Advertisement

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

, Volume 38, Issue 8, pp 1038–1049 | Cite as

Multilevel Modeling of Direct Effects and Interactions of Peers, Parents, School, and Community Influences on Adolescent Substance Use

  • Megan L. Mayberry
  • Dorothy L. Espelage
  • Brian Koenig
Empirical Research

Abstract

This study tested a social-ecological model of adolescent substance use. Multilevel modeling was used to investigate how systems, such as parents, peers, schools, and communities, directly influence and interact together to influence adolescent substance use. Participants included 14,548 (50.3% female) middle school students who were 78.6% White, 5.4% Biracial, 4.8% Asian, 4.8% Black, and 3.6% Hispanic. Participants completed a survey with scales assessing substance use, peer influences, parental influences, and characteristics of their school and community. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to consider the variation of parental and peer influences on substance use and how schools and communities relate to both substance use and the relationship between substance use and peer and parental factors. Results indicated that a positive school climate and a positive sense of community were associated with less adolescent substance use and that a positive sense of community moderated the relation between peer and parental influence on adolescent substance use, thereby acting as a protective factor.

Keywords

Adolescent risk behavior Substance use Community School Parent Peers Contextual factors 

References

  1. Bond, L., Butler, H., & Thomas, L. (2007). Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breyers, J. M., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., & Dodge, K. A. (2003). Neighborhood structure, parenting processes, and the development of youths’ externalizing behaviors: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, S. A., Aarons, G. A., & Abrantes, A. M. (2001). Adolescent alcohol and drug abuse. In C. E. Walker & M. C. Roberts (Eds.), Handbook of clinical child psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. T. (1996). HLM. Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling with the HLM/2L and HLM/3L programs. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  7. Chassin, L., Presson, C., Todd, M., Rose, J., & Sherman, S. J. (1998). Maternal socialization of adolescent smoking: The intergenerational transmission of parenting and smoking. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1189–1201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleveland, M. J., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Pmery, E. A., & Brody, G. H. (2005). The impact of parenting on risk cognitions and risk behavior: A study of mediation and moderation in a panel of African American adolescents. Child Development, 76, 900–916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denton, R. E., & Kampfe, C. M. (1994). The relationship between family variables and adolescent substance abuse: A literature review. Adolescence, 29, 475–495.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dishion, T. J., Eddy, J. M., Haas, E., Li, F., & Spracklen, K. (1997). Friendships and violent behavior during adolescence. Social Development, 6, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dishion, T. J., Nelson, S. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Premature adolescent autonomy: Family management and deviant peer process in the amplification of problem behavior. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 515–530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (1997). The timing and severity of antisocial behavior: Three hypotheses within an ecological framework. In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp. 205–217). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Reid, J. R. (1988). Parent and peer factors associated with drug sampling and early adolescence: Implications for treatment. National Institute on Drug Abuse: Research Monograph Series, 77, 69–93.Google Scholar
  14. Eitle, D. J., & Eitle, T. M. (2004). School and country characteristics as predictors of school rates of substance use incidents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 408–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development of refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstein, S. E., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Parents, peers, and problem behavior. A longitudinal investigation of the impact of relationship perceptions and characteristics on the development of adolescent problem behavior. Developmental Psychology, 41, 401–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hawkins, J. D., & Fitzgibbon, J. J. (1993). Risk factors and risk behaviors in prevention of adolescent substance abuse. Adolescent Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 4, 249–262.Google Scholar
  19. Hawkins, J. D., Lee Van Horn, M., & Arthur, M. W. (2004). Community variation in risk and protective factors and substance use outcomes. Prevention Science, 5, 213–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In L. E. Lynn & M. F. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings. American Psychologist, 48, 117–126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1998). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the Simplis command language. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Koenig, B., Espelage, D., & Biedndseil, R. (2005). The Dane county youth assessment. Unpublished Report: The Dane County Youth Commission.Google Scholar
  25. Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marta, E. (1997). Parent-adolescent interactions and psychosocial risk in adolescents: An analysis of communication, support, and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 473–487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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, 419–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2007). Found on March 17, http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/underagedrinking.
  29. NIDA. (2008). Found on March 23, http://www.nida.nih.gov/medstaff.html.
  30. Patterson, G. R., Dishion, T. J., & Yoerger, K. (2000). Adolescent growth in new forms of problem behavior: Macro- and micro-peer dynamics. Prevention Science, 1, 3–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The impact of after-school peer contact on early adolescent externalizing problems is moderated by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment. Child Development, 70, 768–778.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Sampson, R. J. (1997). Collective regulation of adolescent misbehavior: Validation results from eighty Chicago neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, S. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Thompson, W. E., Mitchell, J., & Doddler, R. A. (1984). An empirical test of Hirschi’s control theory of delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 5, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner, E. F., & Waldron, H. B. (2001). Innovations in adolescent substance abuse interventions (pp. 189–203). New York: Pergmon Press, Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallace, J. M., Yamaguchi, R., Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., Schulenberg, J. E., & Johnston, L. D. (2007). Religiosity and adolescent substance use: The role of individual and contextual influences. Social Problems, 54, 308–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Zapert, K., Snow, D. L., & Tebes, J. K. (2002). Patterns of substance use in early through late adolescence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 835–852.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan L. Mayberry
    • 1
  • Dorothy L. Espelage
    • 2
  • Brian Koenig
    • 3
  1. 1.The Family Institute at Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.University of Illinois, Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  3. 3.K12 Associates, LLCMiddletonUSA

Personalised recommendations