Education, income and alcohol misuse: a stress process model
- 951 Downloads
This study applies stress process theory to study and explain the negative association between socioeconomic status (SES) and alcohol misuse. SES is theorized to reduce alcohol misuse by reducing exposure to stressors and increasing access to resources.
The National Co-Morbidity panel sample (N = 4,979) interviewed in 1990–1992 and 2000–2002 are analyzed to estimate direct and indirect pathways between SES and alcohol misuse over time via stressors and resources.
Higher education and income predict decreased alcohol misuse via internal and external locus of control. External locus of control is associated with increased alcohol intake over time, whereas internal locus of control is associated with a lower likelihood of developing future alcohol-related disorders. Income is also associated with increased alcohol misuse via religiosity, which is more common among people of low income, and protects against alcohol misuse.
SES is negatively associated with alcohol misuse because low SES increases people’s perceptions that their lives are determined by luck, and reduces their sense of personal control. However, low income has a countervailing negative influence on alcohol misuse via its association with religiosity.
KeywordsSocioeconomic status Alcohol misuse Stressors Resources
This work was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism at the National Institutes of Health (Grant No. 1R03AA018570-01A1), and by research assistance from Carlene Gonzalez and Victoria Springer.
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 2.US Department of Health and Human Services (2000) Economic costs of alcohol abuse in the United States. NIH, NIAAA, Washington, pp 1117–1128Google Scholar
- 3.SAMSHA (2007) Results from the 2006 national survey on drug use and health: national findings (Series H-32, DHHS Publication No.SMA 07-4293), Office of Applied Studies, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
- 11.Sayette MA (1999) Cognitive theory and research. In: Leonard K, Blane H (eds) Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism, 2nd edn. Guilford, New York, pp 47–291Google Scholar
- 20.Kessler RC (1990–92) National comorbidity survey (computer file). University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, 2nd ICPSR edn. Inter-university consortium for political and social research (producer and distributor), Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
- 21.Swendsen J, Conway KP, Degenhardt L, Glantz M, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Sampson N, Kessler RC (2010) Mental disorders as risk factors for substance use, abuse and dependence: results from the 10-year follow-up of the national comorbidity survey. Addiction 105(6):1117–1128PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2007) Mplus user’s guide, 5th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, pp 1998–2007Google Scholar
- 29.Lugo L (2012) Nones on the rise: one-in-five adults have no religious affiliation. http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/10/NonesOnTheRise-full.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2014
- 32.Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M (2006) Alcoholics anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):CD005032Google Scholar
- 33.Alcoholics Anonymous (2004) Twelve steps and twelve traditions, Alcoholics Anonymous World Services. http://www.aa.org/twelveandtwelve/en_tableofcnt.cfm. Accessed 31 May 2013
- 34.Hester RD, Miller WR (1995) Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: effective alternatives, 2nd edn. Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 35.Ross CE, Mirowsky J (2013) The sense of personal control: Social structural causes and emotional consequences. In: Aneshensel CS, Phelan JC, Bierman A (eds) Handbook of the sociology of mental health, 2nd edn. Springer, Netherlands, pp 379–402Google Scholar