A Multistage Social Learning Model of the Influences of Family and Peers upon Adolescent Substance Abuse

• Published date: 01 July 1988
• Date: 01 July 1988
• DOI: 10.1177/002204268801800301
• Subject Matter: Article

The Journal of Drug Issues, 18(3),293-315, 1988

A MULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

OF THE INFLUENCES OF

FAMILY

AND

PEERS

UPON

ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Ronald L. Simons

Rand D. Conger

Leslie B. Whitbeck

Amultistage social learning model of parental and

peer influences on substance abuse is proposed.

Building upon the work

of

Bandura (1977) and

Patterson (1986), but also drawing from theory and

research on coping

and

value socialization, the

model provides an explanatory framework for many

of

the well-established empirical generalizations con-

cerning drug use

and

also generates a number

of

new

hypotheses. While the modelprovides an explanation

for initiation into substance use, it is primarily

concerned with identifying those factors which cause

adolescents to escalate their involvement with sub-

stances. Significantly, in the course

of

tracing the

etiology

of

heavy substance use, the model identifies

possible causal mechanisms related to two other

adolescent social problems, oiz., depression

and

delinquency,

and

specifies the mannerin which these

phenomena are related to substance use.

Resear ch on adolescent substance use

and

abuse supports

the

following

generalizations: a)

the

use of drugs is interrelated so

that

users of

anyone

type

are

more likely

than

nonusers to be users of any other type of drug

(Fishburne et al., 1980; Kandel, 1975; Kandel

et

al., 1978); b) usage

patterns

tend

to display developmental sequences progressing from

the

use of

the

legal drugs

alcohol

and

tobacco to

the

use ofillicit substances (Fisburne et al., 1980;Kandel et

al., 1978; Kandel

and

Yamaguchi, 1985; Miller,

1981);

c) there is a correlation

between life

stress

and

substance use (Shiffman

and

Wills, 1985);

and

d)

substance abuse is associated with weak bonds to family

and

school

and

strong

bonds to a deviant peer group (Bachman et aI., 1981; Brook et al., 1977, 1980;

Ronald

L.

Simons

is Professor of Sociologyat IowaState University.

Rand

D.

Conger

is Associate Dean for Research in

the. College of Family and Consumer Sciences at Iowa State University.

Leslie

B.

Whitbeck

is Assistant Professor of

~1.Ology

at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

50011.

This work wassupported byresearch

grant

DA05347·01 from the

atlonal Instituta on Drug Abuse.

Journal ofDrug Issues, Inc. 0022-0426/8&103/293-315 $1.00

293

SIMONS

Elliott et al., 1985; Huba et al., 1979 and 1980; Ginsberg and Greenley, 1978;

Jessor and Jessor, 1977; Orcutt,

1978).

While there is strong evidence for these

generalizations, researchers have yet to develop a theoretical model which will

explain and integrate these findings, specifying

the

causal ordering of

the

associations and explicating

their

relationship to each other.

During the 1960s and 1970s

strain

theories of adolescent deviance were quite

popular (Cohen, 1955; Cloward and Ohlin,

1960).

These approaches posit

that

lack

of access to conventional opportunities for success lead youth to join deviant peer

groups. Although

strain

theories provide an explanation for

the

relationship

between failure in school

and

involvement in a delinquent peer group, they do not

offer an explanationfor the other relationships cited above. Enthusiasm for

strain

theories has waned during recent years at least in

part

because of disconfirming

findings (Nettler, 1984;

VoId

and Bernard, 1986).

Presently, social control theory is probably

the

most popular model of adoles-

cent deviance. This theory maintains

that

youth engage in deviant behavior

because

their

ties to conventional social institutions, such as family and school,

are weak (Hirschi,

1969).

While there is ample support for

this

contention, the

perspective is not very helpful in explaining

the

relationships cited abovein

that

it

fails to identify conditions

that

lead to weak bonds (Elliott et al., 1985),it ignores

the

impact of deviant peers (Conger, 1980; Elliott et al., 1985),

and

it cannot

explain

the

development of motives conducive to the use of drugs (Elliott et al.,

1985).

In recent years, social learning theory has been suggested as an alternative

which addresses some of

the

limitations ofcontrol theory, while at

the

same time

remaining consistent with its obvious strengths (Akers, 1985; Conger,

1976).

By

focusing upon processes of modeling and reinforcement, social learning theory is

more explicit about those parenting factors which contribute to substance use,

and, unlike control theory, it predicts arelationship between drug use and

participation in a substance using peer group (Conger, 1980). Research based

upon this approach often explains more variance in substance use and abuse

than

that

explained by other perspectives (Akers et al.,

1979).

However,

in

the

form in

which it has been applied, the theory still leaves many questions unanswered. For

instance, while involvement with substance-using peers is a potent predictor of

drug abuse (Kandel, 1983), the theory does not explain why adolescents join

substance-using peer groups. This is a very important issue, both theoretically

and practically, as the answer might suggest approaches to

treatment

and

prevention. The theory also fails to account for

the

relationship between substance

use

and

both poor performance in school

and

indicators of stress, and it does not

specify

the

factors which cause progression from experimentation to regular use.

The present paper develops an expanded, more cognitive, social learning

explanation of patterns of heavy substance use. While

the

model identifies

processes accounting for initiation into substance use, its primary concern is

specifying

the

manner

in which parental

and

peer relationship factors cause

adolescents to escalate their use of alcohol and/or illicit drugs from experimenta-

tion to continuing abuse. Building upon

the

work ofBandura (1977) and Patterson

(1982),

but

also drawing from theory

and

research on coping and value socializa-

tion, the-model provides an explanation for

the

relationships described above

and

also generates anumber of new hypotheses.

294 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

A MULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

Any theory which purports to offer a comprehensive explanation of adolescent

substance abuse will of necessity be complex, containing several variables

and

reciprocal relationships. 'Ib reduce complexity,

the

proposed model focuses only

upon those direct and indirect

parent

and

peer influences related to substance

abuse for which there is considerable support. Even with this limitation, however,

the model remains complex simply illustrating

the

fact

that

patterns of drug use

are determined by many factors, and previous theories have been inadequate

because they have attempted to explain drug use through a two or three variable

process (Lettieri et al.,

1980).

The

Model

The expanded social learning model is presented in Figure 1. In an effort to

make

the

figure easier to read,

the

variables which represent the primary foci of

the

model-parenting

factors, peer group influences, and adolescent substance

abuse-are

put

in circles

rather

than

rectangles. Bold lines are used to identify

the four variables thought to directly effect substance abuse

and

dashes

rather

than

a solid line are employed to denote feedback loops or non-recursive effects.

The model begins with a

set

of parenting factors posited to impact upon various

aspects of adolescent psychosocial development. These developmental outcomes,

in turn, are linked to choice of peers, performance in school, initiation into

substance use, emotional disturbance, and, finally, a

pattern

of regular substance

use.

Figure 1.

AMultistage

Social

Learning

Model

of

Substance

Abuse

PARENTS

ADOLESCENTS

I I

L

~_-_B------,

~ ~

-I

---

1JJ

Sununer1988

295

SIMONS

Parenting Factors

As will become apparent in

the

discussion to

follow,

parenting factors are seen

as contributing both directly

and

indirectly to adolescent substance abuse. Given

the

central role attributed to parenting practices,

the

model begins by identifying

a

set

of factors thought to be important determinants of parenting style. Arrow 1

posits

that

adults are more likely to use an ineffective parenting style when they

were raised in a family characterized by faulty parenting. Parenting might be

classified as ineffective when it results in undesirable socialization outcomes (e.g.,

delinquency, psychopathology, non-compliance, etc.), Research has shown

that

faulty parenting may take the form of an inadequate parent-child relationship or

the use of deficient parenting techniques. Thus, parents can be ineffective either

because they fail to establish a warm, supportive relationship with

their

child,

and/or because they do not provide proper supervision, reinforcement,

and

discipline (Maccoby and Martin, 1983; Patterson, 1982; Rohner,

1986).

The

findings of two longitudinal studies (Edler et al., 1983; Huesmann

et

aI., 1983)

provide some support for the hypothesis

that

inadequate parenting practices tend

to be handed down from one generation to another.

Arrow 2 indicates

that

parents who are under stress, whether from work,

their

marriage, or some other source, tend to become less effective parents. Several

studies report

that

stress decreases

the

probability

that

a

parent

will use

efficacious childrearing techniques. Research has demonstrated

that

parents

under stress are less likely

than

non-stressed parents to nurture, monitor or

positively reinforce

their

children while they

are

more likely to use nagging,

scolding, hitting, and other punishment oriented responses (Conger et al., 1984;

Elder, 1974; Lahey et al., 1984; Patterson, 1983 and 1986).

Finally, consistent with the findings of several studies (Shiffman and Wills,

1985),

arrows 3 and 4 suggest

that

both environmental stress

and

inadequate

coping skills (i.e., excessive use of denial and avoidance

rather

than

direct action

strategies when stressful situations are encountered) contribute to parental

substance abuse, with parental substance abuse, in turn, impacting upon parent-

ing practices. Recently, Dishion et aI. (1985)reported

that

heavy substance-using

parents tended to display a parenting style characterized by ineffective practices

such as low involvement and inept monitoring.

Psychosocial Outcomes

Arrows 6 through 10 focus upon

the

impact of parenting factors upon adoles-

cent psychosocial development. Arrow 6 indicates

that

an adolescent's social skills

(i.e., interpersonal competencies associated with listening, compromise, assert-

iveness, empathy, accepting authority, relating to

the

opposite sex, etc.) are

determined, in part, by the childrearing techniques employed by his or

her

parents. Patterson (1982 and 1986) has shown how a coercive family system

develops in response to a parenting style characterized by little monitoring and

positive reinforcement, coupled with high rates ofpunishmentand rejection. Such

asystem is marked by high levels of mutual punishment as

the

primary means by

which family members attemptto control one another's behavior (Conger,

1981).

In

this type of environment,

the

child learns to use aggressive, coercive methods to

influence others while more socially appropriate interpersonal skills are not

modeled or reinforced.

296

JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

A MULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

The affective

nature

of

the

parent-child relationship also influences social skill

development. A loving,

nurturing

relationship with

parents

is posited to be

the

primary vehicle through which chidren

learn

to care, to give, to compromise, to

trust,

and

to risk showing

their

feelings

and

weaknesses to others (Maccoby

and

Martin, 1983; Hoffman, 1983). Hence, youth who are socialized in an atmosphere

ofparental neglect

and

rejection might be expected to lack

the

interpersonal skills

necessary to form close relationships with others. Such children are likely to be

self-centered, insensitive to

the

feelings of others,

and

perhaps socially with-

drawn.

As noted above, research

has

shown

that

both delinquency

and

substance

abuse

are

associated with poor school performance

and

involvement in a deviant

peer group.

Strain

theories account for these relationships by positing

that

youth

who fail in school join delinquent gangs in

their

search for alternative avenues to

success

and

recognition (Cohen, 1955; Cloward

and

Ohlin, 1960). Research

findings, however, provide only weak support for this perspective (Nettler, 1984;

VoId

and

Bernard, 1986). Control theory (Hirschi, 1969) holds

that

adolescents

often perform poorly in school because they have failed to acquire values

supporting commitment to education, albeit

the

theory offers no explanation for

the

motives

that

lead individuals to participate in deviant peer groups.

Building upon

the

contentions of control theory,

the

social learning model

presented in Figure 1suggests

that

the

value socialization outcomes which foster

poor school performance also encourage involvement with deviant peers. This

prediction was derived by combining Bandura's (1977) emphasis upon

the

pro-

cesses of self-reinforcement

and

self-regulation with findings regarding

the

importance of parents as reference groups for adolescents' future-oriented goals

(Brittain, 1963; Sebald, 1986; Wilks, 1986).

In describing

the

socialization process,

Bandura

(1977)contends that:

Parents cannot always be present to guide

their

children's behavior. Suc-

cessful socialization requires gradual substitution of symbolic

and

internal

controls for external sanctions

and

demands (p. 43)

....

Theories

that

explain

human

behavior as solely

the

product of external rewards

and

punishments present atruncated image of people. . . . Behavior is com·

monly performed in

the

absence ofimmediate external reinforcement. Some

activities are maintained by anticipated consequences,

but

most

are

under

self-reinforcement control. In

this

process, people

set

certain

standards

of

behavior for themselves

and

respond to

their

own actions in self-reinforcing

or self-punishing ways (p, 129).

In contrast to lower level organisms,

the

human

being is not a slave to his or

her

external environment. Rather, people

tend

to acquire performance

standards

which they use in regulating, evaluating,

and

self-reinforcing

their

actions.

Indeed, one way of defining maturity is

the

extent to which

an

individual's

behavior is a function of

internal

rather

than

external contingencies.

Bandura

uses

the

label "performance standard" to refer to

the

symbolic criteria

which individuals employ in regulating

and

evaluating

their

behavior. Sociologists

apply

the

term

"value" to such performance criteria. According to Rokeach's

(1973:5)widely cited definition, a value is "an enduring belief

that

a specific mode

Summer 1988 297

SIMONS

of conduct or end-state of existence is personally preferable to an opposite or

converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence." As the definitions suggest,

there are two types of values: terminal values which have to do with end-states of

existence (e.g., world at peace, equality, material success, etc.) and instrumental

values which have to do with modes of conduct (e.g., courage, honesty, etc.),

Terminal values are conceived as more centrally located in a person's beliefsystem

than

instrumental values, and both are considered to be more centrally located or

fundamental

than

beliefs, attitudes, or opinions about specific objects or situa-

tions (Rokeach,

1968).

Research findings suggest

that

youth are less likely to drift into delinquency

when they are committed to

the

work ethic

(Agnew,

1984),have high educational

and occupational aspirations (Hirschi, 1969), and are religious (Albrecht et al.,

1977; Burkett and White, 1984; Elifson et al., 1983;

Jensen

and Erickson, 1979).

Moreover, support for the idea

that

long-term value commitments are somehow

involved in

the

etiology of substance use is provided by two recent studies by

Kandel and Yamaguchi showing

that

users of marijuana postpone marriage and

parenthood longer

than

nonusers (Yamaguchi

and

Kandel, 1985) and

that

heavy

substance users display higher self-initiatedjob mobility

than

others (Kandel and

Yamaguchi,

1987).

This raises

the

question of

the

source offuture-oriented values.

Several studies have found

that

adolescents utilize their parents as a reference

group for long-term, future-oriented values (career, religion, money, etc.) while

they

tum

to their peers when forming more immediate, short-term values (e.g.,

dress, hobbies, dating, etc.) (Brittain, 1963; Sebald, 1986; Wilks,

1986).

These

findings suggest

that

youth tend to adopt educational and occupational aspira-

tions, a concern with marriage and parenthood, an orientation toward work, and

religious commitments which reflect the views of

their

parents. This hypothesis is

depicted by arrow 6. The arrow indicates

that

when parents possess strong value

commitments in

the

areas of work, family, education, occupation, and religion,

their children are likely to develop similar commitments; and when parents lack

value commitments in these areas, it is likely

that

their children will develop a

similar lack of concern with such values.

It

would

follow

that

the

concerns of youth who lack a commitment to future-

oriented values will be limited to more immediate, hedonistic goals. It will be

argued below

that

such persons are likely to be attracted to deviant peer groups

which emphasize excitement

and

immediate gratification. There is evidence

that

delinquent youth are more committed

than

conforming adolescents to subterra-

nean values of the society (Matza, 1964) involving search for excitement and

pursuit ofpleasure (Cernkovich, 1978a and 1978b).1b a large degree these values

probably develop in deviant peer groups as

the

members, lacking long-term value

commitments, reinforce each other's pursuit of immediate goals. In some cases,

however, parents, through their actions and talk, may model a commitment to

subterranean values. Thus, parents may foster in

their

children a concern with

excitement and immediate gratification in two ways: a) by failing to socialize long-

term values and, thereby, facilitating their child's participation in peer groups

where subterranean, hedonistic values are accepted and reinforced; and b) by

directly socializing their children, either through words or actions, into subterra-

nean value orientations.

Assuming

that

parents are committed to future-oriented values, arrow 8

298 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

A MULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

specifies more precisely

the

conditions under which

their

children

are

likely to

adopt these commitments. Parents

must

employ effective childrearing techniques

if they

are

'to pass

their

values on to

their

children. Parents

must

model (through

their actions

and

their

talk)

and

reinforce future-oriented values concerned with

education

and

vocation, work, family

and

religion if

their

offspring are to

internalize these standards. Social learning theory would suggest

that

it is not

enough for parents to hold values in these areas; they need to use effective

parenting skills if these value commitments

are

to be passed on to

their

children.

Part

of effective parenting is establishing positive affective ties with one's

children. Youth

are

unlikely to adopt

the

values of

their

parents when they feel

rejected by them. Research on modeling shows

that

individuals

are

most likely to

emulate

the

actions of persons they hold in high esteem and/or who

are

potent

sources of reinforcement (Bandura, 1977; Parry

and

Furukawa, 1980). Thus,

parents who possess a close, warm relationship with

their

offspring are most

apt

to influence

their

children's values (Conger, 1976; Feather, 1975).

Arrow 9 indicates arelationship between

the

coping skills modeled by parents

and

the

coping techniques employed by

their

adolescent children. Social learning

theory would posit

that

youth

learn

strategies for coping with stress and tension,

in part, from

their

adult caretakers. They learn to use alcohol, to withdraw, to

pray, to ask for support,

and

the like, by observing the behavior of

their

parents

(Yost

and

Mines, 1985). There is some evidence

that

both adult

and

adolescent

substance abusers lack effective coping skills (Pentz, 1985; Rouse et al., 1973;

Stone et al., 1985; Timmer et al., 1985; Wills, 1985). The model proposes

that

adolescents who become substance abusers possess a limited repertoire of coping

skills,

and

that

they tend to respond to stressors with strategies involving denial,

avoidance, and/or distraction. As arrow 9suggests, we expect

that

this same

limited range of responses is evident in

the

coping strategies employed by

their

parents.

Asdescribed by arrow 10, an adolescent's level of social skill development is also

considered to be a determinant of his or

her

coping pattern. Individuals who have

difficulty forming close friendships, who

are

uncomfortable expressing

their

feelings, or who

tend

to be either

under

or overly assertive will be unable to use

certain coping strategies. They will find it difficult, for example, to appropriately

confront people serving as a source of stress, or to mobilize social support (i.e.,

advice, assistance, or reassurance) in response to a stressor. Importantly, several

stUdies have shown such coping strategies to be among

the

most effective

approaches to dealing with life stress (Kessler et al., 1985).

Finally, arrows 11,12,

and

13 identify

the

factors thought to be important in

causing early initiation into substance use. Several studies have shown

that

the

earlier ayoungster begins substance use,

the

greater

the

probability

that

he or

she will develop a substance abuse problem (Fleming et al., 1982; Kandel, 1976;

Kaplan et al., 1984; Kaplan et al., 1986; Robins

and

Przybeck, 1985; Robins

and

Murphy, 1967). Further, there is strong evidence

that

involvement in substance

abuse tends to follow a

pattern

where experimentation with alcohol precedes

trying marijuana,

and

using marijuana occurs prior to experimentation with

other illicit drugs (Kandel

and

Yamaguchi, 1985).Thus,

the

data

indicate

that

age

?f initiation into substance use,

and

the

substance is usually alcohol, is somehow

lnvolved in

the

development of a heavy substance use pattern.

Sununer

1988

299

SIMONS

The present model contends

that

early initiation into substance use is a

function of three factors: First, early initiation is likely when

an

adolescent's

parents model regular substance use. Consistent with this prediction, Kandel et

aI. (1978) report

that

heavy substance use by parents is related to early alcohol

experimentation by

their

children. Second, adolescents are more

apt

to experi-

ment with substances at a young age when their parents utilize inadequate

parenting techniques. Avariety of studies indicate

that

there is an increased

probability

that

teens will drift into delinquent behavior of all types, including

substance use, when parents fail to effectively monitor, reward, and punish

the

behavior of their children (Baumrind, 1985; Patterson, 1982; Patterson and

Stouthammer-Loeber, 1984;Penning

and

Barnes, 1982; Reilly,1979),while results

from a panel study by Kaplan et aI. (1986) show

that

adolescents are more

apt

to

experiment with drugs at an early age when their parents fail to

set

clear rules.

Third, it is posited

that

early initiation into substance use is encouraged by low

commitment to future oriented values and/or astrong commitment to subterra-

nean, hedonistic values. Subterranean values concerning excitement and new

experiences are likely to make experimentation with substances attractive, while

low concern for future-oriented goals reduces

the

risk associated with such

behavior.

Peers, School Performance,

and

Emotional Distress

The remaining relationships in Figure 1 focus upon

the

consequences of the

psychosocial factors

just

considered. Arrows 14 through 17 posit

that

a young

person's choice of peer group is influenced by

his/her

social skills, values, age of

initiation into substance use, and

the

parenting techniques utilized by his/her

parents. The social skills prediction is supported by sociometric research on

children. Several studies have found

that

youth who are overly assertive (arguing,

bragging, fighting) and/or withdrawn (shy, uninvolved, sulking, excluding of

others) tend to be rejected by

their

peers who view such behaviors as self-centered

and noxious (Asher and Renshaw,

1981;

Dodge,1983;Putallaz

and

Gottman,

1981;

Snyder et al., 1986).And, having been rejected by peers with appropriate social

skills, there is evidence

that

children with deficient social skills often drift into

association with one another (Hartup, 1983; Snyder

et

al.,

1986).

Given

their

socialization histories, such youngsters might be expected to be accepting of each

other's self-centered, coercive

pattern

of interaction. Thus, adolescents who have

not learned to be polite, tactful, sensitive, and compromising in their interactions

with others are likely to end up participating in a deviant peer group where

their

interpersonal style is accepted.

As noted earlier, there is strong evidence

that

parental mismanagementfosters

aggressive children (Patterson, 1986)

and

that

parental

rejection

and

an

authoritarian approach to parenting often cause children to be shy and under-

assertive (Maccoby

and

Martin, 1983).Hence, in

the

proposed model two types of

social skill deficits are posited as a consequence of inadequate

parenting-

aggressiveness and

shyness-and

these two forms of interpersonal deviance are

seen as contributing to rejection by more popular, socially appropriate peers and

subsequent drift into association with other deviant, rejected kids. Note

that

this

line ofreasoning offers an explanation for

the

finding by Kellam

and

his associates

300 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

A MULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

that

shyness and/or aggressiveness in first grade predicts substance abuse during

adolescence (Kellam and Brown, 1982).

While

the

indirect effect of parenting upon choice of peer group through social

skills

has

been noted, parenting factors are also posited to have a direct effect

upon

the

type of peer group in which an adolescent becomes involved. Arrow 15

suggests

that

effective parents

are

able to have some impact upon

their

child's

choice of friends. Parental monitoring

and

discipline can affect an adolescent's

access to and association with deviant peers. Studies by Patterson

and

his

colleagues have shown this to be

the

case (Patterson

and

Dishion, 1985; Snyder et

al., 1986).And,

the

quality of

the

relationship between

parent

and

child impacts

upon a parent's ability to influence his/her child's friendship choices in

that

youngsters

are

likely to care about

and

be responsive to parental opinions about

their peers when parents represent highly reinforcing figures. Conversely, youth

are likely to be unresponsive to parental concerns about friendship choices when

the parent-child relationship lacks warmth

and

affection (Conger, 1976).

Arrow 16 suggests

that

early substance use also influences

the

type of peer

group with which

an

adolescent is likely to become involved. As noted above,

the

earlier aperson experiments with substances

the

more likely it is

that

he or she

will go on to become a heavy substance user. Although several studies have noted

this relationship (Kandel et al., 1978; Robins

and

Pryzbeck, 1985),an explanation

has yet to be developed concerning

the

manner

in which early initiation contrib-

utes to heavy substance use. Robins

and

Przybeck (1985) have shown

that

the

relationship cannot be explained by

the

hypothesis

that

psychopathology causes

some individuals to be both early initiators

and

subsequent substance abusers.

The presentmodel posits

that

the

effect is mediated through type of peergroup.

Youngsters who use substances (usually alcohol) at

an

early age are likely to be

perceived as deviant,

and

are

apt

to be ostracized by conforming peers. As a result

ofthis rejection, early experimenters might be expected to drift into deviant peer

groUps, i.e., peer groups which accept

their

unconventional behavior. Consistent

with this prediction, four longitudinal studies show

that

beginning to use drugs

increases

the

probability

that

one will become

part

of a drug using peer group

(Cohen, 1977; Kandel, 1978; Kaplan et al., 1984; Ginsberg

and

Greenley, 1978).

And, as will be argued below,joining adeviant peer group, is a major contributor

to sustained involvement with drugs.

Finally,

an

adolescent's values are likely to be important in

the

selection of a

peer group as studies have repeatedly found

that

people form friendships with

persons who possess values similar to

their

own (Arrow 17). Individuals

are

attracted to

and

reinforce one another to

the

extent

that

they are committed to

similar values

and

lines of action (Hartup, 1983).

It

was argued above

that

adolescents will display a value hiatus, or anomie, with regard to future-oriented

values (e.g., work ethic, educational

and

occupational aspirations, religious

commitment) if

their

parents lack such value commitments, if

their

parents

are

unaffectionate

and

rejecting, and/or if

their

parents

fail to utilize effective

?arenting techniques. Lacking long-term value commitments,

the

concern of such

Individuals is limited to

rather

immediate goals

and

interests. In other cases,

parents may actually model

and

reinforce subterranean, hedonistic values.

Regardless, adolescents concerned with more present-oriented goals

and

inter-

ests

are

likely to be more responsive

than

youngsters with future-oriented values

Summer

1988

301

SIMONS

to reinforcers operating in the immediate environment. As aresult, adolescents

who have not been socialized into long-range value commitments are likely to join

peer groups which emphasize immediate, hedonistic pursuits. Moreover,as arrow

28 indicates, when

the

members of a group are committed to fun and excitement

while being unconcerned about costs which these pursuits might have for future-

oriented goals, they are likely to experiment with delinquent activities.

Arrows 18, 19, and 20 indicate

that

value commitments, parenting techniques,

and type of peer group impact upon performance in school. Youngsters who have

not been socialized into future-oriented values are not likely to

put

much effort

into school; lax or rejecting parents fail to monitor

and

support completion of

homework assignments (Dishion et al., 1984); and, young persons involved with

peers oriented to

the

pursuit of immediate goals and the use of a self-centered

interpersonal style are likely to be frustrated by

the

conduct and homework

requirements of school (Patterson,

1986).

Social learning theory suggests

that

a person's self-concept is determined by

the feedback he/she gets about his/her performances (Bandura, 1977). Therefore,

poor performance in school might be expected to reduce an adolescent's self-

esteem (arrow 23), a finding

that

has been reported in several studies (O'Malley

and Bachman, 1979). Arrows 21 and 22 posit

that

social skills and parenting

practices also influence self-esteem. As discussed earlier, socially incompetent

youth (whether too aggressive or too shy) tend to be rejected by

their

more socially

adequate peers. In addition to pushing

the

youngster toward membership in a

deviant peer group,

this

rejection should lower self-esteem. There is strong

evidence

that

parenting practices impact upon a young person's self-esteem.

Studies have shown

that

parental permissiveness, lowinvolvement, rejection, and

punitiveness tend to diminish ayouths sense of worth

(Bowlby,

1980; Bachman,

1982; Coopersmith, 1967; Greenberg et al., 1983; Rosenberg, 1965).

Arrows 24 through 27 identify factors which serve as important causes of

emotional disturbance for an adolescent. Parental rejection, deficient coping

skills, low self-esteem, and a lack of long-term values

and

goals (i.e., anomie) are

posited to increase a young person's level of tension, anxiety,

and

depression.

There are several studies which suggest

that

these factors are important

contributors to emotional disturbance during

the

adolescent years (Charteir and

Ranieri, 1984; Hodges and Siegel, 1985; Simons and Murphy, 1985). Contempo-

rary theories emphasize the way in which perceptions of helplessness (Seligman

et al., 1979; Peterson and Seligman, 1985)

and

an attitude of pessimism and

hopelessness concerning oneself, other people, and

the

future lead to depression

and anxiety (Beck and Rush, 1978; Peterson

and

Seligman, 1985). Adolescents

who are rejected by

their

parents and have deficient coping skills and low self-

esteem might be expected to suffer feelings of inefficacy and helplessness; and

youth lacking in fundamental, long-term values are likely to be vulnerable to

feelings of meaninglessness and purposelessness regarding

the

future.

Escalation to Heavy Substance Use

Weare now ready to consider

the

factors posited to directly contribute to heavy

substance use. Note

that

the model distinguishes initiation from heavy use. Many

ofthe inconsistent findings in

the

drug use literature may be a function of the fact

that

researchers often fail to distinguish experimentation from regular use. Most

302 JOURNAL OF DRUG

ISSUES

A MULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

young people consume alcohol at some point during

their

high school years,

and

a

substantial proportion

try

illicit drugs during this period of

their

lives (Baumrind,

1985; Kandel, 1983). As noted above, early experimentation is thought to be a

function of parental modeling of substance use, ineffective parenting skills,

and

a

commitment to

subterranean

rather

than

future oriented values. Stated differ-

ently, kids whose values emphasize immediate gratification

and

whose

parents

use substances

and

exercise little supervision

and

control, are likely to experi-

ment with substances at an early age. However,

the

vast majority of kids who

experiment with drugs do not go on to become regular users. The model suggests

four factors which increase

the

probability

that

experimentation will escalate to

heavy usage of alcohol and/or illicit drugs. The four factors are

the

substance use

pattern of parents, type of peer group, psychopathology,

and

coping skills.

Prior to discussing these factors, it should be noted

that

some individuals

contend

that

the

most parsimonious explanation for substance abuse is

that

it is

an operant behavior developed in response to

the

biologically reinforcing proper-

ties of

the

chemicals involved (Council on Scientific Affairs, 1982).This contention

is consistent with studies showing

that

animals quickly

learn

to display high

response rates in order to obtain many of

the

illicit drugs used by humans, often

selecting these substances over other potent reinforcers such as food

and

water

(Young

and

Herling, 1986). Studies of humans, however, suggest

that

drug abuse

cannot be explained so easily.

As noted above, unlike laboratory animals, most

humans

who experiment with

a Substance do not go on to become regular users. Further, studies of patients self-

administering analgesics for post-operative pain, d-amphetamines for weight

control, or psychotropic drugs for psychiatric distress show

that

people

are

generally quite conservative in

their

usage, often imbibing less

than

the

physician

recommended levels (See Henningfield et al., 1986). Similarly, laboratory experi-

ments have shown

that

when given

the

choice

humans

tend

to select placebos

substantially more often

than

d-amphetamine,

and

that

preference for

the

drug

actually declines over trials (Johanson

and

Uhlenhuth, 1980; Uhlenhuth et al.,

1981).

Thus, it appears

that

it is a mistake to view drug abuse as caused by

invariable physiologic consequences of drugs which compel

the

individual to

take

the substance. Rather, it seems

that

drug reinforcement is a variable phenomenon

which is influenced by special characteristics of users

and

their

life situations

(Martin, 1983; Nicholi, 1983). As mentioned above,

the

present model identifies

four factors thought to augment

the

reinforcing value of substance use. By

operating to increase

the

reinforcement associated with drugs, these factors serve

to escalate

the

degree to which substances

are

used'!

The first factor involves

the

substance use

pattern

modeled by

parents

(arrow

30).There is evidence

that

adolescents are more

apt

to engage in heavy use

if

their

parents display a

pattern

of regular alcohol and/or drug use (Barnes et al., 1986;

~ndel

et

al., 1978; Wegscheider,

1981).

Through

their

behavior,

parents

convey

Information concerning when substances

are

to be used

and

the

quantities in

which they

are

to be taken. Social learning theory would predict

that

adolescents

are more

apt

to use substances to relax or to cope with stress,

and

are

more likely

to imbibe frequently

and

in large quantities, if such behaviors

are

modeled by

their parents. Further, several studies show

that

individuals

learn

expectancies

about

the

psychological

and

behavioral effects of a drug

and

that

these expectan-

SUtnmer 1988 303

SIMONS

cies color their response to

the

substance (Adesso,

1985).

Presumably, the

formulation of these expectancies begins in

the

home as the youngster observes

his/her parents talk about and utilize various substances.

Anumber of studies show

that

over time youth tend to adopt values and

behavior patterns which are similar to those of

their

friends (Hartup, 1983),

and

consistent with this finding, there is overwhelming evidence

that

adolescent

substance users tend to have friends who use drugs (Kandel, 1983). Social

learning theory would contend

that

this relationship exists as drug-using peers,

through

their

talk

and behavior, create expectancies concerning drug effects

and

then

reinforce individuals for taking drugs

and

acting in a

manner

consistent

with the expected effects. Arrow 31 indicates this hypothesis.

In addition to

the

influences exerted by parents and peers, arrow 32 hypoth-

esizes

that

emotional distress (i.e., anxiety and/or depression) sets

the

stage for

other types of reinforcers to come into play. Studies with both adults

and

adolescents suggest

that

stress, anxiety, and depression are related to substance

abuse (Alterman, 1985; Mirin, 1984; Robins and Przybeck,

1985).

Based upon

social learning theory, the present model posits

that

emotional distress may

contribute to

the

reinforcing value ofsubstance use in one of two ways.

First, intoxicants can be used to enhance one's sense of mastery and to produce

new repertoires of behavior. For example, based upon learned expectancies and

experience with some drug, individuals lacking social skills may find

that

use of

the

substance makes them feel less self-conscious

and

more socially capable.

Similarly, persons low in self-esteem

and

self-efficacymight discover

that

certain

drugs make them feel more able and confident. In such instances

the

use of a

substance takes on reinforcing value because it establishes

the

conditions (i.e., it

becomes a discriminative stimulus) for experiencing other reinforcers.

Second, substance use may act as a negative reinforcer for individuals

undergoing emotional distress. This is particularly likely to be the case for

adolescents manifesting psychopathology in

the

form of depression and/or anx-

iety.Such distress appears to have increased dramatically among teens during

the

last

twenty-five years,

and

now is relatively common in this age group (Chartier

and

Ranieri,

1984).

Once initiated into drug use a young person may find

that

certain drugs reduce feelings oftension, anxiety, and depression. Thus, drugs may

be used as a form of self-medication in an effort to control the emotions created by

stressful situations.

Studies of adults have found an association between emotional distress,

particularly depression,

and

substance use (Day and Leonard, 1985). While

research to date has not established

the

causal direction of

this

relationship,

the

present model posits

that

the

primary effect is from emotional upset to substance

abuse, with use of

the

substance being maintained through

the

process ofnegative

reinforcement. Support for this causal claim is provided by laboratory studies

with animals (MacLennan and Maier, 1983)

and

humans

(Uhlenhuth et al., 1981)

showing

that

both select drugs more often during conditions of stress and

dysphoria,

and

by

the

results of a recent panel study of adolescents which found

that

psychological distress at the time of initiation predicted escalation of

substance use (Kaplan et al.,

1986).

Some have argued

that

while drug experimen-

tation is motivated by a concern for increasing positive affect, regular users are

motivated by a concern for reducing negative affect (McKennel and .Thomas, 1967;

304

JOURNAL

OF

DRUG

ISSUES

A MULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

Ashton and Stepney,

1982).

As should be evident, this hypothesis is a

part

of

the

proposed model.

In addition to parental modeling, peer reinforcement, and emotional distress,

the model indicates

that

substance use is influenced by a person's coping skills

(arrow 33). Marlatt (1979) has argued

that

problem drinking is a means ofcoping

among people who feel inadequate about

their

capacities to cope with stress.

Recently, Wills

and

Shiffman (1985)have made a similar contention with regard

tosubstance use in general. They note

that

research has established an intercor-

relation between cigarette smoking, heavy drinking, and other substance use

among teens. These findings, they contend, suggest

that

similar mechanisms

underlie

the

use of different substances. They go on to propose

that

these similar

mechanisms "lie in the domain of general coping skills" (Wills and Shiffman,

1985:18).

Several of the papers in

their

edited volume report findings supporting

the hypothesis

that

substance users tend to suffer from a limited range of coping

skills (Pentz, 1985; Stone et al., 1985; Timmer et al., 1985; Wills,

1985).

As

part

of the present model, we posit

that

regular users rely largely upon

coping strategies involving denial, avoidance, and/or distraction. Reliance upon

such strategies is likely to contribute to substance abuse in several ways: a)

substance use is consistent with or can be an integral

part

of coping responses

designed to deny, avoid, or forget a stressor; b) substance use will have greater

reinforcing value for persons who lack other methods of coping with stress

than

it

will for individuals who have mastered a wide range of coping behaviors (Lawson

et al., 1983); and c) coping strategies involving denial, avoidance and distraction

are often not very effective methods for dealing with stressful situations (Pearlin

and Schooler, 1978), serving in

the

long

run

to intensify stress and the need to

utilize these coping strategies in a more extreme fashion. Thus, arrow 31actually

signifies three hypotheses concerning

the

manner

in which coping strategies

Contribute to regular substance use.

Research concerned with

the

relationship between coping skills and drug use

have employed either of two models. The stress/coping model conceptualizes

substance use as a compensatory or coping behavior adopted in response to stress.

Consistent with this view,Aneshensel and Huba (1983) found that, at leastin

the

short run, young people who used drugs experienced a decrease in anxiety and

depression. The stress/response model contends

that

drug use serves to increase

rather

than

alleviate stress over

the

long-term. The model assumes

that

heavy

drug use inhibits individuals from learning or practicing more adaptive coping

alternatives (Wrubel et al.,

1981).

This hypothesis is supported by Aneshensel and

Huba's (1983) finding

that

continued alcohol use tended to increase depression

and related behaviors.

The proposed model incorporates both perspectives. Thus far we have described

the stress coping component of the model. However, arrows 34 through 40 specify

the mannerin which regularsubstance use functions over time to intensify stress.

The arrows indicate

that

heavy use tends to limit coping

and

social skill

development, increase the probability of involvement with deviant peers, and

exacerbate family stress and conflict.

It

also serves to undermine performance in

school which further diminishes self-esteem and intensifies family stress. As

the

model shows, all of these feedback loops operate, at least indirectly, to augment

stress

and

substance use.

SlUnmer1988

305

SIMONS

Implications

In recent years many researchers have lamented

the

paucity of theory in the

area

ofsubstance use and abuse. Attempts to build theory usually fall short in one

of two ways. Either

the

theorists emphasize only one or two variables and

therefore oversimplify what is undoubtedly a very complex process; or they

developmodels consisting of an eclectic collection of variables which are not tied to

each other in any theoretically integrated fashion. The result is

that

while

research has established anumber ofcorrelates ofdrug use, no theoretical model

has been developed which specifies

the

causal ordering of these associations

and

explicates

their

relationship to each other. The present paper was an attempt to

show how social learning theory might be employed to build such a model.

The proposed model is complex.

However,

afteryears ofresearch on

the

topic, it

is

apparent

that

the

etiology of drug use, like most other

human

behaviors, is a

complex process involving a sequence of many factors, with these factors often

influencing each other in a reciprocal fashion. Hence, if a model is to identify the

important features of

the

etiology of substance use, it

must

of necessity include

several variables, be processual, and allow for reciprocal determination.

While there is strong empirical support for elements of the model, many of

the

relationships are offered as hypotheses to be tested. Undoubtedly, subsequent

research will show

parts

of the model to be inaccurate or in need of revision. The

value of the model, however, is

that

it uses a single theory, social learning theory,

to tie together and make predictions concerning a number of phenomena thought

to be important in the development of substance use and abuse. Significantly, in

the course of tracing the etiology of regular substance use, the model identifies

some possible determinants of two other adolescent social problems, viz., depres-

sion and delinquency,

and

specifies the manner in which these phenomena are

related to substance use.

With regard to the latter of these problems, some have argued

that

the

relationship between delinquency and substance use is spurious (Elliott and

Ageton, 1976; Johnston et al., 1978) while others have contended

that

minor

delinquency causes both drug use and serious delinquency (Clayton,

1981).

The

proposed model suggests

that

the

correlation between

the

two is a function of

the

fact

that

both are caused by membership in a peer group which combines lack of

commitment to future-oriented values with a focus upon subterranean, hedonistic

values.

Another strength of the model is

that

it not only describes the processes

whereby both parental

and

peer factors contribute to high levels of substance use,

but

also identifies

the

manner

in which parenting factors, both directly

and

indirectly through

their

impact upon adolescent values and social skills, may

influence an adolescent's choice of peer group. While scores of studies show

that

membership in a deviant peer group contributes to involvement in delinquency,

including substance use, extant theories of social deviance fail to adequately

identify those factors which cause a young person to join or be recruited into such

a peer group. Building upon

the

work of Patterson

(1986),

the

present model posits

an explanation for the process whereby ayouth becomes involved with deviant

peers.

The model is an attempt to identify

the

major factors operating in

the

etiology

of adolescent substance abuse.

It

should be noted, however,

that

the

adolescent

306 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

AMULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

period covers several years with early adolescence differing in many respects from

late adolescence.

It

seems likely

that

many of the factors specified in

the

model

exert more influence during certain phases of the adolescent period

than

at

others. For instance, Snyder

et

al. (1986) report

that

deficient social skills is

strongly related to involvement in a deviant peer group during early adolescence

but

has less of an impact during late adolescence when previously inadequate

youth have become more socially skilled and use coercion less frequently. And, it

seems probable

that

parenting practices have more impact during early adoles-

cence while the influence of peers increases throughout the period. A complete

theory of adolescent drug abuse would need to specify the manner in which

the

impact of various causal factors wax and wane as a youth matures.

Should research corroborate the major components of

the

model, it would

suggest anumber of treatment implications. Presently, most treatment programs

employ individual

and

group counseling to help adolescents identify the destruc-

tive consequences of theirsubstance use, and family therapy to redefine members'

boundaries and roles and to establish constructive communication patterns. The

proposed model would suggest

that

in addition to these activities, individual

treatment should focus upon teaching future-oriented values, social skills,

and

strategies for coping with stress, while family therapy should strive to increase

parents' nurturance

and

parenting skills, their range of coping strategies, and

their emphasis upon future-oriented values.

Prevention programs are usually concerned with changing attitudes about

substance use. The proposed model would emphasize the importance of fostering

future-oriented value commitments and of increasing the social and coping skills

of youngsters, while lowering family stress

and

facilitating the use of effective

parenting techniques. While

the

model provides no guidance concerning how

these goals might be accomplished, it points to

the

need to broaden the scope of

present programs.

NOTES

1. Note

that

self-esteem is not posited to have a direct effect upon initiation into or

escalation of

s~bstance

use. In the present model, self-esteem contributes to substance

abuse only indirectly through its impact upon psychological distress. This is contrary to

Kaplan's (1980 and 1982) contention

that

adolescents low on self-esteem lose

their

moti-

vation to engage in conventional behavior

and

strive to obtain

status

and recognition by

engaging in deviant behavior, including substance use. While Kaplan (1975, 1976 and 1977)

finds

that

self-rejection predicts subsequent involvement in deviant behavior, other recent

panel studies have found little or no support for this hypothesis (McCarthy and Hoge, 1984;

Wells and Rankin, 1983).

Recently, Kaplan et a!' (1986) have maintained

that

methodological deficiencies have

prevented researchers from finding a strong relationship between self-derogation and

deviant behavior. They contend that, in addition to measuring global self-esteem, an

adequate measure ofself-rejection

must

include perceptions ofdevaluation by parents, peers

and teachers. Further, they suggest

that

the effect of self-rejection upon deviant behavior is

mediated by its impact upon an adolescent's disposition or motivation to engage in deviant

behavior. In support of these arguments, data

are

presented which show a strong association

between disposition to deviance

and

actual deviant behavior.

Their arguments and LISREL analysis

are

problematic, however, in

that

their

multiple

indicator measure ofself-rejection includes three items focusing upon parental rejection and

Summer

1988 307

SIMONS

four items concerned with commitment to unconventional values, while their measure of

disposition to deviance consists of two scalee containing items concerning disaffection with

the conventional order and commitment to subterranean values. Including social rejection

as a component ofself-rejection makes the results hard to interpret. Rather than suggesting

arelationship between self-rejection

and

deviant behavior, their findings might simply be

showing:1)

that

parental rejection influences the extent to which an adolescent internalizes

conventional moral values, a finding well established in the socialization literature

(Maccoby

and Martin, 1983),or 2)

that

peer rejection is associated with involvement in a deviant peer

group and commitment to unconventional values (Patterson,

1986).

The relationship

between self-rejection and disposition to deviance might also be a function of the fact

that

the measures for these two variables demonstrate partial overlap as both contain items

concerned with commitment to subterranean values.

REFERENCES

Adesso,V.J.

1985 Cognitive factors in alcohol and drug use. In M. Galizio and S. A. Maisto (eds.),

Determinants

of

Substance Abuse: Biological, Psychological,and Environmental

Factors. New

York:

Plenum.

Agnew, R.

1984 The work ethic and delinquency. Sociological

&us.

17:337-346.

Akers,R. L.

1985 Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. 3rd. ed., Belmont, California:

Wadsworth.

Akers, R. L., M. D. Krohn, L. Lanza-Kanduce and M. J. Radosevich

1979 Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory.

American Sociological Review 44:636-655.

Albrecht, S. L., B. A. Chadwick and D. S. Alcorn

1977 Religiosity and deviance: Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consis-

tency model.Journal

of

the Scientific

Study

of

Religion 16:263-274.

Alterman, A. I.

1985 Substance Abuse

and

Psychopathology. New

York:

Plenum.

Aneshensel, C. S. and G. J. Huba

1983 Depression, alcohol use, and smoking over one year: A

four-wave

longitudinal

causal model. Journal

of

Abnormal Psychology 92:134-150.

Asher, S. R. and P. D. Renshaw

1981 Children without friends: social knowledge and social skill training. In S. R.

Asher and J. M. Gottman (eds.),The Development

of

Children's Friendships. New

York:

Cambridge University Press.

Ashton, H. and R. Stepney

1982 Smoking: Psychology

and

Pharmacology. New

York:

Tavistock.

Bachman, J. G.

1982 Family relationships and self-esteem. In M. Rosenberg and H. B. Kaplan (eds.),

Social Psychology and the

Self

Concept. Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan

Davidson.

Bachman, J. G., L. D. Johnston and P. M. O'Malley

1981 Monitoring the Future: Questionnaire Responses from the Nation's High School

Seniors 1980.Ann Arbor,Michigan: Institute for Social Research.

Bandura, A.

1977 Social Learning

Theory.

EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Barnes, G. M., M. P. Farrell and A. Cairns

1986 Parental socialization factors and adolescent drinking behaviors. Journal

of

Marriage

and

the Family 48:27-36.

308 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

A

MULTISTAGE

SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

Baumrind, D.

1985 Familial antecedants of adolescent drug use: A developmental perspective. In

C. L. Jones and R. J. Battjes (eds.), Etiology

of

Drug Abuse: Implications for

Prevention. Rockville, Maryland: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Beck, A. T. and A. J. Rush

1978 Cognitive approaches to depression and suicide. In G. Serban (ed.), Cognitive

Defects in the Development

of

Mental Illness. New York: Brunner-Mazel.

Bowlby,

J.

1980 Attachment

and

Loss:

Vol.

3. Loss: Sadness

and

Depression. New

York:

Basic.

Brittain, C. V.

1963 Adolescent choices

and

parent-peer cross-pressures. American Sociological

Review 28:385-391.

Brook, J. S., I. F. Lukoff and M. Whiteman

1977 Peer, family and personality domains as related to adolescent's drug behavior.

Psychological Reports, 41:1095-1102.

Burkett, S. R. and M. White

1984 Hellfire and delinquency: Another look. Journal

of

the Scientific

Study

of

Religion 13:455-462.

Cernkovich, S. A.

1978a Evaluating two models of delinquency causation: Structural

and

control theory.

Criminology 16:355-362.

Cernkovich, S. A.

1978b Value orientations and delinquency involvement. Criminology 15:443-448.

Chartier, G. M.

and

D. J. Ranieri

1984 Adolescent depression: Concepts, treatments,

and

prevention. In P. Karoly and

J. J. Steffan (eds.), Adolescent Behavior Disorders: Foundations

and

Contempo-

rary Concerns. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

Clayton, R. R.

1984 The delinquency and drug use relationship among adolescents: A critical review.

In D. J. Lettieri and J. P. Ludford (eds.), Drug Abuse

and

the American

Adolescent. Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Cloward, R.

and

L. Ohlin

1960 Delinquency

and

Opportunity. New York:Free Press, 1960.

Cohen, A. K

1955 Delinquent Boys: The Subculture

of

the Gang. New York:Free Press.

Cohen,J. M.

1977 Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology

of

Education, 50:227-241.

Conger, R. D.

1976 Social control and social learning models of delinquent behavior. Criminology,

14:17-40.

Conger, R. D.

1980 Juvenile delinquency: Behavior

restraint

or behavior facilitation? In T. Hirschi

and M. Gottfredson (eds.), Understanding Crime: Current Theory

and

Research.

Beverly Hills: Sage.

Conger, R. D.

1981 The assessment of dysfunctional family systems. In B. Lahey and A. Kazdin

(eds.),Advances in Child Clinical Psychology

(Vol.

3). New York: Plenum.

Conger,R. D., J. A. McCarty, R. KYoung, B. B. Lahey and J. P. Kropp

1984 Perception of child, child-rearing values, and emotional distress as mediating

links between environmental stressors and observed maternal behavior. Child

Development, 55:2234-2247.

Coopersmith, S.

1967 The Antecedants

of

Self

Esteem. San Francisco:

W.

H. Freeman.

Summer

1988 309

SIMONS

Council on Scientific Affairs

1982 Drug abuse related to prescribing practices. Journal

of

the American Medical

Association, 247:864-866.

Day,N.

and

K Leonard

1985 Alcohol, drug use and psychopathology in the general population. In A. I.

Alterman (ed.), Substance Abuse

and

Psychopathology. New York: Plenum.

Dishion, T.J., G. R. Patterson and J. B. Reid

1985 Parenting practices in the etiology

of

child drug use: Implications for treatment

and

prevention. Paper presented to

the

NIDA Technical Review Committee on

Adolescent Drug Abuse: Analysis of Treatment and Research, Washington, D.C.

Dishion, T.J., M. Stouthamer-Loeber and G. R. Patterson

1984 The monitoring construct. Eugene, Oregon: Oregan Social Learning Center.

Dodge, K. A.

1983 Behavioral antecedents of peer social status. Child Development 54:1386-1399.

Elder, G.

1974 Children of the Great Depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Elder, G. H., A. Caspi and G. Downey

1983 Problem behavior in family relationships: Amultigenerational analysis. In A.

Sorensen, F.Weinert, and L. Sherrod (eds.),

Human

Development: Interdisciplin-

ary Perspectives. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates:

Elifson, K. W.,D.

W.

Peterson and C. K. Hedaway

1983 Religiosity and delinquency. Criminology 21:515-527.

Elliott, D. S. and A. R. Ageton

1976 Subcultural Delinquency

and

Drug Use. Boulder, Colorado: Behavioral Research

Institute.

Elliott, D. S., D. Huizinga and S. S. Ageton

1985 Explaining Delinquency

and

Drug Use. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Feather, N. T.

1975 Values in Education

and

Society. New York:Free Press.

Fishburne, P., H. Abelson and I. Cisin

1980 The National Survey on Drug Use: Main Findings, 1979. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Govt. Print. Off.

Fleming, J.

P.,

S. G. Kellam and C. H. Brown

1982 Early predictors of age at first use of alcohol, marijuana and cigarettes. Drug

and Alcohol Dependence 9:285-303.

Ginsberg, 1.J. and J. R. Greenley

1978 Competing theories of marijuana use: A longitudinal study. Journal

of

Health

and

Social Behavior, 19:22-34.

Greenberg, M. T.,J. M. Siegel and C. J. Leitch

1983 The nature and importance of attachment relationships to parents and peers

during adolescence. Journal

of

Youth

and

Adolescence 12:373-385.

Hartup,

W.

W.

1983 Peer relations. In P. H. Mussen (ed.),Handbook

of

Child Psychology.

Vol.

Iv. New

York:

Wiley.

Henningfleld, J. E., S. E. Lukas and G. E. Bigelow

1986 Human Studies of Drugs as Reinforcers. In S. R. Goldberg and 1.P. Stolerman

(eds.),Behavioral Analysis

of

Drug Dependence. New York:Academic.

Hirschi, T.

1969 Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, California: Univ. of California Press.

Hodges, K K. and L. J. Siegel

1985 Depression in Children and Adolescents. In E. E. Beckham and

W.

R. Leber

. (eds.), Handbook

of

Depression: Treatment, Assessment,

and

Research. Home-

wood,Illinois: Dorsey.

310 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

A MULTISTAGE SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

Hoffman, M. L.

1983 Empathy, guilt

and

social cognition. In W. F. Overton (ed.), The Relationship

Between Social and Cognitive Development. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Huba, G. J., J. A. Wingard

and

P. M. Bentler

1979 Beginning adolescent drug use

and

peer

and

adult

interaction. Journal

of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 47:265-276.

Huba, G. J., J. A. Wingard

and

P. M. Bentler

1980 Longitudinal analysis of

the

role of peer support,

adult

models

and

peer

subcultures in beginning adolescent substance use. Multivariate Behavioral

Research. 15:259-280.

Huesmann, L. R., L. D. Eron, M. N. Lefkowitz

and

L. 0. Wlader

1983 The Stability of Aggression Over Time and Generations. Paper presented at

the

meeting of

the

Society for Research in Child Development, Detroit, Michigan.

Jensen, G. F.

and

M. L. Erickson

1979 The religious factor

and

delinquency: Another look at the hellfire hypothesis. In

R. Wutknow (ed.), The Religious Dimension. New York: Academic.

Jessor, R.

and

S. L. Jessor

1977 Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development-A Longitudinal Study

of

Youth. New York: Academic.

Johanson, C. E.

and

E. H.

Uhlenhuth

1980 Drug preference

and

mood in humans: d-amphetamine. Psychopharmacology

71:275-279.

Johnston, L. D., P. M. O'Malley

and

L. K. Eveland

1978 Drugs

and

delinquency: Asearch for causal connections. In D. B. Kandel (ed.),

Longitudinal Research on Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological

Issues. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.

Kandel, D. B.

1975 Stages in adolescent drug use. Science, 190:912-914.

Kandel, D. B.

1976 Adolescent involvement in illicit

drug

use: A multiple classification analysis.

Social

Fbrces

55:438-458.

Kandel, D. B.

1978 Homophily, selection

and

socialization in adolescent friendships. American

Journal of Sociology, 84:427-436.

Kandel, D. B.

1983 Commonalities in drug use: A sociological perspective. In P. K. Levison, D. R.

Gerstein,

and

D. R. Maloff (eds.), Commonalities in Substance Abuse and

Habitual Behavior. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

Kandel, D., R. Kessler

and

R. Margulies

1978 Antecedents of adolescent initiation into stages of

drug

use: A developmental

analysis. Journal

of

Youth and Adolescence, 7:13-40.

Kandel, D. B.

and

K. Yamaguchi

1985 Developmental

patterns

of

the

use of legal, illegal,

and

medically prescribed

psychotropic drugs from adolescence to young adulthood. In C. L. Jones

and

R.J.

Battjes (eds.), Etiology of Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention. Rockville,

Maryland: National

Institute

on Drug Abuse.

Kandel, D. B.

and

K. Yamaguchi

1987 Job mobility

and

drug

use: An event history analysis. American Journal

of

Sociology 92:836-878.

Kaplan, H. B.

1975 Increases in self-rejection as an antecedent of deviant response. Journal

of

Youth

and Adolescence 4:281-292.

SUmmer

1988 311

SIMONS

Kaplan, H. B.

1976 Self-attitudes

and

deviant response. Social Forces54:788-801.

Kaplan, H. B.

1977 Increase in self-rejection

and

continuing/discontinued deviant response. Journal

of

Youth

and

Adolescence 6:77-87.

Kaplan, H. B.

1980 Deviant Behavior in Defense

of

Self. New York: Academic.

Kaplan, H. B.

1982 Self-attitudes

and

deviant behavior: New directions for theory

and

research.

Youth and Society 14:185-211.

Kaplan, H. B., R. J. Johnson and C. A. Bailey

1986 Self-rejection

and

the

explanation of deviance: Specification of

the

structure

among

latent

constructs. American Journal

of

Sociology 92:384-411.

Kaplan, H. B.,S. S.

Martin

and

C. Robbins

1984 Pathways to adolescent

drug

use: Self-derogation, peer influence, weakening of

social controls, and early substance use. Journal

of

Health

and

Social Behavior

25:270-288.

Kellam, S. G.

and

H. Brown

1982 Social Adaptational

and

Psychological Antecedants

of

Adolescent Psycho-

pathology

71m

Years Later. Baltimore:

Johns

Hopkins University.

Kessler, R. C., R. H. Price

and

C. B. Wortman

1985 Social factors in psychopathology: Stress, social support,

and

coping processes.

Annual

Review

of

Psychology 36:531-572.

Lahey, B. B., R. D. Conger, B. M. Atkeson

and

F.A. Treifer

1984

Parenting

behavior

and

emotional

status

of physically abusive mothers. Journal

of Consulting

and

Clinical Psychology, 52:1062-1072.

Lawson, G., J. S. Peterson

and

A. Lawson

1983 Alcoholism

and

the Family. Rockville, Maryland: Aspen Publications.

Lettieri, D. J., M. Sayers

and

J.

W.

Pearson, eds.

1980 Theories on Drug Abuse: Selected Contemporary Perspectives. Rockville, Mary-

land: National

Institute

on Drug Abuse.

Maccoby,E.

and

J.

Martin

1983 Socialization in

the

context of

the

family: Parent-child interaction. In P.Mussen

(ed.), Handbook

of

Child Psychology. New York:

John

Wlley &Sons.

MacLennan, A. J.

and

S. F. Maier

1983 Coping and

the

stress-induced potentiation of

stimulant

stereotypy in

the

rat.

Science, 219:1091-1093.

McCarthy, J. D. and D. R. Hoge

1984 The dynamics of self-esteem

and

delinquency. American Journal

of

Sociology

90:396-410.

McKennel, A. C.

and

R. KThomas

1967 Adults'

and

Adolescents' Smoking Habits

and

Attitudes. London, British Minis-

try

of Health.

Marlatt, G. A.

1979 Alcohol use

and

problem drinking: Acognitive-behavioral analysis. In P. C.

Kendall

and

S. D. Hollon (eds.), Cognitive Behavioral Interventions: Theory,

Research,

and

Procedure. New York: Academic.

Martin, W.R.

1983 Thoughts about

the

relevance of neurochemistry, neurophysiology

and

neuro-

psychoopharmacology to

the

social problems of drug abuse. Drug

and

Alcohol

Dependence 11:9-10.

Matza, D.

1964 Delinquency

and

Drift. New York:

Wiley.

312 JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

A

MULTISTAGE

SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

Miller,J. D.

1981 Drug abuse

and

the American Adolescent. National Institute on Drug Abuse

Research Monograph Series No. 38. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-

ing

Office.

Mirin, S. M.

1984 Substance Abuse

and

Psychopathology. Washington, D.C.:American Psychiatric

Press.

NettIer, G.

1984 Explaining Crime. 3rd ed. New

York:

McGraw-Hill.

Nicholi, A. M., Jr.

1983 The nontherapeutic use of psychoactive drugs. New England Journal

of

Medi-

cine, 308:925-983.

O'Malley, P.M. and J. G. Bachman

1979 Self-esteem and education: Sex and cohort comparisons Among High School

Seniors. Journal

of

Personality

and

Social Psychology 37:1153-1159.

Orcutt, J.

1978 Normative definitions ofintoxicated states: Atest ofseveral sociologicaltheories.

Social Problems, 4:385-396.

Parry, M. A. and M. J. FUrukawa

1980 Modeling methods. In F. H. Kanfer and A. P. Goldstein (eds.), Helping People

Change. 2nd ed. New York:Pergamon.

Patterson, G. R.

1982 Coercive Family Process. Eugene, Oregon: Castalia.

Patterson, G. R.

1983 Stress: A change agent for family process. In N. Garmezy and M. Rutter (eds.),

Stress, Coping,

and

Development in Children. New

York:

McGraw-Hill.

Patterson, G. R.

1986 Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist 41:432-444.

Patterson, G. R. and T. J. Dishion

1985 Contribution to families and peers to delinquency. Criminology 23:63-79.

Patterson, G. R. and M. Stouthammer-Loeber

1984 The correlation offamily management practices and delinquency. ChildDevelop-

ment 55:1320-1307.

Pearlin, L. I. and C. S. Schooler

1978 The structure of coping. Journal

of

Health

and

Social Behavior 19:2-21.

Penning, M. and G. E. Barnes

1982 Adolescent marijuana use: A

review.

International Journal

of

the Addictions

17:749-791.

Pentz, M. A.

1985 Social competence and self-efficacyas determinants of substance use in adoles-

cence. In S. Siffman and T. A. Wills (eds.),Coping

and

Substance Use. NewYork:

Academic.

Peterson, C. and M. E. P. Seligman

1985 The learned helplessness model of depression: Current status of theory and

research. In S. E. Beckham and W. R. Leber (eds.), Handbook

of

Depression:

Treatment, Assessment,

and

Research. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey.

Putallaz, M. and J. M. Gottman

1981 Social skills and group acceptance. In S. R. Asher and J. M. Gottman (eds.),

7'1u1

Development

of

Children's Friendships. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Reilly,D. M.

1979 Family factors in the etiology and treatment of youthful drug abuse. Family

Therapy 11:149-171.

Summer

1988 818

SIMONS

Robins, L. N. and G. E. Murphy

1967 Drug use in a normal population of young negro men. American Journal of

Health. 57:1580-1596.

Robins, L. N. and T. R. Przybeck

1985 Age of onset of drug use as a factor in drug and other disorders. In C. L. Jones

and R. J. Battjes (eds.), Etiology

of

Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention.

Rockville,Maryland: National Institute of Drug Abuse.

Rohner, R. P.

1986 The Warmth Dimension: Foundations

of

Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory.

Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Rokeach, M.

1968 Beliefs, Attitudes

and

Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rokeach, M.

1973 The Nature

of

Human

Values. New

York:

Free.

Rosenberg, M.

1965 Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rouse, B. A., P. F. Walker and J. A. Ewing

1973 Adolescent stress levels, coping activities, and father's drinking behavior. Pro-

ceedings

of

the 81st

Annual

Convention of the American Psychological Associa-

tion 8:683-684.

Sebald, H.

1986 Adolescents' shifting orientation toward parents and peers: A curvilinear trend

over recent decades. Journal

of

Marriage

and

the Family 48:5-14.

Seligman, M. E. P., L.

Y.

Abramson, A. Semmel and C. Von Baeyer

1979 Depressive attributional style. Journal

of

Abnormal Psychology 88:242-248.

Shiffman, S. and T. A. Wills,eds.

1985 Coping

and

Substance Use. NewYork: Academic.

Simons, R. L. and P. I. Murphy

1985 Sex differences in the causes of adolescent suicide ideation. Journal

of

Youth

and

Adolescence 14:423-434.

Snyder, J., T. J. Dishion and G. R. Patterson

1986 Determinants and consequences of associating with deviant peers during pre-

adolescence and adolescence. Journal

of

Early Adolescence 6:29-43.

Stone, A. A., S. Lennox and J. M. Neale

1985 Daily coping and alcohol use in a sample of community adults. In S. Shiffman

and T. A. Wills (eds.), Coping

and

Substance Use. New

York:

Academic.

Timmer, S. G., J. Veroffand M. E. Colten

1985 Lifestress, helplessness, and the use of alcohol and drugs to cope:An analysis of

national survey data. In S. Shiffman and T. A. Wills (eds.)., Coping

and

Substance Use. New York:Academic.

Uhlenhuth, E. H., C. E. Johanson, S. Kilgore and S. C. Kosaba

1981 Drug preferences and mood in humans: Preference for d-amphetamine and

subject characteristics. Psychopharmacology 74:191-194.

VoId,

G. B. and T. J. Bernard

1986 Theoretical Criminology. 3rd ed. New

York:

Oxford.

Wegscheider, S.

1981 Another Chance: Hope

and

Health for the Alcoholic Family. Palo Alto: Science

and Behavior.

Wells,L. E. and J. H. Rankin

1983 Self-concept as a mediating factor in delinquency. Social Psychology Quarterly

46:11-22.

314

JOURNAL OF DRUG ISSUES

A

MULTISTAGE

SOCIAL LEARNING MODEL

Wilks, J.

1986 The relative importance of parents and friends in adolescent decision making.

Journal

of

Youth

and

Adolescence 15:323-335.

Wills,T.A.

1985 Stress, coping, and tobacco and alcohol use in early adolescence. In S. Shiffman

and T. A. Wills (eds.), Coping

and

Substance Use. NewYork:Academic.

Wills,T. A. and S. Shiffman

1985 Coping and substance use: A conceptual framework. In S. Shiffman and T. A.

Wl1ls

(eds.),Coping

and

Substance Use. NewYork:Academic.

Wrubel,J., P.Benner and R. S. Lazarus

1981 Social competence from the perspective of stress and coping. In J. D. Wine and

M. D. Smye (eds.), Social Competence. New York: Guilford.

Yamaguchi, K and D. B. Kandel

1985 On the resolution of role incompatibility: A life event history analysis of family

roles and marijuana use. American Journal

of

Sociology 90:1284-1325.

Yost,

J. K and R. A. Mines

1985 Stress and alcoholism. In T. E. Bratter and G. G. Forrest (eds.), Alcoholism

and

Substance Abuse: Strategies for Clinical Intervention. New York:Free.

Young,

A. M. and S. Herling

1986 Drugs as reinforcers: Studies in laboratory animals. In S. R. Goldberg and I. P.

Stolerman (eds.),Behavioral Analysis

of

Drug Dependence. New York:Academic.

Sununer1988

3Ui