Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth

Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth
Author(s): Denise B. Kandel

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 6 (1980), pp. 235-285
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946009 .
Accessed: 20/06/2011 19:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1980. 6:235-85

Copyright? 1980 by Annual ReviewsInc. All rightsreserved
DRUG AND DRINKING
BEHAVIOR AMONG YOUTH
*10591
DeniseB. Kandell
Department
of Psychiatry
and Schoolof PublicHealth,Columbia
and New YorkStatePsychiatric
University,
Institute
INTRODUCTION
Thespreadin theuseofmarihuana
and otherillicitdrugsin thepopulationrepresents
one ofthemoststriking
and bestdocumented
instances
of social changeduringthe last decade. Repeatedannually,surveys
indicatethatratesof marihuana
use, farfromstabilizing
as had been
anticipatedearlier(National Commissionon Marihuanaand Drug
Abuse1973),are stillincreasing-primarily
amongadolescents.
Thisreviewfocuseson theuse ofalcoholandotherdrugs(particularly
marihuana)
byadolescents
and youngadults.I emphasizeempirical
researchbasedon thesurveyapproach,2
studies.In
especiallylongitudinal
myopinion,
panelstudiesindrugresearchrepresent
themostsignificant
developmentof the last several years. Except for epidemiological
I perforce
research,
ignorea greatdealofimportant
cross-sectional
work.
Severalexcellentreviewsof cross-sectional
researchhave recently
appeared.3
lWorkon thisreviewwaspartially
supported
byGrantsDA 00064and DA 01097of
theNationalInstitute
on DrugAbuse.I am indebtedto A. Brunswick,
R. Clayton,R.
E. Josephson,
L. Johnston,
Jessor,
andL. Robinsforcriticalcomments
on an earlierdraft
ofthepaper.
2Forparalleldevelopments
involving
ethnographic
studiessee therecentbibliography
byWaldorf
(1979).
3Thesereviews
haveappeared
mainly
inpsychological
journalsoras government
reports.
See Braucht
et al 1973;Letteiri1975;McGlothlin1975;Sadava 1975;Gorsuch& Butler
1976,Schick& Freedman
1976,Blane& Hewitt1977;Petersen1977;Jessor1978b,1979;
Kandel1978b;Stanton1979;M. Radosevich
et al 1979;reports
fromtheCanadianCom-
0360-0572/80/0815-0235$0
1.00
235
236
KANDEL
and
withtheratesofuse ofvarioussubstances
The fieldis concerned
of theirusers.4Recentworkhas increasedthe
withthecharacteristics
ofthedistribution
epidemiological
databaseandthusourunderstanding
theemphasisin thisreviewis
Although
anddiffusion
ofdrugbehaviors.
when
theperiodin thelife-cycle
on adolescenceand youngadulthood,
findings
areplacedin a life-span
use is mostprevalent,
epidemiological
theoretical
approachesin drugresearch
perspective.
The majorcurrent
theoriesofdeviance.Important
are reviewedand relatedto traditional
to unravelling
and theircontributions
longitudinal
studiesareidentified
I briefly
indruguse arediscussed.Finally,
thepredictors
ofinvolvement
I stressthe
In theconclusion,
noteseveralrecentbiologicalperspectives.
theory.
ofdrugresearchto socialization
theoretical
contributions
are not discussed.Methodological
Manyissuesand researchefforts
and
illegaldrugbehavior,
and thevalidity
issuesinvolvedin measuring
are discussedin Elinson& Nurco
reliability
of thesemeasurements,
(1975),and Smithetal (1977).5Much
(1975),Single,Kandel& Johnson
I do notcoverevaluations
is omitted.
research
cross-sectional
behavioral
toCongress
UseofDrugs1973;theannualreports
mission
ofInquiry
intotheNon-Medical
on DrugAbuse1977),onAlcoholandHealth
onMarihuana
andHealth(NationalInstitute
areasandcompilareviewsofresearch
(US Department
ofHEW 1978);andthenumerous
bytheNationalInstitute
on DrugAbuseinitsResearch
tionsofresearch
reports
published
Series.Over57 publications
hadbeenissuedas ofmidIssuesand ResearchMonograph
in the
of NIDA-supported
researchare summarized
1980in thesetwoseries.Findings
hastakenan active
RAUS clusterreviews(e.g.see Smith1977).Indeed,thegovernment
andininitiating
someofthemostsophisticatrolenotonlyinfunding
muchoftheresearch
basein
studies,
butalsoindisseminating
theknowledge
ed andambitious
epidemiological
on
seriesnotedabove.TheNationalInstitute
thefield,especially
through
themonograph
Data Center(DADrugAbusealsosupports
a databank,The DrugAbuseEpidemiology
wheredatatapesfromdrugstudiesaredeposited
EDAC) at TexasChristian
University,
analysesat therequestof
andfacilities
madeavailabletorunspecialtablesforsecondary
researchers.
thanthe
is at an earlierstageofdevelopment
4Inthisrespectdrugandalcoholresearch
ofdeviance,
whichhasgivenupitsconcernwith"ratesofdevianceordeviants"
sociology
(Gibbs& Erickson1975:21).
inan attempt
better
developedandpursued
5Severalnovelstrategies
arebeingactively
1977).
toaccountforthemostdeviantindividuals,
especially
heroinaddicts(Rittenhouse
techniques
inwhichbehaviors
arecountednotonly
Thestrategies
includethemultiplicity
are askedto
as self-reported
Respondents
by respondents
butalso byotherindividuals.
questions
designed
knowwitha seriesoffilter
report
thenumber
ofaddictstheypersonally
to determine
theoverlapbetweenthepersonsso identified
1980).A second
(Fishburne
estimates
are derived
techniquein whichprevalence
approachis thecapture-recapture
identified
in a population
who are subsequently
fromthenumberof addictsidentified
of
(recaptured)
in a secondrandomsample(Hunt1977). In a thirdmethodthenumber
inwell-known
heroinarecountedas theygather
involving
addictscarrying
outtransactions
1974).
"coping"areasin a community
(Hughes& Crawford
DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH
237
oftreatment
programs
(see Kleinman& Lukoff1977;Armoret al 1978;
betweenvariousforms
Simpson,
Savage& Lloyd1979),therelationship
of druguse and crime(NationalInstituteon Drug Abuse 1976), or
policy-related
areassuchas thelegalstatusofmarihuana
(see Dusteret
& Ochs 1980)or thecontrolofalcoholicsubstances
al 1979,Josephson
(Room1976a);nordo I dealwiththebroaderissuesrelatedtonormative
definitions
ofappropriate
drugbehaviorsand drugexperiences
(Room
1975,1976b;Orcutt1978;Maloffet al 1979).
SomeDefinitions
Abouttenclassesofsubstances
fallunderthepurview
ofdrugresearch.
Thesubstances
includethelegaldrugs-tobaccoandthealcoholicbeverages(beer,wineandhardliquor);theillegaldrugs-suchas marihuana,
LSD andotherpsychedelics,
cocaine,and heroin;andthepsychoactive
drugs-namelystimulants,
and sedatives,and minortranbarbiturates
with
and withoutmedicalprequilizers.Psychoactive
are
used
drugs
scription.
Behavioralresearchgenerallyconcernsnonprescriptive
use,
whichis considered
abuse.
havebeen
Becauseofthesocialconsequences
ofdrugmisuse,attempts
to
madeto distinguish
recreational
use frompatterns
ofuse considered
on Marihuana
andDrug
constitute
abuse(e.g.see NationalCommission
Abuse 1973; Elinson& Nurco 1975). Emphasishas shiftedfromallto seemingly
encompassing
labels,suchas "alcoholism"or "addiction",
morespecificand lessvalue-laden
terms,
suchas "alcohol-related
problem" or "drugabuse."The term"abuse,"however,is ambiguous.6
It
refers
to use of an illegalsubstance,
or "the illegaluse ofa controlled
substance,
oruseofa drugina manner
ortoa degreethatleadstoadverse
personaland social consequences"(StrategyCouncilon Drug Abuse
1973:3). No clear empiricalcriteriahave yet emergedto definethe
variouspatternsof use. What one investigator
definesas casual use
anothercalls heavyuse (Kandel 1975d). This reflects
the factthata
conceptsuchas abuserequires
a clearunderstanding
ofthenatureofthe
consequencesof specificpatternsof use. Until recently,no such
understanding
was available except for tobacco and alcohol. The
AmericanPsychiatricAssociationhas recentlycodifieddiagnostic
criteria
forabuseofvariousdrugs(Diagnosticand Statistical
Manualof
MentalDisorders1980). Empiricalresearchon normalpopulations
6Among
themanydiscussions
ofthedefinitions
ofterms
suchas abuse,use,dependence,
or addiction,
see Smart(1974) forheroinand otherillicitdrugs,or Bacon (1976) and
Edwardsetal (1977)foralcohol.Goode(1972)pointsouttheideological
andsocialfactors
involvedin thedefinition
ofa substance
as a drug.
238
KANDEL
rarelydealswithabuse.Mostoften,respondents
aredichotomized
into
usersandnonusers
on thebasisoflifetime
orcurrent
experiences,
orare
witha simplefrequency
measure.More sophisticated
characterized
empirical
measuresof consumption
patternsare employedforalcohol
thanforillicitdrugs,
withspecific
criteria
fordrinking
levelsandproblem
drinking(e.g. see Cahalan & Room 1974; Rachal et al 1976; Miller 1976;
Celentano& McQueen 1978).
Shiftsin ResearchEmphasis
Duringthelastdecade,research
interest
has shifted
awayfromextreme
tothevariety
forms
ofdependence
(e.g.heroinaddictionandalcoholism)
ina normalpopulation.
are
ofusepatterns
observable
Usersofsubstances
identified
notthrough
institutions
or formalagenciesbutthrough
selfreports.Qualitativeand small-sample
studies(e.g. of institutionalized
have givenwayto surveysbased on large,representative
populations)
in longitudinal
have
samples.Interest
designshas grown.Investigators
exchangedan exclusivefocuson eitherillicitor legaldrugsfora more
in whichthe use of varioussubstancesis
comprehensive
perspective
Similarshiftsin researchapexaminedwithina commonframework.
proachhavecharacterized
theevolution
ofthesociology
ofmentaldisormethodsare nowappliedto thegeneral
ders,in whichepidemiological
in an effort
to eliminate
theselectionbiasesofinstitutionalpopulation
ized or deviantpopulations.
The workreviewed
hereestablishes
thatthischangeinresearch
stratofdrugand
egyhasbeenaccompanied
bya changing
conceptualization
alcoholuse: These developmental
behaviorsresultnotfromabnormal
processes
butfromthesamekindsofsocialprocessesthatgenerate
other
kindsofhumanbehavior,
conforming
as wellas deviantforms.
THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF DRUG BEHAVIOR: A

LIFE-SPAN PERSPECTIVE
Natureof GeneralPopulationStudies
constitutes
Theepidemiology
ofsubstance
use in thegeneralpopulation
a majorfocusofdrugandalcoholresearch.Becausedruguse maypose
a healthhazardparticularly
to a largenumberof youngpeople,the
federalgovernment
role in theseactivities,
has playedan important
So thatinforinitiating
andsupporting
systematic
data-gathering
efforts.
mationmaybe obtainedon the individualsmostheavilyinvolvedin
household
havebeensupplemented
withextensive
nationdrugs,
surveys
239
widemonitoring
ofpersonsidentified
by variousinstitutions
as having
drug-related
difficulties
(see NationalClearinghouse
forDrug Abuse
Information
1977).Severalon-going
annualdata-gathering
efforts
have
beendesignedto describethebehaviorof thepopulationon a regular
basisand to provideup-to-date
prevalenceand incidencedatarelevant
tosocialpolicy.However,
datafromtreatment
centers
arenotintegrated
withthoseobtainedfromgeneralpopulationsamples.
Important
sourcesofepidemiological
information
include:(a) Biannual surveys
oftheUnitedStatespopulation
basedon household
interviews
withrespondents
12 yearsold andover.The first
surveywas conducted
in 1971,thefifthand mostrecentone in winter,1979-80 (Abelson,
Fishburne
& Cisin1977;Miller,Cisin& Harrell1978).Thesamplesvary
fromabout3300 to over4600 respondents.
(b) Monitoring
theFuture,
annualnationalsurveys
ofhighschoolseniorsdrawnfrom130publicand
privatehighschoolsthroughout
the UnitedStates,initiatedin 1975
& O'Malley
(O'Malley,Bachman& Johnston
1978;Bachman,Johnston
1978;Johnston,
Bachman& O'Malley 1979a,b).The sizesoftheyearly
samplesvarybetween16,000and 19,000students.For thecohort-sequentiallongitudinal
ofapproximately
2500 former
design,subsamples
students
fromeach seniorclassare followedbymailat yearlyintervals
forat least six years.(c) A seriesof annualsurveysof highschool
students
carriedouton thetotaljuniorhighand highschoolpopulation
from1970to 1977 (Blackford
censusin San Mateo County,California
1977). Samplesrangedin size from18,000to 25,000adolescents.(d)
Follow-ups
ofthe Youthin Transition
Cohort,a representative
sample
of 10thgrademalesin 1966,lastinterviewed
in 1974at age 23 (N =
1600),fiveyearsafterhighschoolgraduation
(Johnston
1973;O'Malley
1975;Bachman,O'Malley& Johnston
1978;Johnston,
O'Malley& Eveland1978).(e) A follow-up
intheUnited
ofVietnamveterans
discharged
with
StatesinSeptember
ofveterans
identified
1971,withan oversample
in 1972and 1974(N = 571); in
urinespositiveforopiates,interviewed
1974,a matchedcomparison
sample(N = 284) ofnonveterans
wasalso
included(Robins1974,1977,1978,1979;Robins,Davis& Nurco1974;
Robins,Davis & Wish1977).(f) A surveyofyoungmen20-30 years
old (N = 2510) drawnfroma listsampleofall malesregistered
forthe
draft
in 1974-75(O'DonfromSelectiveServiceBoardsandinterviewed
nellet al 1976;O'Donnell& Clayton1979a,b).(g) A nationalsurveyof
13,122juniorandseniorhighschoolstudents
in grades7-12 conducted
inSpring1974andresurveyed
in 1978(Rachaletal 1975,1976;Harford
1976;Donovan& Jessor1978).
Thesestudiesarebasedon large,representative
samplesand,despite
theirlimitations,
have provideduniqueinformation
and new insights
240
KANDEL
is that
of drugbehavior.A majorlimitation
aboutthe epidemiology
mostlikelyto be
householdor schoolsamplesexcludetheindividuals
includingdruguse-i.e. the transients,
involvedin deviantactivities,
and theschoolabsenteesor drop-outs.
regular
addresses,
thosewithout
forschoolsamples
The natureofthebiaseshas beenbestdocumented
O'Mal1973;Kandel1975a;Annis& Watson1975;Johnston,
(Johnston
& Rosen
ley & Eveland1978; Ginsberg& Greenley1978; Josephson
constitute
a smallpro1978).However,sincethesedeviantindividuals
theirexclusiondoes notsignificantly
portionofthegeneralpopulation,
(see Kandel1975a),
estimates
reported
biastheabsoluteepidemiological
on themostseriousdrugs.
althoughtheremaybe underrepresentation
rather
thanselectedor
arebasedon representative
Becausethesurveys
in ourunderrevisions
clinicalsamples,theyhaveled to fundamental
suchas alcoholismor
standingof extremeformsof druginvolvement
heroinaddiction.For example,the modal age of male alcoholicsin
centersfallsbetween40 and 49 (Armoret al 1978).Surveys
treatment
indicatethatthemostseveredrinking
ofmenin thenormalpopulation
(Cahalan& Room1974;Celentano
occurintheearlytwenties
problems
conceptionof alcoholismas a
& McQueen 1978),and the traditional
conditiondoes not applyto the general
and irreversible
progressive
priortoRobins'
(Roizen,Cahalan& Shanks1978).Similarly,
population
studyofVietnamveteransand O'Donnell& Clayton'sstudyofyoung
aboutheroinaddictscame mainlyfromstudiesofadmen,knowledge
or incarcerated
(e.g. O'Donnell1972;
dictswhoweretreated,
arrested,
ofthese
Vaillant1966;Gouldetal 1974;Nurcoetal 1975).Thehistories
wasdifficult
suggested
thatthelifecycleofheroinaddiction
individuals
to breakand thatmostaddictstendedto relapse,untiltheyeitherdied
intheirlatethirties
(Winick1962).Robins
or"matured
out"ofaddiction
thataddicreported
(1974) andO'Donnel& Clayton(1979b),however,
tionwas notnecessarily
a permanent
state;youngmencouldgiveup
ratesofformerly
The curveofremission
treatment.
heroin,
evenwithout
wasthe
after
discharge
soldierseighttotwelvemonths
addictedVietnam
ratesfor
the readdiction
exact mirrorimageof the curvedescribing
addictsreleasedfrom
Lexington
(Robins,Davis & Nurco1974).Furthermore,onlyone thirdof the men addictedduringthe firstdischarge
year reportedbeing addictedat all duringtheirsecond or third
years(Robins1974). No mentionis made of possible
post-discharge
andin thegeneral
socialclassdifferences
betweenaddictsininstitutions
population.
on heroinaddictionand alcoholismparallelthoseobThe findings
(Roff
tainedin otherareas of psychopathology,
such as delinquency
withbehavioral
(Robins1970).Individuals
disorders
1972)orcharacter
241
havebetterprognoses
disordersfromgeneralpopulations
consistently
a selectand
institutions.
The latterconstitute
thanthosefromtreatment
deviantcomponentof all personswithsuch disorders(O'Donnell &
Clayton1979b).
Prevalence
ofDrug Use
Prevalenceof use differs
markedly
forvariousdrugs,withlegaldrugs
thanillegalones. Amongtheillicit
beingused muchmorefrequently
is mostprevalent,
followed
drugs,useofmarihuana
byuseofstimulants,
Data forgeneralpopulation
psychedelics,
sedatives,and tranquilizers.
theFuture
samplesin 1977appearin Table 1. In the 1979 Monitoring
useduring
nationalsampleofhighschoolseniors,percentages
reporting
thepreviousyear(annualprevalence)were88% foralcohol,51% for
marihuana,
and 18%forstimulants;
10%had usedsedatives,
tranquilizers,andhallucinogens,
12%hadusedcocaine,andthelowestrateswere
registered
forinhalants
(5%) and heroin(0.5%o)(Johnston,
Bachman&
was foundamongyoungmen20-30
O'Malley1979b).Similarordering
yearsold (O'Donnellet al 1976).
andyoungadultswhohadeverusedmarihuaAmongtheadolescents
theinterview
halfhaduseditin themonthpreceding
na,approximately
Bachman& O'Malley 1979b).
(Miller,Cisin& Harrell1978;Johnston,
As stressed
containsdetailed
byMcGlothlin
(1975),noneofthesurveys
information
abouttheamountofmarihuana
usedat anyone time,especiallybydailyusers.
than
Regularuse ofmarihuana
byadolescentsis nowmoreprevalent
thatofalcohol.In the 1979nationalseniorhighschoolclass,7% were
dailyusersofalcohol, 107o ofmarihuana,and 25% oftobacco (Johnston,
Bachman& O'Malley 1979b).One fifthof all youthswho had used

marihuana
duringthepreviousyearhad used it daily.As notedabove,
no specific
criteria
yetdefineabuseofillicitdrugs.The mostsystematic
criteria
existforalcohol.A 1974 nationalsurveyofdrinking
practices
amonghighschool studentsindicatedthat 11%oof all 7th-12thgraders
and20%oftheseniorswereheavydrinkers-i.e.hadusedalcoholatleast
once a weekand in largeamountson each occasion;28%oof all the
students
wereclassified
as problemdrinkers-i.e.had beendrunkfour
or moretimesin thepast yearand had experienced
negativeconseintwoormoreareasoffunctioning
quencesduetotheirdrinking
(Rachal
et al 1975,1976;Mardenet al 1976).
Patternsof use of variousdrugsthroughout
thelifecycleillustrate
theage-graded
natureoftheuseofillicitdrugsas compared
dramatically
withthesociallyacceptedsubstances,
ontheonehand,andthemedically
242
KANDEL
drugson theother.As Table 1 shows,theuse ofmarihuana

prescribed
substances
useofpsychoactive
andotherillicitdrugsandthenonmedical
ofages 18-25,withsharpdeclines
amongindividuals
aremostprevalent
arethemoststrikmarihuana
trendsconcerning
Age-related
thereafter.
than14is low
ing(see Table 1). Marihuanause amongpersonsyounger
risk
age 15-17 is theperiodofhighest
thereafter;
andincreasessharply
use (Miller,Cisin& Harrell1978). The
forinitiation
intomarihuana
alcoholand tobacco,areusedmostintensociallyacceptedsubstances,
usedeclinesthereafter,
sivelyina wideragerangefrom18-34;although
highlevel.For
remainsat a fairly
prevalence
in themid-thirties
current
on theotherhand,
substances,
psychoactive
themedicallyprescribed
foreach
ratesofusebeginat age 26,withage ofpeakusevarying
highest
appearto peak
ofthethreemajorclassesofdrugs.Whilethestimulants
remain
at ages 26-34,sedativespeakafterage 50 and thetranquilizers
at thesamelevelsfromage 26 on. Thusmedicaluse beginsto peakin
the declineof illicituse. Since theseage-related
the yearsfollowing
studies,it is notknownyet
trendsare based on yearlycross-sectional
ofuseover
thesamepersonsareinvolvedinthevariouspatterns
whether
thelifespan.
Trendsin Drug Use

and
amongadolescents
Marihuanausehasincreasedalmostexclusively
and
youngadults.Priorto 1967,lessthan2% ofthegeneralpopulation
withmarihuahad everexperimented
fewerthan5% ofcollegestudents
na,as comparedwith25%oofthepopulation18 yearsold and overand
64% of college studentsin 1977 (Johnson1973; Abelson, Fishburne&
inthisagegroupextends
Cisin1977).Theincreaseindrugconsumption
as well,especiallytobaccoand alcoholicbeverages.
to othersubstances
of youths
The annualhouseholdsurveysindicatethatthepercentage
thepreceding
time"or"smokedduring
12-17who"smokeatthepresent
month" increased from15% in 1971 to 22% in 1977; no increase in
& Cisin
appearedin anyotherage groups(Abelson,Fishburne
smoking
1977: Table 80). The largestrate of change in smokingoccurredamong
regular
smokers
ofcurrent
girls15 to 16yearsold,wherethepercentage
doubled between 1968 and 1974 (US Departmentof Health,Education
& Welfare 1976:55). However, rates of smokingin the more recent
Bachman& O'Malley1979b;
to decline(Johnston,
cohortsare starting
Brunswick1980). The percentageof 16-17 yearolds who reporteddrinking in the monthprecedingthe surveyincreased from35%oin 1971 to
52% in 1977 (Abelson, Fishburne& Cisin 1977: Table 77). Again, only
or olderage groups.In
slightincreasestookplacein anyoftheyounger
ofvarioussubstances
inthegeneralpopulation
Table 1 Current
prevalence
byage andsex in 1977(percent
Age
Usedduringpastmonth
Cigarettes
Alcohol
Psychoactive
nonmedic
Marijuana
Stimulants
Sedatives
3
8
11
11
3
2
4
10
6
2
12-13
10
14-15
16-17
18-21
22-25
26-34
22
35
51
45
47
28
52
71
70
70
15
29
31
24
12
35-49
50+
45
34
61
44
2
1
37
25
19
13
5
3
3
2
67
50
30
19
4
1
3
1
Youth(12-17 years,N = 1,272)

Male
23
22
Female
Adult(18 yearsandover,N = 3,322)
47
Male
Female
35
13
aSource:Abelson,Fishburne
& Cisin( 1977),andsecondary
analysesofdatatape.
qu
244
KANDEL
periodfrom1968 to 1977 in San Mateo County,annual

a ten-year
increasedfrom
of alcoholuse amonghighschoolstudents
prevalence
indisurveys
65%oto 88%.The conclusionthatrepeatedcross-sectional
ofdrinking
amongteenagers
increaseintheprevalence
catea continued
intheirextensive
is at variancewithBlane& Hewitt's(1977) conclusion
byyoungpeoplesince
reviewthattherehasbeenno changein drinking
1966.
age of onsetdeclines.In the
As thebehaviorspreadsin popularity,
theFuturestudyalmosttwiceas manyusersamonghigh
Monitoring
schoolseniorsin 1979as in 1975 (23%oas comparedto 13%o)reported
at theeighthgradeorbelow(Johnwithmarihuana
experience
theirfirst
ston,Bachman& O'Malley1979b;see also O'Donnellet al 1976:Table
1977).
53; Uppal,Babst& Schmeidler
thereis a strongassociationbetweentheuse ofmarihuana
Although
studies,see Johnandofotherillicitdrugs(amongthemanysupporting
1973;Single,Kandel& Faust 1974;Abelson,Fishson 1973;Johnston
1979),increase
burne& Cisin1977;Block& Goodman1978;Brunswick
bya parallelincrease
hasnotbeenaccompanied
intheuse ofmarihuana
therehavebeenchanges
inthetotaluseofotherillicitdrugs(eventhough
ofspecificdrugs,suchas cocaine).Resultsbothfrom
in theprevalence
thenationalsurveyofhouseholdsandfromsamplesofhighschoolseniors indicatethatthe ratioof ratesof use of illicitdrugsotherthan
Amongyouth12-17
use is actuallydeclining.
to marihuana
marihuana
theratiodeclinedfrom.43 in 1971
population
inthenationalhousehold
to .32 in 1977.
use marihuanathe social climategrowsmore
As moreindividuals
cometo knowa user
favorable
to use,sincemoreand moreindividuals
Bachman& O'Mal(Miller,Cisin& Harrell1978;Jessor1979;Johnston,
of usersis one of the
in social networks
ley 1979a),and membership
ofvariousformsofdruguse (Goode
andpredictors
correlates
strongest
& Whiteman
1977a;
1973;Kandel1974a;Brook,Lukoff
1970;Johnson
Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a).
in Rates of Use
Differences
Sociodemographic
is as
Ratesof use varyamongpopulationgroups.No otherdifference
in
contrasts
largeas thatobservedin connectionwithage; important
betweendifferent
usedandextentofuseareapparent
typesofsubstances
trends
are
age-related
pointsinthelifespan.Becauseoftheirimportance,
discussedin a separatesectionbelow.The possibleassociationofdrug
dataare
is notdiscussed,
sinceno relevant
background
usewithreligious
245
presented
inthelarge-scale
nationalsurveys.
Manyformerly
well-establisheddifferences
in drugbehavioramongvarioussocialgroupsdefined
arediminishing.
bysex,socioeconomic
status,andregionofthecountry
in druguse have tendedto declineover time
Sex differences
& McFadden1976;Abelson,Fishburne
& Cisin1977;Hanson
(Wechsler
1977).The ratioofmaleto femaleuse variesbysubstance
andbypoint
in thelifecycle.Forall categories
ofillegalsubstances
andforalcoholic
beverages,
malesare morelikelyto use thanfemales,especiallyat the
heaviestlevelsofuse (Josephson
1974;Rachalet al 1975;Kandelet al
1976; Blackford1977; Wilsnack& Wilsnack1978; Roizen,Clark&
inthe1978nationalseniorhighschoolclass
Milkes1979).Forexample,
13%oftheboysusedmarihuana
dailyas comparedto7% ofthefemales;
10% and 4%, respectively,
used alcoholdaily(Johnston,
Bachman&
O'Malley1979b).In the1974surveyofhighschoolstudents,
34%ofthe
malesand23%ofthefemales
wereclassified
as problem
drinkers
(Rachal
etal 1975).Tobaccois thesubstance
forwhicheitherno sexdifferences
& Cisin1977;Blackford
appearamongadolescents
(Abelson,Fishburne
1977;Johnston,
Bachman& O'Malley1979)orfemaleadolescent
usage
exceedsmaleusage,exceptat thelevelofheavyuse (Brunswick
1980).
Womenare heavierconsumersof psychoactive
drugstakenunder
inadulthood(see Table 1). However,theuse ofthe
medicalsupervision
same substanceswithouta doctor'ssupervision
is higheramongmen
& Cisin1977).Men and womenmay
thanwomen(Abelson,Fishburne
usedifferent
substances
forthesamepurpose,especially
tohandlestress.
Menaremorelikelytoreport
usingalcoholtocopewithlifecrises,while
womenaremorelikelyto use prescribed
psychoactive
drugs(Mellinger
et al 1978b).Thesesex-linked
ratedifferentials
illustrate
perhapsmore
ofdrugbehavior.
clearlythananyotherdata thesocialpatterning
The functional
equivalence
ofdifferent
patterns
ofuse oflegal,illegal,
andmedically
prescribed
psychoactive
drugsbymenandwomenandby
different
agegroupsconstitutes
a potentially
fruitful
areaofresearch
for
sociologists.
SEX
Ratesofdrinking
andmarihuana
use varygreatly
withlocation.The highest
in urbanand suburban
ratesarereported
areas(Abel& Cisin1977;Johnston,
son,Fishburne
Bachman& O'Malley 1979a).
Heroin-use
ratestendtovarymorebylocationthando marihuana
rates
(Kandel,Single& Kessler1976). Such differences
in alcoholuse are
muchlargeramongadultsthanyouths.Smallestregionaldifferences
& Cisin 1977).
appearforsmoking(Abelson,Fishburne
LOCATION
246
KANDEL
in rateofuse betweenblacksand whitestend

Differences
tobacco,
to be small,exceptforheroinand pills.Use of marihuana,
moreprevalentamong
alcoholicbeverages,and pills is consistently
whitesthanamongblacks;use of heroinis two to threetimesmore
1973;Rachaletal 1975;Kandel,Single
amongblacks(Johnson
prevalent
& Kessler1976;Iiyama,Nishi& Johnson1976; O'Donnellet al 1976;
& Albrecht1977;
& Cisin1977;Higgins,Albrecht
Abelson,Fishburne
& Wilsnack1978).Ethnicgroupsotherthanblacksandwhites
Wilsnack
and blacksare
in large-scalesurveys,
have rarelybeen distinguished
in the nationalsurveys.Availabledata
groupedwithothernonwhites
suggestthatAmericanIndiansmayhave thehighestratesofuse ofall
typesofdrugs,whiletheChinesehave thelowestrates(Kandel,Single
& Kessler1976;Rachalet al 1976). Kleinman& Lukoff(1978) found
WestIndianblackstobe muchlessinvolvedwithdrugsthantheAmerican-born.
ETHNICITY
rates of druguse (especially

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Surprisingly,
andalcoholuse) amongyoungpeopledo notvaryaccording
marihuana
status(SES) (Cahalan& Room 1974; Robins1974;
to socioeconomic
Kandel,Single& Kessler1976;Rachalet al 1976;Wilsnack& Wilsnack
& Greenis reported
byGinsberg
1978;Jessor1979).[A rareexception
ley (1978), who foundmoremarihuanause amonghighSES college
howis notwithout
parallels,
Thisfailureto findSES effects
students.]
ever.As stressed
byJessor(1980),recentreviewshaveusuallyfailedto
betweenadolescentbehaviorsand social class,
finda relationship
whether
(Tittle,Villemez& Smith1978)orsexualbehavforcriminality
appears,it
ior (Chilman1979). To theextentthatsucha relationship
appearsonlyforthe mostdeviantformsof the behavior,and most
betweenmembersof the lowestsocial class
oftenas a difference
groupsandall others(e.g.see Cahalan,Cisin& Crossley1969forheavy
drinkers.)
EARLY ADULTHOOD: A TURNING POINT IN

ILLICIT DRUG USE
surepidemiological
Theevidencederivedfromrepeatedcross-sectional
suggests
study,strongly
by one longitudinal
veys,and now confirmed
thatratesof druguse,bothlegal and illegal,peak at ages 18-21 and
declinethereafter.
(Peak ratesof marihuanause mayoccurearlierfor
relationfemalesthanformales.See Figure1,A,B.)The cross-sectional
247
shipbetweenincreasing
age and declininguse ofillegaldrugspastthe
mid-twenties
effectas wellas
presumably
reflects
a truematurational
in
historical
differences
amongcohortswithdifferent
drugexperiences
adolescence.
Becauseofrapidchangesinprevalence
ofuseoverthepast
decade,thelowerreported
ratesof use amongolderrespondents
may
reflect
fewer
lifetime
opportunities
foruse,as wellas a declineofusewith
increasing
age.
studiesareyetavailablethathavefollowed
No longitudinal
successive
fromtheteenyearsthrough
cohorts
thethirties
toestablish
withcertainty whetherthe highratesof use will persist.However,the repeated
nationalcross-surveys
basedon similarpopulations
allowus totracethe
experience
of specificcohortsovertimeand to deriveestimatesthat
approximate
thosefromlongitudinal
follow-ups.
Although
ratesoflifeineachsuccestimeexperience
withmarihuana
increases
showdramatic
sivecohortsince1971,inthelasttwoorthreeyearstheratesofcurrent
showstabilization
at approximate(pastmonth)useintheearlytwenties
lyonequarter
oftheagegroup(see also McGlothlin1977).Furthermore,
theratioofcurrent
starts
use (in thelastmonth)to lifetime
experience
to decreasein theearlytwenties,
from.53 in theyears18-21,to .39 in
theyears22-25,.27 intheyears26-34,and.14 intheyears35 andover
& Cisin1977).
(calculatedfromdatain Abelson,Fishburne
The sampleofyoungmenin O'Donnell et al (1976:45) permits
detailedanalysesofage-related
and cohorttrendsin theyears20 through
30. Ratesofcurrent
use ofthesociallyaccepteddrugsremainconstant,
whilecurrent
use ofillegaldrugsdeclinesfromtheyounger
to theolder
cohorts,especiallybeginning
withpersonsat age 25.
Themostdirectevidenceis provided
bytheYouthin Transition
male
in 1974 at age 23 (Johnston,
cohort,lastinterviewed
O'Malley& Eveland 1978).Reportsofat leastone use ofmarihuana
increaseddramaticallyafterhighschool,from20% in thesenioryear,to 35%a yearlater,
to 62% in 1974 at age 24. However,foreverydrugthepercentage
of
regular
users(defined
as thosewhouse weeklyormoreoften)waslower
in 1974,whenrespondents
were23 yearsold, thanit had beenwhen
respondents
were19-22yearsold.The rateformarihuana
waslowerby
one third,and the declineforthe otherillicitdrugswas even more
setstriking.
Similarly,
follow-up
surveysofheroinusersin community
tingsindicatetermination
orreduction
ofheroinuseamongmalesinthe
earlytwenties
(Nurcoetal 1975;Robins,Davis & Wish1977;Brunswick
1979).Age-related
trendsin theuse of illegaldrugsappearto parallel
thoseobserved
fordelinquent
Commission
onLaw
activities
(President's
and Administration
Enforcement
ofJustice1967).
90
90
Married @
80
80
70-0mo
c~60 -
one or
70 -
-more children
c
L
force
~abor
/LLI
UA
30
12
50 -
II. *
I/
A*
Marihuana
-medical use
~~~~~~~~Non-mdclue/
ofprescribed
drugs
.0 /
24 2628
14 16 182022
/
~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
e//.
O..
A!
Ld3
//
a.0
(D
40 -
4021
L
/With
p
60o
pasA
Alcohol
ont
LL
C-
>-.
Z
(5
8 0 p,/,,
~~~~~~~~~
Mo rr eyo
/
3032
~0 ~~~~~~
~ ~
A
12 14
AGE
ofdruguse(1977,ages 12-34
in socialrolesandselectedforms
ratesofparticipation
Figure1 Age-specific
& Cisin 1977;othersfromUS BureauoftheCensus1978a,b.
fromAbelson,Fishburne
druguse patterns
249
SubstanceUseand theSocial Roles ofAdulthood

Peakuseofalcoholandillicitdrugsoccursjustwhenyouthsareentering
familyand
regarding
youngadulthoodand mustmakecommitments
workroles.Ratesofuse declinein thesubsequentyearsas individuals
ofeducation,
in theseroles.Completion
becomemorefullyestablished
all takeplacein the
andparenthood
marriage,
entry
intothelaborforce,
formostpeople(US BureauoftheCensus1978a).Figure
earlytwenties
forwomen
trendsinsocialroleparticipation
1 displaystheseage-related
ratesofuse ofselected
ofcurrent
and formen,witha superimposition
in socialrolesincreaseswithage,illicitdruguse
drugs.As participation
declines.
betweeninvolvedataindicatean inverserelationship
Cross-sectional
in theroles
mentin variousformsofillegaldruguse and participation
and employment).
ofadulthood(marriage
Marriedpersonsshowthelowestratesofuse,while
show much
the single,the divorced,and thoselivingindependently
higherrates(Henley& Adams 1973; Brownet al 1974;Robins1974;
O'Donnell et al 1976; Clayton& Voss 1977; Bachman,O'Malley &
1978). The highestratesare foundamongmen livingwith
Johnston
womento whomtheyare notmarried(O'Donnell et al 1976;Clayton
is one ofthemost
beingmarried
reports,
& Voss 1977).In retrospective
fromthe use of illicitdrugsamong
of abstention
correlates
important
adults18 yearsof age and olderin nationalsamples(Cisin,Miller&
Wirtz1976;Joe& Hudiberg1978;see also Henley& Adams1973).
MARITAL STATUS
tolaborforceparticipertaining
Findings
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION
havethehighest
The unemployed
pationareamongthemostconsistent.
ratesofuse ofmostdrugs,especiallyalcoholandillicitdrugsotherthan
1974; Robins1974; Cisin,Miller& Wirtz1976;
marihuana
(Johnston
1979).
O'Donnellet al 1976;Brunswick
analyseshave yet been carriedout in
longitudinal
No systematic
cessationofuse followsor prewhether
youngadulthoodto determine
cedes entranceand exitfromcertainsocial roles.In the absenceof
betweendrug
data,thereciprocalrelationship
longitudinal
appropriate
tobe clarified.
inthesevarioussocialrolesremains
useandparticipation
inthese
orhowdrugusemodifies
participation
Wedo notknowwhether
and
roles
and
the
level
of
into
socialroles,especiallythetiming entry
on
the
of
Does
use
lead
to
acceleration
or,
continuity participation.
If
or
topostponement
ofmarriage,
employment, childbearing?
contrary,
to
is
Does
use
a
a
its
duration?
lead
what
drug
thereis postponement,
250
KANDEL
or andoes theassumption
of social roles?Correlatively,
redefinition
cause a
of certainroles,e.g. in workand family,
ticipatedassumption
inturncause
suchas divorce,
declineinuse?Do certainroletransitions,
social
an increaseinuse?Arethesecausalprocessesthesameindifferent
Answersto thesecrucialquestionsmaybegin
classesor ethnicgroups?
to emergein the nextfewyearsfromrecentlyinitiatedlongitudinal
andmostextensive
studiesofyoungadults.Amongthemostpromising
theFuMonitoring
& Bachman'scohort-sequential
oftheseis Johnston
turestudy.
CURRENT THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS

The approachis mainlydedrugresearchis atheoretical.
Mostcurrent
withetiology.
Concernwith
andtheconcernalmostexclusively
scriptive
a
and societalreactionsto drugusersconstitute
orientations
normative
minorstrand.
For themostpartearliersociologicaltheoriesdevelopedspecifically
suchas Merton's(1957)anomietheory,
toaccountfordruginvolvement,
in theformofthedouble-failure
Cloward& Ohlin's(1960) elaboration
havebeenignored.
(1968) cravingtheory,
andLindesmith's
hypothesis,
An exceptionis McAuliffe& Gordon's(1974) testof Lindesmith's
thatthe
hypothesis
theoryin a fieldstudyof 67 addicts.Lindesmith's
by theavoidanceofwithdrawal
exclusively
heroinaddictis motivated
ratherthanby thesearchforpleasurewas notconfirmed.
symptoms
appearsto followa generaltrendin
theories
The neglectoftraditional
the
thesociologyofdeviance(Gibbs& Erickson1975).In drugresearch,
weredeveloped
thefactthatearlierdrugtheories
neglectmayalsoreflect
themostdeviantoftheformsofdrug
to accountforheroinaddiction,
in thenormal
studiesdeal witha rangeof patterns
use,whilecurrent
noninstitutionalized
population,whereheroinaddictionis rare and
as in devianceper
is as muchin normaldevelopment
wheretheinterest
se. The classicsociologicaltheoriesofdrugbehaviorhavegivenwayto
is on
inwhichtheexplanatory
emphasis
frameworks
social-psychological
Confactors.
thanon broadsocial-structural
individual
attributes
rather
such
ofsocialstructure,
developedto describeattributes
ceptsoriginally
betweengoalsand meansas a sourcebothofstrain
as thediscrepancy
into
and ofpressuretowardillegitimate
behavior,havebeentranslated
for
such as perceivedapproval-disapproval
individualcharacteristics,
in
Jessors'
work
(1977).
specificbehaviors, the
251
Four Frameworks
Fourtheoretical
frameworks
havebeendeveloped,eachconcerned
with
to accountforan individual's
decisionto become
etiology
andintended
involvedindrugs:(a) Jessor's
theoryofproblem-behavior
anddeviance
proneness;
(b) Akers'sociallearning
theory;
(c) Kaplan'stheory
ofselfas theprecursor
ofdeviantbehavior;(d) Kandel'ssocializaderogation
tionframework.
Kaplandeals withtheconsequencesofuse,as wellas
withetiology.Frameworks
a, c, and d havebeentestedin thecontext
oflongitudinal
b willbe so testedin a longitudinal
research;
framework
studyon smoking
begunin 1979.To date,fewinvestigators
haveempiricallytesteda causalmodelthatbothspecifies
thevariables
thatcorrelate
withorpredict
a particular
behaviorandexplainshowthesevariables
are
interrelated
ina causalsequence.(Foran exception
involving
earlyonset
ofmarihuana
use,see O'Donnell& Clayton1979b.)The investigators
themselves
are awareof thisshortcoming.
Furtheranalysesbased on
moresophisticated
analyticaland statistical
techniquesare underway
(Jessor& Jessor1977: Ch. 12; D. Kandel,M. Davies & K. Andrews,
unpublished;
Kaplan 1980).
A mostambitious
PROBLEM-BEHAVIOR PRONENESS
andcomprehensive
framework
is Jessor& Jessor's
fieldtheory
ofproblembehavior(Jessor1979;Jessor& Jessor1977, 1978),an attempt
to
and individualforcesin the
delineatethejointroleof environmental
shapingofbehavior.Its intellectual
originsare Merton'sand Ohlin&
Cloward'ssocial-structural
approachto deviantbehaviorand Rotter's
sociallearning
theory.
Firstdevelopedmorethana decadeagotoexplain
alcoholuse and abuse amongadolescentsof different
ethnicgroups
to
(Jessoret al 1968),thetheoryhas beenfurther
refined
andmodified
accountforthebehavioralrepertoire
of youth,including
(a) problem
behaviorssuch as marihuanause, sexualintercourse,
activistprotest,
andgeneraldeviantbehaviors,
drinking,
and (b) conventional
behaviors
suchas churchattendance
and academicperformance.
Problembehaviorsaredefined
as thosethatdeviatefromnorms,
manysuchnormsbeing
Behavioris problematic
thatoccursat an inappropriate
time
age-graded:
in thelife-cycle,
mostoftenearlierthansanctioned.The independent
variablesare locatedin threemajordomains:the demographic
social
structure,
theperceived
socialenvironment,
andthepersonality
systems.
Theperceived
environment
includesaspectsofthesocialcontext
thatare
intoa
subjectively
experienced
by the individualand is differentiated
distaland a proximalstructure.
The distalstructure
refersto general
252
KANDEL
refers
to
structure
proximal
environment;
oftheinterpersonal
attributes
inthe
ofothersforengaging
modelsandexpectations
behavioral
specific
themotivasystemincludesthreestructures:
The personality
behaviors.
structures.
andthepersonalcontrol
belief,
thepersonal
tionalinstigation,
and environmental
amongfactorsfromthe personality
Interrelations
prone'problem-behavior
statedesignated
a "dynamic
domainsgenerate
willchangeand whentheywill
ness'" thatpredictswhichindividuals
change(Jessor& Jessor1978a:48).The patternofsocial-psychological
includes"lowervalueon
proneness
problem-behavior
defining
attributes
socialcriticism,
greater
valueonindependence,
andgreater
achievement
more
ofdeviance,andlessparentalcontrolandsupport,
moretolerance
and morefriends'
modelsand approvalfordruguse
friends'
influence,
lesschurch
deviantbehavior,
more
system;
environment
intheperceived
in
lowerschoolachievement thebehaviorsystem"(Jessor
attendance,
theearliertheonset
thescoresontheseattributes,
1976:133).Thehigher
of the behavior.Because the variousbehaviors(e.g. marihuanause,
are age-graded,theiradoption
or sexual experimentation)
drinking,
from
toanother,
of
fromonephase thelife-cycle
marksstatustransitions
In
this
way,
problem-behavior
to
childhoodto adolescence adulthood.
a moregeneral
becomesequivalentto transition-proneness,
proneness
concept.
developmental
studies
The theoryhas beentested(a) in twoparallellongitudinal
senior
432
and
of
high
on
a
junior
sample
design
one a cohort-sequential
in a
freshman
college
of
205
a
cohort
second
the
students,
school
high
forfouryears
RockyMountaincommunitybothgroupsbeingfollowed
Jessor& Finney1973;Jessor& Jessor1977);
at yearlyintervals
(Jessor,
sample(N = 13,100)ofjuniorhighand
and(b) ona nationalprobability
seniorhighschool students(Donovan & Jessor1978). Most factors
to predictmarihuanaand alcohol use did so, withthe
hypothesized
alienation,and internal
of goal attainment,
exceptionof expectation
ofthetheoryis provided
byBrook,Lukoff
control.Selectivereplication
& Whiteman
(1980).
and eleganttheoretical
havedevelopeda comprehensive
The Jessors
in the field.Yet severalissues
thathas had muchinfluence
argument
ofthemeasures
developedfor
specificity
mustbe resolved.
Theempirical
and perceivedenvironment,
each of two majordomains,personality
analysesindicatethatthe
regression
Step-wise
tobe established.
remains
byitselfexplainsas muchofthevariancein the
perceivedenvironment
Thisobtainsinlongitudinal
variables
as thetwosetstogether.
dependent
to marihuana
(Jessor,Jessor& Finney1973) and
analysesofinitiation
behaviors
of six different
in cross-sectional
analysesof the predictors
(Jessor& Jessor1977:Table 7.2, 1978:Table 2.6). The resultssuggest
253
thesame
interrelated
andmaybe measuring
arehighly
thatthemeasures
& Greenley(1978).Measurement
a pointalsoraisedbyGinsberg
factor,
models,suchas Lisrel(Joreskog
modelsbasedon covariancestructure
to thedatato
remainto be fitted
& Sorbom1978) or othertechniques,
of the items.Anotherissueis
structure
the exactfactorial
determine
domainshouldbe interpreted
environment
ornottheperceived
whether
thatthe
shouldbe considered
The possibility
solelyas a causalvariable.
by theveryattribpartially
maybe determined
perceptions
perceiver's
certainvariables,
(see below).Finally,
utestheyareassumedtoinfluence
in particular
theparentalsocializationvariablesin thesocial-structural
ofthe
partofthegraphicrepresentation
a prominent
domain,although
discussednor analyzed.
model,are neithersystematically
theoretical
determinants
theimportance
ofbroadsociocultural
Jessordocumented
inan earliercomparative
studyofItalianandAmerican
ofdrugbehavior
sysand variablesin thepersonality
youths.The linkbetweendrinking
reflecting
temwasmuchweakeramongtheItaliansthantheAmericans,
practicesaboutalcoholinthetwo
innormsandsocialization
differences
cultures(Jessoret al 1970).
Akers(Burgess& Akers1966;Akers1977;
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
ofdifferential
Akersetal 1979)aimstomeldthesociologicalperspective
& Cressey1978) and thepsychological
associationtheory(Sutherland
(Skinner
of the learningtheoriesof operantconditioning
perspective
the
(Bandura1977). He seeksto explain,through
1959) and imitation
fromdifferentheprocessoflearning
ofoperantconditioning,
principles
in general,
Developedto accountfordeviantbehaviors
tialassociation.
on adolescent
druguse
hasbeentestedspecifically
sociallearning
theory
assumesthatsocialbehaviors
anddrinking
(Akersetal 1979).Thetheory
and imitation.
conditioning
operant(instrumental)
arelearnedthrough
is acquiredorpersists
depends
behavior
deviantorconforming
"Whether
forthebehaviorand the
on pastand presentrewardsor punishments
behavior-differential
attachedto alternative
and punishments
rewards
withsignificant
In addition,peoplelearnin interaction
reinforcement.
orienta(norms,attitudes,
groupsin theirlivesevaluativedefinitions
reinforced
tions)ofthebehavioras goodorbad ... whichcanbe directly
and also act as cue (discriminative)stimuliforotherbehavior.... the
of
effects
can be nonsocial(as in the directphysiological
reinforcers
comefrom
effects
behavioral
drugs)as wellas social,but... theprincipal
ofthosegroupswhichcontrolindiinor undertheinfluence
interaction
andexposethem
andpunishment
viduals'majorsourcesofreinforcement
(Akerset al 1979:
to behavioralmodelsand normative
definitions"
p.838,italicsin original).
254
KANDEL
An empiricaltestof the theoryhas been carriedout in 1977 on a

cross-sectional
sampleof7th-12thgradersfromeightdistricts
in three
mid-western
states(N = 3065). Fourmainsetsofvariablesweremeasured:imitation;
differential
associationand contact(family
andpeers);
differential
reinforcement;
anddefinitions
and attitudes.
Differential
associationwithusingornonusing
friends,
and attitudes
towardeachsubstanceexplainedmostofthevariancein thedependent
variables.
An important
advanceprovidedby social learningtheoryis thatit
of the mechanisms
of interpersonal
permitsa specification
influence.
Also,therecognition
thatreinforcers
can be nonsocialas wellas social
is especiallyappropriate
fordrugbehavior,wherephysiological
factors
to
andproperties
ofthedrugitselfcanbe reinforcing
andcan contribute
maintaining
the behavior.As demonstrated
by Wickler(1973), both
and classicalPavlovianprinciples
of associative
operantconditioning
learningexplaintheaddictiveprocess.Secondarycues in theenvironment(including
notonlyphysicalaspectsof theenvironment,
butasof
stimuli
pectsoftheaddict'slifestyle)areassociatedwiththeprimary
could
the addict'sdrugexperience.Wickler'stheoretical
elaborations
fruitfully
be incorporated
intothe social learningparadigm.
Although
Akersand Burgesshaveemphasizedthatreinforcers
can be nonsocial
as wellas social,at thistimenonsocialreinforcers
havenotbeenintroduced in any empiricaltestsof the theory(see Adams 1973; Akers
et al 1979).
isbased
ofdeviantbehavior
Kaplan'sgeneraltheory
on thepostulated
self-esteem
motive,accordingto whicha personenin orderto restorea senseofselfpreviously
gagesin deviantactivities
damagedby self-devaluing
experiencesin his/hermembership
group.
withthe deviant
Adoptionof the deviantactivitiesand identification
subculture
generaterespectand approval,butonlyto theextentthata
particular
behaviordeviatesfromthenormsof themembership
group
and
(Kaplan1975,1977a,1978c).The relationship
betweenself-esteem
deviantbehavior
is assumedtobe mediatedbyfourprocesses:
(a) subjecwithgroupmembership
tiveassociation
ofnegative
self-attitudes
experito
of contra-normative
ence; (b) development
attitudes;(c) inability
and(d)
sustainpositive
self-esteem
normative
through
response
patterns;
to thenormative
awarenessofdeviantalternatives
pattern.
ina three-wave
Thetheory
hasbeentestedandsupported
longitudinal
studyofjuniorhighschoolstudents(N = 3148) followedat annual
and
intervals.
Forthegroupas a whole,highinitiallevelsofself-rejection
in
in
involvement
lowering self-esteem
overtimepredictedsubsequent
the
use
of
one or moreof 22 deviantbehaviors,
them
among
alcohol,
SELF-DEROGATION
255
marihuana,
and narcotics
(Kaplan 1977a).7Furthermore,
initiation
ofa
deviantactivitywas followedby a reductionin negativeself-image
(Kaplan 1978b; Kaplan & Pokorny1978). The relationships
were
conditionaland obtainedmainlywhen the behavioralpatternwas
incompatible
withthe(assumed)valuesand normative
standards
ofthe
membership
group.High self-derogation
led to drinking
onlywhen
adolescentsperceivedself-devaluing
experiencesin school and held
contra-normative
attitudes (Kaplan & Pokorny 1977); high
self-derogation
led to deviantbehavioramongmiddle-class
but not
amonglower-class
adolescents
(Kaplan1978a).Conditional
associations
also obtainedregarding
in self-esteem
improvement
following
adoption
ofa deviantpattern.
The groupdifferences
areexplainedon thebasisof
differential
exposureto groupnormsthat are inferred
ratherthan
measured.
Thusthesocial-classdifferences
are attributed
to thegreater
compatibility
of deviantresponseswithlower-classthanmiddle-class
subcultures
(Kaplan 1978a:26).
An important
empiricalexceptionto the theoryis the finding
that
perceived
lackofpositiveevaluation
bythepeergroup,definedas "kids
at school,"does notconsistently
predictdeviantinvolvement.
Kaplan
indeviantactivities
concludesthatparticipation
in
requires
membership
and positiveidentification
withthepeergroup(Kaplan 1977a:97).Kaplan'sinitialexpectation
ofan association
betweendeviantbehaviorand
rejection
ofmembership
ina nongroupimplicitly
assumedmembership
deviantgroupanddidnottakeintoaccountthenatureofthenormsand
valuescharacterizing
different
peergroups.Not all peergroupssharean
indruguseandotherdeviantactivities
interest
(Kandel1978d).Involvementin deviantactivities
following
rejectionby thepeergroupwould
onlyoccurwhenadolescentsinitially
witha nondeviant
identify
peer
group.However,
itappearsthatidentification
with,rather
thanexclusion
from,a groupengagedin deviantactivitiesis associatedwithdeviant
as predicted
behavior,
fromsocial-learning
theory.The samepointhad
beenmade earlierby criticsof delinquency
research(e.g. see Jensen
1972;Linden& Hackler1973;Conger1976).Kaplaninferred
thenorms
and valuesofpeergroupsor othermembership
groupsfrombroadasabout the characteristics
of individualswho sharecertain
sumptions
attributes
suchas sex,race,orlevelofmother's
sociodemographic
education.Although
thetheory
thenotionofdeviance,
stresses
no attempt
was
7Secondary
analysesof data fromthe Youthin Transitioncohortby Rosenberg
&
Rosenberg
(1978)provide
further
support
forthedetermining
roleofself-esteem.
Cross-lag
hada stronger
panelanalysesshowedthatself-esteem
effect
on delinquency
between10th
and 11thgradethanviceversa,evenwhencontrolling
forinitiallevelsofdelinquency.
256
KANDEL
pattern
in eachbehavioral
theextentofinvolvement
madeto determine
mostdeviant
in orderto isolatethe mostinvolvedand presumably
adolescents.
theory,
adolescentsocialization
framework,
Thefourth
peers,and
nexusofparents,
Kandel'sfocusontheinterpersonal
underlies
makesuse ofconceptsandproThe framework
adolescents.
developing
especiallythoseofsociallearning
cessesderivedfromvarioustheories,
and control.
thatresultfroman
Druguse is one ofthemanyadolescentbehaviors
influand thecompeting
characteristics
betweenindividual
interaction
issuein adolescent
socialgroups.Thebasictheoretical
encesofmultiple
socializationis the extentto whichthe behaviorsof adolescentsare
ofpeers,or theinterinfluences
upontheintragenerational
dependent
ofadults,especiallyparents.Evenso clearlyageinfluence
generational
adultinfluences,
gradeda behavioras theuseofillicitdrugscouldreflect
inthe
rolemodelsfortheirchildren
withadultswhousedrugsproviding
two
theory,
In linewithsociallearning
substances.
useofmood-changing
otherson
ofsignificant
processeswerepositedto describetheinfluence
in whichyouthsmodeltheirown
adolescents.The firstis imitation,
and
behaviorsor attitudeson other'sbehaviorsby simplyobserving
the behaviorsor, in the case of parentaldrugbehaviors,
replicating
themintoformsmoreacceptableto theyouth'slifestyle.
transposing
maybe morelikelytostartusinghardliquoriftheirparents
Adolescents
drink.Theymayalsobe morelikelytouseillegal
drinkoriftheirfriends
smoke,or
or iftheirparentsdrink,
use marihuana
drugsiftheirfriends
reinis
social
The
secondprocess
drugs.
use a varietyofpsychoactive
and
behaviors
exhibit
and
definitions
internalize
Adolescents
forcement:
derived
An
process,
additional
others.
valuesapprovedby significant
in the controltheoryof delinquency
fromthenotionof commitment
The
influence:
to
(Hirschi1969),is hypothesized applyonlyto parental
effect
have
a
restraining
to
is
assumed
bond
qualityoftheparent-child
ofpairrespective
activities,
in deviantand delinquent
on involvement
Hir&
1959;
McCord
McCord
1958;
(Nye
values
and
rentalbehaviors
schi 1969).
Kandelstudiedsaminfluences,
interpersonal
In orderto investigate
fromthepresumed
data
independent
obtaining
and
triads,
plesofdyads
betweenthe
The
time
interval
and
peers.
of
influence-parents
sources
waves of data collectionwas short(5-6 months)and especiallywellinfluence
of peersin adolesof the fluctuating
suitedto investigation
influence
was found
to
With
parental
involvement,
cence.
respect drug
waspreeminent
(Kandel1973,1974a;Kandel,
tobe small;peerinfluence
SOCIALIZATION
257
lifeplans,however,
Kessler& Margulies1978a).Withrespectto future
(Davies &
than
influences
peer
stronger
much
were
influences
parental
a themedevelopedearlier
supported
Kandel1979).The resultsfurther
gap and of a
by Kandel& Lesser(1972): The notionof a generation
and
Parental
reference
groupinadolescenceis toosimplistic.
generalized
for
are stronger
Parentalinfluences
are issue-specific:
peerinfluences
forissues
issuesrelatedto futureroles;peer influencesare stronger
adolescentlifestyles.
relatedto immediate
wouldbe
frameworks
of thesecomplementary
Greaterintegration
a different
partofthe
orelaborates
sinceeachemphasizes
advantageous,
providea broadframeTheJessors
druginvolvement.
processunderlying
assumedto
whichtoorganizethevariouslevelsofvariables
workwithin
socialenvirontheadolescent's
Kandelemphasizes
affect
drugbehavior;
that
specifiesthemechanisms
mentofpeersand parents;Akersfurther
forces;and
explainhow individualsare molded by environmental
selfKaplan stressesthe influenceof a centralindividualattribute,
gainedfromall
insights
Futurestudiesshouldincorporate
derogation.
fourtheories.
Perspective
Drug and AlcoholUse in Developmental
A strongemerging
themein drugand alcoholresearchis theconsiderperspective.
ationofsubstancebehaviorwithina developmental
of
is the Jessors'conceptualization
An importantcontribution
behaviorswithinthe
as transitional
marihuanaand alcoholinitiation
As noted
of normaladolescentpsychosocialdevelopment.
framework
and mark
above,theypostulatethatvariousbehaviorsare age-graded
A measure
fromonephaseofthelifecycleto another.
statustransitions
willchangeandwhen
whichindividuals
predicts
oftransition-proneness
changes
theywillchange.Onsetofa behavioris associatedwithfurther
ofother
andwiththeonsetofa constellation
inthepredictive
attributes
forexample,
whohavebegunto use marihuana,
Adolescents
behaviors.
such other
are muchmorelikelythannonusersto have experienced
and activistprotest
as sexualintercourse,
problemdrinking,
behaviors
the
of charting
(Jessor& Jessor1977). This suggeststhe importance
whether
of the variousproblembehaviorsto determine
development
sequence
invariant,
theretendsto be a typical,thoughnotnecessarily
amongthem.
bothof thevarious
sequenceshave been identified,
Developmental
ofdruguse andotheradolescent
ofdruguse andofcombinations
forms
The use oflegaldrugsprecedestheuse ofillegalones,irrebehaviors.
258
KANDEL
spectiveoftheageatwhichinitiation
toillegaldrugstakesplace(Kandel
1975c;Kandel& Faust1975).Atleastfourdistinct
developmental
stages
in adolescentinvolvement
in drugscan be identified:
(a) beeror wine;
(b) cigarettes
and/orhardliquor;(c) marihuana;and (d) otherillicit
drugs.The firstsuggestion
of stagesin druguse camefromscalogram
analyseson a largecross-section
ofadolescents(Single,Kandel& Faust
1974).Guttman
scaleanalysisis especiallywellsuitedforanalyzing
the
ordering
ofpatterns
ofdruguse becauseofitsproperties
of unidimensionalityand cumulation.
Directevidencewas providedby Guttman
scaleanalysesofdrug-use
responses
overtime,replicated
intwodifferent
cohorts(Kandel1975c;Kandel& Faust 1975).Confirming
resultswere
providedby Goldstein,Gleason& Korn(1975) and Gove & Geerken
(1979). Similarpatterns
are foundamongblacksand whites,although
blacksmaybe morelikelyto proceeddirectly
frommarihuana
to heroin
withpillsand thepsychedelics
withoutexperimenting
(Johnson1973;
Kleinman& Lukoff1978;Brunswick
1979).
Furtherevidenceforthe existenceof stagesin druguse has been
providedbythefindings
thatdifferent
factors
predictadolescentinitiation
intodifferent
stagesofdruguse(Kandel,Kessler & Margulies1978a,b).(See below.)
It is important
tokeepinmindthatone'spositionat a particular
point
in thesequencedoes notindicatethata personwillprogress
to other
drugshigherup in thesequence.Rather,theuse ofan earlysequence
to a later
butnotsufficient
condition
forprogression
drugis a necessary
withmoreseriousdrugs(foran alternative
stage i.e. to involvement
pointofview,see O'Donnell& Clayton1979a,b).The extentto which
can be assessedonlyby comthesestagesare culturally
determined
studies. Studies in France and Israel
parativeand cross-cultural
confirm
theexistenceofsimilarstagesin thesetwocountries
(Adler&
Kandel 1980).
The identification
ofstagesin druguse has important
implications
for
orresultfromit.Whereas
thefactors
thatpredict,
studying
differentiate,
moststudiescompareyouthswithina totalpopulationon thebasisof
is
theiruse or nonuseof a particular
substance,a different
strategy
a cumulative
ofdruguse and
warranted:
Each stagerepresents
pattern
containsfeweradolescentsthanthe precedingstagein the
generally
at
shouldthusbe madebetweenthosemembers
sequence.Comparisons
a certain
stagewhohaveandthosewhohavenotalreadyusedthedrug(s)
thatappear
at thepreceding
stage(s).Unlessthisis done,theattributes
ina particular
to identify
stageof druguse mayactuallycharacterize
in drugsat thepreceding
volvement
stage(Kandel 1975c).The useful-
259
has
populations
specialat-risk
samplesforisolating
nessofdecomposing
stagesofnarcoticaddiction
byRobins,whoidentified
alsobeenstressed
among veterans(Robins, Davis & Wish 1977).
analysisofthedeveland methodological
theoretical
A sophisticated
by Robins(Robins& Wish
opmentalprocessin devianceis presented
in
studyofblackmalesand theirparticipation
1977)in a retrospective
theuse ofillicitdrugs,
definedas deviant,including
thirteen
behaviors
outofschool.Robins'innovation
before18,ordropping
married
getting
prodevelopmental
betweena quantitative
to distinguish
is herattempt
theoccurrence
ofdeviantactspredicts
cess,in whichthesheernumber
of subsequent
acts,and a qualitativeprocess,accordingto whichthe
Bothkinds
behavior.
subsequent
a specific
natureoftheprioractpredicts
ofprocessappearto takeplace. Marihuanais foundto be a necessary
Robins
antecedentof opiate involvement.
althoughnot a sufficient
betweendevelopmental
and similarities
aboutthedifferences
speculates
aspectsof thoseacts she labelsas deviantand "normalgrowth":"In
to
is forprogression
theexpectation
normalgrowthand development,
is cessaofdeviance,themodalpattern
theend.... In thedevelopment
tionat an earlyage.... Societypresseschildrento developtheskillsit
that
thebehaviors
as possibleandto avoidorterminate
valuesas rapidly
can
insocialization
thatfailure
conflict
withitsnorms... [This]suggests
be measurednotonlyby theappearanceof deviancebutby postpone(Robins& Wish
mentin the ages at whichit normallyterminates"
1977:470).
themeandevelopment,
psychosocial
ofadolescent
Within
thecontext
variesaccordingto theage at whichit is
ingof druguse or drinking
of
indicators
withthestrongest
adopted;theearliestadoptioncorrelates
deviance. (See also Kleinman 1978; Robins 1978; Boyle & Brunswick
1980.)
PRESENT CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND

TRADITIONAL THEORIES OF DEVIANCE
association
theory
differential
and Sutherland's
Merton'sanomietheory
dominatethefield
thatcurrently
theframeworks
havemostinfluenced
ofdrugresearch
However,therelationship
ofdrugandalcoholresearch.
hasbeen
is tenuous.Anomie(strain)theory
theories
tothesetraditional
the
of social
treatedas a characteristic
Whatwasformerly
transformed:
without
any
ofan individual,
is nowassignedas a characteristic
structure
260
KANDEL
of the individualtraitamongdifferent
assessment
of the distribution
groups.Thismaybe partly
thehomogeneity
explainedbytwofactors:
of
thesamples,and thelack of associationbetweensocioeconomic
characteristics
anddruguse.Hirschi's(1969) criticisms
ofanomie(orstrain)
theory
as inadequatetoexplaindelinquency
applyas welltodrugbehav-
ior.
ExceptinAkers'well-developed
socialreinforcement
theory,
Sutherland'stheoryof differential
associationhas been invokedas an afterthought
ratherthanas a set of hypotheses
to be testedsystematically
(Kandel1974a;Tec 1974;Jessor1979).Giventheambiguous
natureof
Sutherland's
theory,
an empirical
testmaybe impossible;
sucha testhas
not been attempted(see Adams 1973). Akers introducesseparate
measuresof perceivedpeer and parentalattitudesbut no combined
assessmentof the relativedistribution
of favorableand unfavorable
normsand modelsin theadolescent'ssocial environment
(Akerset al
1979).
Evenlessattention
hasbeenpaidto morerecenttheoretical
developmentsin thefieldofdeviance,especiallylabellingtheory.
The effect
of
thelabel'deviant'on thesubsequent
behaviorofan individual
[Lemert's
(1972) conceptofsecondary
deviance]seemstestablebuthas received
no empiricalattention.
The NationalCommissionon Marihuanaand
DrugAbuseexpressed
concernaboutthelifetime
consequences
ofapprehensionfora drugoffense
foradolescents
withno othercriminal
record.
Despitean earlyinterest
on thepartof thegovernment
in supporting
researchon theconsequencesofdruglaws on adolescentpsychosocial
development
(Williams1976),suchefforts
havenotbeenpursued.Kaplan'semphasis
onself-esteem
andself-derogation
isrelevant
tolabelling
buthe doesnotrefer
to it.Rosenberg
& Rosenberg
theory,
(1978) argue
thatthefinding
ofa greater
convincingly
causalimpactofself-esteem
on
thanofdelinquency
delinquency
on self-esteem
negatestheapplicability
ofthelabellingapproachto adolescentdeviantbehavior.
Systematic
reviewsoftheusefulness
of anomietheoryand labelling
toexplaineitheraddiction
theory
oralcoholismaremainlynegative
(see
Lindesmith
& Gagnon1964;McAuliffe
& Gordon1974,1975),although
Snyder(1964) voicedthehopesometimeago thatanomiemayprove
to be a fruitful
explanatory
schemeforalcoholism.
Buttressed
bystrong
empiricalevidence,Robins(1975) presentsan especiallydevastating
critique
oflabelling
In particular,
theory
as an explanation
ofalcoholism.
she stressesthatpatterns
ofexcessivedrinking
persistforlongperiods
oftimewithout
havingbeenlabelled,whereaslabellingtheorists
would
arguethatwithoutlabellingthebehaviorwoulddisappear.
261
LONGITUDINAL DRUG RESEARCH AND

SOCIALIZATION THEORY
Drugresearch
has madeimportant
contributions
to fundamental
issues
in socialization,
contributions
thatgo beyondtheirspecificapplication
to drugbehavior.
Preliminary
insights
areprovidedintotwoissuesrelevanttoprocessesofinterpersonal
influence:
(a) theroleofselectionand
socialization
on similarity
in friendships;
and (b) the meaningof the
perceivedenvironment.
Drug researchprovidesa fruitful
paradigmforthe investigation
of
theseissues.These insightshave been made possibleby longitudinal
researchdesignsand relational
samplesin whichindependent
dataare
obtainedfromsignificant
othersin ego's social environment.
Kandel
sampledtriadsand dyadscomposedof adolescents,
theirparents,
and
one bestschoolfriend;
900 friendship
pairswerestudiedtwiceovera
six-month
interval
(Kandel1978e;Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a).
Brook,Lukoff
& Whiteman
(1980) interviewed
234 pairsofadolescents
and theirmotherstwiceat an intervalof threeyears.Bentlerand his
colleaguesalso interviewed
triadsof adolescents,parents,and school
friends,
buttodatehavenotpublished
theirrelational
results.
Adolescent
druguse is an aptfocusforsocialization
studies.Itsonsetcanbe clearly
timed,ithas a strong
associationwithlifestyle
anditstrongly
variables,
polarizesdifferent
generations.
Selectionand Socializationin Friendships

Friendshaveconsistently
beenshownto sharemanyattributes
(Kandel
1978c).Lazarsfeld
& Merton(1954) proposedtheterm"homophily"
for
thetendency
towardsimilarity
amongpersonswhoaffiliate
witheach
other.Suchsimilarity
hastraditionally
beenattributed
tosocializationtheinfluence
ofonefriend
ontheother.Buttowhatextentdo similarities
amongfriends
resultinsteadfroma processof interpersonal
selection
(assortative
Do adolescentswithsimilarvaluesand behaviors
pairing)?
seekeachotheroutas friends?
Kandel'sanalysisoffriendship
formation
anddissolution
thefirst
provides
evidenceon thistheoretical
systematic
issuesinceNewcomb's(1961) classicstudyoftheacquaintance
process
in college.Information
was availablenot onlyon membersof stable
friendships
butalso on friends-to-be
andon former
friends.
It waspossible to examinesimilarities
as wellas divergences
in druguse (andother
attributes
suchas educationalaspirations)
betweenadolescentsbefore
theyselectedeach otheras friends,
whiletheywerefriends,
and after
262
KANDEL
theydroppedeach other.The data indicatedthatselectionand socializationcontribute

about equally to homophily(Kandel 1978e).
drugstudies
Similarconclusionsare reachedby twootherlongitudinal
friendswerenot
in which,however,independentdata frominteracting
available.From cross-laggedcorrelationsbetweenrespondents'reports
of theirown marihuanause and theirperceptionsof druguse by their
Ginsberg& Greenley(1978) concludedthatmarihuana
admiredfriends,
influenceeach otherto about
use and referencegroupidentification
fromrespondents'perceptionsof the drinking
equal degrees.Similarly,
behaviorof friendsat two pointsin time,Britt& Campbell(1977) conthebehaviorand
cludedthatcollegefriendsare chosenso as to reinforce
othersofpersons
priornormsofthechooser.The selectionas significant
perceivedto be like the selfmay be moreimportantthanthe effectof
perceivedgroupnormsto the productionof behavioraland attitudinal
similarity
(Britt& Campbell1977).
Meaning of thePerceivedEnvironmentVariable
The availabilityofindependentdata frompresumedsourcesofinterpersonal influencepermitsa specificationof the effectof the perceived
on attitudesand behaviors.An unchallengedassumptionin
environment
are
social scienceis thattheactor'sperceptions
ofthesocialenvironment
of thatenvironment
by an
causally more importantthan descriptions
an individual'sbehaviorsand
observeror by otheractorsin determining
values (Thomas & Thomas 1928; and see Jessor 1980). Accounts of
perceivedsocial contextsare used routinelyto measurethe effectsof
It mustbe recognizedthatboth
environments.
social and interpersonal
are subjectto biases.
ego's perceptionsof alterand alter's self-reports
However,usingrelationalsamplesof triads,Kandel and her associates
thatthe behaviorsand values of parentsand peers
have demonstrated
notmediathave important
directinfluenceson adolescents-i.e. effects
ed by theadolescent'sperceptions.Of utmostsignificance,
ego's percepin partby theveryattitudesand
tionsoftheenvironment
are determined
values thattheseperceptionsare assumedto determine(Davies & Kandel 1979; Kandel & Davies 1979). These processes of projectionor
attribution
appearwithrespectto bothparentsand peers.For example,
nonrecursive
causal modelsindicatethatadolescents'perceptionsofparental educationalaspirationsfor the adolescents are determinedas
as bythe
muchbytheadolescents'educationalaspirationsforthemselves
aspirationsforthe adolescents(Davies & Kandel
parents'self-reported
1979). Similarly,
reciprocalpathsofinfluenceexistbetweenadolescents'
marihuanause and theirperceptionsof marihuanause in theirpeer
group.A measureof an adolescent'sown marihuanause predictshow
263
manyfriends
heperceives
tobe usingitbetter
thanthenumber
offriends
hisowninvolvement
perceived
as userspredicts
(D. Kandel,M. Davies
& K. Andrews,
unpublished).
To summarize,
processes
ofinterpersonal
influence
areofteninferred
fromreports
thatare subjectto biasesin therespondents'
perceptions.
in drugresearch,
Often-cited
findings
suchas thepresumed
association
between
parental
andadolescent
druguse,arebasedonsuchreports
(e.g.
see Smart& Fejer1972).Thatdatabasedon distorted
perceptions
(e.g.
onprojection)
is rarelydiscussed
might
distort
thefindings
either
bythe
originalresearchers
or by otherswho cite the findings.
Correlations
basedon perceptions
areconsistently
muchhigherthanthosebasedon
self-reports
(Kandel1974b;Kandel,Kessler& Margulies
1978a)because
ofalterincludean elementofprojection
and attribuego'sperceptions
tion.
LONGITUDINAL
STUDIES
In recentyears,understanding
reofthesocial-psychological
factors
latedto variousformsofdruguse has beenenhancedby a number
of
prospective
longitudinal
studies.Initiatedin thelate 1960sand early
1970s,theseare surveysbased on representative
randomsamplesof
adolescents
oryoungadults,sampledat approximately
thesamehistorical period,and studiedwithsimilarinstruments.
Most have focused
eitheron alcoholor on marihuana
and otherillicitdrugs.Suchconvergenceis unusualinthebehavioral
sciences.Theseinvestigations
collected information
on future
drugusersin theirnaturalsettings
beforethey
haduseddrugs;theyalsoincludedgroupsofnonusers
againstwhichto
evaluatetheusers.
A totalof35 longitudinal
studieshavebeenidentified,
including
two
studies
carried
outinCanadaandoneinSwitzerland.
Mostwereinitiated
ina three-year
periodbetween1969and 1971.Thestudiesaredescribed
anddiscussed
indetailinKandel(1978b,1980).Empirical
reports
from
selectedstudiesare also includedin Kandel(1978a).
Adolescentstudieshavebeenbased mostlyon schoolsamples.The
mostsignificant
include:Jessor& Jessor'scohortsequential
four-wave
annualfollow-ups
of highschoolstudents,
describedabove (Jessor&
Jessor1977,1978);Smith'sannualfollow-ups
overa five-year
periodof
cohorts
of4th-12th
insixschoolsinthegreater
graders
Bostonarea,with
an initialassessment
oftheyouths'personalities
as ratedby their4th
gradeclassmates
(Smith& Fogg1978,1979);Kandel'stwo-wave
followup overoneschoolyearofa representative
sampleofstudents
from18
schoolsinNewYorkState,witha subsample
publicsecondary
ofgradu-
264
KANDEL
fromhighschool
ated seniorscontacteda thirdtimeaftergraduation
(Kandel 1973,1975a,b,c;Kandelet al 1976; Kandel,Single& Kessler
Kessler& Kandel1977;
1976;Kessler,Paton& Kandel1976;Margulies,
of
follow-up
Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a,b);Kaplan'sthree-wave
in 18juniorhighschoolsin Texas (Kaplan 1977a,b,
7thgradestudents
1978 a,b,c,1980;Kaplan& Pokorny1977, 1978); Bentler'sfive-wave
in Los Angeles(Huba,Wingard
ofjuniorhighschoolstudents
follow-up
& Bentler1979a,b,1981; Wingard,Huba & Bentler1979); Lukoff&
ofa ghettoteenagesample
follow-up
basedtwo-wave
Brookscommunity
and theirmothers(Brook,Lukoff& Whiteman1977a,b,1978, 1980);
inadolescenceofa cohortofblack
basedfollow-up
Kellam'scommunity
ghettoyouthsfirstcontactedat age six (Kellamet al 1980). Severalof
D. Kandel,H. Kaplan,and G. Smith)
thesestudies(thoseofR. Jessor,
ofselectedsubjectsintotheyoung
further
follow-ups
arenowinitiating
adultyears.
studiesthathavebridgedtheyearsbetween
Of thefourlongitudinal
schoolyears,twohavebeencarriedout
thehighschoolandthepost-high
fiveyearsafter
through
andhisassociates:(a) thefollow-up
byJohnston
cohort;and (b) the
of the Youthin Transition
highschoolgraduation
of successivehighschoolseniorcohortsinongoingyearlyfollow-ups
theFuture.The oldestcohortwillbe approximatecludedinMonitoring
ly 24 yearsold at the fifthplannedcontactin 1981. Brunswick's
ofHarlemyouthincludedyoungmenandwomenaged 18-23
follow-up
&
in 1975-1976(Brunswick1979;Brunswick
at thesecondinterview
1980).Britt& Campbell(1977) recently
Boyle1979;Boyle& Brunswick
on a two-wavestudyin which1420 highschoolseniorssurreported
veyedin 1961 werecontactedagain at the end of theirfirstyearin
college.
studiesofcollegestudentsand youngadultsinThe mostimportant
in a western
of freshmen
&
follow-up
cludeJessor Jessor'sfour-year
two&
Manheimer's
university
(Jessor& Jessor1977,1978);Mellinger
of
at
one
senior
class
the
University
ofonefreshman
and
yearfollow-up
six-month
Sadava's
Berkeley(Mellingeret al 1976, 1978a);
California,
and sophomores
at a Canadianuniversity
ofcollegefreshmen
follow-up
& Greenin 1972and 1973(Sadava& Forsyth1976,1977a,b);Ginsberg
of
freshmen
sample
of
a
representative
follow-up
ley's(1978) two-year
in 1971and 1974;
university
surveyed
andsophomores
at a midwestern
at two universities
(N = 567),
Moos' three-wave
studyof freshmen
followedafterninemonthsand afterthreeyears(Moos,Moos & Kulik
1977;Igra& Moos 1977,1979); and Robins'two-wavestudyof male
haveexamveterans
citedearlier.Cahalanandhiscollaborators
Vietnam
old
over
a period
men
adult
18-65
years
inedalcoholproblems
among
265
of eightyears(Cahalan & Roizen 1974; Roizen,Cahalan& Shanks

1978).
PREDICTING DRUG INITIATION IN

ADOLESCENCE
of the
studieshave greatlyincreasedour understanding
Longitudinal
of druguse in the earlyphasesof adolescentinvolvement.
predictors
foundincross-sectionSuchstudieshaveshownthatmanyofthefactors
it.To date,
al studiestobe relatedtodruguseinfactprecedeandpredict
havebeenmostlyconcernedwithetiologyand prediction;
investigators
seeJessor,
ofuse.(Forexceptions
littleis knownabouttheconsequences
Jessor& Finney1973;Sadava& Forsyth1976,1977a;Paton,Kessler&
O'Malley & Eveland 1978; Mellingeret al
Kandel 1977; Johnston,
hasbeenpaidto
1980).Littleattention
1978a;Robins1978;Brunswick
ofuse (foran exceptionaboutdecreaseindrinkdecreaseortermination
researchdeals
ing,see Moos, Moos & Kulik1977). Most longitudinal
use.
ofalcoholor marihuana
withinitiation
variablesfallintothreebroadclasses:(a) sociodemoThe predictive
charincluding
personality
attributes,
(b) intrapersonal
graphicfactors;
of
influences
variables;and (c) interpersonal
acteristics
and life-style
Withrareexceptions
byRobinson the
(e.g. research
peersand parents.
andby
andtheUnitedStateson veterans,
impactofVietnam
differential
hasbeenpaidtocontextual
littleattention
Moos on collegedormitories)
variablesand largersocialconditions.
severalpointsmustbe keptin mind.
In thisbriefreviewoffindings,
inteframework
no systematic
solely
descriptive;
are
most
studies
First,
or
on
simple
are
based
Most
analyses
or
informs
their
findings.
grates
of
effects
to
determine
the
the
latter
used
multiple
regressions,
step-wise
additive.
Interactive
models,
basic
are
The
models
clusters
ofvariables.
wouldvary
factors)
ofonedomain(e.g.interpersonal
inwhichtheeffects
buthave
more
appropriate
be
would
domains,
upon other
depending
preto
identify
used
strategies
analytical
Finally,
the
been
tested.
rarely
individuals
comparing
involve
exceptions,
of
with
two
dictors initiation,
substance
with
ina groupwhosubsequently
initiate
theuseofa particular
maybe
all otherswho do notdo so. As notedabove,sucha strategy
to
restricted
sincethecontrastgroupsare not properly
inappropriate
as requiredbythenotionofstages
thoseactuallyat riskforinitiations,
in drugbehavior(Kandel1975c;Kandel,Marguliesand Davies 1978).
factors
maybe
sincedifferent
causalfactors
maybe obscured,
Important
forvariousstages(see also Robins,Davis & Wish1977).For
important
266
KANDEL
to
example,the analysisof marihuanainitiationshouldbe restricted
withalcohol,ratherthan
whohavealreadyhad experience
adolescents
at the
experience
be carriedout amongall youthswithoutmarihuana
initialinterview.
ofuse,mostoften
havefocusedon simpleinitiation
Mostinvestigators
Some have also examinedtimeof onsetand degreeof
of marihuana.
meaobtainfordifferent
By and large,thesamefindings
involvement.
from
samplesof youthranging
suresofdrugbehaviorand in different
(Jessor& Jessor
intheRockyMountains
whiteadolescents
middle-class
whiteandblackadolescentsin a largeurbanlower1977)tolower-class
(Brook,Lukoff& Whiteman1980).The bulkof lonclasscommunity
earlier
gainedin twoinfluential
theinsights
researchconfirms
gitudinal
Becker's(1953) classicanalyondruginvolvement:
writings
sociological
initiation
and Suchman's
sis oftheroleofthepeergroupin marihuana
of the associationbetweendrugbehaviorand the
(1968) description
ofthe"Hang-LooseEthic."
unconventionality
Variables
Sociodemographic
sociodemographic
Bothin absolutetermsand relativeto otherfactors,
intodruguse,
variablesadd littleto theexplainedvarianceofinitiation
& Jessor
andalcohol(O'Malley1975;Jessor
useofmarihuana
especially
&
1977,1978;Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a;Brook,Lukoff Whitefindings
thusconfirm
man 1980,Igra& Moos 1979).The longitudinal
in
studies.
cross-sectional
noted
above
thelack ofrelationship
Variables
Intrapersonal
or deviantcharacterDo future
druguserssharepsychopathological
doesnotappearto
findthatpsychopathology
istics?Someinvestigators
1977);others
ofdruguse(e.g.see Goldstein& Sappington
be a precursor
findthatfutureusersof marihuanaor otherillicitdrugsreportmore
peers(Kaplan1977a;Paton,
distress
thantheirabstaining
psychological
Kessler& Kandel 1977;Ginsberg& Greenley1978).The evidencereon the otherhand,is overgardingdevianceand unconventionality,
or alcohol,exhibit
ofmarihuana
Futuredrugusers,whether
whelming.
andrejection
ofunconventionality
indicative
values,andbehaviors
traits,
drugusershave
In Hirschi'sterms,prospective
of social institutions.
Jessor& Finney(1973),howJessor,
manysocialcontrols.
relinquished
amonghigh
ever,foundthatwhilethesamesetoffactorswas operative
factorsweremuchpoorerprepersonality
schooland collegestudents,
in collegethanin high
dictorsof subsequentmarihuanainvolvement
in thenordifferences
thatthisreflected
school.The authorssuggested
267
marihuana
mativeclimateforthebehavior;in thecollegeenvironment
maybecomeapparusewasthenorm.Similardeclinesinpredictiveness
hasbeenused
ofyouthswheremarihuana
entamongrecentpopulations
a recentstudy(Kay et al 1978)
bya majority
ofyoungpeople;however,
in recentand early1960scohortsof
foundsimilar
attributes
personality
studiesindicatethatdespitethe
marihuana
users.Recentcross-sectional
valuesof
ofillicitdruguse in themid-1970s,
muchgreater
prevalence
studiesoftheearly
usershavenotchangedmuchsincethelongitudinal
by more deviantand radical
1970s. Futureusersare characterized
andlowercommitment
topoliticaldissent,
ideologies,
greater
adherence
to religionthannonusers.
variablesincludedin thestudies
Mostofthepersonality
(e.g. Jessor&
are cognitive
ratherthanaffective.
Severalinvestigators
& Whiteman
1980)includeintheirpersonalJessor1977;Brook,Lukoff
suchvariablesas educationalaspirations.
ityevaluating
batteries
marihuana
involvement
predictive
ofsubsequent
Personality
variables
(Smith& Fogg 1978); stresson independence
includerebelliousness
(O'Malley 1975;Jessor& Jessor1977; Sadava & Forsyth1977a);low
in alienation,
reflected
apathy,pessiwell-being,
senseofpsychological
distress(Paton,
mism,depressive
mood,or highlevelsofpsychological
& Greenley1978;Smith& Fogg1978);
Kessler& Kandel1977;Ginsberg
and low self-esteem
(Kaplan1977a;Smith& Fogg 1978).On theother
in theYouthin
relationship
hand,O'Malley(1975) foundno significant
Transition
cohortbetweenillicitdruguse andpriormeasuresofdepresor unhappiness.
no
sive mood,anomie,anxiety,irritability,
Similarly,
inmoodorphysicalsymptoms
wereobserved
amongcollege
differences
whobeganto drinkninemonthslater(Igra& Moos 1979),or
abstainers
&
amongblackyouthswhobecameinvolvedin illicitdrugs(Brunswick
Boyle 1980).
for
strategies
The hypothesis
thatcertainformsofdruguse represent
fromfindings
that
gainedsupport
copingwithstressorlackofwell-being
initiation
intouse ofalcohol;butthis
declinedfollowing
self-derogation
was thecase onlywhenadolescentsfeltrejectedby others(Kaplan&
withuseofillicitdrugs
Pokorny1978).Depressivemoodsalso improved
otherthanmarihuana
(Paton,Kessler& Kandel 1977).
innewexperiences
andinterest
have
risk-taking,
Although
creativity,
as important
correlates
ofdruguseinmanycross-sectionbeenidentified
al studies(see Jessor1979forreview),thesevariableshaverarelybeen
research.Sadava & Forsyth(1977a) found
consideredin longitudinal
social,and ethical
highervaluationsof riskin the physical,financial,
whoinitiatedmarihuana
use.
areasamongcollegestudents
PERSONALITY
268
KANDEL
to
lessenedconformity
reflecting
Attitudes
AND VALUES
or drinkinvolvement
marihuana
predictsubsequent
socialinstitutions
low exing.Examplesincludelow valuationofacademicachievement,
pectationsforacademicsuccess,a high valuationof independence
instituin goalsofconventional
lackofinterest
relativetoachievement,
to adultexpectations,
tionslikechurchand school,lack of conformity
ofdeviance
and tolerance
socialstructures,
withexisting
dissatisfaction
(O'Malley1975;Britt& Campbell1977;Jessor& Jessor1977;Sadava
& Forsyth1977a;Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a;Kay et al 1978;
Smith& Fogg 1978; Brook,Lukoff& Whiteman1980; Igra& Moos
(1978),on theotherhand,rejectthenotion
& Greenley
1979).Ginsberg
useandemphafactorinmarihuana
tosocietyas a primary
ofopposition
groups.
size insteada positiveresponseto reference
ATTITUDES
motivation,
Decliningacademicaspirations,
priorto theonsetof marihuanaand alcoholuse are
and performance
1973; Mellingeret al 1976;Jessor&
foundby moststudies(Johnston
Jessor1978;Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a; Smith& Fogg 1978;
in terms
1980);thesedeclinesaremeasured
& Whiteman
Brook,Lukoff
ofschoolabsenceandclassescut,
frequency
offalling
grades,increasing
bothat thehighschoolandthe
ofachievement,
valuations
anddeclining
was foundto
ofsuchtrendswithdrinking
collegelevel.The association
amongmalethanfemalecollegestudents(Moos, Moos &
be stronger
Kulik1977).
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
activities
A varietyof delinquent
commonly
precede,butmaynotcause,druguse (O'Donnellet al 1976;
Jessor& Jessor1977;Sadava& Forsyth1977a;Kandel,Kessler& Marin one deviantbehavior
gulies1978a;Igra& Moos 1977).Involvement
ina variety
ofother
involvement
ofsubsequent
theprobability
increases
deviantacts(Robins& Wish1977). Strongevidenceofthisis provided
indelinquent
and
whereparticipation
cohort,
bytheYouthin Transition
over a seven-year
period
criminalactivitieswas assessedextensively
O'Malley
indrugs(Johnston,
withinvolvement
priortoandconcomitant
suchas theft
involving
property,
& Eveland1978). Criminalactivities
aggression
relatedthaninterpersonal
andvandalism,
weremorestrongly
inillicitdruguse.In O'Donnelletal's (1976)
involvement
tosubsequent
was
held whether
delinquency
sampleof youngmen,therelationship
actsorbyjuvenilecourtappearances.
criminal
indexedbyself-reported
forDrugAbuse 1976.)
(See also NationalInstitute
can predictthetypeofdruginvolveThe typeofdelinquent
activity
in
participation
ment.AmongNew York Statehighschool students,
OTHER BEHAVIORAL ANTECEDENTS
269
minordelinquency
(suchas cheatingon a testor minortheft)
predicted
bothhardliquorandmarihuana
use. Dealingin drugsand participating
in majordelinquency
(e.g.car theft)
predicted
marihuana
use andespeciallyinitiation
intouse ofotherillicitdrugs(Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a).AmongtheVietnam
veterans,
priorparticipation
indeviance
schoolquitting
and expulsion,
andfighting)
(arrests,
truancy,
predicted
use in andafterVietnambutnotaddictionliability
afterVietnam(Robins,Davis & Wish1977).
Robins(1979) also foundthatnarcoticuse duringservicein Vietnam
hada strong
effect
on arrestratesfollowing
return
to theUnitedStates,
arrest
evenwhenthedrugusers'preservice
historiesof morefrequent
weretakenintoaccount.Her conclusions
regarding
thecausalconnectionbetweendruguse and delinquency
differ
fromthosereachedby
Johnston,
O'Malley& Eveland(1978), who concludedthattheuse of
orotherillicitdrugsdidnotleadtoan increaseindelinquency
marihuana
in delinquency
overtime:Differences
rateamongusersin theirearly
inthelateteenspreceding
couldbe accounted
forbydifferences
twenties
druguse.
Interpersonal
Factors
in drugresearch
The mostconsistent
and reproducible
finding
is thestrong
relationship
betweenan individual's
drugbehaviorandthe
concurrent
druguse ofhisfriends,
eitheras perceivedbytheadolescent
oras reported
bythefriends
(Alexander& Campbell1968;Goode 1970;
Johnson1973; Kandel 1973; Burkett
& Jensen1975; Goldstein1975;
& Koval 1976;Kandelet al 1976;O'Donnellet al
Dembo,Schmeidler
1976; Brook,Lukoff& Whiteman1977b; Kleinman& Lukoff1978;
Orcutt1978; Smart,Gray& Bennet1978; Ellis & Stone1979; Huba,
& Bentler1979a).On noothercharacteristic
Wingard
exceptageandsex
is the similarity
withinadolescentfriendship
pairsas highas it is for
in
marihuana
use (Kandel 1978c).As discussedearlier,thissimilarity
druguse mayresultfromselectionor socialization.
Peerrelatedfactors
thestrongest
ofsubseareconsistently
predictors
arecontrolled
quentalcoholandmarihuana
use,evenwhenotherfactors
& Whiteman
(butsee Brook,Lukoff
1980).Extentofperceived
druguse
in thepeergroup,self-reported
druguse by peers,and perceivedtolerance foruse are all strongpredictors
initiation
ofa youth'ssubsequent
intouse of alcohol,marihuana,
or otherillicitdrugs(Lucas, Grupp&
& Jessor1977;Ginsberg
& Greenley1978;Kandel,
Schmitt
1975;Jessor
Kessler& Margulies1978a).Associationswithperceiveddruguse are
PEERS
270
KANDEL
use (Kandel1974a;Kandel,
thanwithpeers'self-reported
muchstronger
and
ofothers'behaviors
Kessler& Margulies1978a)becauseperceptions
ontoothers(Kandel
ofego'sownattributes
valuesareinpartprojections
& Davies 1979).
at certainpointsin theprocessof
aremoreimportant
Peerinfluences
imporareespecially
thanatothers.Friends'behaviors
druginvolvement
forpredictlessimportant
useandrelatively
marihuana
tantinpredicting
(Kandel,
or theuse of illicitdrugsotherthanmarihuana
ingdrinking
in peer
Kessler& Margulies1978a).Availabledata on sex differences
thanmales(Jessor,
indicatethatfemalesare moresusceptible
influence
Kessler& Kandel1977).In general,
Jessor& Finney1973;Margulies,
the"proxidrugrelated,
andattitudes
thatarespecifically
peerbehaviors
ofthe
thantheattributes
are moreinfluential
mal"socialenvironment,
to peer
(Jessor& Jessor1977). Susceptibility
"distal"social structure
(e.g.dating
activities
in peer-related
is relatedto involvement
influence
to and
or gettingtogether
withfriends)and to degreeof attachment
relianceon peersratherthanparents(Jessor& Jessor1978; Kandel,
Kessler& Margulies1978a;Brook,Lukoff& Whiteman1980).
the
theexistenceofa generaldrugsubculture,
Ratherthanindicating
ofpeers,each
social networks
data supportthenotionof drug-specific
drug.Priorassociationwithusersofa partowarda particular
oriented
use ofthatdrug
ofan individual's
ticulardrugis thestrongest
predictor
(Jessor& Jessor1977; Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a). Further
canonicalanalyseson adolescent
bycross-sectional
evidenceis provided
usersof alcohol,marihuana,
tobacco,inhalent,and otherillicitdrugs.
thatwouldbe
emerged
insteadofthesinglefactor
factors
Fourdifferent
& Bentler1979a).
(Huba,Wingard
bya generaldrugsubculture
produced
who have examinedpeer influences,
only
Of all the investigators
andperforfamily
(1980),aftercontrolling
& Whiteman
Brook,Lukoff
reportmostlynegativeresults.In itsdesignthis
characteristics,
sonality
separating
respect:Theinterval
fromothersinan important
studydiffers
(3 years)is muchlongerthanthe
contactswithadolescentrespondents
used(1 year,or 6 months).Theseresultsthussuggestan
usualintervals
Such influaboutthe natureof peerinfluences.
hypothesis
important
withparenbycomparison
encesappeartobe immediate
andshort-lived
derivesfromLucas,
talinfluences.
support
forthisinterpretation
Further
use by
Grupp& Schmitt(1975),whofoundthatperceivedmarihuana
yearweaklypredicted
groupsinthefreshman
reference
collegestudents'
initiation
twoyearslaterbutnotfouryearslater.Thehypothmarihuana
shouldbe tested
esisofvarying
timelagsforparental
andpeerinfluences
further.
271
PARENTAL INFLUENCES
Threedifferent
aspectsofparentalcharacterintodruguse: parentaldrugbehaviors;
isticspredictinitiation
parental
aboutdrugs;andvariousaspectsofparent-child
attitudes
interactions.
In
two studies,theseresultsare based on adolescents'reportsof family
characteristics
as wellas parental
self-reports
(Kandel,Kessler& Margulies 1978a; Brook,Lukoff& Whiteman1979). These factorsvaryin
importance
at different
stagesof druginvolvement.
Parentaluse ofhardliquorpredicts
adolescentuse ofhardliquorand
otherillicitdrugsbutnotmarihuana.
Parentaluse ofpsychoactive
drugs
predictsadolescentuse of illicitdrugsotherthanmarihuana
(Kandel,
Kessler& Margulies1978ab). Specificparentalrulesagainsttheuse of
drugsareineffective;
butattitudes
aboutdrugs(e.g.tolerance
ofmarihuana orbeliefintheharmfulness
ofvariousdrugs)andnonreligiosity
influencesubsequent
drugusebythechildren
(Jessor& Jessor1977;Kandel,
Kessler& Margulies1978a).
of the parent-adolescent
Finally,severalcharacteristics
relationship
predictmarihuana
initiation.
Examplesincludetheabsenceofcloseness,
in mothers,
and passivity
unconventionality
lack of maternalinvolvementin activities
withtheirchildren,
andlowparental
educational
aspirationsfor the children(Jessor& Jessor1977; Brook,Lukoff&
Whiteman
1980).Lackofperceivedclosenessto parents
is an especially
atthethird
initiation
todrugs
strong
predictor
stageofdruginvolvement,
otherthanmarihuana(Kandel,Kessler& Margulies1978a). Parental
orproblem
divorce,
arrest,
drinking,
drugusedidnotpredict
narcotic
use
eitherin or aftertheVietnamwarbutwerethestrongest
of
predictors
liabilityto addictionafterservicein Vietnam(Robins,Davis & Wish
1977).
offamily
Theeffect
remains
aftercontrolling
factors
forotherdomains
ofvariables
&
& WhiteKessler
(Kandel,
Margulies1978a;Brook,Lukoff
man 1980). Causal modelsof parentalinfluence
that
suggest
parental
behaviorsand attitudes
in theabsenceof a
affectadolescentsdirectly,
directperception
ofparentalattributes
(Davies & Kandel1979,unpublished).
Parentsclearlyinfluence
children
thetwoprocessesposit(a) through
ed by sociallearningtheory-byproviding
modelsand by socialreinforcementof appropriatevalues and behaviors-and (b) through
as positedbysocialcontroltheory.
commitment,
Theimpactofparental
on thechildren's
characteristics
in deviantactivities
involvement
is mediatedthrough
thesocializationof personalcontrols(Jessor& Jessor
1977:223).Adolescents
fromconventional
families
internalize
negative
valuesaboutdeviantactivities.
272
KANDEL
Contextual
Factors
Investigators
havepaidscantattention
to theschool,thechurch,
orthe
mass mediaas socializinginfluences
(Jessor1979). All threemaybe
important
(Jessor
& Jessor1977).A striking
documentation
ofcontextuon druginitiation
is providedby Robins'studyof Vietnam
al effects
veterans
andnonveterans.
She showedthata socialsetting
favorable
to
druguse reinforces
and increasesindividualpredisposition
to use. In
Vietnam,
drugsofall typeswereeasilyavailableandregulations
against
use wereminimal.
The Vietnamexperiencethushastenedtheonsetof
theuse ofcertaindrugsand also resultedin theuse ofmarihuana
and
narcotics
bymanymenwhomightnothaveuseddrugsotherwise
(Robins1978).Menwithattributes
ofa predisposition
indicative
tousedrugs
wereevenmoreaffected
by thedrug-use-facilitating
Vietnamenvironmentthanmenwithout
thesecharacteristics.
Thesefindings
gainimporof the
tancefromthefactthatthechangein settingwas independent
actoror ofsignificant
others(Robins1978).
No otherstudyhasyetshownsuchstriking
contextual
effects.
Igra&
Moos (1977, 1979) developeda comprehensive
taxonomy
ofthesocial
and drinking
butwereunableto docucontextsofcollegedormitories
on initiation
mentanycontextual
effects
exceptwhenthemeasuretook
in the dormitory.
intoaccountthe averageextentof drinking
Other
contextual
suchas cohesiveness,
hadnoimpact.Immedicharacteristics,
ate interpersonal
networks
thancharacteristics
maybe moreimportant
ofthelargersocialcontext.
Indeed,Campbell& Alexander(1965) deminconnection
onstrated
withadolescent
thatconeducational
aspirations
textual effectsof schools on aspirationsresultednot fromthe
characteristics
of thetotalstudentbodybutfromthoseof theadolescent'sclose friends.
COMMON FACTORS VERSUS BEHAVIOR-SPECIFIC

THEORIES
Does a uniquesetoffactors
precedeeachkindofsubstance
use,ordoes
a commonsetoffactors
precedethemall?KaplanandJessor
arethemost
ofthecommon-influence
explicitexponents
hypothesis.
Kaplan(1978c)
thata commonsetofinfluences,
suggests
subsumedundertheconcept
ofself-rejecting
determines
of
attitudes,
theadoptionandthecontinuity
variousbehaviorslabelled "deviant,"includingnot only alcohol,
and narcoticuse butalso mentalillness,delinquency,
marihuana,
and
273
byinaggression.
As discussedearlier,theadoptionofthesebehaviors
Similarly,
Jessor
personsenhancesself-esteem.
tenselyself-derogatory
transiindicating
(Jessor
& Jessor1977;Jessor1978b)arguesthatfactors
tion-proneness
are associatedwithand predictadolescentalcoholconand
sumption,marihuana use, early sexual experimentation,
and
on theoretical
For Jessor,
thisconclusionis justified
delinquency.
and
problem
behaviors
ofmultiple
empirical
grounds
bytheconcurrence
in thevariousbehaviors.
The
ofthosewhoparticipate
bythesimilarity
is dependent
problembehavior,Jessorsuggests,
choiceof a particular
forthatbehavior(Jessor
ofspecificsocialsupports
upontheavailability
O'Malley & Eveland (1978) concludethatdelin1978b). Johnston,
with
quencyand druguse are likelyto be engagedin by individuals
delinquency
precedesdruguse because"pronesimilarcharacteristics;
different
behaviors
at differnesstowarddevianceis expressedthrough
entages" (p. 156).
Kandeland Robins,on the otherhand,argueforbehavior-specific
Theirpositionderivesfroma developmental
perspective
antecedents.
predicated
on thenotionof stagesin druguse. Kandelhas shownthat
in different
drugbehaviors,
specifiinvolvement
different
factors
predict
andall otherillicitdrugs(Kandel,Kesslcallyuseofalcohol,marihuana,
associatedwith
er & Margulies1978ab). Robinsfindsdifferent
factors
eachof
different
stagesofaddiction(Robins1979).Amongadolescents,
fourclusters
peerinfluences,
variables(parentalinfluences,
ofpredictor
invariousbehaviors,
and adolescent
beliefsand
adolescentinvolvement
imwithineach clusterassumedifferential
values)andsinglepredictors
in
minor
portanceforeach stageof drugbehavior.Priorinvolvement
beer,and winewerethemost
delinquency
and theuse of cigarettes,
of adolescenthardliquoruse. Beliefsand values
important
predictors
using
andassociationwithmarihuana
favorable
totheuseofmarihuana,
of
initiation
into
marihuawere
the
strongest
predictors
adolescent
peers,
withparents,depressivemood,and exposureto
na use. Poorrelations
and
useda variety
oflegalandillegaldrugs
parents peerswhothemselves
of
illicitdrugsotherthan
of
initiation
into
use
weremostpredictive
1978a).
Thus,social factors
Kessler
&
Margulies
marihuana(Kandel,
while
psychological
factors
better
maybetterexplainearlyinvolvement,
further
involvement.
explain
populations
at risk
The failureto decomposesamplesand to identify
assign
createcommonalities
whereinfactnoneexistandmayimproperly
toa laterbehavior
ina sequencetheeffect
ofvariables
thatareimportant
longitudinal
samples
ofexisting
onlyat an earlierstage.Decompositions
are requiredbeforethenotionoffactor-specificity
can be rejected.
274
KANDEL
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS AND SUBSTANCE USE

mayexplaincerpredispositions
It hasbeenproposedthatphysiological
attention
tainpatterns
ofdruguseandabuse.Thisparallelstheincreasing
and
to biologicalfactorsin manyareas of sociologyand psychology,
Sykes(1978) notesthat
ofsociobiology.
coincideswiththeemergence
ofDarwin,
reflecting
theinfluence
century
theories,
certainnineteenth
Biological
behaviorin termsofbiologicalinferiority.
explainedcriminal
explanations
werepursuedwellintothefirstthreedecadesofthetwenof the
and socialexplanations
tiethcentury,
afterwhichpsychological
ofinterest
in
causationofcrimebecamemorepopular.The resurgence
that"theevifindsRobins,forexample,stating
biologicalexplanations
crime,and aldenceforgeneticor perinatalfactorsin schizophrenia,
at thismomentthanis evidencenot
coholismmaybe moresubstantial
onlyforlabellingtheorybutforanytypeof socialcausation"(Robins
1975:23-24).
a detailedreviewofrecentdevelopments,
Sincelackofspaceprevents
I briefly
threelinesofevidenceon theroleofbiologicalfactors
mention
in drugbehavior.
GeneticFactors
thatincreasetherisk
geneticfactors
Studiesofadopteeshaveidentified
ofalcoholismin certainpopulations-e.g.amongthesonsofalcoholic
ofthesestudiesto
fathers
strategy
(Goodwin1976).The methodological
usedinschizophreinteraction
wasfirst
unraveltheclassicnature-nuture
factors
In studiesofadoptees,biologicalandenvironmental
niaresearch.
almostexperimentally.
can be manipulated
Adopteesand individuals
boththosewithand
canbe compared,
parents
raisedwiththeirbiological
thosewithouta familyhistoryof the behaviorin question.In three
studies,one basedon theDanishfileofadoptees,Goodwinhas shown
raisedbynonalcoholic
that(a) biologicalsonsofalcoholicfathers
adoprateaboutfourtimesthatofcontrol
tiveparents
exhibited
an alcoholism
no suchdifferences
groups,andan earlieronsetofthealcoholicpattern;
ofpsychopatholoorinotherforms
werefoundinratesofheavydrinking
gy;(b) thealcoholismratewas thesame amongthesonsof alcoholic
fathers
raisedby theirbiologicalparentsand thoseraisedby adoptive
(Goodwin
appearedonlyformale offspring
parents;(c) theseeffects
in Goodevidencefromotherstudiesis summarized
1978).Supporting
win(1978, 1979;see also Bohman1978).
275
Endorphins
as that
as muchexcitement
hasgenerated
No recentbiologicaldiscovery
that
occurring
opiates(endorphins)
andthenaturally
ofopiatereceptors
maybe relatedto painmechabindto themin thebrain.Endorphins
toheromaycreatesusceptibility
ofthesesubstances
nisms.Deficiencies
in addiction(A. Goldstein 1976).
NicotineRegulation
mayexplainwhycertain
in nicotinemetabolism
Individualvariations
findit hardto stopsmoking.Schachter's(1978) workon
individuals
to
can contribute
howbiologicalfactors
exemplifies
nicotineregulation
In experiments
changesin
involving
ofdrugbehavior.
theunderstanding
intake
theirnicotine
werefoundto regulate
theacidityofurine,smokers
thatthe
Schachterhypothesizes
and to smoketo preventwithdrawal.
smokerdoes not smoketo reduceanxietybut to keep nicotineat a
ForSchachtnicotine
anxiety.
generates
constant
level,sinceinsufficient
than
for
smoker's
behavior
betteraccount the
er,thesebiologicalfactors
do traditional
explanations.
psychological
is inan individual's
biologicalfactors
repertoire,
Oncea drugbehavior
the
roleof social
and
modify
may
to
its
continuation
maycontribute
factors.
CONCLUSION
concluRecentadvancesin drugresearchhaveled to severalimportant
increasein
studiesshowa dramatic
sions.Sophisticated
epidemiological
thesharp
theuse ofillicitdrugsoverthelastdecadeand also illustrate
shiftsin theuse of varioussubstancesoverthelifecourse.The use of
illegaldrugsbeginsin the earlyteens,peaks in earlyadulthood,and
and
The use oflegaldrugssuchas cigarettes
declinessharply
thereafter.
alcoholalso reachesa peak in earlyadulthoodbutdoes not beginto
drugs
declineuntilthefifties.
use of medicallyprescribed
By contrast,
whenillicitdruguse startstodecline,andcontinbeginsinthetwenties,
ues overthelifecycle.The declinein theuse ofillicitdrugsin theearly
ofthesocialrolesofadulthood-martwenties
parallelstheassumption
trendsarebased
These age-related
and employment.
riage,parenthood
ofcohortsinadulthood
data.Longitudinal
on cross-sectional
follow-ups
theconnection
betweenillicitdruguse
areneededin orderto establish
in socialroles.Such studieswilldisentangle
maturaand participation
inthetrendsobserved
factors
acrossthelife
andhistorical
tional,cohort,
cycle.
276
KANDEL
Although
thefieldofdrugresearchas a wholeis mostlyatheoretical,
thetheoretical
frameworks
thathavebeendevelopedhavehad a strong
orientation.
Presenttheorists
arguethatdruguse
resultsfromindividual
predispositions
and fromcertainfeatures
ofthe
immediate
socialcontext.
Theindividual
predispositions
includelowered
self-image
and priornonconforming
attitudes
and behaviors;
theinterpersonalcontext
includesmodelsandnormsfavorable
todruguse.Variants of social learningtheories,includingoperantconditioning,
are
developedto identify
processesof socialization.The data show repeatedlythatthepeergrouphas a significant
effect
on an adolescent's
druguse.Druguseandotherbehaviors
reflecting
commitment
tocertain
lifestyles
requireinvolvement
andidentification
withpeerswhofavorthe
behavior.
insuchpeergroupsis themostconsistent
Involvement
predictorofvariousformsofdruguse.
The shiftfromstudiesof selectedor clinicalsamplesto large-scale
normalpopulation
samplesofadolescents
andyoungadultshasdirected
researchawayfromthestudyof devianceto thestudyofnormalpsychosocialdevelopment.
New insights
intoaspectsofsocialization
have
resulted
fromtheuse ofinteresting
researchdesignsbasedon longitudinal and relational
samples.
Specifically,
thetheoretical
contributions
have elucidatedaspectsof
interpersonal
indyadicrelationships
influence
bothtofriends
pertaining
andto parents.
Forexample,thesimilarity
ofattributes
observed
among
friends
hasbeenshownto resultfromtwoindependent
processes:selectionandsocialization.
Individuals
whosharepriorcommoninterests
and
attributes
are morelikelyto selecteach otheras friends
thanare those
withoutsuch commoninterests.In addition,interacting
individuals
becomemoresimilaras theresultofcontinued
interaction.
Theresearch
has shownthatparentsinfluencetheirchildrenbothas role models,
whosebehavioris emulated,and as settersand reinforcers
of specific
behavioral
standards.
andsociallearning
Conditioning
principles
provide
insights
intothepreeminence
ofpeerinfluences
on adolescentdevelopment,especiallyas regardsimmediate
lifestyle
issues.At no othertime
inthelifespandoesa personinteract
so intensively
andalmostexclusively withsame-agepeers.Although
extentofinteraction
does notnecesextentofinfluence,
itdoesinpartexplaintheimportant
sarilydetermine
roleofpeersin adolescentsocialization.
Trajectories
of (a) participation
in conforming
and nonconforming
behaviors,
(b) changesin values,and (c) changesin networks
ofpeers
havebeencharted
overtheteenyearsbyseveralinvestigators,
providing
new knowledgeaboutpsychosocialdevelopment
in adolescence.The
a merger
conceptofdevelopmental
ofconstructs
stagesindrugbehavior,
277
derivedfromsociologyand cognitive
psychology,
has provenusefulin
studying
socialization.
The notionofstageshas alloweda morefruitful
specification
oftheroleandstructure
ofdifferent
at differcausalfactors
entstagesofa behavioral
sequence.Findingson variousformsofdrug
useillustrate
thatdifferent
typesoftheories
havedifferential
explanatory
powerat different
Socialandcultural
factors
stagesofthephenomenon:
intothebehavior,
explaininitiation
whilepsychological
factors
aremore
inexplaining
powerful
further
involvement.
The sameapproachcouldbe
appliedfruitfully
to otheraspectsofpsychosocial
development.
Drugresearchhas documented
themethodological
circularity
ofreliance on a subject'sown assessmentof the attitudesand behaviorof
him.Suchindicators
personsassumedtoinfluence
used
aretraditionally
inthesocialsciencesto evaluatetheeffect
ofthesocialenvironment
on
individuals.
However,to theextentthatego'sperceptions
ofalter'sattitudesare in partprojections
ontoalterof ego's own attributes,
these
on ego.
perceptions
alter'sinfluence
exaggerate
In itsfocuson interpersonal
and intrapersonal
factors,
however,
drug
researchhas neglectedlargersocialfactorsthatmayalso contribute
to
our understanding
of drug behavior.Althoughinvestigators
have
in
stressedtheinterrelationships
at theindividuallevelofinvolvement
multiple
lackofattention
behaviors,
therehasbeena striking
to concurrentand aggregate
changesin thesocietyat large.Rarelyhaveparallels
been soughtbetweenincreasesin ratesof druguse and concurrent
changesin otherareasofbehaviorrelatedto lifestyles-e.g.
sexualattitudesandexperimentation,
wherechangeshavebeenstriking
(see Hopkins 1977). Greaterattention
mustbe paid to the diffusion
of such
insocietyandtotheformal
behaviors
theories
thathavebeendeveloped
to accountforthediffusion
ofculturalfads(Hamblin,Miller& Saxton
1979).
By shifting
froman exclusiveconcernwithdevianceto a broader
concernwithsocialization,
current
hascontributed
drugresearch
surprisinglymuchto ourunderstanding
ofhumandevelopment.
Becauseofits
clearonsetand strongrelationship
to lifestyle
variables,
druguse providesan excellentmodelforstudying
theinterface
betweensocial,psyand biologicalfactorsin humanbehavior.
chological,
Literature
Cited
P. M., Cisin,I. Adler,I., Kandel,D. B. 1980. Cross-CulAbelson,H. I., Fishburne,
1977. NationalSurveyon Drug Abuse:
tural Perspectiveson Developmental
1977,Vol.I: Main Findings.Princeton, StagesinAdolescent
DrugUse.NY: CoNJ:ResponseAnalysis
lumbia Univ.
Adams,R. 1973. Differential
association Akers,R. L. 1977.DeviantBehavior:
Social
and learningprinciplesrevisited.Soc.
Learning Approach.Belmont,Calif:
Probl.20:458-70
Wadsworth.
2nded. 351 pp.
278
KANDEL
Akers,R. L.,Krohn,
M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, cal correlates.
Psychol.Bull. 79:92-106
L., Radosevich,
M. 1979.Sociallearning Britt,
D. W.,Campbell,
E. Q. 1977.Assessingthelinkageofnorms,
anddeviant
behavior:
A specific
testofa
environments,
and deviance.Soc. Forces56:532-50
generaltheory.
Am.Sociol.Rev.44:635I. F., Whiteman,
Brook,J. S., Lukoff,
M.
55
Alexander,
C. N. Jr.,Campbell,
E. Q. 1968.
1977a.Correlates
ofadolescent
marihuana use as relatedtoage,sex,andethniciBalance forcesand environmental
effects:Factorsinfluencing
the cohesive- ty.YaleJ. Biol.Med. 50:383-90
nessofadolescent
drinking
groups.Soc. Brook,J. S., Lukoff,
I. F., Whiteman,
M.
1977b.Peer,family,
and personality
doForces46:367-74
Annis,H. M., Watson,C. 1975.Druguse
mains as relatedto adolescents'drug
and school dropouts:A longitudinal behavior.Psychol.Rep. 41:1095-102
Brook,J. S., Lukoff,
I. F., Whiteman,
M.
study.Can. Counsel.9:155-62
1978. Familysocialization
and adolesH. B.
Armor,
D. J.,Polich,J.M., Stambol,
cent personality
and theirassociation
1978. Alcoholism
and Treatment.
NY:
J.Gen.
Wiley.216 pp.
withadolescent
useofmarihuana.
Bachman,
J.G.,Johnston,
L. D., O'Malley,
Psychol.133:261-71
I. F., Whiteman,
M.
P. M. 1978.The drugscene:A student Brook,J. S., Lukoff,
1980.Initiation
intoadolescent
marihuasurvey.Sci. Teach.45:27-31
Bachman,
J.G.,O'Malley,P. M.,Johnston, na use. J. Gen.Psychol.In press
J. 1978. Youthin Transition.
Vol. VI. Brown,J.,Glaser,D., Waxer,E., Geis,G.
1974.Turning
off:Cessationofmarihuaand
Adolescence
to Adulthood-Change
na use aftercollege.Soc. Probl.21:527intheLivesofYoungMen.Ann
Stability
38
Arbor,Mich:Inst.Soc. Res. 326 pp.
Bacon,S. D. 1976. Concepts.In Alcohol Brunswick,
A. F. 1979. Blackyouthand
In YouthDrugAbuse:
J.
drugusebehavior.
andAlcoholProblems,
ed.W. Filstead,
ed. G.
Rossi,M. Keller,pp.57-134.Cambridge, Problems,
Issues,and Treatment,
Beschner,
A. Friedman,
pp.443-92.LexMass: Ballinger
Mass: Lexington
Books
Bandura,
A. 1977.SocialLearningTheory. ington,
A. F. 1980.Initiation
ofSmokEnglewoodCliffs,
NJ:Prentice-Hall
Brunswick,
Becker,H. 1953. Becominga marihuana ing in AdolescentGirls.Smokingand
Health.A ReportoftheSurgeonGeneral.
user.Am.J.Sociol. 54:235-42
DC: US Dep. Health,Educ.,
Blackford,
L. 1977.Summary
Report.SurWashington
Welfare
veysof StudentDrug Use,San Mateo
A. F., Boyle,J.M. 1979.PatTrendsin Levelsof Brunswick,
County,California:
ternsofdruginvolvement:
DevelopmenUseReported
byJuniorandSeniorHigh
San Mateo,Calif:Dep.
tal and secularinfluenceson age at
SchoolStudents.
initiation.
YouthSoc. 2:139-62
PublicHealthand Welfare,Res. Stat.
P. 1980.Drugs
Brunswick,
A. F., Gurwitz,
Sect.
andpsychological
Int.J.Menwell-being.
Blane,H. T., Hewitt,L. E. 1977.Alcohol
and Youth:AnanalysisoftheLiterature. tal Health.In press
R. L., Akers,R. L. 1966.A differ1960-1975.Pittsburgh:
Univ.Pittsburgh.Burgess,
entialassociation-reinforcement
theory
561 pp.
Block,J.R.,Goodman,
N. 1978.Illicitdrug
ofcriminal
behavior.
Soc.Probl.14:12847
useandconsumption
ofalcohol,tobacco,
S. R.,Jensen,
E. L. 1975.Convenand over-the-counter
medicineamong Burkett,
andthefearof
tionalties,peerinfluence,
adolescents.
Int.J.Addicit.13:933-46
A studyof adolescent
Bohman,
M. 1978.Somegeneticaspectsof
apprehension:
Arch.Gen.
use. Sociol.Q. 16:522-33
marijuana
alcoholismand criminality.
H. M.
Psychiat.35:269-76
Cahalan,D., Cisin,I. H., Crossley,
Practices.
New
1969.American
Drinking
L. H. 1976.The influences
ofthe
Bowker,
on
NJ: RutgersCent.Alcohol
Brunswick,
perceivedhome drugenvironment
Stud.260 pp.
collegestudent
druguse.Addict.Behav.
1:293-98
Cahalan,D., Roizen,R. 1974.Changesin
ina national
A. F. 1980.What
Boyle,J.M., Brunswick,
drinking
problems
sampleof
men.Presented
at NorthAm.Congr.Alhappenedin Harlem?Analysisof a declineinheroinuseamonga generation
of
coholDrug.Probl.,San Francisco
In SocialResearch
andDrug Cahalan, D., Room, R. 1974. Problem
blackyouth.
0. Ochs.WashDrinkingAmongAmericanMen. MoPolicy,ed.E. Josephson,
NJ: Rutgers
Press.In press
nogr.7. New Brunswick,
ingtonDC: Hemisphere
G. N., Brakarsh,
Braucht,
D., Follingstad, Cent.AlcoholStud.296 pp.
K. L. 1973.Deviantdruguse Campbell,E. Q., Alexander,
C. N. 1965.
D., Berry,
andinterpersonal
in adolescence:A reviewofpsychologi- Structural
effects
rela-
279
tionships.
Am.J. Sociol.71:284-89
Gibbs,J.P., Erickson,
M. L. 1975.Major
CanadianCommission
of Inquiryintothe
inthesociological
developments
studyof
Non-Medical
Use ofDrugs.1973.Final
deviance.Ann.Rev.Sociol. 1:21-42
Report.Ottawa: Information
Canada. Ginsberg,
I. J.,Greenley,
J.R. 1978.Com1148pp.
petingtheories
ofmarihuana
use:A lonCelentano,D. S., McQueen,D. V. 1978.
gitudinalstudy.J. HealthSoc. Behav.
Comparisonof alcoholismprevalence 19:22-34
ratesobtained
bysurvey
andindirect
es- Goldstein,A. 1976. Opioidpeptides(entimators.
J.Stud.Alcohol39:420-34
in pituitary
dorphins)
andbrain.Science
Chilman,
C. S. 1979.Adolescent
193:1081-86
Sexuality
in a Changing
American
Society:Social Goldstein,
J.W. 1975.Assessing
theinterandPsychological
Perspectives.
Washing- personaldeterminants
ofadolescent
drug
ton,DC: US GPO
use. In PredictingAdolescentDrug
Cisin,I. H.,Miller,
J.D., Wirtz,
P. W. 1976.
Abuse:A ReviewofIssues,Methodsand
Discontinuing
Drug Use. Washington, Correlates,
ed. D. J.Lettieri,
pp. 45-52.
DC: GeorgeWashington
Univ.Soc. Res.
Md: Natl.Inst.DrugAbuse
Rockville,
Group.33 pp.
J.W.,Gleason,T. C.,Korn,J.H.
Goldstein,
R. R., Voss,H. L. 1977.Shaking
Clayton,
1975.Whither
theepidemic?
Psychoacup: cohabitation
in the 1970s.J. Marr.
tivedrug-usecareerpatterns
of college
Fam. 39:273-83
students.
J.Appl.Soc. Psychol.5:16-33
Cloward,R. A., Ohlin,L. E. 1960.Delin- Goldstein,J. W., Sappington,
J. T. 1977.
quencyandOpportunity,
A Theory
ofDePersonalitycharacteristics
of students
linquent
Gangs.Glencoe,Ill:FreePress.
whobecameheavydrugusers:AnMMPI
220 pp.
studyofan avant-garde.
Am.J.DrugAlConger,R. D. 1976.Socialcontrol
andsocoholAbuse4:401-12
ciallearning
modelsofdelinquent
behav- Goode,E. 1970.TheMarihuanaSmokers.
ior-a synthesis.
Criminology
14:17-40
NY: Basic Books.340 pp.
Davies,M., Kandel,D. 1979.Parentaland Goode,E. 1972.Drugsin American
SociPeer Influences
on Adolescents'
Educaety.NY: Knopf.260 pp.
tional Plans. Some FurtherEvidence. Goodwin, D. W. 1976. Is Alcoholism
NY: Columbia
Univ.43 pp.,unpublished Hereditary?NY: OxfordUniv. Press.
Dembo,R.,Schmeidler,
J.,Koval,M. 1976.
171 pp.
Demographic,
value,andbehavior
corre- Goodwin,D. W. 1978.The geneticsofallates of marihuana
use amongmiddle- coholism:A stateof theartreview.Alclass youths.J. HealthSoc. Behav. 17:coholHealthRes. World2:2-12
176-86
Goodwin,D. W. 1979. Alcoholismand
Diagnosticand Statistical
ManualofMenArch.Gen.Psychiat.36:57-61
heredity.
tal Disorders
(DSM III) 1980.Washing- Gorsuch,R. L., Butler,
M. C. 1976.Initial
tonDC: Am.Psychiatric
Assoc.
drugabuse:A reviewofpredisposing
soDonovan,J.E.,Jessor,
R. 1978.Adolescent cial psychological
factors.
Bull.
Psychol.
problemdrinking-psychosocial
corre83:120-37
latesin a nationalsamplestudy.J.Stud. Gould, L., Walker,A. L., Crane,L. E.,
Alcohol39:1506-24
Lidy, C. W. 1974. Connections:
Notes
Duster,T., Becker,H., Kaplan,J.,Lindzey,
From the HeroinWorld.New Haven:
G. 1979. An Analysisof Marihuana Yale Univ.Press.236 pp.
Policy.Presented
at Ann.Conf.Comm. Gove,W.,Geerken,
M. 1979.Druguseand
SubstanceHabitualBehav.,Washington mentalhealthamonga representative
naDC. 45 pp.
tionalsampleofyoungadults.Soc.Forces
Edwards,G., Gross,M. M., Keller,M.,
58:572-90
Moser,J.,Room,R.,eds. 1977.Alcohol- Hamblin,
R. L., Miller,J.L. L., Saxton,D.
RelatedDisabilities.
WHO.
Geneva:
154
E. 1979. Modelinguse diffusion.
Soc.
Forces57:799-811
PP.
Elinson,
J.,Nurco,D. N. 1975.Operational Hanson,D. J.1977.Trendsindrinking
attiDefinition
in Socio-Behavioral
tudesand behavioramongcollegestuDrug Use
Research.Natl. Inst.DrugAbuse,Res.
dents.J.AlcoholDrugEduc. 22:17-22
Monogr.Ser.2. Washington
DC: USG- Harford,
T. C. 1976.A nationalstudyof
PO. 92 pp.
adolescentdrinking
behavior,attitudes
Ellis,G. J.,Stone,L. H. 1979.Marihuana and correlates.Furthercomments.J.
usein college-evaluation
ofa modeling Stud.Alcohol37:1346-58
YouthSoc. 10:323-34
perspective.
Henley,J.R.,Adams,I. D. 1973.MarihuaP. 1980.HeroinEstimator
DeFishburne,
na use in postcollegiate
cohorts:CorrePhD thesis.NewYorkUniv.,
velopment.
lates of use, prevalence,
patterns,
and
New York
factorsassociatedwithcessation.Soc.
280
KANDEL
bookon DrugAbuse,ed. R. Dupont,A.

Probl.20:514-20
G. L., Albrecht, Goldstein,J. O'Donnell, pp. 337-54.
Higgins,P. C., Albrecht,
adolescent Washington
DC: Natl.Inst.DrugAbuse
M. H. 1977. Black-white
Soc. Jessor,R. 1980. The perceivedenvironThe mythand thereality.
drinking:
theoryand reProbl.25:215-24
mentin psychological
Hirschi,T. 1969. Causesof Delinquency. search. In The Situation: An
Press.
Perspective,
ed. D. MagnusBerkeley,
Calif:Univ.California
Interactional
son. Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.In press
309 pp.
Hopkins,J. R. 1977. Sexualbehaviorin Jessor,R., Graves,T. D., Hanson,R. C.,
Personality,
Jessor,S. L. 1968.Society,
adolescence. J. Soc. Iss. 33:67-85
P. M.
J.A., Bentler,
Huba,G. J.,Wingard,
Studyofa Tri-EthandDeviantBehavior:
&
NY: Holt,Rinehart
adolescentdruguse
1979a. Beginning
nic Community.
J. ConWinston.500 pp.
and peerand adultinteraction.
sult.Clin.Psychol.47:265-76
Jessor,R., Jessor,S. L. 1977. Problem
P. M.
J.A., Bentler,
Development
Huba,G. J.,Wingard,
Behaviorand Psychosocial
Studyof Youth.NY:
-A Longitudinal
1979b.Adolescentdruguse and intenA concur- Academic.281 pp.
tionstousedrugsinthefuture:
S. L. 1978.Theory
testing
rentanalysis.J.DrugEduc. 9:145-50
R.,Jessor,
Jessor,
in longitudinal
researchon marihuana
P. M.
J.A., Bentler,
Huba,G. J.,Wingard,
Researchon Drug
use. In Longitudinal
1981. Intentionsto use drugsamong
andMethodologUse:Empirical
Findings
analysis.Int.
A longitudinal
adolescents:
ical Issues,ed. D. Kandel,pp. 41-71.
J.Addictions
16: In press
DC: Hemisphere-Wiley
Washington
G. A. 1974.
Hughes,P. H., Crawford,
J.1973.A
S. L., Finney,
in the Jessor,
R.,Jessor,
ofheroinaddiction
Epidemiology
ofmarihuana
use:Lonand respon- socialpsychology
1970's:New opportunities
studiesofhighschooland colIn Drug Use: Epidemiological gitudinal
sibilities.
ed. E. Jolegeyouth.J.Pers.Soc.Psychol.26:1-15
and SociologicalApproaches,
R.,Young,H. B.,Young,E. B.,Tesi,
sephson,E. Carroll,pp. 89-104.Wash- Jessor,
alienaG. 1970. Perceivedopportunity,
ingtonDC: Hemisphere-Wiley
behavior
amongItalian
ofactiveherHunt,L. G. 1977.Prevalence
tion,anddrinking
and Americanyouth.J. Pers.Soc. Psyoin use in the UnitedStates.In The
chol. 15:215-22
ofHeroinand OtherNarEpidemiology
R. A. 1978.Behavpp. 61-86. Joe,G. W., Hudiburg,
cotics,ed. J.D. Rittenhouse,
marihuana
ofage at first
ioralcorrelates
Md: Natl.Inst.DrugAbuse
Rockville,
Igra, A., Moos, R. H. 1977. Drinking use. Int.J.Addict.13:627-37
B. D. 1973.MarijuanaUsersand
A longitudinal Johnson,
amongcollegestudents:
NY: Wiley.290 pp.
study.Soc.Ecol.Lab.Rep.:Dep. Psychi- DrugSubcultures.
L. 1973.Student
DrugUse.Ann
Johnston,
Univ.
atry,Stanford
Igra,A., Moos, R. H. 1979.Alcoholuse
Arbor,Mich:Inst.Soc. Res.
and
L. D. 1974.Druguse during
Somecompeting Johnston,
amongcollegestudents:
afterhighschool:Resultsof a national
J. Youth& Adolesc.8:393hypotheses.
study.Am.J. Publ.Health
longitudinal
406
B. D.
64:29-37
Iiyama,P., Nishi,S. M., Johnson,
J.G., O'Malley,
L. D., Bachman,
1976.Drug Useand AbuseamongU.S. Johnston,
247 pp.
P. 1979a. Drugsand theClass of '78:
NY: Praeger.
Minorities.
and RecentNapeers,anddeBehaviors,Attitudes,
Jensen,
G. F. 1972.Parents,
Md: Natl.Inst.
action:A testofthedifferential tionalTrends.Rockville,
linquent
DrugAbuse.335 pp.
Am. J. Sociol.
associationperspective.
L. D., Bachman,
J.G.,O'Malley,
Johnston,
78:562-75
Drugsandthe
P. 1979b.1979Highlights:
R. 1976.Predicting
timeofonsetof
Jessor,
Nation's High School Students-Five
use:A developmental
studyof
marihuana
Year NationalTrends.Rockville,Md:
highschoolyouth.J. Consult.Clin.PsyNatl.Inst.DrugAbuse
chol.44:125-34
L., O'Malley,P., Eveland,L.
Jessor,R. 1978a. DrinkingBehaviorand Johnston,
A search
1978.Drugsand delinquency:
theSocialEnvironment
of Youth.Boul& JesSee Jessor
forcausalconnections.
der,Colo: Univ.Colorado,Inst.Behav.
sor 1978,pp. 137-56
Sci.
D. 1978.LISREL
K. G., Sorbom,
factorsin Joreskog,
Jessor,R. 1978b.Psychosocial
relationIV: Analysis
oflinearstructural
of drinking
behavior.In
the patterning
likelied. J.Fishman, shipsbythemethod
ofmaximum
TheBases ofAddiction,
pp. 67-80.Berlin:DahlemKonferenzen hood.Chicago:Int.Educ. Serv.
E. 1974.Trendsin adolescent
Jessor,R. 1979. Marihuana:A reviewof Josephson,
research.In Handmarijuanause. See Hughes& Crawford
recentpsychosocial
281
1974,pp. 170-205
of druguse: A developmental
analysis.
Josephson,
E., Ochs,O., eds. 1980.Drug
See Jessor& Jessor1978,pp. 73-99
Policyand SocialResearch.Washington Kandel,D. B.,Kessler,
R. C., Margulies,
R.
DC: Hemisphere.
In press
S. 1978b. Antecedentsof adolescent
Josephson,
E., Rosen,M. 1978.Panelloss
initiation
intostagesofdruguse:A develina highschooldrugstudy.See Jessor&
opmental
analysis.
J.YouthAdolesc.7:13
Jessor1978,pp. 115-33
-40
Kandel,D. 1973. Adolescentmarihuana Kandel,D. B.,Lesser,G. S. 1972.Youthin
use: Role of parentsand peers.Science
TwoWorlds.SanFrancisco:
Jossey-Bass.
181:1067-70
217 pp.
Kandel,D. 1974a.Inter-andintra-genera-Kandel,D. B.,Margulies,
R. S., Davies,M.
tionalinfluences
on adolescent
marihua- 1978. Analytical
strategies
forstudying
na use. J. Soc. Iss. 30:107-35
transitions
into developmental
stages.
Kandel,D. 1974b.Interpersonal
influences Sociol.Educ. 51:162-76
on adolescentillegal drug use. See Kandel,D., Single,E., Kessler,R. C. 1976.
Hughes& Crawford
1974,pp. 207-40
The epidemiology
of druguse among
Kandel,D. 1975a. Reachingthe hard-to- New York Statehighschoolstudents:
reach:Illicitdruguse amonghighschool
Distribution,
trendsand changein rates
absentees.
Addict.Dis. 1:465-80
ofuse. Am.J.Pub. Health66:43-53
Kandel,D. 1975b.Somecomments
on the Kandel,D., Treiman,
D., Faust,R., Single,
relationship
ofselectedcriteria
variables E. 1976.Adolescent
inillicinvolvement
to adolescentillicitdruguse. See Goldit drug use: A multipleclassification
stein1975b,pp. 345-61
analysis.Soc. Forces55: 438-58
Kandel,D. 1975c.Stagesin adolescent
in- Kaplan,H. B. 1975.Self-Attitudes
andDeviindruguse.Science190:912volvement
ant Behavior.PacificPalisades,Calif:
14
Goodyear
Kandel,D. 1975d.Themeasurement
of'ev- Kaplan,H. B. 1977a.Antecedents
ofdevier use' and 'frequency-quantity'
in drug
antresponses:
froma general
Predicting
In Operational
usesurveys.
Definitions
in
ofdeviant
behavior.
theory
J.YouthAdoSocio-Behavioral
Drug Research,ed. J.
lesc.6:89-101
Elinson,D. Nurco,pp.27-35.Rockville, Kaplan,H. B. 1977b.Increaseinself-rejecMd: Natl. Inst. Drug Abuse,Monogr.
tionand continuing/discontinuing
deviSer.2
antresponse.J. YouthAdolesc.6:77-87
Kandel,D., ed. 1978a. Longitudinal
Re- Kaplan,H. B. 1978a.Socialclass,self-derosearchon Drug Use:Empirical
Findings gationand deviantresponse.Soc. Psyand Methodological
Issues.NY: Hemichiat. 13:19-28
Press.314 pp.
sphere-Halsted
Kaplan,H. B. 1978b.Deviantbehavior
and
D.
in
Kandel, 1978b.Convergences proself-enhancement
in adolescence. J.
spectivelongitudinal
of
YouthAdolesc.7:253-77
surveys druguse
in normalpopulations.
See Jessor& Jes- Kaplan, H. B. 1978c. Self-attitudes
and
sor 1978,pp. 3-38
multiplemodesof deviance.In Drugs
inreallife
Kandel,D. B., 1978c.Similarity
and Suicide:WhenOtherCopingStrateadolescentfriendship
pairs.J. Pers.Soc.
gies Fail, ed. D. Lettieri,pp. 75-116.
Psychol.36:306-12
BeverlyHills,Calif:Sage
Kandel,D. B. 1978d. On variationsin Kaplan,H. B. 1980. DeviantBehaviorin
adolescent
subcultures.
YouthSoc. 9:373
DefenseofSelf.NY: Academic
-84
Kaplan,H. B., Pokorny,
A. D. 1977.SelfKandel D. 1978e. Homophily,
selection, attitudes
and alcoholuse amongadolesand socializationin adolescentfriend- cents.In Currents
inAlcoholism,
Vol.II,
ships.Am.J.Sociol.84:427-36
ed.F. A. Seixas,pp.285-98.NY: Grunne
Kandel,D. 1980.A secondlookat conver- & Stratton
gencesin longitudinal
drugstudies:An Kaplan,H. B., Pokorny,
A. D. 1978.Alupdate.In Epidemiology
cohol use and self-enhancement
ofDrugAbuse,
among
ed. L. Robins.Geneva:WHO. In press
adolescents:A conditional
relationship.
in
In Currents
Kandel,D., Davies,M. 1979.Distortions
in Alcoholism,
VolumeIV:
inindicators
ofinterpersonal
perceptual
Psychiatric,
Social and
Psychological,
fluence.Presentedat Ann. Meet. Am.
ed.F. A. Seixas,
Epidemiological
Studies,
Sociol.Assoc.,Boston
pp. 51-75. NY: Grunne& Stratton
Kandel,D., Faust,R. 1975.Sequencesand Kay,E. J.,Lyons,A., Newman,W.,Manofadolescent
stagesinpatterns
kin,D., Loeb,R. C. 1978.A longitudinal
druguse.
Arch.Gen.Psychiat.32:923-32
studyof the personality
correlatesof
use.J.Consult.Clin.Psychol.
marijuana
Kandel,D., Kessler,R., Margulies,R.
1978a.Adolescentinitiation
intostages
46:470-77
282
KANDEL
Kellam,S., Ensminger,
M., Simon,M. B.
suesin testing
Am.
Lindesmith's
theory.
1980. Mentalhealthin firstgradeand
J. Sociol. 81:154-63
teenagedrug,alcohol,andcigarette
use. McCord,W., McCord,J. 1959.Originsof
J.DrugAlcoholDepend.,May,pp.273Crime.NY: ColumbiaUniv.Press
304
McGlothlin,W. H. 1975. Drug use and
Kessler,R., Paton,S., Kandel,D. 1976.
abuse.Ann.Rev.Psychol.26:45-64
Reconciling
unidimensional
andmultidi- McGlothlin,
W. H. 1977.Epidemiology
of
mensional
modelsofpatterns
ofdruguse.
marihuana
use. In MarihuanaResearch
J.Stud.Alcohol37: 632-47
Findings:1976,ed. R. C. Petersen,
pp.
Kleinman,
P. H. 1978.Onsetofaddiction: 38-54. NIDA Res. Monogr.14. WashA first
attempt
at prediction.
ingtonDC: USGPO
Int.J.Addict.13:1217-35
G. D., Somers,
R. H., Davidson,
Mellinger,
Kleinman,
P. H., Lukoff,
I. F. 1977.The
S. T., Manheimer,
D. I. 1976.Theamotimagicfix:A criticalanalysisof metha- vationalsyndrome
and the collegestudonemaintenance
treatment.
Soc.Probl.
dent.Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci. 282:37-55
25:208-14
G. D., Somers,R. H., Bazell,S.,
Mellinger,
Kleinman,
P. H., Lukoff,
I. F. 1978.Ethnic
D. I. 1978a.Druguse,acaManheimer,
in factorsrelatedto drug
differences
demic performance
and careerindeciabuse.J.HealthSoc. Behav.19:190-99
sion: Longitudinal
data in searchof a
Lazarsfeld,P. F., Merton,R. K. 1954.
model.See Jessor
& Jessor1978,pp. 157
Friendship
as a socialprocess.In Free-77.
domand Controlin ModernSociety,
ed. Mellinger,
G. D., Balter,M. B., ManheimM. Berger,
T. Abel,C. H. Page,pp. 18er,D. I., Cisin,I. H., Perry,
H. J.1978b.
66. Princeton,
NJ:Van Nostrand
Psychicdistress,
lifecrises,and use of
E. M. 1972.HumanDeviance,SoLemert,
psychotherapeutic
medications.Arch.
cial Problems,
and Social Controls.EnGen.Psychiat.35:1045-52
glewoodCliffs,
NJ:Prentice
Hall.2nded. Merton,R. K. 1957.SocialTheory
and So277 pp.
cial Structure.
Glencoe,Ill: FreePress
D. J.,ed. 1975.Predicting
Lettieri,
Adoles- Miller,J. D., Cisin,I., Harrell,A. 1978.
centDrug Abuse:A Reviewof Issues,
Highlights
fromtheNationalSurveyon
Methods,and Correlates.Washington Drug Abuse: 1977. WashingtonDC:
DC: USGPO. 361 pp.
George Washington
Univ., Soc. Res.
Linden,E., Hackler,J.C. 1973.Affective Group.36 pp.
ties and delinquency.
Pac. Sociol.Rev. Miller,W. R. 1976.Alcoholism
scalesand
16:27-46
methods:
A review.
objectiveassessment
A. 1968.Addiction
Lindesmith,
and OpiPsychol.Bull. 83:649-74
ates.Chicago:Aldine.295 pp.
Moos,R., Moos,B.,Kulik,J.1977.BehavA. R., Gagnon,R. 1964.AnoLindesmith,
ioral and self-concept
antecedents
and
In Anomieand
mieand drugaddiction.
correlatesof college-student
drinking
DeviantBehavior,
ed. M. B. Clinard,
pp.
patterns.
Int.J.Addict.12:603-15
158-88.NY: FreePress
NationalCommission
on Marihuanaand
R. L.
Lucas,W. L., Grupp,S. E., Schmitt,
DrugAbuse.1972.Marihuana:A Signal
1975. Predicting
who will turnon: A
ofMisunderstanding,
AppendixVols.I,
II. Washington
DC: USGPO. 184pp.
four-yearfollow-up.Int. J. Addict.
10:305-26
NationalClearinghouse
forDrugAbuseInH. S.,Fonaroff,
formation.
1977. ResourceInformation
Maloff,
D., Becker,
A., Rosocialcontrols
and
din,J.1979.Informal
on theNationalInstitute
on DrugAbuse
theirinfluence
on substance
use.J.Drug
Epidemiological
Systemsand Surveys.
Iss. 2:161-84
ReportSeries37:1-14
K. M., NationalCommission
Marden,P., Zylman,R., Fillmore,
on Marihuanaand
Bacon,S. D. 1976.Comment
on 'A naDrugAbuse.1973.DrugUseinAmerica:
tional study of adolescentdrinking ProbleminPerspective.
Washington
DC:
USGPO. 481 pp.
behavior,attitudesand correlates'.J.
Stud.Alcohol37:1346-58
NationalInstitute
on Drug Abuse. 1976.
Margulies,
R., Kessler,R. C., Kandel,D.
DrugUseand Crime:
ReportofthePanel
1977. A longitudinal
studyof onsetof
onDrugUseandCriminal
Behavior.
Redrinking
searchTrianglePark,NC: Res.Triangle
amonghighschoolstudents.
Q.
J.Stud.Alcohol38:897-912
Inst.561 pp.
W. E., Gordon,R. A. 1974.A NationalInstitute
on Drug Abuse. 1977.
McAuliffe,
testofLindesmith's
ofaddiction: Marihuanaand Health. SixthAnnual
theory
The frequency
of euphoriaamonglong
Report to the U.S. Congress,1976.
termaddicts.Am.J.Sociol.79:795-840
DC: USGPO. 44 pp.
Washington
W. E., Gordon,R. A. 1975.Is- Newcomb,
T. 1961.TheAcquaintance
McAuliffe,
Pro-
cess.NY: Holt,Rinehart
& Winston
Nurco,D. N., Lerner,M., Bonito,A. J.,
Baiter,M. B. 1975.An approachto the
classification
ofthelifestyles
ofnarcotic
abusers.See Lettieri1975,pp. 77-93
Nye,F. I. 1958.FamilyRelationships
and
Delinquent
Behavior.NY: Wiley
O'Donnell,J.A. 1972.Lifetime
patterns
of
narcoticaddiction.In LifeHistoryResearchinPsychopathology,
Vol.2,ed. M.
A. Roff,L. N. Robins,M. Pollack,pp.
236-54. Minneapolis:
Univ. Minnesota
Press
O'Donnell,J.,Clayton,
R. 1979a.Thestepping-stone
hypothesis:
Marihuana,
heroin and causality.
Addict.Dis. In press
O'Donnell,J. A., Clayton,R. R. 1979b.
Determinants
ofearlymarihuana
use.In
YouthDrugAbuse:Problems,
Issues,and
Treatment,
ed. G. M. Beschner,
A. S.
Friedman,
pp.63-110.Lexington,
Mass:
Lexington
Books
O'Donnell,J.,Voss,H. L., Clayton,R. R.
Slatin,G. T., Room,R. G. 1976. Young
Men and Drugs-A Nationwide
Survey,
Res. Monogr.5. Rockville,Md: Natl.
Inst.DrugAbuse.144 pp.
O'Malley, P. M. 1975. Correlatesand
Consequences
of IllicitDrug Use. PhD
thesis.Univ.Michigan,
AnnArbor.326
283
R. L., Krohn,M. D. 1979.Thesociology

ofadolescent
druganddrinking
behavior:
A reviewofthestateofthefield.Pt. 1,2.
J. 1:15-35
DeviantBehav.:Interdiscipl.
Rittenhouse,
J.D., ed. 1977.TheEpidemiologyof Heroinand OtherNarcotics.
NIDA Res. Monogr.16. Rockville,
Md:
Natl.Inst.DrugAbuse.249 pp.
Robins,L. N. 1970.Follow-upstudiesinvestigating
childhooddisorders.
In Psychiatric
ed. E. H. Hare,J.
Epidemiology,
K. Wing,pp. 29-68.NY: OxfordUniv.
Robins,L. N. 1974.TheVietnam
UserReturns.FinalReport.Spec.ActionOffice
Monogr.Ser.A, No. 2. Washington
DC:
USGPO. 170 pp.
Robins,L. N. 1975.Alcoholism
andlabellIn TheLabellingofDeviance,
ingtheory.
ed. W. Gove,pp. 21-33. BeverlyHills,
Calif:Sage
Robins,L. N. 1977.Estimating
addiction
rates and locatingtargetpopulations:
How decomposition
into stageshelps.
See Rittenhouse
1977,pp. 25-29
Robins,L. N. 1978.Theinteraction
ofsetinexplaining
novtingandpredisposition
el behavior:Drug initiations
before,in
and afterVietnam.See Jessor& Jessor
1978,pp. 179-96
Robins,L. N. 1979.Addictcareers.
See Jessor 1979,pp. 325-55
PP.
J.G.,Johnston, Robins,L. N., Davis,D. H., Nurco,D. N.
O'Malley,P. M.,Bachman,
L. D. 1978.Druguse andmilitary
1974.How permanent
wasVietnam
plans
drug
ofhighschoolseniors.YouthSoc. 10:65addiction?
Am.J.Publ.Health64:38-43
77
(Suppl.)
Orcutt,J. 1978.Normative
of Robins,L. N., Davis,D. H.,Wish,E. 1977.
definitions
intoxicated
states:A testofseveralsocioDetectingpredictorsof rare events:
logicaltheories.
Soc. Probl.4:385-96
andpersonaldeviDemographic,
family
Paton,S., Kessler,R., Kandel,D. 1977.
ance as predictorsof stages in the
In
Depressivemoodand adolescentillegal
toward
narcotic
addiction.
progression
J.Gendruguse:A longitudinal
The Originsand Courseof Psychopaanalysis.
et.Psychol.131:267-89
B. Haroutun,
M.
ed.J.S. Straus,
thology,
R. C., ed. 1977.MarihuanaRePetersen,
Roff,pp. 379-406.NY: Plenum
searchFindings:
1976.Res.Monogr.14, Robins,L. N., Wish,E. 1977. Childhood
Natl.Inst.DrugAbuse.Washington
DC:
devianceas a developmental
process:A
USGPO. 249 pp.
birth
studyof223 urbanblackmenfrom
President's
Commission
on Law Enforce- to 18. Soc. Forces56:448-71
ment and Administration
of Justice. Roff,
M. A. 1972.A twofactor
to
approach
1967.TaskForceReport:
Juvenile
Delinandthelaterhistojuveniledelinquency
quencyand YouthCrime.Washington riesofjuveniledelinquents.
See O'DonDC: USGPO
nell 1972,pp. 77-101
R. L., Williams,
J. Roizen,R., Cahalan,D., Shanks,P. 1978.
Rachal,J.V., Hubbard,
R.,Tuchfeld,
B. S. 1976.Drinking
levels
remission
Spontaneous
amonguntreated
and problem
drinking
See Jessor& Jessor
amongjuniorand
problemdrinkers.
seniorhighschoolstudents.
J. Stud.Al1978,pp. 197-221
cohol37:1751-61
Roizen,R., Clark,W.,Milkes,J.1979.The
J.R.,Brehm,
M. L.,
Sex Ratio in Alcoholism.Soc. Res.
Rachal,J.V.,Williams,
Cavanaugh,
B., Moore,R. P.,Eckerman, Group WorkingPap. F. 87. Berkeley,
W. C. 1975.Adolescent
Drinking
BehavCalif.:Univ.Calif.72 pp.
ior.Attitudes
and Correlates.
Washing- Room,R. 1975.Normative
on
perspectives
tonDC: US Dep. Health,Educ.,Welfare, alcoholuse and problems.
J. Drug Iss.
Natl.Inst.DrugAbuseandAlcoholism
5:358-68
andthelaw:
Radosevich,
M., Lanza-Kaduce,
L., Akers, Room,R. 1976a.Drunkenness
284
KANDEL
W. 1977. Task
alcoholism Kandel,D., McGlothin,
Commenton 'the uniform
ofMarihuana:
ForceonStudiesofEffects
act'. J. Stud.
treatment
and intoxication
Considand Conceptual
Methodological
Alcohol37:113-44
Regardas a socioRoom,R. 1976b.Ambivalence
erationsand Recommendations
The case ofcultural ing Future Research.Final Report.
logicalexplanation:
Rockville,Md: Natl. Inst.DrugAbuse.
of alcoholproblems.Am.
explanations
184 pp.
Sociol.Rev.41:1047-65
G. M.,Fogg,C. P. 1978.PsychologiM. 1978.Self- Smith,
F. R.,Rosenberg,
Rosenberg,
ofearlyuse,lateuse,and
cal predictors
J. YouthAdoesteemand delinquency.
amongteenagestuofmarihuana
non-use
lesc.7:279-94
& Jessor1978,pp. 101Sadava,S. W. 1975.Researchapproaches dents.See Jessor
13
in illicitdruguse:A critical
review.Gen.
G. M.,Fogg,C. P. 1979.PsychologiSmith,
Psychol.Monogr.91:3-59
of teenagedruguse. In
cal antecedents
R. 1976.Druguse
Sadava,S. W.,Forsyth,
and Mental
Researchin Community
ofchange.Brit.
anda specialpsychology
of ReHealth:An AnnualCompilation
J.Addict.71:335-42
pp.
R. 1977a.Turning search,VolumeI, ed.R. G. Simmons,
Sadava,S. W.,Forsyth,
Conn:JAIPress
87-102.Greenwich,
offand relapse:Social psyon, turning
alcoholism,
ofstatuschange Snyder,C. R. 1964.Inebriety,
determinants
chological
& Gagnon
and anomie.See Lindesmith
incannabis
use.Int.J.Addict.12:509-28
1964,pp. 189-212
R. 1977b.PersonSadava,S. W.,Forsyth,
interaction
andcollegestu- Stanton,D. 1979. Drugsand the family.
environment
longitudi- Marr.Fam. Rev.2:1-10
dentdruguse: A multivariate
nal study. Genet. Psychol.Monogr. StrategyCouncilon Drug Abuse. 1973.
for Drug Abuse and
FederalStrategy
96:211-45
Drug TrafficPrevention.Washington
and
Schacher,S. 1978. Pharmacological
determinants
of smoking. DC: USGPO. 150pp.
psychological
ethE. A. 1968.The'hang-loose'
Suchman,
Med. 88:104-14
Ann.Intern.
ic and the spiritof druguse. J. Health
D. X. 1976.ReShick,J.F. E., Freedman,
Soc. Behav.9:146-55
drugabuse. In
searchin nonnarcotic
E. H., Cressey,D. R. 1978.
Vol. Sutherland,
HandbookofPsychiatry,
American
Philadelphia:Lippincott.
Criminology.
6, ed. S. Arieti,pp. 552-622.NY: Basic
714 pp.
D. D., Savage,L. J.,Lloyd,M. R.
Simpson,
NY: Harevaluation
oftreatment Sykes,G. M. 1978.Criminology.
1979.Follow-up
631 pp.
courtBraceJanovich.
ofdrugabuseduring1969to 1972.Arch.
A
Tec,N. 1974.Grassis GreeninSuburbia:
Gen.Psychiat.36:772-80
Usageof
StudyofAdolescent
Sociological
Single,E., Kandel,D., Faust,R. 1974.PatIllicitDrugs.NY: RoslynHeights.246
ternsofmultiple
druguseinhighschool.
J. HealthSoc. Behav.15:344-57
ppB. 1975. Thomas,W. I., Thomas,D. S. 1928. The
Single,E., Kandel,D., Johnson,
Childin America.NY: Knopf
and validityof druguse
The reliability
D. A.
W. J.,Smith,
responsesin a largescale longitudinal Tittle,C. R., Villemez,
ofsocialclassandcrimi1978.Themyth
survey.J.DrugIss. 5:426-43
of the
nality:An empiricalassessment
Skinner,B. F. 1959. CumulativeRecord.
Am.Sociol.Rev.43:evidence.
NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts
empirical
R. G. 1974.Addiction,
Smart,
dependency, 643-56
J.
with Uppal,G. S., Babst,D. V., Schmeidler,
abuseoruse:Whicharewestudying
dataonsubage-of-onset
See Hughes& Crawford 1977.Assessing
epidemiology?
stanceuseamongNewYorkStatepublic
1974,pp. 23-42
schoolstudents.
Am.J.Drug
secondary
Smart,R. G., Fejer,D. 1972. Drug use
among adolescentsand theirparents: AlcoholAbuse4:505-15
Closing the generationgap in mood US BureauoftheCensus.1978a.Statistical
J. Abnorm.Psychol.79:
Abstractsof the UnitedStates: 1978.
modification.
DC: USGPO. 99thed.
Washington
153-60
C. 1978. US Bureauof theCensus.1978b.PopulaSmart,R. G., Gray,G., Bennett,
reports
Population
tionCharacteristics.
Predictors
ofdrinking
andsignsofheavy
DC:
P-20,No. 323.TableA. Washington
Int.
drinking
amonghighschoolstudents.
USGPO
J.Addict.13:1079-94
ofHealth,Education,
and
ofPersonal- US Department
Smith,G. M. 1977.Correlates
Welfare.1976. Health in the United
ityandDrugUse.RAUS ClusterReview
Md: Natl.Inst.Mental
States,1975: A Chartbook.Rockville,
No. 3. Rockville,
60 pp.
Md: Dep. Health,Educ.,Welfare.
Health.17 pp.
ofHealth,Education,
and
L., US Department
Smith,G. M., Bentler,P., Johnston,
285
Arch.
forresearch
andtreatment.
theory
Welfare.1978. ThirdSpecialReportto
Gen.Psychiat.27:611-16
onAlcoholandHealth.
theU.S.Congress
Williams,
J. R. 1976. Effects
ofLabelling
DC: USGPO. 138 pp.
Washington
the 'Drug-Abuser':
An Inquiry.NIDA
followVaillant,
G. E. 1966.A twelve-year
addictscommit- Res. Monogr.6. Rockville,Md: Natl.
upofNewYorknarcotic
Inst.DrugAbuse.39 pp.
undertheNarcoticAdtedfortreatment
R. W.,Wilsnack,
S. C. 1978.Sex
Act (NARA). Wilsnack,
diction Rehabilitation
roles and drinkingamong adolescent
Arch.Gen.Psychiat.15:599-609
girls.J.Stud.Alcohol39:1855-74
ofnatuD. 1979.A bibliography
Waldorf,
P. M.
J.A., Huba,G. J.,Bentler,
ralisticstudiesof illicitdrugusers.Sur- Wingard,
1979. The relationship
of personality
veyor14:9-12,30-37
structure
to patterns
of adolescentsubH., McFadden,M. 1976. Sex
Weschsler,
stance use. Multivar.Behav. Res. 14:131
in adolescentalcohol and
differences
-43
J.
phenomenon.
druguse,a disappearing
Winick,C. 1962.Maturing
outofnarcotic
Stud.Alcohol.36:1291-301
addiction.
Bull. Narcot.14:1-7
Wickler,A. 1973. Dynamicsof drugdeofa conditioning
Implications
pendence:

Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth

Author(s): Denise B. Kandel

Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1980. 6:235-85

DRUG AND DRINKING

BEHAVIOR AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF DRUG BEHAVIOR: A

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

Bachman& O'Malley 1979b).One fifthof all youthswho had used

drugson theother.As Table 1 shows,theuse ofmarihuana

Trendsin Drug Use

Youth(12-17 years,N = 1,272)

periodfrom1968 to 1977 in San Mateo County,annual

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

in rateofuse betweenblacksand whitestend

rates of druguse (especially

EARLY ADULTHOOD: A TURNING POINT IN

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

SubstanceUseand theSocial Roles ofAdulthood

CURRENT THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

An empiricaltestof the theoryhas been carriedout in 1977 on a

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

PRESENT CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

LONGITUDINAL DRUG RESEARCH AND

Selectionand Socializationin Friendships

theydroppedeach other.The data indicatedthatselectionand socializationcontribute

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

of eightyears(Cahalan & Roizen 1974; Roizen,Cahalan& Shanks

PREDICTING DRUG INITIATION IN

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

COMMON FACTORS VERSUS BEHAVIOR-SPECIFIC

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

BIOLOGICAL FACTORS AND SUBSTANCE USE

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

bookon DrugAbuse,ed. R. Dupont,A.

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

R. L., Krohn,M. D. 1979.Thesociology

DRINKING AND DRUG USE AMONG YOUTH

You might also like