Developmental antecedents of late adolescence substance use patterns
ABSTRACT This longitudinal study examined antecedents of substance use behavior among 176 (53% male) adolescents. Adolescents were classified as (a) abstainers (n = 19), (b) experimenters (n = 65), (c) at-risk youth (n = 63), and (d) abusers (n = 29) based on their reported substance use behavior at age 17.5. Parental behavior, peer competence, and problem behavior, measured from early childhood through age 16, were examined as predictors of substance use patterns. Multinomial logistic regression models revealed that early maternal hostility, externalizing behavior problems in first grade and at age 16, internalizing behavior in first grade and at age 16, and parental monitoring at age 16 significantly differentiated substance use groups. The study provides evidence that experiences occurring early in development, in addition to those that occur later in development, can play a pivotal role in setting the stage for late adolescent substance use behavior.
- SourceAvailable from: Stefanie A. Nelemans
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "SAD symptoms could work in two opposite ways to influence cannabis initiation in adolescents: according to the self-medication perspective, in which anxiety is considered to be a risk factor for cannabis initiation, adolescents suffering from SAD symptoms may attempt to cope with social anxiety reactions and relieve their symptoms by using cannabis , believing that the use of cannabis will make it easier to interact with peers (Buckner, Schmidt, Bobadilla, & Taylor, 2006; Khantzian, 1997). In contrast, from a buffer perspective , in which anxiety is considered to protect against cannabis initiation, SAD symptoms may limit social contact and thereby the availability of cannabis to anxious adolescents and the availability for experimentation with cannabis (Myers, Tomlinson, Aarons, & Stein, 2003; Shedler & Block, 1990; Siebenbruner et al., 2006). This study is the first to examine the relation between anxiety and cannabis initiation from the point of adolescents' anxiety disorder symptom development. "
ABSTRACT: In this study, we prospectively examined developmental trajectories of five anxiety disorder symptom dimensions (generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, school anxiety, separation anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder) from early to late adolescence in a community sample of 239 adolescents, assessed annually over 8 years. Latent growth modeling indicated different developmental trajectories from early into late adolescence for the different anxiety disorder symptoms, with some symptoms decreasing and other symptoms increasing over time. Sex differences in developmental trajectories were found for some symptoms, but not all. Furthermore, latent class growth analysis identified a normal developmental profile (including a majority of adolescents reporting persistent low anxiety disorder symptoms over 8 years) and an at-risk developmental profile (including a minority of adolescents reporting persistent high anxiety disorder symptoms over 8 years) for all of the anxiety disorder symptom dimensions except panic disorder. Additional analyses longitudinally supported the validity of these normal and at-risk developmental profiles and suggested differential associations between different anxiety disorder symptom dimensions and developmental trajectories of substance use, parenting, and identity development. Taken together, our results emphasize the importance of examining separate dimensions of anxiety disorder symptoms in contrast to a using a global, one-dimensional approach to anxiety.Development and Psychopathology 01/2014; 26:181-202. DOI:10.1017/S0954579413000503 · 4.89 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "In general, regardless of grade, gender, and risk-taking level, parental monitoring had the greatest impact on alcohol and marijuana use; specifically, parental monitoring emerged as a strong promotive factor for lower substance use. This finding supports previous research, which indicates that when parents consistently monitor their adolescents, substance use levels are typically lower (Brown et al., 1993; Siebenbruner et al., 2006). In addition to this main effect, gender and risk-taking level served as moderators. "
ABSTRACT: Risk-taking is statistically normative during adolescence, yet is associated with adverse outcomes including substance use. The present study draws the distinction between protective factors (effective for those identified as high risk takers) and promotive factors (effective for all) against substance use, focusing on parental monitoring, school bonding, and sports participation. A total of 36,514 8th and 10th grade participants in the national Monitoring the Future study were included. Although parental monitoring was associated with lower alcohol and marijuana use among all adolescents (i.e., promotive effect), these effects were strongest among the highest risk takers (i.e., protective effect) and females. School bonding was associated with lower levels of both alcohol and marijuana use among all groups of adolescents, but these promotive effects were weak. Sports participation was associated with higher levels of alcohol use among all males and among 8th grade females who did not identify as high risk takers. Despite being a risk factor for alcohol use, sports participation did demonstrate a promotive effect against marijuana use among 10th grade females only, and especially so for high risk-taking females (i.e., protective effect). Overall, these findings suggest that of the three mechanisms studied, parental monitoring emerged as the most promising entry point for substance use prevention and intervention across groups, particularly for females and high risk-taking adolescents.Prevention Science 09/2012; 13(6). DOI:10.1007/s11121-012-0288-z · 2.63 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "There are few studies that included information on antecedent functioning, personality, or that classified substance use groups across multiple substances. These are major issues given that the few studies that partially supported Shedler and Block's findings come from studies that examined antecedent differences in adolescent substance use groups that incorporated alcohol and drugs into their classification schemes (Baumrind, 1991; Siebenbruner, Englund, Egeland, & Hudson, 2006). Overall, while great progress has been made in extending and testing Shedler and Block's hypotheses in various populations and across various types of substances, a review of the literature highlights a number of major research gaps. "
ABSTRACT: This study attempted to extend Shedler and Block's (1990) influential study, which found that adolescent drug experimenters had the healthiest personality functioning compared to abstainers and frequent users. Using a prospective design, we examined the relationship between antecedent and concurrent personality and age-18 substance use in a community sample of 1,298 twins (96% Caucasian, 49% male). Personality measures at ages 11 and 18 assessed positive emotionality (agentic and communal), negative emotionality, and constraint. Substance use groups-abstainers, experimenters, and problem users-were created at age 18. Age-18 substance use groups differed in age-11 and age-18 constraint such that problem users were lower than experimenters, who were lower than abstainers. Age-18 substance use groups did not differ in age-18 positive emotionality. However, abstainers were significantly lower than experimenters in communal positive emotionality, whereas female abstainers scored higher in agentic positive emotionality than female experimenters, who scored higher than female problem users. Experimenters were significantly lower in negative emotionality than problem users. Our findings are inconsistent with the notion that experimenters had the healthiest personality functioning and instead suggest different strengths and weaknesses for each group. Future studies should examine agentic and communal positive emotionality separately.Journal of Personality 08/2011; 80(3):769-93. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00746.x · 2.44 Impact Factor