Multidimensional social control variables as predictors of drunkenness among French adolescents

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of

Journal of Adolescence xx (2008) 1e21

Adolescence

www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

Multidimensional social control variables as predictors ofdrunkenness among French adolescents

Laurent Begue a,*, Sebastian Roche b

a Psychology Department, University of Grenoble Pierre Mendes-France andUniversity Institute of France (IUF), 1251, Avenue Centrale, BP 47, 38040 Grenoble, France

b Institute of Political Studies, PACTE (CNRS), University of Grenoble Pierre Mendes-France 1251,

Avenue Centrale, BP 47, 38040 Grenoble, France

Abstract

Previous studies of the determinants of drunkenness among youth investigated the contribution ofa limited range of variables measuring social control. For the first time in France, this study including1295 participants aged 14e19 years aimed at assessing the relative contribution of a broad range ofmultidimensional variables relating to social control such as parental and school functioning, conven-tional and religious beliefs, and activity level, in a single model predicting self-reported drunkennessepisodes. A logistic regression model based on a survey involving nearly 50 measures selected at thefirst step was conducted using a backward elimination procedure to identify the significant predictorsof drunken experience controlling for age, gender and SES among a sample of French adolescents.We found a protective effect of attachment and commitment to institutions in drunkenness experienceamong youth. Previous findings on parental variables were confirmed with qualifications, whereas theeffect of religion was limited. The negative role of sport practice and impulsivity was also emphasizedfor some participants.� 2008 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Allrights reserved.

Keywords: Alcohol use disorders; Adolescence; Social control theory

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ33 415 4476106.

E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Begue).

0140-1971/$30.00�2008TheAssociationforProfessionalsinServicesforAdolescents.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.04.001

Please cite this article in press as: Begue, L., Roche, S., Multidimensional social control variables as predictors of drunkenness

among French adolescents, (2008), doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.04.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jado

ARTICLE IN PRESS

2 L. Begue, S. Roche / Journal of Adolescence xx (2008) 1e21

Introduction

Alcohol lies at the very first rank among psychoactive substances used by youth in variousWestern nations (Dawson, Grant, Stintson, & Chou, 2004; Grunbaum et al., 2004; Johnston,O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2005). According to recent international estimations, itsuse and related consequences among youth costs as much as $58 billion per year in the World(Levy, Stewart, & Wilbur, 1999, quoted by Swahn et al., 2005). Alcohol consumption, and espe-cially drunkenness among youth has a number of harmful side effects, such as an increased risk ofinjury (Cherpitel, 1993), vulnerability to physical violence (Shepherd, Sutherland, & Newcombe,2006), suicide (CDCP, 2004), aggression (Bachman & Peralta, 2002; Ford, 2005; Swahn, Simon,Hammig, & Guerrero, 2004; White, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Farrington, 1999), drunkdriving and fatal road accidents (Chou et al., 2006; Hingson, Heeren, Winter, & Wechsler,2005; Nochaski & Stasiewicz, 2006), unprotected sexual intercourse (Cooper, 2002; Hingsonet al., 2005; Newbury-Birch, White, & Kamali, 2000; Wechlser, Davenport, Dowdall, Moykens,& Castillo, 1994) and sexual victimization (Champion et al., 2004). Moreover, drunkenness at anygiven age represents a significant risk factor of later alcohol abuse. For example, Schulenberg,O’Malley, Bachman, Wadsworth, and Johnston (1996) showed that 60% of 18 year olds thatthey followed during 6 years showed continuity in binge drinking (see also Andersen, Due,Holstein, & Iversen, 2003; Bennett, Mc Crady, Johnson, & Pandina, 1999; Fergusson, Lynskey,& Horwood, 1994; Grant & Dawson, 1997; Grant, Stinson, & Harford, 2001; Guilamos-Ramos,Turrisi, Jaccard, & Wood, 2004; Hawkin, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Muthen & Muthen, 2000;Shillington & Clapp, 2000; Wennberg, Bohmann, & Andersson, 2000).

Predictors of alcohol use among youths such as neurophysiological, genetic and personalityfactors, as well as a broad range of psychosocial ones, have been widely explored (Bucholz,1990; Hawkin et al., 1992; Jessor, 1991; Jung, 2001; Sher, Grekin, & Williams, 2005). The purposeof the present study was to identify the quantitative contribution of a set of variables, most ofwhich are traditionally associated with social control theory (Hirschi, 2001), among a regionallyrepresentative sample of youth. In that country, there are currently no published empiricalmultivariate investigations enabling the concurrent analysis of a wide spectrum of social controlvariables according to their contribution to drunkenness. Our first aim was therefore (1) toidentify among a wide range of indicators the correlates of drunkenness using a regionally repre-sentative sample of 14e19-year-old youths, with a special focus on variables measuring socialcontrol and (2) to offer, through a logistic regression model, a presentation of the significantpredictors of drunkenness in this population.

Social control theory and measurement: an overview

Social control theory is grounded in the approach developed by the sociologist EmileDurkheim, who argued that people conform to societal norms only to the extent that they arerestrained by their various attachments (see, for example, his sociology of suicide, Durkheim,1951). According to this view, individuals will conform to conventional norms to the extentthat they are attached to others who accept the legitimacy of these norms, and conversely, peoplewill deviate from the norms to the extent they lack this kind of attachment (Hirschi, 2001; Stark &Bainbridge, 1996: 5). According to social control theory, social order is based on conventional



ARTICLE IN PRESS

3L. Begue, S. Roche / Journal of Adolescence xx (2008) 1e21

moral beliefs and values that are internalized and upheld by society at large. A conventional beliefin societal laws and norms is assumed to be the primary motivational factor that regulates deviantbehavior (Benda, 1997) although many competing factors have been unveiled by criminologists(self-control, life style and opportunities, rational calculation etc.). Three others componentsof control are also underlined in social control theory (Hirschi, 2001). Attachment describesthe psychological and emotional connection one feels toward other persons or groups and theextent to which one cares about their opinions and feeling, Commitment refers to the investmentaccumulated in terms of conformity to conventional rules. Lastly, involvement refers to participa-tion in conventional and legitimate activity. Among youths, the main sources of social control arefamily, school, legal and moral attitudes, and religion which should be negatively related todrunkenness. The relevance of these four sources of social control in the prediction of youthdrunkenness is briefly reviewed in the following paragraphs.

Parental influences on drinking

Family structurePrevious studies have widely underlined the contribution of family factors on teenage drinking.

According to the 1995 NHSDA survey (US Department of Health and Human Services, 1997),adolescents from one-parent or stepparent families are at higher risk for alcohol problems becauseof the stress induced by parental conflict, lower income or other sociodemographic correlates.Parental marital status has consistently been found across white and African American familiesto predict adolescent alcohol consumption, with youth from single-parent families showingmore alcohol use than youth from two-parents families (Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1998; Dun-can, Duncan, & Strycker, 2006; Ledoux, Miller, Choquet, & Plant, 2002; Parker, Weaver, & Cal-houn, 1995; Peretti-Watel, Beck, & Legleye, 2006; see however O’Malley, Johnston, & Bachman,1998, for an inconsistent association between family structure and drinking status). As shown byBarnes, Hoffman, Welte, Farrell, and Dintcheff (2006), on the basis of classical family theory anddecades of empirical research (e.g. Barnes & Farrell, 1992; Farrell & Barnes, 2000), two additionalkey constructs, parental monitoring and support, have been found to be critically important in thefamily socialization/parenting processes.

Parental monitoringParental monitoring is defined as the extent to which parents attempt to attend to, track, or

control their children’s activities and whereabouts (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). This family variableis among the most persistent variable involved in delinquency: children whose parents exercisecontrol on their activities and their interpersonal relations commit less serious and less frequentdelinquent acts than others (Crouter et al., 1990; Dishion et al., 1991; Dishion & Mc Mahon,1998; Elliott, 1994; Hirschi, 1969; Jang & Smith, 1997; Rankin & Wells, 1990; Rutter, Giller, &Hagell, 1998; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Regarding adolescents’ drinking behavior, parental moni-toring is negatively associated with alcohol consumption in cross-sectional (Barnes & Farrell,1992; Borawski, Ievers-Landis, Lovegreen, & Trapl, 2003; Fletcher, Darling, & Steinberg, 1995)and longitudinal studies (Duncan, Duncan, Biglan, & Ary, 1998; Peterson, Hawkins, Abbott,& Catalano, 1994; Reifman, Barnes, Dintcheff, Farrell, & Uhteg, 1998; Van der Vorst, Engels,Meeus, Dekovic, & Vermulst, 2006). Several research findings indicate that a prominent function



ARTICLE IN PRESS


of parental monitoring is protecting or buffering the teenager from the negative effects ofassociation with deviant peers and thus reducing the risk of alcohol misuse (Barnes et al., 2006;Catalano, Kosterman, Hawkins, Newcomb, & Abbott, 1996; Fletcher et al., 1995; Guilamos-Ramos et al., 2004; Oxford, Harachi, Catalano, & Abbott, 2000; Patterson & Dishion, 1985;Wood, Read, Mitchell, & Brand, 2004).

Parental nurturanceThe other central variable in assessing family processes is parental closeness/warmth, which is

also inversely related to problem behavior. Brook et al. (1992) found that a low maternalattachment predicted movement from low to moderate levels of alcohol use. Positive familyrelationships e involvement and attachment e are generally inversely related to alcohol use(Anderson & Henry, 1994; Barnes, Reifman, Farrell, & Dintcheff, 2000; Hundleby & Mercer,1987; Kandel & Andrews, 1987; Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992).

School functioning

A majority of studies analyzing the relationship between school functioning and drunkennessamong youth show that adolescents with low school performances, low school expectations, andschool misconduct incidents have a higher level of drinking and higher incidence of drunkenepisodes (Bachman, Johnston, & O’Malley, 1981; Barnes & Welte, 1986; Boyle & Offord, 1986;Broks et al., 1986; Fors & Rojek, 1983; Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Lall & Schandler, 1991; Maney,1990; Musgrave-Marquart, Bromley, & Dalley, 1997; Peretti-Watel et al., 2006; Rhoades &Maggs, 2006; White, Johnson, & Horwitz, 1986).

Legal and moral beliefs

Another component of problem behavior symptomatology that is related to social controltheory is holding negative perceptions and beliefs toward legal and moral authorities (Hirschi,2001). Opposition toward institutions such as the police or the justice system is a factor frequentlyinvolved in deviant conduct (see, for example, Begue, 2001; Emler & Reicher, 1995; see also Sykes& Matza, 1957, regarding techniques of neutralization). Conversely, believing in a just world,according to which people generally get what they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978; see Furnham,2003 and Hafer & Begue, 2005, for recent reviews) constitutes a fundamental attitudinal orienta-tion involved in the moderation of negative mood and antisocial behavior (Begue & Muller, 2006;Hafer, 2001).

Religious variables

In social control theory, religious institutions are hypothesized to transmit normative beliefsand foster individual attachment, commitment and involvement with the larger society (Marcos,Bahr, & Johnson, 1986). Religion may regulate the behavior of youths through internal (moralbeliefs) as well as external mechanisms, through the provision of a social network (peers andadults) that is bonded by an acceptance of and commitment to moral values and social norms(Burkett, 1993; Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1999). Interactions with a religious social network



ARTICLE IN PRESS


may function as a means of social control inhibiting problematic behavior such as drunkenness.Finally, individuals strongly identified as religious are more likely to experience shame fromdeviant acts, and individuals saliently involved in religion-based social networks are more likelyto experience embarrassment from deviant acts (Gramsmick et al., 1991). In a recent systematicreview of 40 studies, Johnson et al. observed that religion was negatively related to delinquentbehavior in 81% of the studies, and in 100% of the methodologically rigorous studies (see alsoBaier & Wright, 2001). Studies targeting drinking behavior indicate that religious involvementand alcohol drinking are generally inversely related (Bachman et al., 1981; Burkett & White,1974; Cochran, Wood, & Arneklev, 1994; Donovan & Jessor, 1978; Mahoney et al., 2005;Newcomb, Maddahian, & Bentler, 1986; Sloane & Potvin, 1986; Stark & Bainbridge, 1996;Wallace & Forman, 1998; White et al., 1986).

Thrill seeking

Other complementary factors related to addictive behavior and alcohol abuse were investi-gated. Individual differences on dimensions such as impulsivity, physicality, and thrill seekinghave received increased interest in criminology (Cochran et al., 1994; Gottfredson & Hirschi,1990; Raskin-White, Labouvie, & Bates, 1985; Wilson & Hernstein, 1985). Following the studiesshowing a relationship between sensation seeking or impulsivity and substance abuse (Bates &Labouvie, 1995; Caspi et al., 1997; Hawkin et al., 1992; Hittner & Swickert, 2006; Mayer,1988; Kuntsche, Knibbe, Gmel, & Engels, 2006; Schukit, 1998; Zucker, Fitzgerald, & Moses,1995; Zuckerman, 2001), we measured participants’ interest in risky behaviors and sports aswell as self-reported impulsivity. We also assessed involvement in sports, which is also associatedwith alcohol use in several studies (Arvers & Choquet, 2003; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Mc Haleet al., 2005; Peretti-Watel, Beck, & Legleye, 2002a, 2002b; Peretti-Watel et al., 2006; see alsoFredericks & Eccles, 2006).

Method

Participants

The sample was composed of 1295 participants aged 14e19 years living in or around theFrench mid-size city of Grenoble, and who were selected through stratified random sampling.A total of 50 schools were selected. Details regarding the survey methodology are describedelsewhere (Roche, Begue, & Astor, 2004). We did not exclude participants reaching the legalage for drinking in France (18 years) because previous studies indicated that drunkenness isnot significantly influenced by majority age in France (Beck, Peretti-Watel, & Choquet,2000). Participants were individually met at school and filled out the questionnaire in the pres-ence of an interviewer with the consent of their parents, who were informed 2 weeks beforethe beginning of the study. The participation rate was 97%. Depending on their answers toselected questions concerning delinquency or victimization (not presented here), participantswere given appropriate information about relevant public social service that was eventuallyneeded.



ARTICLE IN PRESS


Measures

Demographic factors

Sociodemographic factors have been shown to be strong predictors of adolescent substance use(Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Johnston et al., 2005). We included gender, age, and socioeco-nomic status based on father’s profession. Sex was coded Male¼ 1 (48.3%), Female¼ 2 (51.7%).Age was grouped into three categories as follows: (1) 14e15 years (41.6%), (2) 16e17 years(38.5%), (3) 18e20 years (19.8%). Socioeconomic status (SES) of the participant’s father wasdistributed as follows: (1) employee and operatives (44.2%), (2) intermediary professions(27.4%), white collars and business owners (28.4%).

Sociodemographic characteristics

Family structure indicates whether or not the adolescents live with one or two parents.Two-parents family (77.1%) was coded 1; whereas single-parent family (23.9%) was coded2. Sibship size (the number of brothers and sisters) was also evaluated because it is generallyinvolved in deviant behavior, at least at the bivariate level (Begue & Roche, 2005; Rutteret al., 1998; Sampson & Laub, 1993). In our sample, the sibship size was coded as follows:(1) no brother/sister (5.4%), (2) One brother/sister (36.5%), (3) two brothers/sisters (30.8%),(4) three brothers/sisters (13.9%), (5) four brothers/sisters (6.9%) (6) five or more brothers/sisters (6.9%). We also evaluated the quality of living environment, following studies showingthat children who grow up in disorganized neighborhoods with high physical deteriorationmay face greater risk for a range of behavioral problems (Fagan, 1988). Disorders in theneighborhood can be understood as a proxy for the ecological pressure of incivilities ondeviant behavior as proposed by the ‘‘broken window’’ theory (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Itcould be hypothesized that the level of perceived disorders would send a signal to adolescentsabout the lack or decline of pro-social rules around their homes and therefore influencedrunkenness. The index of quality of living environment was assessed by subject’s answersto two questions ‘‘in your neighborhood, are bus shelters, public phones, benches, trashbins, or playgrounds vandalized?,’’ ‘‘are there graffitis, tags, writings on the walls?’’ Theresponses were coded from 1¼ never to 4¼ very frequently. Statistics for this scale and thequantitative variables described below are summarized in Table 1. Note that means ratherthan totals were used in computing scale scores.

Family functioning

Parental monitoring was limited to a single-item measure ‘‘when you go out, do you tell yourparents where you are going? 1¼Never to 4¼Very often (M¼ 3.00, SD¼ 0.89). Maternalnurturance consisted in a two-item scale ‘‘on the whole, how much do you get along with yourmother?’’ (options ranged from 1¼ not well at all to 4¼ very well) and ‘‘Does your mothercompliment you when you do something good?’’ (options ranged from 1¼ never to 4¼ veryoften). Paternal nurturance also was a two-items scales ‘‘on the whole, how much do you getalong with your father?’’ (response options ranged from 1¼ not well at all to 4¼ very well)



Table 1Description of the quantitative variables

Variable # Items Alpha Mean SD

Quality of living environment 2 0.75 2.50 0.86Parental monitoring 1 e 3.00 0.89

Maternal nurturance 2 0.58 3.17 0.63Paternal nurturance 2 0.67 2.94 0.73Schoolwork 1 e 3.27 1.16

School delay 1 e 1.54 0.67Positive orientationtoward school

1 e 2.93 0.63

Self-evaluation at school 1 e 3.26 0.60Trouble at school 7 0.64 1.35 0.30School aspiration 1 e 2.76 1.06

Support for legal authority 3 0.81 2.70 0.59Just world beliefs 2 0.51 2.96 0.63Moral judgment 9 0.76 3.05 0.37Activation level 3 0.40 2.22 0.63

Thrill and adventure seek 5 0.58 1.66 0.42Religious attendance 1 e 1.75 0.91Religious salience 1 e 1.75 0.92

ARTICLE IN PRESS


and ‘‘Does your father compliment you when you do something good?’’ (response options rangedfrom 1¼ never to 4¼ very often).

School functioning

Time devoted to schoolwork was measured by the question: ‘‘how much time do you spenddaily doing your homework?’’ and coded as follows: (1) no time; (2) less than 15 min per day;(3) between 15 and 30 min per day; (4) between 30 min and 1 h per day; (5) between 1 and 2 hper day; or (6) more than 2 h. We measured School delay by means of the item ‘‘Have youever repeated a grade?’’ with the following response options: (1) No; (2) Yes, once; (3) Yes, twice;and (4) Yes, more than twice. Positive orientation toward school was measured by a single item:‘‘Are you interested in what you learn at school?’’ (from 1¼ not at all to 4¼much). Self-evalu-ation of academic ability was measured with the single item ‘‘Do you consider that you are 1¼ avery bad pupil to 5¼ a very good pupil.’’ Trouble at school was measured by seven questions con-cerning the occurrence of several school sanctions in the preceding 2 years with three answer levels(1) No, never, (2) Yes, once (3) Yes, several times. The sanctions were the following: receivinga detention, an oral warning, a written warning, a course eviction, a school eviction from 1 to8 days, a school eviction of more than 8 days. School aspiration was measured by the item ‘‘Ifyou could keep on attending school as far as you wished, how long would you like to attend?’’and was coded as follows: (1) stop at the baccalaureat1 or before, (2) stop 1 or 2 years after bac-calaureat, (3) stop 3 or 4 years after baccalaureat and (4) higher level diplomas.

1 Baccalaureat is a school-leaving examination leading to university entrance qualification in the French schoolsystem.



ARTICLE IN PRESS


Conventional beliefs

In order to evaluate Support for legal authority, subjects were asked if they had a 1¼ very bad,2¼ rather bad, 3¼ rather good or 4¼ very good perception of the police, the justice system, andpolice force. Just world beliefs were measured by two items (I feel that the world treats me fairly; Ifeel that I get what I deserve) from the French version of the Lipkus, Dalbert, and Siegler (1996)Scale by Begue and Bastounis (2003) and coded 1¼ totally disagree to 4¼ totally agree. Moraljudgment was based on the judgment of seriousness of nine behaviors (physical aggression, shop-lifting, threatening someone with a weapon, burning a car, racketeering, taking a bus withoutpaying, burglary, and urban speeding).

Activation level and sensation seeking

Selected items were adapted from Cochran (1995) with the response format 1¼ totallydisagree to 4¼ totally agree: ‘‘I often act on the spur of the moment, without stopping tothink’’, ‘‘I like living at a quick pace’’, ‘‘I find it exciting to do things that could causeme trouble’’. We also included items adapted from Zuckerman’s (1979) Thrill and AdventureSeeking (TAS) subscale related to extreme sport activities, such as deep sea diving, para-chuting, handgliding, paragliding, and bungee jumping, with the following response format(1) No, I’m not attracted to it, (2) Yes, I would enjoy it, or (3) I already practice it. Wealso assessed sporting activity outside of school, which also predicts alcohol use; the codeswere (1) no sporting activity outside the school (33.7%), (2) sporting activity outside theschool (66.3%).

Religious dimensions

Although it would have been optimal to construct measures of religiosity whichsystematically cover every religiosity dimension (Stark & Glock, 1968) or motivationalaspects of religious commitment (Batson, Ventis, & Schoenrade, 1993), for practical reasonsour measures consisted of three single-items measures: religious affiliation, religious partic-ipation and religious salience. Religious affiliation was measured by the question ‘‘do youhave a religion?’’ 1¼ yes (44.4%), 2¼No (55.6%). Religious attendance was measured byasking respondents to report the frequency with which they attended religious services,from 1¼ never to 6¼ every day. Salience was measured by a four-point ordinal scale whichasked how important religion was in their everyday life, from 1¼ not important to 4¼ veryimportant.

Self-reported drunkenness experience

We measured the dependent variable through the question ‘‘In the last year, how often haveyou been drunk?’’ Because of its skewed distribution, this variable was dichotomized with thefollowing cut-off point at never versus/once or several time, following Farrington and Loeber’s(1995) recommendations. Adolescents experiencing drunken experience were coded 1, whereasthose who didn’t experience drunkenness were coded 0.



ARTICLE IN PRESS


Analytic procedure

We followed the analytic procedure used by Swahn and Donovan (2005, 2006a, 2006b) andSwahn and Donovan (2004). Before initiating analysis, all of our 48 items grouped into 23 distinctvariables were organized into six loosely defined domains which were described earlier. Theprimary purpose of these domains was to create groupings of variables that would facilitatebuilding an empirically driven model of statistically significant predictors of youth drunkenness.The investigation relied on an empirically based backward elimination strategy to identify a statis-tical model in which all predictors were significantly associated with the outcome. This strategywas used primarily to reduce the number of variables by omitting unimportant variables priorto identifying a final multivariate model. This backward elimination strategy is useful becausethere is less risk of failing to find a relationship where one exists (Menard, 1995), and was justifiedby the fact that there was limited information about the multivariate predictors of drunkenness weselected. The backward elimination modelling strategy was applied in a three-step process. First,logistic regression analyses for the outcome measure were performed within each of the six vari-able domains while controlling for age, gender and SES. These analyses determined which of thevariables within each should be included in the final multivariate model. The purpose of enteringall variables within each domain simultaneously was to reduce the number of models computed,to identify variables not statistically important. All variables with a P-value (Wald c2) greaterthan 0.15 were excluded from further analysis. Variables not meeting the P¼ 0.05 criterion(0.15>P> 0.05) were retained because use of the 0.05 criterion may not identify all variableswhich may turn out to be important in the multivariate model. Second, all variables from allsix domains that met the criterion in Step 1 were entered simultaneously in a multivariate modelwhile controlling for age, gender and socioeconomic level. All variables with a P-value greaterthat 0.05 were removed from the model, one at a time, until the model contained only significantvariables. Third, interaction analyses were computed to determine if the significant predictorvariables identified in the final model were moderated by gender, age or SES. The purpose ofthe interaction analyses was to assess whether or not the impact of the predictors was consistentacross demographic subgroups. Interactions terms with age, gender and SES were computed oneat a time with each variable that displayed a significant main effect. All interaction terms witha Wald F P-value below 0.10 were included in the multivariate model identified in Step 2.Interaction terms that were not significant at P< 0.05 were removed one at a time until the modelcontained only significant interaction terms. Stratified analyses were computed for each variablethat was moderated by a demographic characteristic. These stratified analyses included all vari-ables in the full model but did not include any interaction terms.

Results

Bivariate results

Bivariate analyses were performed on the 23 variables before Step 1. In our sample, 29%answered that they had been drunk in the last year. This was the case for 38% of the malesand 21% of the females (c2 corrected¼ 40.52, P< 0.000), which is consistent with the existing



ARTICLE IN PRESS


literature (e.g. Yeh, Chiang, & Huang, 2006). A significant association with age was alsoobserved: 13% among 14e15 year olds had been drunk in the last year, 35% among 16e17year olds and 52% among 18e19 year olds (c2¼ 133.28, P< 0.000). Regarding self-reporteddrunkenness, results crossing gender and age were very close to previous results observed innational samples in France (e.g. Beck et al., 2000). Tables 2 and 3 show all the other bivariateanalysis.

Multivariate analysis

Main effectsBased on the initial analyses of the predictors of drunken experience, 17 of the 20 variables

examined were included in the multivariate model building step. These 17 predictors were maritalsituation, sibship size, quality of environment, parental monitoring, maternal support, paternalsupport, time devoted to homework, school delay, positive orientation toward school, schoolself-evaluation, trouble at school, school aspiration, opposition to authority, moral judgment,impulsivity, sport activity, having a religion, and religious salience. Eleven of these 17 variablesremained significant predictors of the drunken episode after the backward elimination strategywas completed (Table 1). Possible concerns about multicollinearity were addressed by checkingthe conditional index (CI, lower than 10), and by controlling for gender, age and SES beforemultiple logistic regression was applied. The significant predictors were low parental monitoring(OR¼ 0.83; 95% CI:0.70e0.98), low paternal bond (OR¼ 0.77; 95% CI:0.62e0.95), lowmaternal bond (OR¼ 0.76; 95% CI:0.59e0.97), little time spent at homework (OR¼ 1.20;95% CI:1.04e1.38), school delay (OR¼ 0.72; 95% CI:0.55e0.93),2 negative perception of school(OR¼ 1.22; 95% CI:1.05e1.43), trouble at school (OR¼ 1.99; 95% CI:1.26e3.16), support ofauthority (OR¼ 0 0.54; 95%CI:1.05e1.43), impulsivity (OR¼ 1.35; 95% CI:1.06e1.70), involve-ment in sport activity (OR¼ 1.57; 95% CI:1.12e2.20), and low religious saliency (OR¼ 0.61;95% CI:0.50e0.75), all of which increased the risk for drunken episode, even after adjustingfor gender, age and SES.

Interaction analysis

The preliminary interaction analysis of the significant predictors of drunken episodes withgender, age, and SES indicated that six different interaction terms should be included in the multi-variate model building step. The first significant interaction term indicated that the effect ofparental monitoring was marginally significant among males (OR¼ 0.81; 95% CI: 0.64e1.02)and non-significant among females (OR¼ 0.81; 95% CI 0.62e1.06). School deviance was alsomoderated by gender: its statistical effect on drunken experience was robust among females(OR¼ 3.13; 95% CI: 1.42e6.93) but non-significant among males (OR¼ 1.59; 95% CI 0.88e2.87). Finally, low educational aspiration predicted drunken experience among females(OR¼ 1.42; 95% CI: 1.09e1.85) but not among males (OR¼ 1.04; 95% CI: 0.84e1.29).

Socioeconomic status moderated the effect of time spent in homework of drunkenness. Thetime spent doing homework was not significantly related to drunkenness in the children of

2 This effect was however reversed when subject’s age was not controlled (OR¼ 1.30; 95% CI: 1.04e1.62).



Table 2Bivariate analysis: qualitative data

Percentage of participantsdrunk in the 12 past months

Statistical test andvalue (c2 corrected)

Gender

Males 38 40.52***Females 21

Age14e15 years 13 133.28***

16e17 years 3518e19 years 52

Fathers’ professionEmployee/operative 25 10.75**

Intermediary profession 33White collar/business owners 33

Family structureSingle parent 32Two parents 29 ns

Sport

Extra-curricular sport 33No extra-curricular sport 22 15.55***

ReligionReligion 22

No religion 35 28.36***

*P< 0.05; **P< 0.01; ***P< 0.001.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


employees and operatives (OR¼ 1.16; 95% CI: 0.94e1.43) or intermediary professions(OR¼ 1.05; 95% CI: 0.61e1.81). However, it was related to drunken behavior among those ofintellectual professions (OR¼ 0.57; 95% CI: 0.33e1.00). Impulsivity was also moderated bySES. Whereas among the sons and daughters of employees/operatives and intellectual profes-sions, impulsivity was unrelated to drunkenness (OR¼ 0.96; 95% CI: 0.67e1.38 andOR¼ 1.33; 95% CI: 0.85e2.09, respectively), it positively predicted drunken experience amongintermediary professions (OR¼ 2.25; 95% CI: 1.32e3.84). Finally, stratified analyses showedthat age moderated the effect of having a religious denomination on drunkenness. Among14e15 year olds, a protective effect of religion was observed (OR¼ 1.98; 95% CI: 0.95e4.11);however, denomination was unrelated to drunkenness among 16e17 year olds (OR¼ 1.31;95% CI: 0.77e2.22) and 18e19 year olds (OR¼ 0.92; 95% CI: 0.44e2.06). The determinationcoefficient (Nagelkerke R2, see Nagelkerke, 1991) of the overall model was 0.38 (Table 4).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify empirically the contribution of a broad range of socialcontrol variables in a sample of French youth. The specific contribution of this research was to eval-uate the relationship between adolescents’ drunken experience and their bonds to the main



Table 3Bivariate analysis: quantitative variables

Drunk Non-drunk t value

M SD M SD

Quality of environment index 2.54 0.85 2.41 0.87 2.47**

Sibship size 1.85 1.18 2.06 1.30 2.72**Parental monitoring 2.98 0.90 3.33 0.86 6.5***Positive Relationship mother 3.01 0.60 3.23 0.65 5.84***

Positive Relationship father 2.78 0.74 3.01 0.72 5.000***Time doing homework 3.12 1.11 3.64 1.20 7.47***School delay 1.62 0.66 1.51 0.67 2.70**Neg. orient.

toward school

5.01 0.99 4.72 0.98 4.71***

Self-evaluation as student 2.99 0.49 3.13 0.49 4.73***Trouble at school 1.46 0.38 1.30 0.33 7.43***

School aspiration 2.80 1.04 2.72 1.07 1.20, nsSupport for authority 2.47 0.60 2.80 0.56 9.25***Moral judgment 2.95 0.38 3.09 0.38 5.96***

Just world beliefs 2.98 0.63 2.92 0.62 1.65þImpulsivity 2.38 0.64 2.15 0.61 5.89***Interest for extreme sports 1.70 0.39 1.65 0.43 2.06*Religious attendance 1.63 0.71 1.80 0.95 3.35***

Religious salience 1.62 0.76 1.99 0.95 7.41***

*P< 0.05; **P< 0.01; ***P< 0.001.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


conventional sources of authorities they usually meet.We found that relationships with parents andinstitutions (school, police, and in less extent, religion) were critical in drunken behavior amongyouth. The role of practising sport was also confirmed. The full multivariate model with interactionterms indicated that the probability of having experienced drunkenness in the last yearwas increasedby (1) low parental monitoring (among males only), (2) a low nurturing relationship with one’smother, (3) being held back at school, (4) having a negative perception of school, (5) devoting lesstime to schoolwork (for intellectual professions only), (6) having trouble at school (for femalesonly), (7) school having low aspirations (for females only), (8) having low support for authority,(9) being impulsive (among intermediary professions only), (10) practising sport, and (11) not havinga denomination (for 14e15 years only). Variables unrelated to drunken experience in the fullmultivariate level including interactionswere parents’marital situation, sibship size, quality of livingenvironment, father’s nurturance, school self-evaluation,moral judgment, just world beliefs for self,thrill and adventure seeking, and religious attendance and salience.

The predictors of alcohol use in this study are partially consistent with those found to beimportant predictors of drunkenness in western studies mentioned in the theoretical section ofthis paper. For example, international surveys such as MTF (Monitoring the future, Johnsonet al., 2005), European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drug (ESPAD, Hibellet al., 2001) or Health Behavior in School Aged Children (HBSC, Godeau, Grandjean, &Navarro, 2002) show that parental and school factors are important correlates of drunkenness.International studies also suggest that sport practice does not prevent youth drunkenness but isinstead positively linked with it. However, in our study, many factors showing a bivariate



Table 4Multivariate logistic regression model predicting drunken episode in the last year (n¼ 1292)

Measures Model withoutinteraction terms

Model withinteraction terms

B ORadj (95% CI) B ORadj (95% CI)

Gender �0.37* 0.68 (0.49e0.95) �0.99** 0.37 (0.19e0.72)Age 1.21*** 3.38 (2.70e4.22) 1.60*** 5.26 (3.93e7.02)SES 0.22* 1.24 (1.03e1.50) �0.48* 0.61 (0.42e0.89)

Monit �0.18* 0.83 (0.70e0.98) �0.17* 0.84 (0.71e0.99)Fa-Nur �0.25* 0.77 (0.62e0.95)Mo-Nur �0.27* 0.76 (0.59e0.97) �0.27* 0.75 (0.59e0.97)Scho-Ti 0.18** 1.20 (1.04e1.38)

Scho-Del �0.32* 0.72 (0.55e0.93) �0.32* 0.72 (0.55e0.94)Scho-Neg 0.20** 1.22 (1.05e1.43) �0.21** 1.23 (1.05e1.44)Scho-dev 0.69** 1.99 (1.26e3.16)

Auth-Pos �0.61*** 0.54 (1.05e1.43) �0.61*** 0.54 (0.41e0.71)Impul 0.30* 1.35 (1.06e1.70)Sport 0.45** 1.57 (1.12e2.20) 0.43* 1.54 (1.09e2.15)

Rel-Sali �0.48*** 0.61 (0.50e0.75)Monit�Gender �0.17** 0.83 (0.73e0.95)Scho-dev�Gender 0.56*** 1.76 (1.28e2.42)Scho-asp�Gender 0.12* 1.13 (1.01e1.25)

Scho-Ti� SES 0.10** 1.10 (1.03e1.18)Impul� SES 0.16** 1.17 (1.04e1.31)Rel�Age �0.23*** 0.78 (0.71e0.86)

�2 Log likehood 1170.87 1156.70

*P< 0.05; **P< 0.01; ***P< 0.001.

Monit: Parental monitoring; Fa-Nur: Father’s nurturance; Mo-Nur: mothers’ nurturance; Scho-Ti: Time devoted toschool homework; Scho-Del: School delay; Scho-Neg: Negative perception of school; Scho-dev: School deviance;Auth-Pos: Positive perception of authorities; Impul: Impulsivity; Sport: Sport practice; Rel-Sal: Religious salience;

Scho-asp: School aspiration; Reli: Having a religious denomination.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


relationship with drunkenness had non-significant or interactive relationship with self-reporteddrunkenness in the final multivariate model. Indeed 8 out of 10 variables that were significantat the bivariate level became non-significant: sibship size, quality of living environment, father’snurturance, school self-evaluation, moral judgment, just world beliefs, thrill and adventureseeking, religious attendance and religious salience. Moreover, among the 10 significant predictorsin the final model, 3 varied according to participant’s gender (parental monitoring, trouble atschool, school aspirations), 2 varied according to SES (time devoted to schoolwork and impul-sivity) and 1 varied according to participant’s age (having a religion). One of the strengths ofthis study is the incorporation of a range of variables covering various domains of social control.This inclusion provide a rather complex view or the correlates of adolescents drunkenness that isnot easy to compare with studies involving less factors or more focused on a subtype of factors.

Regarding parental variables, unlike other studies in European countries and North America(Bjarnason et al., 2003; Duncan et al., 1998; Duncan et al., 2006; Ledoux et al., 2002; Parkeret al., 1995; Peretti-Watel et al., 2006), we did not observe a link between family structure anddrunkenness (see however O’Malley et al., 1998, for a discussion of inconsistencies in the



ARTICLE IN PRESS


association between family structure and drinking status). Parental monitoring was confirmedamong males but not among females, which may be explained by a higher parental monitoringamong females, as many studies indicate (see, for example, Begue & Roche, 2005). Moreover,maternal nurturance was negatively linked to drunkenness as in many studies (e.g. Steinberget al., 1992). Lastly, school factors appeared as the most consistent correlates of drunkenness:five out of six variables predicted drunkenness significantly. This result confirms previous resultsobserved among North American or European samples (Bachman et al., 1981; Barnes & Welte,1986; Boyle & Offord, 1986; Broks et al., 1986; Fors & Rojek, 1983; Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Lall& Schandler, 1991; Maney, 1990; Musgrave-Marquart et al., 1997; Peretti-Watel et al., 2006;Rhoades & Maggs, 2006; White et al., 1986). The fact that having trouble at school and loweducational aspiration predicts drunkenness for females but not males is interesting and maysuggest that such experiences are normative for males but not females.

Several limitations should however be noted. First, adolescent drinking may be considered asheterogeneous behavior that involves both some groups who are experimenting and some groupswho are regularly drinking. With the normalisation of experimentation the correlates may bedifferent. In the present investigation, we choose to dichotomize the outcome variable because thesample wasn’t large enough to consider a more differentiated analysis. Moreover, as underlinedby Swahn and Donovan (2005) and Farrington and Loeber (2000), while dichotomizing variablesmay result in loss of information, there are many important benefits of dichotomization. Themain advantage of using dichotomized variables are that it simplifies the presentation of results, itfacilitates the examination of interaction effects, it enables the quantification of risk by usinga risk factor approach, and it also provides an appropriate method to handle variable that are notnormally distributed, which was clearly the case in the current investigation. Second, we assessedparental variables such as monitoring or nurturance through the children’s evaluation. This meth-odology is not without limitation, especially given the weak overlap between parents and children’sevaluation of parental behavior (see Harris, 1998; Stattin & Kerr, 2000). Third, the dependent vari-able was also self-reported. Even if research on validity of self-report data has concluded that youngpeople are sincere about sensitive matters when appropriate precautions are taken (e.g. Winters,Stinchfield, Henly, & Schwartz, 1990), we have no estimate of the possible bias in under or over-reporting drunken experience. Fourth, our survey may have missed those at greatest risk for exhib-iting behavioral problems, because of truancy (Cernkovich,Giordano,&Pugh, 1985; Fors&Rojek,1991;O’Malley et al., 1998).However efforts weremade to obtain a representative sample. In partic-ular, interviewers were flexible when scheduling the interviews to increase the representativeness ofstudents and accommodate students who may have otherwise been missed due to truancy or forother reasons. Fifth, for practical reasons linked to the length of the questionnaire, relevant factorsrelated to drunkenness were not included such as attitudes and drinking habits of parents (Rose,1998; Taylor, Conard, O’Byrne, Haddock, & Poston, 2004) or peers (Averna & Hesselbrock,2001; Cardenal & Adell, 2000). Sixth, the usual critiques aimed at cross-sectional surveys apply:issues of causality remains to be assessed. Longitudinal studies indicate that alcohol consumptionis both the consequence and the cause of alterations of social bond. In our empirical driven study,we did not gather relevant data for causality testing. For example, problembehaviormight be drivenby the behavioral traits of the child, which elicits negative or less efficient parenting (Reitz, Dekovic,Meijer, & Engels, 2006; Van der Vorst et al., 2006). Reciprocal effects between parental and adoles-cent variables are clearly observed in the development of adolescent alcohol use (Stice & Barrera,



ARTICLE IN PRESS


1995). Seventh, regarding sport activity, we did not distinguish between formal and informal prac-tice, which provide distinct occasions and motives for drinking alcohol (Peretti-Watel et al., 2002a,2002b). Eighth, the proportion of adolescents in France reporting having been drunk during theprevious 12 months is substantially smaller than the average according to the 2003 ESPAD report.Regarding alcohol consumption, important variations within Europe are currently observed. Fourdrinking patterns can be drawn, crossing occasional or frequent consumption and little or repeatedintoxication. According to ESPAD Survey, French adolescents are among those with frequentconsumption but little intoxication. The relevance of social control predictors we observed shouldtherefore be confirmed inEuropean countries with other drinking patterns. Lastly, our investigationrelied on a purely empirical assessment of the association between selected factors and drunkenness.Although prior theoretical or empirical support was established for the variables included in thestudy, the findings were derived by the empirical analyses without theoretical investigations. Infor-mation from such investigation can be used to guide future research as well as the development oftheoretical and explanatory models (see Swahn & Donovan, 2005).

Despite its limitations, this study indicates that drunken behavior among youths can be fairly wellpredicted bymeasures pertaining to social control theory.Having an adolescent drunken experiencemay be interpreted as the behavioral expression of a distance fromparental, school and legal author-ities, and may be related to sport practice. Among some youths (among intermediary professions),impulsivity may increase drunkenness, whereas among some others (14e15 year olds) having a reli-gion (but not religious practice or salience) may prevent it. We believe that the interactive effects ofage, gender andSESwithpredictor variables deserve further attention.As for other behavioral prob-lems such as aggressive behavior (Campbell, 1993), the function of drunken behavior may varyaccording to gender, SES and age, as suggested by research on alcohol expectancies (Leigh & Stacy,2004). Identifying the explicit and implicit meanings related to drunken experience among thesescategories of subjects may provide a key for understanding the observed interactive effects.

Alcohol is a psychoactive drug that is prized among young people and plays an important rolein the etiology of important adverse effects on their health. Our results suggest that drunkennessamong youth is significantly related to various social control variables among which many areknown as predictors of a wide specter of other problem behavior (Donovan, Jessor, & Costa,1988; Rutter & Smith, 1995). Consistent with Hirschi’s (2001) social control theory, attachmentand commitment are negatively associated with drunkenness. However, regarding the otherdimensions (beliefs and involvement), the results are less consistent. Regarding beliefs, moraljudgment and just world beliefs were not linked to drunkenness in the final model. Moreover,adolescents having a sporting activity outside school experienced more drunkenness than theothers, which is not consistent with Hirschi’s theory, according to which involvement should benegatively related to deviant behavior. Further studies should focus on the processes inducingalcohol consumption among the adolescents involved in sport practice.

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out with the financial support of the French Ministry of PublicTransportation and the Ministry of Justice. We also wish to thank the thoughtful commentsreceived from the journal’s anonymous reviewers and the editor.



ARTICLE IN PRESS


References

Andersen, A., Due, P., Holstein, B., & Iversen, L. (2003). Tracking drinking behaviour from age 15e19. Addiction, 98,1505e1511.

Anderson, A. R., & Henry, C. S. (1994). Family system characteristics and parental behaviours as predictors ofadolescent substance use. Adolescence, 29, 405e420.

Arvers, P., & Choquet, M. (2003). Pratique sportives et consommation d’alcool, tabac, cannabis et autres droguesillicites [Sport practice and alcohol consumption, tobacco, cannabis and other illicit drugs]. Annales de MedecineInterne, 154, 1525e1534.

Averna, S., & Hesselbrock, V. (2001). The relationship of perceived social support to substance use in offspring ofalcoholics. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 363e374.

Bachman, R., & Peralta, R. (2002). The relationship between drinking and violence in an adolescent population: does

gender matters? Deviant Behavior, 23, 1e19.Baier, C., & Wright, B. R. (2001). If you love me, keep my commandments: a meta-analysis of the effect of religion on

crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(1), 3e21.Barnes, G. M., & Farrell, M. P. (1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking,delinquency,

and related problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 763e776.Barnes, G. M., Hoffman, J. H., Welte, J. W., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2006). Effects of parental monitoring

and peer deviance on substance use and delinquency. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1084e1104.

Barnes, G. M., Reifman, A. S., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2000). The effects of parenting on the development ofadolescent alcohol misuse: a six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 175e186.

Barnes, G. M., & Welte, J. W. (1986). Patterns and predictors of alcohol use among 7-12th grade students in New York

State. Journal-of-Studies-on-Alcohol, Vol 47(1). Jan 1986, 53-62.Bates, M. E., & Labouvie, E. W. (1995). Personality-environment constellations and alcohol use: a process-oriented

study of intraindividual change during adolescence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 9, 23e35.

Batson, D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. (1993). Religion and the individual. Oxford: Oxford university Press.Beck, F., Peretti-Watel, P., & Choquet, M. (2000). Consommation de substances psychoactives chez les 14e18 ans

scolarises: premiers resultats de l’enquete ESPAD 1999 [Consumption of psychoactive substances among 14-18 yearsold: first results of the ESPAD Survey 1999]. Paris: OFDT.

Begue, L., & Bastounis, M. (2003). Two spheres of belief in justice. Extensive support for the bidimensional model ofBelief in Just World. Journal of Personality, 71, 435e463.

Begue, L., & Muller, D. (2006). Belief in a just world as moderator of hostile attributional bias. The British Journal of

Social Psychology, 45, 117e126.Begue, L., & Roche, S. (2005). Birth order and youth delinquent behavior: testing the differential parental control

hypothesis. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11, 73e85.

Benda, B. B. (1997). An examination of the reciprocal relationship between religiosity and different forms of delin-quency with a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 163e186.

Bennett, M. E., Mc Crady, B. S., Johnson, V., & Pandina, R. J. (1999). Problem drinking from young adulthood to

adulthood: patterns, predictors and outcomes. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60, 605e614.Bjarnasson, T., Andersson, B., Choquet, M., Elekes, Z., Morgan, M., & Rapinett, G. (2003). Alcohol culture, family

structure and adolescent alcohol use: Multi-level modelling of frequency of heavy drinking among 15-16 year oldstudents in eleven European countries. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 200e208.

Borawski, E. A., Ievers-Landis, C. E., Lovegreen, L. D., & Trapl, E. S. (2003). Parental monitoring, negotiatedunsupervised time, and parental trust: the role of perceived parenting practices in adolescent health risk behaviours.Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 60e70.

Bucholz,K. (1990).A reviewof correlates of alcohol use andalcohol problems in adolescence. InM.Galanter (Ed.),Recentdevelopments in alcoholism, Vol. 8. Combined alcohol and other drug dependence (pp. 111e123). New York: Plenum.

Burkett, S. (1993). Perceived parent’s religiosity, friends’ drinking, and hellfire: a panel study of adolescent drinking.

Review of Religious Research, 35, 134e154.Burkett, S., & White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency: another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13,

455e462.



ARTICLE IN PRESS


Campbell, E. (1993). Men, women, and aggression. New York: Basic Books.

Cardenal, C. A., & Adell, M. N. (2000). Factors associated with problematic alcohol consumption in school children.Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 425e433.

Caspi, A., Begg, D., Dickson, N., Harrington, H.-L., Langley, J., Moffitt, T. E., et al. (1997). Personality differences

predicts health-risk behaviours in adulthood: evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 73, 1052e1063.

Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Newcomb, M. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Modeling the etiology ofadolescent substance use: a test of the social development model. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(2), 2429e2455.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004). Surveillance summaries, May 21, MMWR, No. SS-2.Cernkovich, S. A., Giordano, P. C., & Pugh, M. D. (1985). Chronic offenders: the missing case in self-report

delinquency research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 705e732.

Champion, H. L., Foley, K. L., Durant, R. H., Hensberry, R., Altman, D., & Wolfson, M. (2004). Adolescent sexualvictimization, use of alcohol and other substances, and other risk behaviors. Journal of AdolescentHealth, 35, 321e328.

Cherpitel, C. J. (1993). Alcohol and violence-related injuries: an emergency room study. Addiction, 88, 79e88.

Chou, S. P., Dawson, D. A., Stinson, F. S., Huang, B., Pickering, R. P., Zhou, Y., et al. (2006). The prevalence ofdrinking and driving in the United States, 2001e2002: results from the national epidemiological survey on alcoholand related conditions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 83, 137e146.

Cochran, J. K., Wood, P. B., & Arneklev, B. J. (1994). Is the religiosity-delinquency relationship spurious? A test of

arousal and social control theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(1), 92e123.Cooper, M. L. (2002). Alcohol use and risky sexual behaviour among college students and youth: evaluating the

evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol(suppl. 14), 101e117.

Crouter, A. C., Mc Dermid, S. M., Mc Hale, S. M., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (1990). Parental monitoring and perceptions ofchildren?s school performance and conduct in dual and single earner families.Developmental Psychology, 26, 649e657.

Dawson, D. A., Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., & Chou, P. S. (2004). Another look at heavy episodic drinking and alcohol

use disorders among college and noncollege youth. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65, 477e488.Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem

behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation.Clinical-Child-and-Family-Psychology-Review, Vol 1(1), 61e75.

Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. L. (1991). Family, school, and behavioural antecedentsto early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology, 27(172?), 180.

Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1988). Syndrome of problem behaviour in adolescence: A replication. Jour-nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 762e765.

Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1978). Adolescent problem drinking: Psychosocial correlates in a national sample study.Journal-of-Studies-on-Alcohol, 39(9), 1506e1524.

Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., Biglan, A., & Ary, D. (1998). Contributions of the social context to the development of

adolescent substance use. Amultivariate latent growthmodelling approach.Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 50, 57e71.Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Hops, H. (1998). Latent variable modelling of longitudinal and multilevel alcohol use

data. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 399e408.

Duncan, S. C., Duncan, T. E., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). Alcohol use from ages 9 to 16: a cohort-sequential latentgrowth model. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 81, 71e81.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York: The Free Press.Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: what kind of

extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10e43.Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Emler, N., & Reicher, N. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency. London: Blackwell.

Fagan, J. (1988). The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs. New York: John Jay Collegeof Criminal Justice.

Farrington, D., & Loeber, R. (2000). Some benefits of dichotomization in psychiatric and criminological research.

Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 10, 102e124.Fergusson, D. M., Lynskey, M. T., & Horwood, J. (1994). Childhood exposure to alcohol drinking problems.

Addiction, 89, 1007e1016.

Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Parental monitoring and peer influence on adolescent substance use.In J. Mc Cord (Ed.), Coercion and punishment in long-term perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.



ARTICLE IN PRESS


Ford, J. A. (2005). The connection between heavy drinking and juvenile delinquency during adolescence. Sociological

Spectrum, 25, 629e650.Fors, S. W., & Rojek, D. G. (1991). A comparison of drug involvement between runaways and school youths. Journal

of Drug Education, 21, 13e25.

Fredericks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes? Concurrentand longitudinal relations. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 698e713.

Furnham, A. (2003). Belief in a just world: research progress over the past decade. Personality and Individual Differ-ences, 34, 795e817.

Godeau, E., Grandjean, H., & Navarro, F. (2002). La sante des eleves de 11 a 15 ans en France. Donnees francaises del’enquete HBSC. Paris: Editions INPES.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Grant, B. F., & Dawson, D. A. (1997). Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse anddependance: results from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9,103e110.

Grant, B. F., Stinson, F. S., & Harford, T. C. (2001). Age at onset of alcohol use and DSM-IV alcohol abuse anddependence. A 12 year follow-up. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 493e504.

Guilamos-Ramos, V., Turrisi, R., Jaccard, J., & Wood, E. (2004). Progressing from light experimentation to heavyepisodic drinking in early and middle adolescence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(4), 494e500.

Hafer, C. L., & Begue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: problems, developments, and futurechallenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128e167.

Harris, J. (1998). The nurture assumption: why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press.

Hawkin, J. D., Catalano, R. F., &Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems inadolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64e105.

Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Ahlstrom, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnasson, T., Kokkevi, A., et al. (2001). The Espad 1999

Report: Alcohol and other Drug Use among Student in 30 European Countries. Stockholm: Swedish Council forInformation on Alcohol and other Drugs.

Hingson, R., Heeren, T., Winter, M., & Wechsler, H. (2005). Magnitude of alcohol-related mortality and morbidity

among U.S. college students ages 18e24: changes from 1998 to 2001. Annual Review of Public Health, 26,259e279.

Hirschi, T. (2001). Causes of delinquency. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Hittner, J. B., & Swickert, R. (2006). Sensation seeking and alcohol use: a meta-analytic review. Addictive Behavior, 31,

1383e1401.Hundleby, J. D., & Mercer, G. W. (1987). Family and friends as social environments and their relationship to young

adolescents’ use of alcohol, tobacco, and Marijuana. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 125e134.

Jang, S. J., & Smith, C. A. (1997). A test of reciprocal causal relationship among parental supervision, affective ties, anddelinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 307e336.

Johnston, J. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2005). Monitoring the future: National results

on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2004. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Jung, J. (2001). Psychology of alcohol and other drugs. A research perspective. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Kandel, D. B., & Andrews, K. (1987). Processes of adolescent socialization by parents and peers. International Journal

of the Addictions, 22, 319e342.

Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescent adjustment:Further support for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental-Psychology, Vol 36(3), 366e380.

Kuntsche, E., Knibbe, R., Gmal, G., & Engels, R. (2006). Who drinks and why? A review of socio-demographic,

personality, and contextual issues behind the drinking motives in young people. Addictive Behavior, 31, 1844e1857.Lall, R., & Schandler, S. L. (1991). Michigan alcohol screening test (MAST) scores and academic performances in

college students. College Student Journal, 25, 245e251.

Ledoux, S., Miller, P., Choquet, M., & Plant, M. (2002). Family structure, parent-child relationships, and alcohol andother drug use among teenagers in France and the United Kingdom. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 37, 52e60.

Leigh, B. C., & Stacy, A. (2004). Alcohol expectancies and drinking in different age groups. Addiction, 99(2), 215e227.

Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 85, 1030e1051.



ARTICLE IN PRESS


Levy, D. T., Stewart, K., & Wilbur, P. M. (1999). Costs of underage drinking. Available from. http://www.pire;org/

udets/documents/costs.pdf. Accessed 23.03.00. Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.Lipkus, I. M., Dalbert, C., & Siegler, I. C. (1996). The importance of distinguishing the belief in a just world for self

versus for others: implications for psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 666e677.

Maney, D. (1990). Predicting university students’ use of alcoholic beverages. Journal of College Student Development,31, 23e32.

Marcos, A., Bahr, S., & Johnson, R. E. (1986). Test of a bonding/association theory of adolescent drug use. SocialForces, 65, 135e161.

McHale, J. P., Vinden, P., Bush, L., Richer, D., Shaw, D., & Smith, B. (2005). Patterns of personal and social adjustmentamong sport-involved and non-involved urban middle-school children. Sociology of Sport Journal, 22, 119e136.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Musgrave-Marquart, D., Bromley, S. P., & Dalley, M. B. (1997). Personality, academic attribution, and substanceuse as predictors of academic achievement in college students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12,501e511.

Muthen, B. O., & Muthen, L. K. (2000). The development of heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems from ages 18to 37 in a US national sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61, 290e300.

Nagelkerke, N. J. (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78(3), 691e692.Newbury-Birch, D., White, M., & Kamali, F. (2000). Factors influencing alcohol and illicit drug use amongst medical

students. Drug-and-Alcohol-Dependence, Vol 59(2), 125e130.Newcomb, M. D., Maddahian, E., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Risk factors for drug use among adolescents: concurrent

and longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 76, 525e531.

Nochaski, T. H., & Stasiewicz, P. R. (2006). Relapse to driving under the influence: a review. Clinical PsychologyReview, 26, 179e195.

O’Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., & Bachman, J. (1998). Alcohol use among adolescents. Alcohol Health and Research

World, 22, 85e93.Oxford, M. L., Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (2000). Preadolescent predictors of substance

initiation: a test of both the direct and mediated effect of family social control factors on deviant peer association

and substance initiation. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27(4), 599e616.Parker, K. D., Weaver, G., & Calhoun, T. (1995). Predictors of alcohol and drug use: a multiethnic comparison. Journal

of Social Psychology, 135, 581e590.Patterson, G. R., & Dishion, T. J. (1985). Contributions of families and peers to delinquency. Criminology, 23, 63e79.

Peretti-Watel, P., Beck, F., & Legleye, S. (2002a). Beyond the U-curve: the relationship between sport and alcohol,cigarette and cannabis use. Addiction, 97(6), 707e716.

Peretti-Watel, P., Beck, F., & Legleye, S. (2002b). More about sport and drugs use: competition and ‘integrative’ drugs.

Addiction, 97(12), 1609e1611.Peterson, P. L., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1994). Disentengling the effect of parental drinking,

family management, and parental alcohol norms on current drinking by black and white adolescents. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 4, 203e227.Rankin, J., & Wells, L. E. (1990). The effect of parental attachments and direct controls on delinquency. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 140e165.Raskin-White, H., Labouvie, E. W., & Bates, M. E. (1985). The relationship between sensation seeking and

delinquency: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 197e211.Reifman, A., Barnes, G., Dintcheff, B. A., Farrell, M. P., & Uhteg, L. (1998). Parental and peer influences on the onset

of heavier drinking among adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 311e317.

Reitz, E., Dekovic, M., Meijer, A.-M., & Engels, R. C. (2006). Longitudinal relations among parenting, best friends,and early adolescent problem behaviour. Testing bidirectional effects. Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(3), 272e295.

Rhoades, B., & Maggs, J. L. (2006). Do academic and social goals predict planned alcohol use among college-bound

high school graduates? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(6), 913e923.Rose, R. J. (1998). A developmental behaviour-genetic perspective on alcoholism risk. Alcohol Health and Research

World, 22, 131e143.

Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behaviour by young people. Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.



http://www.pire;org/udets/documents/costs.pdf

http://www.pire;org/udets/documents/costs.pdf

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Rutter, M., & Smith, D. J. (1995). Psychosocial disorders in young people. Time trends and their causes. New York:

Wiley.Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Schulenberg, J., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Wadsworth, K., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Getting drunk andgrowing up: trajectories of frequent binge drinking during the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Studieson Alcohol, 57, 289e304.

Shepherd, J. D., Sutherland, I., & Newcomb, R. G. (2006). Relations between alcohol, violence and victimization in

adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 539e553.Sher, K., Grekin, R., & Williams, N. A. (2005). The development of alcohol use disorders. Annual Review of Clinical

Psychology, 1, 493e523.

Shillington, A. M., & Clapp, J. D. (2000). Self-report stability of adolescent substance use: are there differences forgender, ethnicity and age? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 60, 19e27.

Sloane, D. M., & Potvin,-Raymond-H. (1986). Religion and delinquency: Cutting through the maze. Social-Forces, Vol

65(1), 87e105.Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. (1968). American piety. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. (1996). Religion, deviance & social control. New York: Routledge.Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2000). Parental monitoring: are interpretation. Child Development, 71, 1072e1085.

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting practices on adolescentachievement: authoritative parenting, school involvement, and encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63,1266e1281.

Stice, E., & Barrera, M. (1995). A longitudinal examination of the reciprocal relations between perceived parenting andadolescents substance use and externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 322e334.

Swahn, M. H., & Donovan, J. E. (2005). Predictors of fighting attributed to alcohol use among adolescent drinkers.

Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1317e1334.Swahn, M. H., & Donovan, J. E. (2006). Correlates and predictors of violent behavior among adolescent drinkers.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 480e492.

Swahn, M. H., & Donovan, J. E. (2006). Alcohol and violence: comparison of the psychosocial correlates ofadolescent involvement in alcohol-related physical fighting versus other physical fighting. Addictive Behaviors, 31,2014e2029.

Swahn, M. H., Simon, T. R., Hammig, B. J., & Guerrero, J. L. (2004). Alcohol-consumption behaviors and risk for

physical fighting and injuries among adolescent drinkers. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 959e963.Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization, a theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review,

22, 664e670.

Taylor, J. E., Conard, M. W., O’Byrne, K. K., Haddock, C. K., & Poston, W. S. (2004). Saturation of tobacco smokingmodels and risk of alcohol and tobacco use among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 190e196.

Van der Vorst, H., Engels, R. C., Meeus, W., Dekovic, M., & Vermulst, A. (2006). Parental attachment, parental

control, and early development of alcohol use: a longitudinal study. Psychology of Addictive Behavior, 20(2),107e116.

Wallace, J. M., & Forman, T. A. (1998). Religion’s role in promoting health and reducing risk among American youth.Health Education and Behavior, 25, 721e741.

Wechlser, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G., Moykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioural consequences ofbinge drinking in college. A national survey of students at 140 campuses. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation, 272, 1672e1677.

Wennberg, P., Bohman, M., & Andersson, T. (2000). Variation and stability in drinking patterns in a cohort of Swedishmales. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 28, 312e316.

White, H. R., Johnson, V., & Horwitz, V. (1986). An application of three deviance theories to adolescent substance use.

International-Journal-of-the-Addictions, Vol 21(3), 347e366.White, H. R., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Developmental association between

substance use and violence. Developmental Psychopathology, 11, 785e803.

Wilson, J. Q., & Hernstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon & Schuster.Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. (March 1982). Broken Windows. The Atlantic Monthly 29e38.



ARTICLE IN PRESS


Winters, K. C., Stinchfield, R. D., Henly, G. A., & Schwartz, R. H. (1990). Validity of adolescent self-report of alcohol

and other drug involvement. International-Journal-of-the-Addictions, Vol 25(11A), 1379e1395.Wood, M. D., Read, J. P., Mitchell, R. E., & Brand, N. H. (2004). Do parents still matter? Parent and peer influence on

alcohol involvement among recent high school graduates. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 19e30.

Wright, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., & Silva, P. (1999). Low self-control, social bonds, and crimes: social causation, socialselection, or both? Criminology, 37, 479e514.

Yeh, M. Y., Chiang, I. C., & Huang, S. Y. (2006). Gender differences in predictors of drinking behavior in adolescents.Addictive Behaviors, 31, 1929e1938.

Zucker, R. A., Fitzgerald, H. E., & Moses, H. D. (1995). Emergence of alcohol problems and the several alcoholisms:a developmental perspective on etiologic theory and life course trajectory. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.),Developmental psychopathology . Risk, disorder, and adaptation, Vol. 2 (pp. 677e711). New York: Wiley.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Zuckerman, M. (2001). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.



Multidimensional social control variables as predictors of drunkenness among French adolescents

Documents

Transcript of Multidimensional social control variables as predictors of drunkenness among French adolescents