. House. Committee on Appropriations. “Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Approp. for 1993 (Part 4).” Hearing, Washington, D.C.

Lipton, D. S. (1991). U.S. House. Committee on the Judiciary. “Federal Prison Substance Abuse Treatment Availability Act of 1991.” Hearing, Washington, D.C.

McMahon, R. (1994). Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of externalizing problems in children: The role of longitudinal data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 901-917.

Metcalfe, M., & Goldman, E. (1965). Validation of an inventory for measuring depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 111, 24Q-242.

Murray, D., & Perry, C. (1985). The prevention of adolescent drug abuse: Implications of etiologic, developmental, behavioral and environmental models. In C. Jones and R. Bettjes (Eds.), Etiology of drug abuse: Implications for prevention. NIDA Research Monograph #56. Washington, DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Myers, J. K., & Bean, L. J. (1968). A decade later: A follow-up of social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley.

Needle, R. H., Su, S., & Doherty, W. (1990). Divorce, remarriage, and adolescent substance use: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 157-169.

Noller. P., & Callan, V. (1991). The adolescent in the family. London: Routledge. Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective

on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335. Patterson, G. R., & Forgatch, M. S. (1990). Initiation and maintenance of process

disrupting single-mother families. In G. R. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggression in family interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Peterson, G. W., & Rollins, B. C. (1987). Parent-child socialization. In M. B. Sussman & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. I) (pp. 317-364). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Porter, B., & O’Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord and childhood behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 287-295.

Prinz, R. J., Foster, S., Kent, R. N.. & O’Leary, K. D. (1979). Multivariate assessment of conflict in distressed and non-distressed mother-adolescent dyads. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 691-700.

Rangel, C. B. (1992). The Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Improvement Act, Congressional Record.

Robin. A. L., & Foster, S. L. (1989). Negotiating parent-adolescenr conflict. New York, NY: Guilford.

Robin, A. L., & Weiss, J. G. (1980). Criterion-related validity of behavioral and self-report measures of problem-solving communication skills in distressed and non-distressed parent-adolescent dyads. Behavioral Assessmenr, 2, 339-352.

Rollins, B., & Thomas, D. (1979). Parental support, power, and control techniques. In W. Burr, R. Hill, I. Nye & I. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. I) (pp. 317-364). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York, NY: Basic Books, Scannell, G. F. (1990). U.S. House. Committee on Appropriations. “Depts of Labor,

Health and Human Services, Education Approp. for 1991 (Part 1)“. Hearing, Washington, D.C.

252 K. Klein et al.

Schludermann, E., & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in children’s report of parent behavior (CRPBI). Journal of Psychology, 96, 15-23.

Schwartz, J., Barton-Henry, M., & Pruzinsky, T. (1985). Assessing child-rearing behaviors. A comparison of ratings made by mother, father, child, and sibling on the CRPBI. Child Development, 56, 462-479.

Selzer, M. L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 1653-1658.

Selzer, M. L., Vinokur, A., & van Roijen, L. (1975). A self-administered Short Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (SMAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 117-126.

Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 112th Edition (1992). United States Department of Commerce.

Tesser, A., Forehand, R., Brody, G., & Long, N. (1989). Conflict: The role of calm and angry parent-child discussion in adolescent adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 317-330.

U.S. House (1992a). Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. “On the Edge of the American Dream: A Social and Economic Profile in 1992.” Washington, D.C.

U.S. House (1992b). Committee on Appropriations. “Depts of Labor, Health and Human Service, Education . . . Approp. for 1993 (Part 2)” Hearing, Washington, D.C.

Vicary, J. R., & Lerner, J. V. (1986). Parental attributes and adolescent drug use. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 115-122.

Wierson, M., & Forehand, R. (1992). Family stressors and adolescent functioning: A consideration of models for early and middle adolescents. Behavior Therapy, 23, 671-688.

Williams, J. G., Barlow, D. H., & Agras, W. S. (1972). Behavioral measurement of severe depression. Archives of General Psychiaty, 27, 330-333.

Wold, H. (1980). Soft modeling: Intermediate between traditional model building and data analysis. Mathematical Statistics, 6, 333-346.

Date post:	15-Nov-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gene
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

Adolescent family predictors of substance use during early adulthood: A theoretical model

Documents