Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 195–216 | Cite as

Testing the generalizability of intervening mechanism theories: Understanding the effects of adolescent drug use prevention interventions

  • Stewart I. Donaldson
  • John W. Graham
  • William B. Hansen


Outcome research has shown that drug prevention programs based on theories of social influence often prevent the onset of adolescent drug use. However, little is known empirically about the processes through which they have their effects. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate intervening mechanism theories of two program models for preventing the onset of adolescent drug use. Analyses based on a total of 3077 fifth graders participating in the Adolescent Alcohol Prevention Trial revealed that both normative education and resistance training activated the causal processes they targeted. While beliefs about prevalence and acceptability significantly mediated the effects of normative education on subsequent adolescent drug use, resistance skills did not significantly predict subsequent drug use. More impressively, this pattern of results was virtually the same across sex, ethnicity, context (public versus private school students), drugs (alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana) and levels of risk and was durable across time. These findings strongly suggest that successful social influence-based prevention programs may be driven primarily by their ability to foster social norms that reduce an adolescent's social motivation to begin using alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana.

Key Words

school-based drug prevention normative education resistance training social influence alcohol use smoking marijuana use 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aitkin, M. A., and Longford, N. (1986). Statistical modeling in school effectiveness studies.J. Roy. Stat. Soc. 149A: 1–43.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (1987). Estimation of linear models with incomplete data. In Clogg, C. (ed.),Sociological Methodology 1987, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 71–103.Google Scholar
  3. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1988). The effects of school-based substance use education—a meta-analysis.J. Drug Educ. 18: 243–264.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51: 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory.New Direct. Prog. Eval. 33: 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biglan, A., Gallison, C., Ary, D., and Thompson, R. (1985). Expired air carbon monoxide and saliva thiocyanate: Relationships to self-reports of marijuana and cigarette smoking.Addictive Behavior 10: 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollen, K. A. (1987). Total, direct, and indirect effects in structural equation models. In Clogg, C. (ed.),Sociological Methodology 1987, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 37–69.Google Scholar
  8. Botvin, G. J., and Wills, T. S. (1985). Personal and social skills training: Cognitive-behavioral approaches to substance abuse prevention. In Bell, C., and Battjes, R. (eds.),Prevention Research: Deterring Drug Abuse Among Children and Adolescents, NIDA Research Monograph No. 63, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 8–49.Google Scholar
  9. Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., Gordon, A. S., Whiteman, M., and Cohen, P. (1990). The psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A Family interactional approach.Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 166: No. 2.Google Scholar
  10. Bruvold, W. H., and Rundall, T. G. (1988). A meta-analysis and theoretical review of school based tobacco and alcohol intervention programs.Psychol. Health 2: 53–78.Google Scholar
  11. Bryk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Applying Hierarchical Linear Model to measurements of change problems.Psychol. Bull. 101: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, H. T. (1990).Theory-Driven Evaluations, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Chen, H. T., and Rossi, P. H. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach.Eval. Rev. 7: 283–302.Google Scholar
  14. Chen, H. T., and Rossi, P. H. (1987). The theory-driven approach to validity.Eval. Prog. Plan. 10: 95–103.Google Scholar
  15. Ellickson, P. L., and Bell, R. M. (1990). Drug prevention in junior high: A multi-site longitudinal test.Science 247: 1299–1305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Flay, B. R. (1985). Psychosocial approaches to smoking prevention: A review of findings.Health Psychol. 4: 449–488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleming, J. P., Kellman, S. G., and Brown, C. H. (1982). Early predictors of age at first use of alcohol, marijuana and cigarettes.Drug Alcohol Depend. 9: 285–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, J. W., and Donaldson, S. I. (1993). Evaluating interventions with differential attrition: The importance of nonresponse mechanisms and use of follow-up data.J. Appl. Psychol. 78: 119–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, J. W., Flay, B. R., Johnson, C. A., Hansen, W. B., and Collins, L. M. (1984a). Group comparability: A multiattribute utility measurement approach to the use of random assignment with small numbers of aggregated units.Eval. Rev. 8: 247–260.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, J. W., Flay, B. R., Johnson, C. A., Hansen, W. B., Grossman, L. M., and Sobel, J. L. (1984b). Reliability of self-report measures of drug use in prevention research: Evaluation of the Project SMART questionnaire via the test-retest reliability matrix.J. Drug Educ. 14: 175–193.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham, J. W., Rohrbach, C. A., Hansen, W. B., Fhay, B. R., and Johnson, C. A. (1989). Convergent and discriminant validity for assessment of skill in resisting a role play Alcohol Offer.Behavioral Assessment 11: 353–379.Google Scholar
  22. Graham, J. W., Johnson, C. A., Hansen, W. B., Flay, B. R., and Gee, M. (1990). Drug use prevention programs, gender, and ethnicity: Evaluation of three seventh-grade Project SMART cohorts.Prev. Med. 19: 305–313.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Graham, J. W., Marks, G. S., and Hansen, W. B. (1991). Social influence processes affecting adolescent substance use.J. Appl. Psychol. 76: 291–298.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Graham, J. W., Collins, N. L., Donaldson, S. I., and Hansen, W. B. (1993a). Understanding and controlling for response bias: Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod data. In Steyer, R., Wender, K. F., and Widamen, K. F. (eds.),Psychometric Methodology. Proceedings of the 7th European meeting of the Psychometric Society in Trier (pp. 585–590). Gustav Fisher Verlag, Stuttgart and New York.Google Scholar
  25. Graham, J. W. Donaldson, S. I., Hansen, W. B., Rohrbach, L., and Unger, J. (1994). Tracing the process of longitudinal prevention program effects with hierarchical data and complex missing data patterns. (submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  26. Graham, J. W., Hofer, S. M., and Piccinin, A. M. (1993c). Analysis with missing data in drug prevention research. In Collins, L. M., and Seitz, L. A. (eds.),Advances in Data Analysis for Prevention Intervention Research, NIDA Research Monograph 108, Washington, DC (in press).Google Scholar
  27. Hansen, W. B. (1992). School-based substance abuse prevention: A review of the state of the art in curriculum, 1980–1990.Health Educ. Res. Theory Pract. 7: 403–430.Google Scholar
  28. Hansen, W. B., and Graham, J. W. (1991). Preventing alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use among adolescents: One-year results of the Adolescent Alcohol Prevention Trial.Prev. Med. 20: 414–430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hansen, W. B., Collins, L. M., Malotte, C. K., Johnson, C. A., and Fielding, J. E. (1985). Attrition in prevention research.J. Behav. Med. 8: 261–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen, W. B., Graham, J. W., Wolkenstein, B. H., Lundy, B. Z., Pearson, J. L., Flay, B. R., and Johnson, C. A. (1988a). Differential impact of three alcohol prevention curricula on hypothesized mediating variables.J. Drug Educ. 18: 143–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hansen, W. B., Johnson, C. A., Flay, B. R., Graham, J. W., and Sobel, J. L. (1988b). Affective and social influences approaches to the prevention of multiple substance abuse among seventh grade students: Results from project SMART.Prev. Med. 17: 135–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hansen, W. B., Tobler, N. S., and Graham, J. W. (1990). Attrition in substance abuse prevention research: A meta-analysis of 85 longitudinally-followed cohorts.Eval. Rev. 14: 677–685.Google Scholar
  33. Hansen, W. B., Graham, J. W., Wolkenstein, B. H., and Rohrbach, L. A. (1991). Program integrity as a moderator of prevention program effectiveness: Results for fifth-grade students in the Adolescent Alcohol Prevention Trial.J. Stud. Alcohol 52: 568–579.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., and Miller, J. M. (1992). Risk and Protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.Psychol. Bull. 112: 64–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1987).Lisrel VII: User's Reference Guide, Scientific Software, Mooreville, IN.Google Scholar
  36. Kandell, D. B. (1982). Epidemiological and psychosocial perspectives on adolescent drug use.J. Am. Acad. Clin. Psychiatr. 21: 328–347.Google Scholar
  37. Kandell, D. B. (1986). Processes of peer influence in adolescence. In Silberstein, R. (ed.),Development as Action in Context: Problem Behavior and Normal Youth Development, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 203–228.Google Scholar
  38. Kreft, I. G. G. (1993). Multilevel models for hierarchically nested data: Potential applications in substance abuse prevention research. In Collins, L. M., and Seitz, L. A. (eds.),Advances in Data Analysis for Prevention Intervention Research, NIDA Research Monograph 108, Washington, DC (in press).Google Scholar
  39. Levanthal, H., and Cleary, P. D. (1980). The smoking problem: A review of the research and theory in behavioral risk modification.Psychol. Bull. 88: 370–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lipsey, M. W. (1988). Practice and malpractice in evaluation research.Eval. Pract. 9: 5–24.Google Scholar
  41. Lipsey, M. W. (1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments.New Direct. Prog. Eval. 57: 5–38.Google Scholar
  42. Lipsey, M. W., and Pollard, J. A. (1989). Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from.Eval. Prog. Plan 12: 317–328.Google Scholar
  43. Little, R. J. A., and Rubin, D. B. (1987).Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Little, R. J. A., and Rubin, D. B. (1989). The analysis of social science data with missing values.Sociol. Methods Res. 18: 292–326.Google Scholar
  45. MacKinnon, D. P., Johnson, C. A., Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., Hansen, W. B., Flay, B. R., and Wang, E. Y. (1991). Mediating mechanisms in a school-based drug prevention program: First-year effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project.Health Psychol. 10: 164–172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. McCaul, K. D., and Glasgow, R. E. (1985). Preventing adolescent smoking: What have we learned about treatment construct validity?Health Psychol. 4: 361–387.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Mosokowitz, J. M. (1989). The primary prevention of alcohol problems: A critical review of the research literature.J. Stud. Alcohol 50: 54–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Muthen, B., Kaplan, D., and Hollis, M. (1987). On structural equation modeling with data that are not missing completely at random.Psychometrika 52: 431–462.Google Scholar
  49. Newcomb, M. D., and Bentler, P. M. (1986). Substance use and ethnicity: Differential impact of peer and adult models.J. Psychol. 120: 83–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Pechacek, T. F., Murray, D. M., Luepker, R. V., Mittlemark, M. B., and Johnson, C. A. (1984). Measurement of adolescent smoking behavior: Rationale and methods.J. Behav. Med. 7: 123–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Pentz, M. A., MacKinnon, D. P., Dwyer, J., Flay, B. R., and Johnson, C. A. (1987). Evaluating alcohol resistance skills training using multi-trait, multi-method role playing skills assessment.Health Educ. Res. Theory Pract. 2: 401–407.Google Scholar
  52. Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., MacKinnon, D. P., Flay, B. R., Hansen, W. B., Wang, E. Y. I., and Johnson, C. A. (1989). A multicommunity trial for primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse.JAMA 261: 3259–3266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Rachael, J. V., Guess, L. L., Hubbard, R. L., Maisto, S. A., Cavanaugh, E. R., Waddel, R., and Benrud, C. H. (1982). Facts for Planning No. 4: Alcohol misuse by adolescents.Alcohol Health Res. World 6: 61–68.Google Scholar
  54. Robins, L. N., and Pryzbeck, T. R. (1985). Age of onset of drug use as a factor in drug and other disorders. In Jones, C. L., and Battjes, R. J. (eds.),Etiology of Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention, NIDA Research Monograph No. 56, DHHS Publication No. ADM 85-1335 U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, pp. 178–192.Google Scholar
  55. Rohrbach, L. A., Graham, J. W., Hansen, W. B., Flay, B. R., and Johnson, C. A. (1987). Evaluation of resistance skills training using multitrait-multimethod role play skills assessment.Health Educ. Res. 2: 401–407.Google Scholar
  56. Rubin, D. B. (1987).Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  57. Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. In Tuma, N. B. (ed.),Sociological Methodology 1986, American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 159–186.Google Scholar
  58. Tobler, N. S. (1986). Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs: Quantitative outcome results of program participants compared to a control or comparison group.J. Drug Issues 16: 537–567.Google Scholar
  59. United States Department of Health and Human Services (1989).Reducing the Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress, DHHS Publication No. CDC 89-84111, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  60. United States Department of Health and Human Services (1991).Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives, DHHS Publication No. PHS 91-50212, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stewart I. Donaldson
    • 1
  • John W. Graham
    • 1
  • William B. Hansen
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Department of Preventive MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaAlhambra
  2. 2.Bowman Gray School of MedicineWake Forest UniversityWinston-Salem

Personalised recommendations