Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
The International Journal of the Addictions, 14(7), 905-917, 1979
Parental and Peer Influences as Correlates of Problem Drinking among High School Students Reginald G. Smart Gaye Gray Addiction Research Foundation Toronto, Ontario M5S 2S1, Canada
Abstract
This study was concerned with the relative importance of parental, peer, and demographic variables in predicting problem drinking among young people. A survey of drinking and drinking problems was conducted among 1,439 students in two schools in Ontario. A Multiple Classification Analysis was employed to identify variables with a significant and unique predictive power. It was found that problem drinking is best predicted with situational factors and those directly connected with drinking. Parental and peer variables had little unique predictive power. Problem drinkers were more often male, had their first drinks away from home, and usually drank in cars. Numerous factors have been found to be associated with problem drinking among young people; they can be broadly summarized as 905 Copyright @ 1979 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neither this work nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
YO6
SMART AND GRAY
demographic, parental, and peer influences. Problem drinking is more common among males, older students, those whose friends drink heavily, and those whose parent’s drink heavily (see Stacey and Davies, 1970; Smart, 1976 for reviews). Although demographic characteristics, parental influences, and peer drinking have been shown to be important in some studies, their relative importance has rarely been assessed in the same study, although Prendergast and Schaefer’s (1974) study is a valuable recent exception. Usually when demographic, peer, and parental variables have been included, it has been difficult to determine the relative importance of each factor and whether each has a unique explanatory value (for example, Straus and Bacon, 1953; Globetti and Chamblin, 1966). For example, a study such as Globetti and Chamblin’s may find that problem drinkers have heavy drinking parents and heavy drinking peers. These two factors could be separate or related. Perhaps young people raised by heavy drinking parents choose their friends to also be heavy drinkers, and that peers exert no special influence beyond that of the parents. On the other hand, young people may be influenced by heavy drinking peers whether their parents are heavy drinkers or not. Simple, bivariate analyses are unlikely to help decide the issue one way or the other, and multivariate analyses are required. An interesting departure from recent bivariate analyses is contained in the paper by Prendergast and Schaefer (1974). It employed linear and multivariate analysis in examining the correlates of the frequency of drinking and of drunkenness. They found that certain child-rearing practices, especially lax maternal control and parental rejection, correlated more with adolescent drinking and drunkenness than did parents’ drinking or attitudes toward drinking. They did not use a scale of problem drinking but only frequency of drinking and drunkenness as dependent variables. In the present study parental control and rejection are studied as correlates of problem drinking using the scale developed by Park (1958) and Williams (1967). Currently, little is known of the correlates of problem drinking among high school students, and only a few studies (Globetti and Chamblin, 1966; Prendergast and Schaefer, 1974) have been made, usually without multivariate analysis or with small samples. Peer influence over drinking has been recognized in a number of studies (e.g., Alexander and Campbell, 1967), but peer variables were not included in Prendergast and Schaefer’s study. Also, their study involved a small sample-only 57 students. The present study investigates the relative importance of demographic characteristics, parental drinking, peer drinking, and parental rejection and control on problem drinking in a
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
907
large sample of high school students. In addition, factors related to drinking milieu (i.e., drinking in cars, drinking away from home, etc.), parents’ knowledge about the student’s drinking, and students’ knowledge about alcohol were included. The general aim was to determine whether the main correlates of problem drinking seemed to lie within the drinker, with his parents or friends as models. Of course, very different educational and preventive approaches might be taken, depending upon the answers. This study employs a large sample--1,439 students-in examining the same types of correlates as did Prendergast and Schaefer, with the addition of peer drinking, drinking milieu, parents’ knowledge about drinking, and students’ knowledge about alcohol. It utilizes a statistical technique, Multiple Classification Analysis, which allows a comparison of the unique contribution of each variable in predicting problem drinking. It was predicted that peer drinking, drinking outside of parental view (e.g., away from home, in cars), lax maternal control, and parental rejection would be positively associated with problem drinking scores. No prediction was made about the relative importance of peer, parental, and demographic factors as correlates to problem drinking.
METHOD The survey was conducted in two schools in central Ontario during 1975. One school is located in a small town and included students from rural areas, semirural areas, and small towns. The other is located in a small city nearby and takes very few rural students. The schools were chosen because they have large student populations and because they represent most of the students in a small city and much of its surrounding rural area. In all, 1,608 students were included, with 607 from one school and 971 from the other. All students who were at school on the day of the survey were included. However, 169 questionnaires were discarded because they were incomplete, to leave a sample for analysis of 1,439 students. Although 1,183 of the 1,439 students were drinkers, only 1,171 had completed all problem drinking items and thus were used in the study of correlates of problem drinking. The survey used an anonymous questionnaire which was completed in class time. The questionnaire contained items on: (i) Demographic characteristics, e.g., age, sex, grade
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
SMART AND GRAY
Whether the mother and the father drank (derived from Cutler and Storm’s survey, 1973) How often students had been “high,” “tight,” “drunk,” and sick in the past 4 weeks (derived from Cutler and Storm’s survey, 1973) Quantity and frequency of drinking (Williams, 1967) Problem drinking symptoms (scale devised by Williams, 1967) Social complications from drinking (scale devised by Park, 1958, and Williams, 1967) Knowledge about alcohol (scale of items devised by Goodstadt et al., 1975) Rejection and control scales for both the mother and father (Prendergdst and Schaefer, 1974) Questions on whether their friends drank alcoholic beverages or not A 9-item lie scale developed by Eysenck and Eysenck (1964) The present study is concerned with the prediction of problem drinking on the 7-item scale developed by Park and Williams (Items iv-vi). Considerable reliability and validity data have been developed for all of the scales used.
RESULTS The questionnaire was completed by all students in Grades 9 through 13 in one school and by all students in Grades 10 through 13 in the other school. Both groups should represent the total population for each school, except that Grade 9 was not tested in one of them. Comparisons between the schools are not shown here because there were so many similarities in the frequency of drinking and heavy drinking in the two schools. The data for the two schools have been combined for analysis. Frequency of Students’ Drinking More than four-fifths of students (86%) said that they drank alcoholic beverages. Table 1 shows the frequency of drinking in the past year, and it can be seen that 21.3% drank as often as once a week. Only 2.2% of drinkers drank every day. The most commonly used beverage is beer (35.6%), although many
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
909
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
Table 1 Frequency of Drinking Alcoholic Beverages in Past Year (drinkers only)
Less than once a month About once a month 2 or 3 times a month Once a week About 2 to 5 times a week Nearly every day Total
N
%
334 176 288 252 107 26 1,183
28.2 14.9 24.4 21.3 9.0 2.2
students report that wine and liquor are drunk about as often as is beer. Only a minority of drinkers (19.6%) drink mostly liquor. Most students had a few drinks on each usual occasion. Twenty-nine percent of the students usually had only one drink at a sitting; however, 30.4%reported having an average of four or more drinks. Problem Drinking Scores
The dependent variable, scores on the problem drinking scale, was highly positively skewed. Many students obtained a score of 0 or 1 but very few students received a score of 6 or 7 (Table 2). Two-fifths of the students reported having no problems concerning their drinking. Another two-fifths of the students had very few problems, and received a score of Table 2 Frequency of Students in Each Category of the Problem Drinking Scale ~
Score
Frequency
Percentage
Cumulative percentage
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
480 212 150 137 113 54 19 6 1,171
40.9 18.1 12.8 11.8 9.7 4.6 1.6 0.5 100.0
40.9 59.0 71.8 83.6 93.3 97.9 99.5 100.0 100.0
Total
SMART A N D GRAY
910
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
less than 4 on the problem drinking scale. The remaining students (16.4%) obtained a score greater than 3, with 25 or 2.1% of the 16.4% at the extreme (score of 6 or 7). The mean score received was 1.54. As the degree of skewness of the problem drinking scale would have produced misleading results, a transformation was necessary. The output scores were normalized using a logarithmic transformation. Selection of Predictors
The predictor variables were: 3 demographic variables (age, sex, and grade average); 7 family background variables (father’s occupation, father’s and mother’s drinking, father and mother rejection, and control scale); 6 drinking variables (drinking in cars, drinking milieu, knowledge scale of alcohol, type of alcoholic beverage, parents’ knowledge of drinking, and friends’ drinking); and 1 other variable (lie scale score). Before proceeding with the analysis, an F test was computed to determine whether the predictor chosen, by itself, explained a significant proportion of the variance. Six of the 17 variables were not significant (age, father’s occupation, lie score, mother and father control, father rejection) and were no longer considered as potential predictors of problem drinking. In order to determine the relationship between each predictor, considered alone, and the problem drinking score, the mean for the entire sample is compared to the means for the various classes of the predictor being considered. These means can be presented as absolute values or deviations from the grand mean (Table 3). Positive deviations from the grand mean imply additional indications of problem drinking; negative deviations imply fewer than average problems. It is evident from the table that the following 11 characteristics, taken one at a time, are associated with high scores on the problem drinking scale: Demographic Variable Characteristics: 1) Being male 2) Having a low grade average ’ Family Background Characteristics: 1) Having a mother and/or father who drink frequently (i.e., more than once a week) 2) Feeling rejected by mother 3) Feeling controlled by father
Drinking Characteristics:
Table 3 Relationship of Demographic, Family Background, and Drinking Characteristics to Problem Drinking Scale (mean number of indications of problem drinking: 1.54)
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
Predictor Sex : Male Female Grade average: Less than 50% 50-65 % 66-75 % Greater than 75 % Father drinking: Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Mother drinking: Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Friends’ ‘drinking: Few drink/few drunk Few drink/most drunk Most drink/few drunk Most drinklmost drunk Type of beverage: One type Two types Three types Parents’ knowledge of drinking: Yes No Know but not extent Drinking in cars : None Half More than half Mother rejection: Mostly rejected Little rejection Knowledge scale: Little knowledge Moderate knowledge Great deal of knowledge Drinking milieu : First home/usual home First home/usual other First other/usual home First other/usual other First unknown/usual home First unknown/usual other
% of
Deviation from mean
cases
Unadjusted
Adjusted
43.6 56.4
.06 -.05
-.04
4.7 39.6 39.1 16.6
.I4 .02 -.02 -.05
.04 -.01 .01 -.01
6.8 20.2 39.6 33.4
-.06 -.06 .01 .04
-.05 -.05 .01 .01
16.1 36.8 32.5 14.7
-.03 -.02 -.02
-.02
0.9 8.3 14.1 76.7
-.09
-.03 -.03
.04
.01 -.15 .03
.05
-.01 -.01
.03
-.05 .01
66.2 28.0 5.8
-.03
-.02
.05 .06
.05
54.0 14.9 31.1
-.07 -.01 .12
-.02 -.03 .04
75.8 21.0 3.2
-.06 .18 .26
-.04 .12 .20
21.4 78.6
.06 - .02
.04 -.01
41.7 47.3 11.0
- .05 .03 .07
-.03 .02
30.1 25.0 2.5 23.9 4.7 13.7
-,14 .06 .08 .06 -0.8 .ll
-.08 .03
.04
.04
.06 .03
-.04
.07
SMART AND GRAY
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
Drinking 2 or 3 types of alcoholic beverages Drinking in cars, especially for those that drink more than half the time in cars Having drank first away from home Lack of parents’ knowledge about the extent of the drinking Receiving a high knowledge score Having friends who get drunk Multivariate Analysis
As many predictors tend to be interrelated, bivariate analyses are unlikely to identify the most important correlates of problem drinking. Multiple regression attempts to find the best prediction equation and evaluate its accuracy as well as controlling for other confounding factors. The particular technique employed was the Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA). The advantages of MCA over more conventional regression techniques is that it accepts predictor variables in as weak a form as nominal scales and does not assume linearity of the regression. There are basically three limitations in the program:
1) The dependent variable may be dichotomous or intervally scaled, as long as it is not extremely skewed 2) The predictors must not be too highly intercorrelated, i.e., having categories that are not closely overlapped 3) The data must be understandable in terms of an additive model, i.e., no interaction among the predictors The first limitation was eliminated by normalizing the problem drinking scores using a logarithmic transformation. Overlap was found to be present in four predictors-grade average, friends’ drinking, type of alcoholic beverage, and drinking milieu. The data were recoded by combining the offending categories. The MCA program was used to check for interaction effects. Fortunately, no interaction was detected among the predictors. When the data were in a suitable form, the 11 predictors were entered into an MCA predicting scores of the problem drinking scale. Table 4 lists the predictors in order of importance in predicting the scores of the problem drinking scale. The first column gives the proportion of the total variance in problem drinking scores accounted for by each predictor (q’). This measure includes the unique effect of the predictor plus the effect of
913
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
Table 4 Predictors Listed in Order of Relative Importance
Predictor
y2 (adjusted)
Drinking in cars Drinking milieu Sex Knowledge scale Parents’ knowledge of drinking Type of alcoholic beverage Mother rejection Friends’ drinking Father drinking Mother drinking Grade average Multiple R2(unadjusted) .331 Multiple RZ (adjusted) .318
.167 .129 .037 .025
.093 .022 .012
Marginal proportion of variance .069
.028 .028 .010 .008
.m
Shared variance .lo4 .lo1 .009 .015 .085 .013
.006
.057
.w
.006 .053
.018 .007 .011
.003
.015
.001 .Ooo
.006 .011
that predictor that results from its correlation with other predictors in the analysis. The adjusted value of q2 is used in order that the variance explained is an unbiased estimate. The second and third columns break down the variance explained by each predictor into the total variance in the criterion which can be attributed solely to the particular predictor in question (marginal proportion of variance explained) and the variance explained by this variable that is shared by the other predictors in the analysis (shared variance) respectively. The multiple RZ provides an estimate of the total variance in the criterion explainable by the set of predictors operating together. The multiple R2 is adjusted for degrees of freedom. The variance explained by all the predictors, taken as a set, is 31.8%. “Drinking in Cars” is shown to account for the most variance. Although “Drinking in Cars” by itself accounts for 16.7% of the variance, its unique explanatory power is 6.9%, indicating that the remainder of its predictive power is shared by other variables. “Drinking Milieu” and “Sex” explain the same amount of variance uniquely, 2.8%, although the adjusted qz value of “Drinking Milieu” is much larger than that of “Sex.” Therefore, most of the variance explained by the predictor “Drinking Milieu” is shared with other predictors whereas the variance explained by “Sex” is mostly unique. The other variable which accounts for at least 1% of the
SMART AND GRAY
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
914
variance uniquely is “Knowledge Scale.” The remaining seven variables (Parents’ Knowledge of Drinking, Type of Alcoholic Beverage, Mother Rejection, Father and Mother Drinking, Friends Drinking, and Grade Average) have a unique explanatory power of less than 1%. A question of great importance is whether the inclusion of these seven variables, which account for less than 1% of the marginal proportion of the variance, leads to a significant increase in the accuracy of predicting problem drinking. Would dropping any of these seven variables lead to a significant decrease in the amount of variance predicted? An F test was employed so as to test the significance between R2 (adjusted) when all the predictors are included in the run and the R2 (adjusted) when one of seven variables was removed. Only “Mother Drinking” and “Grade Average” did not make a significant contribution to the prediction, and dropping these two predictors would not lead to a significant decrease in the amount of variance explained. Thus the chief correlates of problem drinking are the remaining nine variables (Drinking in Cars, Drinking Milieu, Sex, Knowledge Scale, Parents’ Knowledge of Drinking, Type of Alcoholic Beverage, Mother Rejection, Friends’ Drinking, and Father Drinking). It is quite evident that problem drinking scores have more than one set of correlatesparents, peers, and self. However, with this population, parents and friends become secondary factors. In this analysis more than half (five) of the nine primary correlates lie within the student and his own behavior, specifically: his sex; where he had his first drink, i.e., home or other; where he usually does his drinking, i.e., home or other-in cars, bars, taverns, etc.; his knowledge of alcohol; and the number of different types of alcoholic beverages he consumes, i.e., beer only, beer and wine, etc. The eight predictors least important to the prediction are mainly parental correlates: age, lie score, grade average, father’s occupation, mother and father control, father rejection, and mother’s drinking.
DISCUSSION It is not easy to quickly summarize the complex results of this study. Of 17 variables used, six had no significant bivariate relationship to problem drinking scores, i.e., age, father’s occupation, lie score, mother’s and father’s control, and father rejection. All 11 remaining variables explained 31.8% of the variance in problem drinking scores. The most important of the 11 variables (having a unique explanatory power of greater than 1%)in predicting problem drinking were: “Drinking in Cars”
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
915
(16.7% of variance); “Drinking Milieu,” i.e., not drinking at home; “Sex,” i.e., being male; and “Knowledge Scale.” Although the other seven variables explained less than 1% of the variance, only two-“Mother Drinking” and “Grade Average” -did not contribute significantly to the prediction. The latter variables, together with those with no significant bivariate relationship did not contribute to the multivariate prediction of problem drinking scores. In general, the results indicate that the major variables are demographic or within the drinker’s own experience and drinking behavior, i.e., his sex, where he had his first drink, where he usually does his drinking, and his knowledge of alcohol. Five of the eight least important predictors were related to parents, i.e., father’s occupation, mother’s and father’s control, father’s rejection, and mother’s drinking. In total, the results provide little support for the prediction from Prendergast and Schaefer’s study (1974). Neither the degree of control exercised by either parent nor father’s rejection had any bivariate relationship to problem drinking. “Mother Drinking” had no real contribution as a multivariate predictor. Only “Father Drinking” and “Mother Rejection” were useful but each explained less than 1% of the variance in problem drinking scores. Prendergast and Schaefer (1974) found that lax maternal control and parental rejection were associated with the frequency of drinking and with drunkenness. However, it should be noted that their sample was small and that drunkenness and problem drinking are not synonymous with high school populations. About 50% of the present sample reported drunkenness, but only 16.4% had a problem drinking score greater than 3. Our results suggest that with this population neither parental nor peer variables are the best correlates of problem drinking, and that in several cases they are not at all useful as correlates. Not many studies have been made of problem drinking among high school students with which the present study could be compared. Globetti and Chamblin (1966) used a 9-point problem drinking scale based on Straus and Bacon’s study of college students (1953). They studied 169 high school students and found that problem drinkers tended to begin drinking at an earlier age, as in the present study to be males, and to have their first drinks outside the home. A large variety of other characteristics also differentiated problem drinkers, i.e., more of their parents and friends were drinkers, they were less involved in religious activities, less involved in family life, and showed more deviant behavior (e.g. stealing, truancy, running away from home). The general picture developed of the high school problem drinker was one of deviance and isolation from family and
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
916
SMART AND GRAY
educational controls. It should be noted, however, that this study involved only bivariate analyses and a much smaller sample than did the present study. Complete similarity in all of the relevant findings should not be expected between the two studies. The current results do suggest that situational factors and those directly related to drinking are most correlated with problem drinking. Factors such as sex, where the person had his first drink (away from home), where he usually drinks (in cars), and knowledge about alcohol are the most important correlates. Perhaps social variables such as provided by parents and peers are helpful in explaining social drinking or even drunkenness among high school students. However, problem drinking is a more unusual behavior, perhaps with attendant psychological difficulties and physical dependence; such problems could easily become removed from social controls. Because drinking in cars and having the first drink away from home are not common among high school students and indicate a lack of usual social and family controls, the results suggest that a factor of social isolation or alienation is an important element in problem drinking. Blane et al. (1968) found evidence of marked associations between alienation in general, normlessness, powerlessness, and attitudes toward irresponsible use of alcohol among high school students. Further research on alienation and problem drinking is suggested by the present study. The results suggest that prevention programs, e.g., treatment for high risk drinkers, could center their attention on males, those who drink away from home and parental controls, and those who are alienated and socially isolated. They also suggest that merely increasing knowledge about alcohol will not be sufficient and that more effective approaches, even family-therapy, will be necessary to prevent high risk adolescents from becoming problem drinkers. REFERENCES ALEXANDER, C.N., and CAMPBELL, E.Q. Peer influences on adolescent drinking. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 28: 44-453, 1967. BLANE, H.T., HILL, M.J., and BROWN, E. Alienation, self-esteem and attitudes toward drinking in high school students. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 2 9 350-354, 1968. CUTLER, R., and STORM, T. Drinking Practises in Three British Columbia Cities. II, Student Survey. Vancouver, British Columbia: Alcoholism Foundation of British Columbia, 1973. EYSENCK, H.J., and EYSENCK, S.B.G. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press, 1964.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
917
GLOBETTI, G., and CHAMBLIN, F. Problem Drinking among High School Students in a Mississippi Community. State College, Mississippi: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Mississippi State University, 1966. GOODSTADT, M.S. Personal communication, Addiction Research Foundation, 1975. PARK, P. Problem Drinking and Social Orientation. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Yale University, 1958. PRENDERGAST, T.J., Jr., and SCHAEFER, E.S. Correlates of drinking and drunkenness among high school students. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 35: 232-242, 1974. SMART, R.G. The New Drinkers: Teenage Use and Abuse of Alcohol. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, 1976. STACEY, B., and DAVIES, J. Drinking behaviour in childhood and adolescence: An evaluative review. Br. J . Addict. 65: 203-212, 1970. STRAUS, R., and BACON, S.D. Drinking in College. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1953. WILLIAMS, A.F. Validation of a college problem-drinking scale. J. Project. Tech. Pers. Assess. 31: 33-40, 1967.
The International Journal of the Addictions, 14(7), 905-917, 1979
Parental and Peer Influences as Correlates of Problem Drinking among High School Students Reginald G. Smart Gaye Gray Addiction Research Foundation Toronto, Ontario M5S 2S1, Canada
Abstract
This study was concerned with the relative importance of parental, peer, and demographic variables in predicting problem drinking among young people. A survey of drinking and drinking problems was conducted among 1,439 students in two schools in Ontario. A Multiple Classification Analysis was employed to identify variables with a significant and unique predictive power. It was found that problem drinking is best predicted with situational factors and those directly connected with drinking. Parental and peer variables had little unique predictive power. Problem drinkers were more often male, had their first drinks away from home, and usually drank in cars. Numerous factors have been found to be associated with problem drinking among young people; they can be broadly summarized as 905 Copyright @ 1979 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Neither this work nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
YO6
SMART AND GRAY
demographic, parental, and peer influences. Problem drinking is more common among males, older students, those whose friends drink heavily, and those whose parent’s drink heavily (see Stacey and Davies, 1970; Smart, 1976 for reviews). Although demographic characteristics, parental influences, and peer drinking have been shown to be important in some studies, their relative importance has rarely been assessed in the same study, although Prendergast and Schaefer’s (1974) study is a valuable recent exception. Usually when demographic, peer, and parental variables have been included, it has been difficult to determine the relative importance of each factor and whether each has a unique explanatory value (for example, Straus and Bacon, 1953; Globetti and Chamblin, 1966). For example, a study such as Globetti and Chamblin’s may find that problem drinkers have heavy drinking parents and heavy drinking peers. These two factors could be separate or related. Perhaps young people raised by heavy drinking parents choose their friends to also be heavy drinkers, and that peers exert no special influence beyond that of the parents. On the other hand, young people may be influenced by heavy drinking peers whether their parents are heavy drinkers or not. Simple, bivariate analyses are unlikely to help decide the issue one way or the other, and multivariate analyses are required. An interesting departure from recent bivariate analyses is contained in the paper by Prendergast and Schaefer (1974). It employed linear and multivariate analysis in examining the correlates of the frequency of drinking and of drunkenness. They found that certain child-rearing practices, especially lax maternal control and parental rejection, correlated more with adolescent drinking and drunkenness than did parents’ drinking or attitudes toward drinking. They did not use a scale of problem drinking but only frequency of drinking and drunkenness as dependent variables. In the present study parental control and rejection are studied as correlates of problem drinking using the scale developed by Park (1958) and Williams (1967). Currently, little is known of the correlates of problem drinking among high school students, and only a few studies (Globetti and Chamblin, 1966; Prendergast and Schaefer, 1974) have been made, usually without multivariate analysis or with small samples. Peer influence over drinking has been recognized in a number of studies (e.g., Alexander and Campbell, 1967), but peer variables were not included in Prendergast and Schaefer’s study. Also, their study involved a small sample-only 57 students. The present study investigates the relative importance of demographic characteristics, parental drinking, peer drinking, and parental rejection and control on problem drinking in a
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
907
large sample of high school students. In addition, factors related to drinking milieu (i.e., drinking in cars, drinking away from home, etc.), parents’ knowledge about the student’s drinking, and students’ knowledge about alcohol were included. The general aim was to determine whether the main correlates of problem drinking seemed to lie within the drinker, with his parents or friends as models. Of course, very different educational and preventive approaches might be taken, depending upon the answers. This study employs a large sample--1,439 students-in examining the same types of correlates as did Prendergast and Schaefer, with the addition of peer drinking, drinking milieu, parents’ knowledge about drinking, and students’ knowledge about alcohol. It utilizes a statistical technique, Multiple Classification Analysis, which allows a comparison of the unique contribution of each variable in predicting problem drinking. It was predicted that peer drinking, drinking outside of parental view (e.g., away from home, in cars), lax maternal control, and parental rejection would be positively associated with problem drinking scores. No prediction was made about the relative importance of peer, parental, and demographic factors as correlates to problem drinking.
METHOD The survey was conducted in two schools in central Ontario during 1975. One school is located in a small town and included students from rural areas, semirural areas, and small towns. The other is located in a small city nearby and takes very few rural students. The schools were chosen because they have large student populations and because they represent most of the students in a small city and much of its surrounding rural area. In all, 1,608 students were included, with 607 from one school and 971 from the other. All students who were at school on the day of the survey were included. However, 169 questionnaires were discarded because they were incomplete, to leave a sample for analysis of 1,439 students. Although 1,183 of the 1,439 students were drinkers, only 1,171 had completed all problem drinking items and thus were used in the study of correlates of problem drinking. The survey used an anonymous questionnaire which was completed in class time. The questionnaire contained items on: (i) Demographic characteristics, e.g., age, sex, grade
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
SMART AND GRAY
Whether the mother and the father drank (derived from Cutler and Storm’s survey, 1973) How often students had been “high,” “tight,” “drunk,” and sick in the past 4 weeks (derived from Cutler and Storm’s survey, 1973) Quantity and frequency of drinking (Williams, 1967) Problem drinking symptoms (scale devised by Williams, 1967) Social complications from drinking (scale devised by Park, 1958, and Williams, 1967) Knowledge about alcohol (scale of items devised by Goodstadt et al., 1975) Rejection and control scales for both the mother and father (Prendergdst and Schaefer, 1974) Questions on whether their friends drank alcoholic beverages or not A 9-item lie scale developed by Eysenck and Eysenck (1964) The present study is concerned with the prediction of problem drinking on the 7-item scale developed by Park and Williams (Items iv-vi). Considerable reliability and validity data have been developed for all of the scales used.
RESULTS The questionnaire was completed by all students in Grades 9 through 13 in one school and by all students in Grades 10 through 13 in the other school. Both groups should represent the total population for each school, except that Grade 9 was not tested in one of them. Comparisons between the schools are not shown here because there were so many similarities in the frequency of drinking and heavy drinking in the two schools. The data for the two schools have been combined for analysis. Frequency of Students’ Drinking More than four-fifths of students (86%) said that they drank alcoholic beverages. Table 1 shows the frequency of drinking in the past year, and it can be seen that 21.3% drank as often as once a week. Only 2.2% of drinkers drank every day. The most commonly used beverage is beer (35.6%), although many
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
909
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
Table 1 Frequency of Drinking Alcoholic Beverages in Past Year (drinkers only)
Less than once a month About once a month 2 or 3 times a month Once a week About 2 to 5 times a week Nearly every day Total
N
%
334 176 288 252 107 26 1,183
28.2 14.9 24.4 21.3 9.0 2.2
students report that wine and liquor are drunk about as often as is beer. Only a minority of drinkers (19.6%) drink mostly liquor. Most students had a few drinks on each usual occasion. Twenty-nine percent of the students usually had only one drink at a sitting; however, 30.4%reported having an average of four or more drinks. Problem Drinking Scores
The dependent variable, scores on the problem drinking scale, was highly positively skewed. Many students obtained a score of 0 or 1 but very few students received a score of 6 or 7 (Table 2). Two-fifths of the students reported having no problems concerning their drinking. Another two-fifths of the students had very few problems, and received a score of Table 2 Frequency of Students in Each Category of the Problem Drinking Scale ~
Score
Frequency
Percentage
Cumulative percentage
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
480 212 150 137 113 54 19 6 1,171
40.9 18.1 12.8 11.8 9.7 4.6 1.6 0.5 100.0
40.9 59.0 71.8 83.6 93.3 97.9 99.5 100.0 100.0
Total
SMART A N D GRAY
910
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
less than 4 on the problem drinking scale. The remaining students (16.4%) obtained a score greater than 3, with 25 or 2.1% of the 16.4% at the extreme (score of 6 or 7). The mean score received was 1.54. As the degree of skewness of the problem drinking scale would have produced misleading results, a transformation was necessary. The output scores were normalized using a logarithmic transformation. Selection of Predictors
The predictor variables were: 3 demographic variables (age, sex, and grade average); 7 family background variables (father’s occupation, father’s and mother’s drinking, father and mother rejection, and control scale); 6 drinking variables (drinking in cars, drinking milieu, knowledge scale of alcohol, type of alcoholic beverage, parents’ knowledge of drinking, and friends’ drinking); and 1 other variable (lie scale score). Before proceeding with the analysis, an F test was computed to determine whether the predictor chosen, by itself, explained a significant proportion of the variance. Six of the 17 variables were not significant (age, father’s occupation, lie score, mother and father control, father rejection) and were no longer considered as potential predictors of problem drinking. In order to determine the relationship between each predictor, considered alone, and the problem drinking score, the mean for the entire sample is compared to the means for the various classes of the predictor being considered. These means can be presented as absolute values or deviations from the grand mean (Table 3). Positive deviations from the grand mean imply additional indications of problem drinking; negative deviations imply fewer than average problems. It is evident from the table that the following 11 characteristics, taken one at a time, are associated with high scores on the problem drinking scale: Demographic Variable Characteristics: 1) Being male 2) Having a low grade average ’ Family Background Characteristics: 1) Having a mother and/or father who drink frequently (i.e., more than once a week) 2) Feeling rejected by mother 3) Feeling controlled by father
Drinking Characteristics:
Table 3 Relationship of Demographic, Family Background, and Drinking Characteristics to Problem Drinking Scale (mean number of indications of problem drinking: 1.54)
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
Predictor Sex : Male Female Grade average: Less than 50% 50-65 % 66-75 % Greater than 75 % Father drinking: Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Mother drinking: Never Seldom Occasionally Frequently Friends’ ‘drinking: Few drink/few drunk Few drink/most drunk Most drink/few drunk Most drinklmost drunk Type of beverage: One type Two types Three types Parents’ knowledge of drinking: Yes No Know but not extent Drinking in cars : None Half More than half Mother rejection: Mostly rejected Little rejection Knowledge scale: Little knowledge Moderate knowledge Great deal of knowledge Drinking milieu : First home/usual home First home/usual other First other/usual home First other/usual other First unknown/usual home First unknown/usual other
% of
Deviation from mean
cases
Unadjusted
Adjusted
43.6 56.4
.06 -.05
-.04
4.7 39.6 39.1 16.6
.I4 .02 -.02 -.05
.04 -.01 .01 -.01
6.8 20.2 39.6 33.4
-.06 -.06 .01 .04
-.05 -.05 .01 .01
16.1 36.8 32.5 14.7
-.03 -.02 -.02
-.02
0.9 8.3 14.1 76.7
-.09
-.03 -.03
.04
.01 -.15 .03
.05
-.01 -.01
.03
-.05 .01
66.2 28.0 5.8
-.03
-.02
.05 .06
.05
54.0 14.9 31.1
-.07 -.01 .12
-.02 -.03 .04
75.8 21.0 3.2
-.06 .18 .26
-.04 .12 .20
21.4 78.6
.06 - .02
.04 -.01
41.7 47.3 11.0
- .05 .03 .07
-.03 .02
30.1 25.0 2.5 23.9 4.7 13.7
-,14 .06 .08 .06 -0.8 .ll
-.08 .03
.04
.04
.06 .03
-.04
.07
SMART AND GRAY
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
Drinking 2 or 3 types of alcoholic beverages Drinking in cars, especially for those that drink more than half the time in cars Having drank first away from home Lack of parents’ knowledge about the extent of the drinking Receiving a high knowledge score Having friends who get drunk Multivariate Analysis
As many predictors tend to be interrelated, bivariate analyses are unlikely to identify the most important correlates of problem drinking. Multiple regression attempts to find the best prediction equation and evaluate its accuracy as well as controlling for other confounding factors. The particular technique employed was the Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA). The advantages of MCA over more conventional regression techniques is that it accepts predictor variables in as weak a form as nominal scales and does not assume linearity of the regression. There are basically three limitations in the program:
1) The dependent variable may be dichotomous or intervally scaled, as long as it is not extremely skewed 2) The predictors must not be too highly intercorrelated, i.e., having categories that are not closely overlapped 3) The data must be understandable in terms of an additive model, i.e., no interaction among the predictors The first limitation was eliminated by normalizing the problem drinking scores using a logarithmic transformation. Overlap was found to be present in four predictors-grade average, friends’ drinking, type of alcoholic beverage, and drinking milieu. The data were recoded by combining the offending categories. The MCA program was used to check for interaction effects. Fortunately, no interaction was detected among the predictors. When the data were in a suitable form, the 11 predictors were entered into an MCA predicting scores of the problem drinking scale. Table 4 lists the predictors in order of importance in predicting the scores of the problem drinking scale. The first column gives the proportion of the total variance in problem drinking scores accounted for by each predictor (q’). This measure includes the unique effect of the predictor plus the effect of
913
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
Table 4 Predictors Listed in Order of Relative Importance
Predictor
y2 (adjusted)
Drinking in cars Drinking milieu Sex Knowledge scale Parents’ knowledge of drinking Type of alcoholic beverage Mother rejection Friends’ drinking Father drinking Mother drinking Grade average Multiple R2(unadjusted) .331 Multiple RZ (adjusted) .318
.167 .129 .037 .025
.093 .022 .012
Marginal proportion of variance .069
.028 .028 .010 .008
.m
Shared variance .lo4 .lo1 .009 .015 .085 .013
.006
.057
.w
.006 .053
.018 .007 .011
.003
.015
.001 .Ooo
.006 .011
that predictor that results from its correlation with other predictors in the analysis. The adjusted value of q2 is used in order that the variance explained is an unbiased estimate. The second and third columns break down the variance explained by each predictor into the total variance in the criterion which can be attributed solely to the particular predictor in question (marginal proportion of variance explained) and the variance explained by this variable that is shared by the other predictors in the analysis (shared variance) respectively. The multiple RZ provides an estimate of the total variance in the criterion explainable by the set of predictors operating together. The multiple R2 is adjusted for degrees of freedom. The variance explained by all the predictors, taken as a set, is 31.8%. “Drinking in Cars” is shown to account for the most variance. Although “Drinking in Cars” by itself accounts for 16.7% of the variance, its unique explanatory power is 6.9%, indicating that the remainder of its predictive power is shared by other variables. “Drinking Milieu” and “Sex” explain the same amount of variance uniquely, 2.8%, although the adjusted qz value of “Drinking Milieu” is much larger than that of “Sex.” Therefore, most of the variance explained by the predictor “Drinking Milieu” is shared with other predictors whereas the variance explained by “Sex” is mostly unique. The other variable which accounts for at least 1% of the
SMART AND GRAY
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
914
variance uniquely is “Knowledge Scale.” The remaining seven variables (Parents’ Knowledge of Drinking, Type of Alcoholic Beverage, Mother Rejection, Father and Mother Drinking, Friends Drinking, and Grade Average) have a unique explanatory power of less than 1%. A question of great importance is whether the inclusion of these seven variables, which account for less than 1% of the marginal proportion of the variance, leads to a significant increase in the accuracy of predicting problem drinking. Would dropping any of these seven variables lead to a significant decrease in the amount of variance predicted? An F test was employed so as to test the significance between R2 (adjusted) when all the predictors are included in the run and the R2 (adjusted) when one of seven variables was removed. Only “Mother Drinking” and “Grade Average” did not make a significant contribution to the prediction, and dropping these two predictors would not lead to a significant decrease in the amount of variance explained. Thus the chief correlates of problem drinking are the remaining nine variables (Drinking in Cars, Drinking Milieu, Sex, Knowledge Scale, Parents’ Knowledge of Drinking, Type of Alcoholic Beverage, Mother Rejection, Friends’ Drinking, and Father Drinking). It is quite evident that problem drinking scores have more than one set of correlatesparents, peers, and self. However, with this population, parents and friends become secondary factors. In this analysis more than half (five) of the nine primary correlates lie within the student and his own behavior, specifically: his sex; where he had his first drink, i.e., home or other; where he usually does his drinking, i.e., home or other-in cars, bars, taverns, etc.; his knowledge of alcohol; and the number of different types of alcoholic beverages he consumes, i.e., beer only, beer and wine, etc. The eight predictors least important to the prediction are mainly parental correlates: age, lie score, grade average, father’s occupation, mother and father control, father rejection, and mother’s drinking.
DISCUSSION It is not easy to quickly summarize the complex results of this study. Of 17 variables used, six had no significant bivariate relationship to problem drinking scores, i.e., age, father’s occupation, lie score, mother’s and father’s control, and father rejection. All 11 remaining variables explained 31.8% of the variance in problem drinking scores. The most important of the 11 variables (having a unique explanatory power of greater than 1%)in predicting problem drinking were: “Drinking in Cars”
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
915
(16.7% of variance); “Drinking Milieu,” i.e., not drinking at home; “Sex,” i.e., being male; and “Knowledge Scale.” Although the other seven variables explained less than 1% of the variance, only two-“Mother Drinking” and “Grade Average” -did not contribute significantly to the prediction. The latter variables, together with those with no significant bivariate relationship did not contribute to the multivariate prediction of problem drinking scores. In general, the results indicate that the major variables are demographic or within the drinker’s own experience and drinking behavior, i.e., his sex, where he had his first drink, where he usually does his drinking, and his knowledge of alcohol. Five of the eight least important predictors were related to parents, i.e., father’s occupation, mother’s and father’s control, father’s rejection, and mother’s drinking. In total, the results provide little support for the prediction from Prendergast and Schaefer’s study (1974). Neither the degree of control exercised by either parent nor father’s rejection had any bivariate relationship to problem drinking. “Mother Drinking” had no real contribution as a multivariate predictor. Only “Father Drinking” and “Mother Rejection” were useful but each explained less than 1% of the variance in problem drinking scores. Prendergast and Schaefer (1974) found that lax maternal control and parental rejection were associated with the frequency of drinking and with drunkenness. However, it should be noted that their sample was small and that drunkenness and problem drinking are not synonymous with high school populations. About 50% of the present sample reported drunkenness, but only 16.4% had a problem drinking score greater than 3. Our results suggest that with this population neither parental nor peer variables are the best correlates of problem drinking, and that in several cases they are not at all useful as correlates. Not many studies have been made of problem drinking among high school students with which the present study could be compared. Globetti and Chamblin (1966) used a 9-point problem drinking scale based on Straus and Bacon’s study of college students (1953). They studied 169 high school students and found that problem drinkers tended to begin drinking at an earlier age, as in the present study to be males, and to have their first drinks outside the home. A large variety of other characteristics also differentiated problem drinkers, i.e., more of their parents and friends were drinkers, they were less involved in religious activities, less involved in family life, and showed more deviant behavior (e.g. stealing, truancy, running away from home). The general picture developed of the high school problem drinker was one of deviance and isolation from family and
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
916
SMART AND GRAY
educational controls. It should be noted, however, that this study involved only bivariate analyses and a much smaller sample than did the present study. Complete similarity in all of the relevant findings should not be expected between the two studies. The current results do suggest that situational factors and those directly related to drinking are most correlated with problem drinking. Factors such as sex, where the person had his first drink (away from home), where he usually drinks (in cars), and knowledge about alcohol are the most important correlates. Perhaps social variables such as provided by parents and peers are helpful in explaining social drinking or even drunkenness among high school students. However, problem drinking is a more unusual behavior, perhaps with attendant psychological difficulties and physical dependence; such problems could easily become removed from social controls. Because drinking in cars and having the first drink away from home are not common among high school students and indicate a lack of usual social and family controls, the results suggest that a factor of social isolation or alienation is an important element in problem drinking. Blane et al. (1968) found evidence of marked associations between alienation in general, normlessness, powerlessness, and attitudes toward irresponsible use of alcohol among high school students. Further research on alienation and problem drinking is suggested by the present study. The results suggest that prevention programs, e.g., treatment for high risk drinkers, could center their attention on males, those who drink away from home and parental controls, and those who are alienated and socially isolated. They also suggest that merely increasing knowledge about alcohol will not be sufficient and that more effective approaches, even family-therapy, will be necessary to prevent high risk adolescents from becoming problem drinkers. REFERENCES ALEXANDER, C.N., and CAMPBELL, E.Q. Peer influences on adolescent drinking. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 28: 44-453, 1967. BLANE, H.T., HILL, M.J., and BROWN, E. Alienation, self-esteem and attitudes toward drinking in high school students. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 2 9 350-354, 1968. CUTLER, R., and STORM, T. Drinking Practises in Three British Columbia Cities. II, Student Survey. Vancouver, British Columbia: Alcoholism Foundation of British Columbia, 1973. EYSENCK, H.J., and EYSENCK, S.B.G. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: University of London Press, 1964.
Subst Use Misuse Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Queen's University on 01/03/15 For personal use only.
PROBLEM DRINKING AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
917
GLOBETTI, G., and CHAMBLIN, F. Problem Drinking among High School Students in a Mississippi Community. State College, Mississippi: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Mississippi State University, 1966. GOODSTADT, M.S. Personal communication, Addiction Research Foundation, 1975. PARK, P. Problem Drinking and Social Orientation. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Yale University, 1958. PRENDERGAST, T.J., Jr., and SCHAEFER, E.S. Correlates of drinking and drunkenness among high school students. Q. J. Stud. Alcohol 35: 232-242, 1974. SMART, R.G. The New Drinkers: Teenage Use and Abuse of Alcohol. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, 1976. STACEY, B., and DAVIES, J. Drinking behaviour in childhood and adolescence: An evaluative review. Br. J . Addict. 65: 203-212, 1970. STRAUS, R., and BACON, S.D. Drinking in College. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1953. WILLIAMS, A.F. Validation of a college problem-drinking scale. J. Project. Tech. Pers. Assess. 31: 33-40, 1967.
