Developmental antecedents of late adolescent substance use patterns
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, MN 55455, USA. Development and Psychopathology
(Impact Factor: 4.89).
02/2006; 18(2):551-71. DOI: 10.1017/S0954579406060287
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.
Available from: Stefanie A. Nelemans
- "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. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
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 02/2014; 26:181-202. DOI:10.1017/S0954579413000503 · 4.89 Impact Factor
Available from: Andrea Lamont
- "This allowed us to accurately capture ATOD use as it exists in a normative population, thereby providing a more ecologically valid assessment of ATOD use in a generally adolescent population. It is common practice to pre-define ATOD abuse or problem ATOD use based on quantity of use (Baumrind, 1991; Kaplan et al., 1986; Scheier et al., 1997; Siebenbruner et al., 2006; Stice et al., 1998; Windle, 1996). The results presented here suggest that this practice may not accurately reflect the qualitative distinctness of latent subgroups. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Much of the existing risk factor literature focuses on identifying predictors of low-levels of substance use versus higher-levels of substance use. In this paper, we explore more nuanced patterns of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use during late adolescence. Our aims were to: 1) identify subgroups of youth with qualitatively different patterns of ATOD use; and 2) explore whether membership among qualitatively distinct, high-risk classes could be predicted based on early adolescent risk factors. Data came from a selected subsample of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (n = 1,689). Predictors were measured when youth were about 12 years old; ATOD use was assessed when youth were aged 17 years. Results showed that adolescent ATOD use is not a homogenous behavior. Four distinct classes of adolescent ATOD users were derived. Each class had a qualitatively distinct and discriminable pattern of ATOD use. Ecological predictors were shown to differentiate between latent classes, with peer factors playing a particularly important role in differentiating between high-risk and higher-risk users. Implications for prevention and limitations are discussed.
Addiction Research and Theory 02/2014; 22(1):78-89. DOI:10.3109/16066359.2013.772587 · 1.03 Impact Factor
Available from: John E Schulenberg
- "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. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
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
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.