The Effect of Parental Monitoring and Peers On Adolescent Alcohol Behavior

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Federal state autonomous educational institution for higher professional education

National research university higher school of economics

St. Petersburg School of Social Sciences and Area Studies

Bachelor's project

The Effect of Parental Monitoring and Peers On Adolescent Alcohol Behavior

Valedinskii Pavel Ivanovich

Structure

Your paper should be compiled in the following order: title page; abstract; keywords; main text introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion; acknowledgments; declaration of interest statement; references; appendices (as appropriate); table(s) with caption(s) (on individual pages); figures; figure captions (as a list).

Word Limits

Please include a word count for your paper. There are no word limits for papers in this journal.

Other requirements concerning the text formatting and article submission can be found on the journal web page:

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?show=instructions&journalCode=wcas20#prep.

There are also submission requirements from the publisher with more precise guidelines regarding text formatting: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/tf_quick_guide/

Introduction

Alcohol consumption is one of the most common risk behaviors among adolescents. While teenagers' expectations of drinking are positive, in fact, alcohol consumption leads to many negative consequences such as a variety of offenses, especially drunk driving (Pelham & Dishion, 2018), injury and premature death (Gore et al., 2011), early sexual debut (Coleman & Cater, 2005) or poor academic performance (Koch & McGeary, 2005). The involvement of adolescents in alcohol-related behavior is influenced by many factors, including their social environment (Dielman et al., 1991), personality traits, i.e. extraversion or agreeableness (Gallego et al., 2018), or even, as has been shown in contemporary research, genetic lyability to risky behavior (Li et al., 2017). Among the above reasons, the most obvious and most interesting for sociology are the teenager's parents and the peer environment with which he or she interacts mostly. There are various theories explaining the influence of parents and peers on risky behavior of adolescents and alcohol behavior in particular, and it seems impossible to single out a certain theoretical mechanism that would allow unambiguously describe all their influence. The most popular in the context of adolescent drinking and antisocial behavior in general are various learning theories and control theories. Following upon the founders of these paradigms, this paper will use the most well-known learning theories - Social Learning Theory (Kytle & Bandura, 1978) and Differential Association Theory (Sutherland, 1947) - as well as control theories such as Social Control Theory (Nye, 1958) and Social Bond Theory (Hirschi, 2017) to explain teenage involvement in alcohol - related practices.

Literature review

Parents

Studies on risky behavior among adolescents often consider parents to be a preventive or deterrent factor. In such studies, relationships with parents and parental control come to the forefront. A variety of сontrol theories are used to describe how parental control can influence a teenager's commitment to risky behaviors (and alcohol consumption in particular), including the classic Social Control Theory (Nye, 1958) and Social Bond Theory (Hirschi, 2017). The fundamental position of control theories is that every person has a propensity for anti-social behavior since birth and it is only through socialization people learn how to behave properly in society, thereby reducing deviance to a minimum. The social environment and family are treated as factors that play a preventive role and help adolescents either avoid or minimize risk-taking practices. Despite the fact that sociological control theories are used to describe many factors of conformal behavior, the authors of Social Control Theory and Social Bond Theory argue that parenting and attachments to parents are the most helpful in protecting teenagers from wayward behavior (Hirschi, 2017; Nye, 1958).

Control by parents can be direct and indirect. There are three main components of what Nye (1958) has defined as "direct parental controls": normative regulation, monitoring and punishment. Normative regulation refers to the process of setting rules by parents, different kinds of restrictions and criteria for children's behavior. The second component of direct controls is monitoring. Monitoring is the supervision or observation by parents of a child's behavior, activities and whether or not the child complies with the rules set by the parents or violates them. Lack or complete lack of supervision of a child's behavior can lead to the child not learning to be responsible for his or her actions and thus to more easily engage in all kinds of delinquent and risky practices (Wells & Rankin, 1988). Many studies have shown that poorly monitored adolescents are more likely to engage in antisocial and delinquent behavior (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987), more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior (Metzler et al., 1994) and more likely to use alcohol and drugs (Brooks-Russell et al., 2015; Flannery et al., 1994). A third element of direct parental control is discipline or punishment, which is the imposition of sanctions on deviant behavior of adolescents (Wells & Rankin, 1988). It also includes the designation by parents of a range of consequences for a child's violation of the rules of conduct established in the family.

Indirect control is realized through the attachment of the adolescent to certain social groups (i.e. family), which prevents him from engaging in antisocial behavior that would not be approved by the members of these groups. According to the model proposed by Hirschi (2017), there are four components ("ties") which encourage the adolescent to follow a generally accepted social order: attachment, involvement, belief, and commitment. The most significant of these are attachment and involvement (Wells & Rankin, 1988). These indirect or "relational" (Hagan, 1989) controls are implemented through a child's attachment to his parents or the adolescent's involvement in conventional activities (i.e. sport sections, art clubs), which simply do not leave time for delinquent activities. Regarding the attachment, Hirschi states that "even when not physically present, parents can indirectly control their children if they are psychologically present when the temptation to commit a crime appears. If, in the situation of temptation, no thought is given to parental reaction, the child is to this extent free to commit the act". In other words, the author argues that when teenagers are emotionally close to their parents, they are more likely to worry about their normative expectations and resist various delinquent impulses; and when these emotional ties are weak, parental expectations have very little deterrent effect and teenagers are free to break the law (Akers, 2013; Wells & Rankin, 1988). The extent to which parental attachment is an important factor in predicting a teenager's alcohol behavior can be found in Hahm et. al. Al (2003), where researchers have attempted to show how a migrant adolescent's level of acculturation will affect alcohol consumption in students with high and low parental attachment rates. The study found that the effect of acculturation on youth drinking behaviors was only present in those who demonstrated very low levels of parental attachment (drinking chances were 11 times higher in the highly acculturated group than in the least acculturated group), and when the level of attachment becomes moderate or high, drinking chances no longer vary between acculturated groups. Thus, researchers concluded that acculturation "per se" was not a risk factor in predicting alcohol behavior until it was accompanied by low levels of parental attachment (Hahm et al., 2003).

While many studies of adolescent risky behavior most often focus on either direct parental controls or indirect controls, it must be recognized that, in addition to the different forms of control, there is one important unifying circumstance - control is only really effective if both direct and indirect controls are present in the relationship between parents and their child. While indirect (relational) control is a restriction for adolescents arising from their emotional connection with their parents (and loved ones), direct control is the direct action that parents consciously take to limit their child's wrongdoing (Burton et al., 1995). Wells and Rankin (1988) explored this issue and found that direct controls were at least as effective in preventing a teenager from engaging in delinquent activity as indirect controls. Moreover, they also found that when "punishment... is too strict, frequent, or severe [it] can lead to a greater probability of delinquency regardless of parental attachments". Evidence of the cumulative effect of direct and indirect controls on adolescent behavior can also be found in the work of Cernkovich and Giordano (1987), where the authors highlighted the importance of emotional attachment of the child to his parents and monitoring by them in preventing deviant behavior. Moreover, it has been found that these family interaction variables have an equal effect in preventing antisocial behavior regardless of family composition (in both-parent, mother-only, and mother/stepfather homes).

The above theories and studies considered parents as a protective factor that helps control and protect the teenager from risky practices. Despite this point, it should be noted that there are also a number of researchers who refute or partially refute this view in their studies, describing parental control as a factor that increases the likelihood that a teenager will engage in alcohol behavior. In a research on the relationship between negative parental control and subsequent alcohol consumption by adolescents from different ethnic groups, Creemers (2017) argues that negative parental control, such as parental permissiveness, directly increases the likelihood that a teenager will either try alcohol more early or will consume it more frequently, because there is no parental restraint in doing so. Ebbert (2018), elaborating on this view, argues that in addition to permissiveness, paternal authoritarianism is also a manifestation of negative parental control, which leads to the development of anxiety sensitivity and disorders such as neuroticism and depression, which in turn increases the likelihood that the teenager will drink more alcohol. alcohol behavior adolescent

Peers

In many studies peer influences are considered appear to be a risk factor that provokes antisocial and drinking behaviors among adolescents (Brook et al., 1986; Dishion & Loeber, 1985; Lopez-Vergara et al., 2017). Despite this, it should be recognized that the influence of peers seems very ambiguous, and only one peculiarity of this influence can be confidently discussed - the influence of peers depends mainly on the practices of behavior prevailing in a particular peer group (Coyle et al., 2016; Dielman et al., 1993; Martinez et al., 2015). One of the fundamental theories describing peer behavior as a determining factor of their influence is the Social Learning Theory of Albert Bandura. According to the theory, human behavior is caused by the mutual influence of behavioral, cognitive and environmental factors on him, in other words, not only the environment or personality factors influencing human behavior, but the individual himself plays an active role in creating environmental conditions (Kytle & Bandura, 1978). According to Social Learning Theory, the main mechanism describing a teenager's learning to act in one way or another is called vicarious learning. While growing, a person observes and tries to learn or in some way replicate the actions of other people that he observes. The risk behavior of adolescents in this case is considered as the result of adverse external conditions affecting the adolescent during the period of his maturity, that is, others (i.e. peers) lead to the adolescents bad behavior, but not himself (Wills et al., 1996). Ward and Gryczynski (2009) in their study of the impact of living conditions (in this case, campus/single/parent life) on college students' alcohol behavior tried to apply Bandura's social learning theory as a theoretical framework. Using data from more than 10,000 college and university students in the United States, researchers have found a significant association between students' living conditions and their drinking behavior, which in the research is explained by the mechanism of vicarious learning - teenagers living on campus showed significantly higher rates of alcohol consumption because, being constantly among peers, they were much more likely to observe the situation of drinking alcohol by young people, compared to students who lived with their parents (Ward & Gryczynski, 2009).

In addition to direct observation of other people's behavior, adolescents learn to behave in a certain way in society by mastering certain social norms. According to the Differential Association Theory of Edwin Sutherland, which is an integral part of social learning perspective, a teenager learns certain social norms that exist in a certain society (group) by interacting and associating himself with members of this group - "people learn in interaction with significant groups in their lives evaluative definitions (norms, attitudes, orientations) of the behavior as good or bad" (Kandel, 1980). There are two main types of social norms that can affect young people's alcohol behavior. The first type is the injunctive norms that relate directly to the attitudes that a teenager has regarding alcohol consumption, in other words, whether or not he considers alcohol consumption to be a socially acceptable and appropriate activity. The second type is a descriptive norm that focuses directly on the adolescent's own alcohol-related behavior (Borsari & Carey, 2003). In studies describing how social norms among peers can influence a teenager's drinking behavior, the mechanism of influence of social norms seems quite clear: if a teenager perceives alcohol behavior among peers to be greater than his own, then a decrease in alcohol consumption is unlikely, since personal consumption seems less risky than the existing social norm. Conversely, if a teenager perceives personal drinking as exceeding the norm, he will review and adjust his personal drinking habits (Borsari & Carey, 2003). Even though peer pressure is often seen as negative in the context of young people's drinking behavior, the concept of social norms also allows for an explanation of possible positive peer influence in certain cases. For example, Martinez (2015), an American sociologist who has explored protective factors of alcohol behavior among Indian youth, argues that injunctive norms can have a preventive effect on adolescent alcohol behavior. In this case, injunctive norms manifest themselves in the form of anger or frustration caused by the behavior observed, and a teenager who intends to use alcohol may anticipate such a reaction in his friends and, as a result, abandon the initial desire to drink (Martinez et al., 2015).

Methods

Data and sample

The data were obtained during the longitudinal project "Health and risk behavior of adolescents". A school-based, self-reported survey of college students in St. Petersburg was conducted. A total of 13 colleges/vocational schools participated in the survey and 1299 students were selected to participate in the survey. The questionnaires were completed under the supervision of the laboratory assistant who conducted the survey and the school workers. All respondents, their parents, and the college administration signed a written agreement to participate in the survey. The research project conformed entirely to ethical standards and was approved by The Institutional Review Board of the National Research University Higher School of Economics.

The sample included 513 girls and 786 boys aged 15 to 20 years, where 16 years is the mean age. At the time of data collection, all students were in their first year of study.

Measures

Alcohol behavior

Alcohol behavior among adolescents in this study is measured by one of the questions from the questionnaire, which shows the frequency of alcohol consumption. They were asked, "How often have you been drinking in the last six months, i.e., drinking alcohol?" and the question contained seven items (never or almost never; 1 or 2 times in six months; 1 time per month or less; 2-3 times per month; 1-2 times per week; 3 to 5 times per week; every day or almost every day). The distribution of answers indicates that the majority of students (42%) report having never, or almost never, tasted alcohol in the last six months. The distribution of answers then begins to decrease significantly: 77 people (6%) consumed "1-2 times a week"; 26 people (2%) consumed "3-5 times a week"; and only 15 people (1%) consumed "every day or almost every day". Perhaps this distribution of answers is in part related to the fact that the project from which the data were taken had a longitudinal design and therefore the survey was not anonymous. And since drinking alcohol by underage people is illegal in Russia, some students may have decided not to note the actual frequency of alcohol consumption fearing possible consequences.

Monitoring

The monitoring variable is represented by three questions from the survey, showing how a teenager perceives his parents' (mothers') level of awareness of "how he or she spends his or her free time", "how he or she spends his or her pocket money" and "how he or she spends time at parties and at friends' house". Questions have a Likert scale with 4 points: "doesn't know at all", "knows a bit", "knows quite well" and "knows everything in detail". From these questions a scale of perceived monitoring by parents was created (Cronbach's alpha = .757). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that all three items loaded onto the scale, with factor loadings all above .71.

Attachment

The attachment variable reflects the level of the relationship, or more precisely how emotionally attached the adolescent is to his parents. Students were asked to indicate their level of agreement on the following statements on the questionnaire: "I love my parents"; "I respect my parents" and "I care about my parents". Using the 5-point Likert scale, they answered that they "agree"; "rather agree"; "rather disagree"; and "disagree" with these statements. The responses to all three statements were then combined to form the attachment scale of teenagers to their parents (Cronbach's alpha = .764). Confirmatory factor analysis showed that all three items were loaded onto the scale, with factor loadings all above .69.

Peers alcohol behavior

The alcohol behavior of peers in this study refers to the extent to which alcohol consumption is prevalent among close friends of respondents. This variable was derived from two other questions: "how many close friends do you have?" and "how many of them have never consumed alcohol?". The proportion method was then used to calculate the share of close friends of each respondent who have already consumed alcohol. Unlike the monitoring and attachment scales, this variable is not a latent construct and is introduced into the main model without calculating the error.

Analysis

The main purpose of this study was to test the direct and indirect effects of parental monitoring and parental attachment on adolescent drinking rates by using SEM. The main purpose was also to check the influence of peers by including a variable in the model showing the share of close friends of respondents who had already tried alcohol. A hypothesized model based on theory and literature (Akers & Jennings, 2015; Andrade et al., 2019; Hirschi, 2017; Kytle & Bandura, 1978) is presented in Figure 1. Monitoring is a proximal variable that will mediate the impact of parental attachment on adolescent alcohol behavior. It is worth mentioning that during the analysis the direct effect of attachment on alcohol behavior was tested, but no confirmation was found - there is only a partial correlation between attachment and the dependent variable, which is caused by the effect of the monitoring variable as a mediating factor. Structural equation modeling was performed in the R program using the "Lavaan" package to evaluate how hypothesized model fit the data and also to check the direct and indirect effects of variables on the alcohol behavior. Structural equation modeling was based on Kline's (Kline, 2016) techniques describing the construction of models with latent constructs and a categorical dependent variable. The overall model fit was tested with multiple goodness-of-fit indices, such as comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and root mean square of approximation (RMSEA). An adjusted r-square was calculated showing the proportion of dispersion of the dependent variable that was explained using the proposed model. It should also be noted that there is a clusterization of data (13 clusters - vocational schools). In order to take this into account, fixed effects were added to the model, but the results have not changed. Gender and age of respondents were also included in the model as control variables.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics are generally presented in Table 1. A total of 1,299 teenagers participated in the study, but after all missed and incorrect answers were removed, the total number of cases used in the analysis was 1,019 (78%). Among these, 462 (45%) were girls and 557 (55%) were boys, with an average age of 16 years. The majority of respondents (42%) had never or hardly ever consumed alcohol, and the majority of respondents agreed with statements regarding their attachment to their parents and perceived monitoring by them. Regarding the alcohol behavior of peers, in this case close friends, it is worth saying that many respondents have a share of friends who have consumed alcohol at least once in their lives is equal to zero, and those whose close friends have tried alcohol are significantly less in the sample.

A model predicting adolescent alcohol behavior

Figure 2 illustrates a structural model that predicts the alcohol behavior of adolescents who are students of vocational schools in St. Petersburg. Alcohol behavior of teenagers is expressed in the frequency of alcohol consumption in the period of 6 months before the day of the survey. The main predictors in this model are monitoring by parents, the level of a teenager's attachment to his parents, and what alcohol behavior is common among the informants' peers who are close friends. The age of the informants and gender serve as control variables in the model. The model shows good fit indices (CMIN/DF = 3.271; CFI = 0.918, TLI = 0.889; RMSEA = 0.047 and SRMR = 0.051) and explains approximately 26 percent of the variance in the dependent variable.

Standardized path coefficients in the model (Figure 2) are represented by single-headed arrows, and all paths are significant. Variable that reflects the drinking behavior of peers (close friends) has the strongest positive effect (0.46) on the dependent variable. A latent construct reflecting the level of parental monitoring perceived by a teenager has a direct negative effect (-0.17) on the dependent variable. Adolescents' attachment to their parents expressed in the model by the latent construct "attachment" has an indirect negative effect (-0.06) on the dependent variable and a direct positive effect (0.34) on the latent construct "monitoring".

Discussion

This study examined the impact of parental control and peer environment on adolescent alcohol behavior. The influence of all factors used in the structural model is analyzed simultaneously. The final structural model fits the data quite well and is capable to predict about twenty-six percent of the variance of the dependent variable.

On the part of parental control, two latent constructs were analyzed, representing the respondents' answers concerning the level of parental monitoring and emotional attachment to parents, which are perceived by teenagers. Monitoring is directly related to the dependent variable and has a significant negative impact on alcohol behavior. The findings are consistent with those of other researchers on the preventive effect of parental monitoring on adolescent alcohol behavior (Brooks-Russell et al., 2015; Ryan et al., 2010).

Unlike monitoring, there is no direct connection between emotional attachment and alcohol behavior, but only an indirect negative effect, where the mediator is monitoring. In other words, the stronger the teenager's attachment to his parents, the higher the rates of monitoring and parental awareness of his friends and activities become, which, in turn, has a negative effect on alcohol behavior. The findings that a teenager's attachment to his parents reduces (not directly) the level of drinking behavior among teenagers are consistent with the basic principles of Social Bond Theory regarding such form of indirect control as attachment, or, as Travis Hirschi called it, "psychological presence" of parents (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987). Summarizing the results obtained on parental influence on the alcohol behavior of adolescents, it should be noted that in the final structural model, parental influence is characterized as preventive, i.e., monitoring by parents and emotional attachment of a teenager to his parents leads to a decrease in the level of alcohol consumption.

Regarding the influence of peers, it should be mentioned that the variable reflecting the proportion of close friends of the respondent who have tried alcohol at least once in their life has a direct positive effect on the dependent variable. In other words, the higher the proportion of friends who have tried alcohol, the higher the rates of alcohol behavior of the teenager. The findings that peer alcohol behavior exacerbates a teenager's alcohol consumption are found in most research papers on the topic (Dishion & Loeber, 1985; Simons-Morton et al., 2015) and are most consistent with the basic assumption of Social Learning Theory that teenagers tend to imitate the behavior of those in their immediate environment. Another interesting result is that the peer effect was the strongest observed effect in the model. This is partly consistent with the findings of some researchers that it is peers who are the first to predict the antisocial (alcohol) behavior of adolescents, and then their parents (Brook et al., 1986; Dishion & Loeber, 1985).

Limitations

Even though the existing structural model fits the data quite well and is strong in explaining alcoholic behavior among teenagers, it does not reflect all possible factors associated with alcoholic behavior. The regression coefficients obtained may not only reflect the tested direct and indirect effects of the observed variables, but also include the effects of those factors that were not included in the model, but are certainly also significant in predicting alcohol behavior, as in the case of personal characteristics, motivations or genetic predisposition. In addition, the cross-sectional nature of this study makes it possible to measure associations, but it does not allow to determine causality.

It is also worth noting that the adolescents participating in this study are students of vocational schools, and some studies have shown that alcohol practices are significantly more likely to occur among those adolescents who are enrolled in working-class educational paths (Lushin et al., 2017; Chaveepojkamjorn, 2012; Hanke et al., 2013). The results can be extended to vocational school students, but not to school students who are their peers.

Another aspect of the study is that the scale of perceived monitoring by parents reflects only the monitoring by the mother, as questions were asked about the mother's awareness of the actions of adolescents. Parental control and monitoring by the father (and fatherhood in general) may have an effect different from that of the mother, as has been proven in some studies on this topic (Patock-Peckham & Morgan-Lopez, 2007). It would be interesting to add such a characteristic to the analysis, but there was no such possibility.

References

1. Akers, R. L. (2013). Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315062723

2. Akers, R. L., & Jennings, W. G. (2015). Social Learning Theory. In A. R. Piquero (Ed.), The

3. Handbook of Criminological Theory (pp. 230-240). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118512449.ch12

4. Andrade, M., Pereyra, S. B., & Yang, C. (2019). The direct and indirect effects of family and school-related factors on Latino adolescent substance use. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2019.1685050

5. Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A metaanalytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(3), 331-341. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2003.64.331

6. Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A. S., Nomura, C., & Brook, D. W. (1986). Onset of Adolescent Drinking: A Longitudinal Study of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Antecedents. Advances in Alcohol & Substance Abuse, 5(3), 91-110. https://doi.org/10.1300/J251v05n03_07

7. Brooks-Russell, A., Conway, K. P., Liu, D., Xie, Y., Vullo, G. C., Li, K., Iannotti, R. J., Compton, Z. W., & Simons-Morton, B. (2015). Dynamic Patterns of Adolescent Substance Use: Results From a Nationally Representative Sample of High School Students. Journal of

8. Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76(6), 962-970. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.962

9. Burton, V. S., Evans, T. D., Kethineni, S. R., Cullen, F. T., Gregory Dunaway, R., & Payne, G. L. (1995). The impact of parental controls on delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(2), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(95)00009-F

10. Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND DELINQUENCY *.

11. Criminology, 25(2), 295-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00799.x Chaveepojnkamjorn, W. (2012). Alcohol consumption patterns among vocational school students in central Thailand. The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 43(6), 1560-1567.

12. Coleman, L. M., & Cater, S. M. (2005). A Qualitative Study of the Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Risky Sex in Adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(6), 649-661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-7917-6

13. Coyle, C., Bramham, J., Dundon, N., Moynihan, M., & Carr, A. (2016). Exploring the Positive Impact of Peers on Adolescent Substance Misuse. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 25(2), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2014.896761

14. Creemers, H. E., Spanakis, P., Delforterie, M. J., & Huizink, A. C. (2017). Alcohol use of immigrant youths in The Netherlands: The roles of parents and peers across different ethnic backgrounds: Alcohol use of immigrant youths. Drug and Alcohol Review, 36(6), 761-768. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12555

15. Dielman, T. E., Butchart, A. T., & Shope, J. T. (1993). Structural Equation Model Tests of Patterns of Family Interaction, Peer Alcohol Use, and Intrapersonal Predictors of Adolescent

16. Alcohol Use and Misuse. Journal of Drug Education, 23(3), 273-316. https://doi.org/10.2190/8YXM-K9GB-B8FD-82NQ

17. Dielman, T. E., Butchart, A. T., Shope, J. T., & Miller, M. (1991). Environmental Correlates of

18. Adolescent Substance Use and Misuse: Implications for Prevention Programs.

19. International Journal of the Addictions, 25(sup7), 855-878. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089109071027

20. Dishion, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1985). Adolescent Marijuana and Alcohol Use: The Role of Parents and Peers Revisited. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 11(1-2), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.3109/00952998509016846

21. Ebbert, A. M., Patock-Peckham, J. A., Luk, J. W., Voorhies, K., Warner, O., & Leeman, R. F.

22. (2018). The Mediating Role of Anxiety Sensitivity in Uncontrolled Drinking: A Look at Gender-Specific Parental Influences. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 42(5), 914-925. https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13631

23. Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Torquati, J., & Fridrich, A. (1994). Ethnic and gender differences in risk for early adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23(2), 195-213. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537445

24. Gallego, S., Mezquita, L., Moya-Higueras, J., Ortet, G., & Ibбсez, M. I. (2018). Contribution of the Five Factors of Personality and Peers on Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cross-National Study.

25. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 21, E58. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2018.63

26. Gore, F. M., Bloem, P. J., Patton, G. C., Ferguson, J., Joseph, V., Coffey, C., Sawyer, S. M., & Mathers, C. D. (2011). Global burden of disease in young people aged 10-24 years: A systematic analysis. The Lancet, 377(9783), 2093-2102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60512-6 Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. Rutgers University Press.

27. Hahm, H. C., Lahiff, M., & Guterman, N. B. (2003). Acculturation and parental attachment in Asian-American adolescents' alcohol use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(2), 119-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00058-2

28. Hanke, M., Ulbricht, S., Freyer-Adam, J., John, U., Meyer, C., & Haug, S. (2013). [Tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption among apprentices at vocational schools in West

29. Pomerania, Germany]. Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband Der Arzte Des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 75(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1311621

30. Hirschi, T. (2017). Causes of Delinquency (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081649

31. Kandel, D. B. (1980). Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth. Annual Review of Sociology, 6(1), 235-285. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.001315

32. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Fourth edition). The Guilford Press.

33. Koch, S. F., & McGeary, K. A. (2005). THE EFFECT OF YOUTH ALCOHOL INITIATION ON HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION. Economic Inquiry, 43(4), 750-765. https://doi.org/10.1093/ei/cbi052

34. Kytle, J., & Bandura, A. (1978). Social Learning Theory. Contemporary Sociology, 7(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.2307/2065952 Li, J. J., Cho, S. B., Salvatore, J. E., Edenberg, H. J., Agrawal, A., Chorlian, D. B., Porjesz, B.,

35. Hesselbrock, V., COGA Investigators, & Dick, D. M. (2017). The Impact of Peer Substance Use and Polygenic Risk on Trajectories of Heavy Episodic Drinking Across Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 41(1), 65-75.https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13282

36. Lopez-Vergara, H. I., Merrill, J. E., Janssen, T., & Jackson, K. M. (2017). Social and IndividualLevel Predictors of Alcohol Use Initiation and Escalation: Replicating and Extending Tests of Differential Effects. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 78(3), 452-457.https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2017.78.452

37. Lushin, V., Jaccard, J., Ivaniushina, V., & Alexandrov, D. (2017). Vocational education paths, youth activities, and underage drinking in Russia: How early does the trouble start?

38. International Journal of Drug Policy, 45, 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.05.035

39. Martinez, M. J., Ayers, S. L., Kulis, S., & Brown, E. (2015). The Relationship Between Peer, Parent, and Grandparent Norms and Intentions to Use Substances for Urban American Indian Youths. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 24(4), 220-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2013.812529

40. Metzler, C. W., Noell, J., Biglan, A., Ary, D., & Smolkowski, K. (1994). The social context for risky sexual behavior among adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17(4), 419-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01858012 Nye, F. Ivan. (1958). Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior. New York: Wiley.

41. Patock-Peckham, J. A., & Morgan-Lopez, A. A. (2007). College drinking behaviors: Mediational links between parenting styles, parental bonds, depression, and alcohol problems.

42. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.21.3.297

43. Pelham, W. E., & Dishion, T. J. (2018). Prospective prediction of arrests for driving under the influence from relationship patterns with family and friends in adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 78, 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.004

44. Ryan, S. M., Jorm, A. F., & Lubman, D. I. (2010). Parenting Factors Associated with Reduced Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies. Australian & New

45. Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(9), 774-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048674.2010.501759

46. Simons-Morton, B., Haynie, D., Liu, D., Chaurasia, A., Li, K., & Hingson, R. (2016). The Effect of

47. Residence, School Status, Work Status, and Social Influence on the Prevalence of Alcohol

48. Use Among Emerging Adults. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 77(1), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2016.77.121 Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology, 4th ed. J. B. Lippincott.

49. Ward, B. W., & Gryczynski, J. (2009). Social Learning Theory and the Effects of Living Arrangement on Heavy Alcohol Use: Results From a National Study of College Students.

50. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70(3), 364-372. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2009.70.364

51. Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. H. (1988). DIRECT PARENTAL CONTROLS AND DELINQUENCY*.

52. Criminology, 26(2), 263-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988.tb00841.x

53. Wills, T. A., Mariani, J., & Filer, M. (1996). The Role of Family and Peer Relationships in Adolescent Substance Use. In G. R. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of Social Support and the Family (pp. 521-549). Springer US.

Appendix

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and scale reliability of variables

Note. б = Cronbach's alpha

Figure 1. Hypothesized model predicting alcohol behavior of adolescents

Figure 2. Structural equation model predicting alcohol behavior of adolescents

Размещено на Allbest.ru