P1: FLF/FGL

P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2000, pp. 105115

The Relationship Between Family Factors and

Adolescent Substance Use in Rural,
Suburban, and Urban Settings
Scott D. Scheer, Ph.D.,1,4 Lynne M. Borden, Ph.D.,2
and Joseph F. Donnermeyer, Ph.D.3

We tested the relationships and predictive power of family factors on rural, suburban, and urban adolescent substance use. A representative statewide survey of
11th grade students for gender, place of residence, and ethnicity was conducted.
No significant differences were found between rural, suburban, and urban adolescents for substance use. For family sanction variables across all locations,
adolescent substance involvement was significantly lower the more they perceived
their families would stop them or care if they got drunk, smoked cigarettes,
or used marijuana. Rural and suburban youth who reported that their parents
talked to them about the dangers of smoking and getting drunk were less involved
in substance use. While controlling for location, gender, and ethnicity, regression
analyses showed that family sanctions against smoking cigarettes and marijuana
explained a modest proportion of the variance in substance use. Finally, family talking about the dangers of cigarettes, family involvement in schools and
belief that their families cared about them predicted lower substance use regardless of location, although minimal variance was explained. The findings have
implications for social service providers regarding location settings, prevention,
education, and intervention programming.
KEY WORDS: adolescents; families; substance use; location.

1 Assistant

Professor, Department of Human and Community Resource Development and OSU Extension, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Leader for Youth Development and 4-H Children, Youth and Family Programs, Michigan State
University Extension, East Lansing, MI.
3 Professor, Department of Human and Community Resource Development, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
4 Correspondence should be directed to Scott D. Scheer, The Department of Human and Community
Resource Development and OSU Extension, The Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Road, Room
204A, Columbus, OH 43210. Electronic mail may be sent to sdscheer+@osu.edu.
2 State

105
C 2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
1062-1024/00/0300-0105$18.00/0 !

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

106

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Scheer, Borden, and Donnermeyer

The family environment as studied in the United States and other countries
is known as an indicator of adolescent substance use (e.g., Barnes & Welte, 1986;
Scheer & Unger, 1998). In particular, dimensions of family communication, sanctions (adolescent perceived disapproval from parent(s)), and involvement (parentadolescent interaction) influence adolescent substance use. Family communication reported in a study of 599 Mexican-Americans and 311 White non-Hispanic
7th 12th school dropouts helped to limit substance use and strengthen family bonds
in both ethnic groups (Swaim, Bates, & Chavez, 1998). Lack of family sanctions against drug use, absence of family strength, and low religious identification
were found to be related to adolescent substance use (Oetting & Beauvais, 1987).
An investigation of family involvement across developmental stages of substance
use (initiation, escalation, maintenance, discontinuation, and renewal) revealed
parental influences for substance use (Coombs & Coombs, 1988). They discovered that youth who are close to their parents are less likely to escalate their
substance use and parental uninvolvement can result in minimal control during
adolescence. Family conflict and adolescent-parent relations are predictive and
correlated with the use of alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco (Hundleby & Mercer,
1987; Norem-Hebeisen, Johnson, Anderson, & Johnson, 1984). Also, Kaufman
and Kaufman (1979) suggest that substance abuse does not occur in isolation, but
almost always involves familial and community factors.
While it is known that family factors are related to adolescent substance use
(Brook, Brook, Gordon, Whiteman, & Cohen, 1990; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller,
1992), the research literature is mostly absent of studies that include location as a
variable of inquiry with family factors and substance use. What we do know is that
differences have been found in aspects of crime, delinquency, and substance use
between rural and urban areas based on size of place (Edwards, 1992; Johnston,
OMalley, & Bachman, 1992). Also, Edwards (1994) reported lower prevalence
rates of substance use among adolescents for most drugs in small, isolated rural
communities that are not near metropolitan areas. One reason for these differences
is the relatively more homogeneous nature of many rural communities (Kowalski
& Duffield, 1990) where there is likely to be fewer conflicts in values and a greater
presence of informal community groups that encourage conforming behaviors and
have lower tolerance toward deviant behaviors. Another factor assumed to account for lower levels of deviance in rural communities is the concept of density
of acquaintanceship, that is, the proportion of face-to-face interactions between
residents (Freudenberg & Jones, 1986). These interactions create community environments characterized by a high degree of informal control that reinforces control
exerted in family settings.
Left unanswered in the current research is how family factors are related
to substance use among adolescents across rural, suburban, and urban settings.
Prevalence rates may be similar, but etiologies could differ. It is hypothesized that
families may differ in communication, sanctions, and involvement according to

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

Family Factors and Adolescent Substance Use

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

107

their geographic location. That is, families in more rural areas my be more involved
with their adolescent children and concerned about staying within the normative
bounds of behavior as prescribed by the community. Therefore, the purpose of our
study was to examine family factors (communication, sanctions, and involvement)
associated with adolescent substance use in rural, suburban, and urban settings
based on a statewide survey.
METHOD
Sample
A stratified-random sample of 3,189, 11th grade students was selected from
32 high schools based on information provided by the state department of education in a large Midwestern state. The sample was limited to public high schools.
Schools in this Midwestern state were stratified into three groups by location:
rural, suburban, and urban based on a classification scheme devised by the state
Department of Education from census characteristics of students in the schools
catchment area. The first group included rural school districts located in communities of less than 10,000 that were not contiguous to larger communities. Suburban
school districts included those in communities of less than 10,000 persons, but
contiguous to cities of 10,000 to 50,000 in population, or schools in communities
of any size within metropolitan counties with central cities of 50,000 and more in
population. Urban school districts included both independent school districts in
cities of 10,000 to 50,000 and schools in central cities of 50,000 and more in population. Twelve schools from each strata were randomly selected for the survey,
which was administered in the Spring, 1995.
The sample is generalizable across the state for gender, location, and ethnicity
based on matched figures between the sample and data from the state Department
of Education. For example, 80.8% (2578) of the sample was white and slightly
over 12.4% (398) were black, compared to statewide totals of 85% and 12% for
eleventh graders. Twenty-one point four percent (683) of the sample attended
schools classified as rural, while estimates of the states rural population in 1990
was 25% for all age groups. Suburban youth were 39.9% (1271) of the sample and
urban youth were 38.7% (1235). Finally, 46.1% (1470) of the respondents were
male, compared to a state total of 50%. Females made up 53.9% (1719) of the
sample.
Measures
The study utilized the substance use portion of the American Drug and
Alcohol SurveyTM (ADAS). It has been extensively field tested and administered

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

108

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Scheer, Borden, and Donnermeyer

in over 1,000 elementary and secondary schools across the country. For estimates of substance use, ADAS is similar with two other national epidemiologies: Monitoring the Future Study and the National Adolescent Student Health
Survey.
Substance use was operationalized by a 34 point drug-involvement scale. The
scale is based on a series of questions about both recency and frequency of using 13
different substances from alcohol to heroin. Questions were asked about lifetime,
past year, and past 30 day use. Scores ranged from total abstinence (0) to substance
dependence (34).
The ADAS includes a cross-checking system for discovering inconsistent and
exaggerated responses. In this study, 2.5% of the respondents failed three or more
of the 35 checks and were excluded from the analysis (normal range of exclusion
for substance use studies is from 2% to 6%).
The survey measured for family communication, family sanctions, family involvement in school and family care. Family communication refers to how much
the adolescents family talks to them about the dangers of substance use. Family sanction is a two-item Likert measure asking how much would ones family
try to stop them or care if they use alcohol, cigarettes, and/or marijuana. Family
involvement in school is a three-item Likert scale measuring family participation
in school meetings, school events, and knowing about school happenings. Family
care is a three-item Likert scale asking the adolescents how much they care about
their families and vice versa. The family-related measures had each been previously field tested in various administrations of the ADAS (Oetting & Beauvais,
1990). Internal consistency reliability levels for all scales ranged from .82 to .92
for this study and are similar to reliability scores for the same scales in previous
administrations of ADAS.

RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
The results show little difference in substance use by location using ANOVA
with an alpha level of 0.05. Substance use for the descriptive statistics was recoded
into three trisections (low, moderate, and high) by level of involvement. First,
14.1% of rural youth were in the high substance-involvement group, compared to
15.1% of suburban youth, and 13.9% of urban subjects. Second, 19.3% of rural
youth were in the moderate substance-involvement group, compared to 24.7% of
the suburban youth and 25.1% of the urban youth. Third, 66.7% of rural youth
were in the low substance-involvement group, compared to 60.2% of suburban
youth and 61.0% of urban youth. No significant differences were found between
substance involvement and location (see Table 1).

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Family Factors and Adolescent Substance Use

109

Table 1. Adolescent Substance Involvement by Location

Rural Youth Suburban Youth Urban Youth
Substance Involvement
Low
Moderate
High

ANOVA

455
132
96

66.6
19.3
14.1

765
314
192

60.2
24.7
15.1

753
310
172

61.0
25.1
13.9

ns
ns
ns

Table 2. Correlation Coefficients of Family Variables by Adolescent Substance

Involvement According to Location

Family sanctions use of

Getting drunka
Smoking cigarettesa
Marijuanaa
Family talking about the
dangers of
Getting drunkb
Smoking cigarettesb
Marijuanab
Family Care Scalea
Family involvement in
school scalea

Rural
Substance Use

Suburban
Substance Use

Urban
Substance Use

.37
.38
.34

.33
.40
.37

.28
.38
.37

.10
.10
.06
.28

.12
.15
.05
.17

.00
.02
.00
.20

.23

.19

.20

a Pearson Coefficients.
b Point-Biserial Coefficients.
p < .01; p < .001.

Bivariate Analysis
Relationships Between Family Variables and Adolescent Substance
Use by Location
For family sanction variables across all locations, there were significant relationships in the negative direction (Table 2). Whereby, adolescent substance
involvement was significantly lower the more they perceived their families would
stop them or care if they got drunk, smoked cigarettes, or used marijuana. The substance use measure for both bivariate and multivariate analyses was a continuous
variable (34 point scale), unlike the categorical variable (low, moderate, and high)
used for the descriptive statistics.
Significant relationships in the negative direction for the family communication variable were found for getting drunk and smoking items with rural and

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

110

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Scheer, Borden, and Donnermeyer

suburban adolescent substance use. Youth who reported that their parents talked
to them about the dangers of smoking and drinking alcohol were less involved in
substance use. No significant relationships were found for the family communication variable with urban adolescent substance use and family talking about the
dangers of marijuana.
The family care and family involvement in school items indicated significant negative relationships across all locations for adolescent substance use.
Specifically, adolescents whose families where involved in school events and activities, plus those youth who cared and felt cared by their families were less
likely to be involved in substance use.

Multivariate Analysis
Family Variables as Predictors of Adolescent Substance Use by Location
Family sanctions against smoking cigarettes and marijuana explained a modest proportion of the variance in substance use regardless of location (i.e., about
20%). The other scales accounted for a minimal proportion of the variance for
adolescent substance involvement. Examination of the beta coefficients shows
some variation among the three location groups (see Table 3). Family involvement in schools, belief that their families cared about them, and family talking
about the dangers of cigarettes predicted lower substance use in the regression
Table 3. Standardized Regression Beta Coefficients of Family Influence by
Adolescent Substance Use
Substance Use
Model 1
Gender
Ethnicity
Location
Family sanctions use of
Getting drunk
Smoking cigarettes
Marijuana
Adjusted R2
Model 3
Gender
Ethnicity
Location
Family Care Scale
Adjusted R2
Note.

.08
.03
.03
.04
.25
.21
(.20)
.09
.04
.02
.22
(.06)

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.

Substance Use
Model 2
Gender
Ethnicity
Location
Family talking about the dangers of
Getting drunk
Smoking cigarettes
Marijuana
Adjusted R2
Model 4
Gender
Ethnicity
Location
Family involvement in
school scale
Adjusted R2

.11
.06
.01
.04
.08
.03
(.02)
.09
.04
.02
.21
(.06)

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

Family Factors and Adolescent Substance Use

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

111

models, although minimal variance was accounted for in each of those models (less
than 10%).
It should be noted that for gender in each of the regression models, the negative direction of the beta coefficients indicate males were more involved in substance use than females. Also in three of the four models for ethnicity, non-whites
were predictive of substance use.

DISCUSSION
The replication aspects of this study should not be overlooked. First, it used
measures of family that are similar to other studies in the literature that relate
family factors to adolescent substance use. Second, in this study a comparison of
the same factors was made across three types of communities.
The results suggest that location status does not determine how family factors
are related to adolescent substance use. No differences were found for location
according to substance use and location did not significantly influence how the
family variables predicted substance use. The results of this study leads to the conclusion that location as measured by rural-suburban-urban residence contributes
minimally to the understanding of adolescent substance use. The absence of ruralurban differences does not necessarily mean that location is either insignificant
for understanding substance use or an irrelevant factor in the design of prevention
education and intervention programs. Location could be relevant as a contextual
factor for understanding variations in the influence of peer, school, and community environments on substance use. For example, aggregate or community-wide
measures of social disorganization may ultimately prove to be more important
for understanding substance use than single rural-urban comparisons. Research
has already shown that community-level rates of poverty, unemployment, population mobility, education, and single parent families are related to rates of crime
and delinquency (Bursik, 1986; Sampson, 1985; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls,
1997). We recommend that future research develop more complex models by encompassing individual, family, and community level measures.
For the bivariate and multivariate results, family influence was significantly
relevant for overall adolescent substance use. When the youth reported they cared
about their families and believed their family cared about them, they were less likely
to be involved with all forms of substance use. A positive adolescent-parent relationship becomes a protective factor in the lives of youth as they are confronted with
life choices, including substance use. It appears that the family system functions
as a buffer between the adolescent and substance use. A primary prevention study
by Spoth, Yoo, Kahn, and Redmond (1996) found that a strong parent-adolescent
attachment enhances adolescent alcohol refusal skills. Their findings support our
results that suggest positive family relationships and parent involvement in the lives

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

112

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Scheer, Borden, and Donnermeyer

of their adolescent children (i.e., school involvement) facilitates the transmission

of prosocial values and norms from parent to adolescent.
The findings also indicated significant relationships between family involvement with school and substance use. Adolescents who reported that their families
went to school events (music programs, sports, etc.), knew about what was happening at school, and went to school meetings (PTA, PTO, parent-teacher meetings),
were significantly less involved with overall substance use.
Another facet of the study which implies family mechanisms for substance
use reduction is parent sanctions against smoking cigarettes and using marijuana.
When adolescents perceived their families would stop them or care if they smoked
or used marijuana, they were less involved in overall substance use. Based on
this finding, parents should be encouraged to verbally and nonverbally express
their opposition and concern about the possibility of their adolescent children
misusing substances. According to social control theory, youth tend to follow
antisocial peers who practice unhealthy behaviors (e.g., substance use). Therefore,
it is recommended for parents to be involved in the lives of their adolescent children
and to some extent know about what is happening in their day-to-day activities.
The results indicated that non-whites were predictive of substance use in
three of the four models. Other studies on adolescent substance use and ethnicity
have also indicated similarities and differences among groups. Bachman, Wallace,
OMalley, Johnston, Kurth, and Neighbors, (1991) in a national study of youth
from 197689 found greater substance use associated with Native American and
white populations followed by Hispanics and less usage reported among Asian
and African Americans. However, a study of Hispanic and non-White Hispanic
high school students showed no differences in substance use (Grunbaum, BasenEngquist, & Pandey, 1998). It is important to point out that minimal variance
(less than 10%) was accounted for in three of the four regression models. Due to
the minimal amount of explained variance and conflicting findings across the
research literature, explaining how ethnicity is related to adolescent substance
use could be misleading and speculative. It would appear that the basic etiology
is the same for various ethnic groups in American society. However, variations
in family functioning within different ethnic groups may account for additional
variance and suggest directions for future research.
The study implies that clinicians and counselors should include the functioning of the youths family, from school involvement to communication, in their
programs and services for reducing the risk of rural, suburban, and urban adolescent substance use. Often the peer system is given priority in prevention activities
because of the importance youth place on their peers, but this and other investigations clearly demonstrates the significant role of familial influences on adolescent
substance use (Dembo, Williams, Wothke, & Schmeidler, 1994; Wills, Vaccaro,
& McNamara, 1992).
Limitations of this study include the likelihood of bivariate correlations reaching levels of significance due to the large sample size. Therefore the significance

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

17:25

Family Factors and Adolescent Substance Use

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

113

level was set at 0.01 instead of 0.05, although some caution should be taken when
interpreting the correlational data because of the risk of making Type I errors.
Restraint should also be used concerning the multiple regression models. Only
Model 1 with the Family Sanction variables explained about 20% of the variance,
while the other three models accounted for less the 10% of the variance within
each regression model.
Developmental phenomena during adolescence of identity vs role confusion (Erikson, 1968), storm and stress (Holmbeck & Hill, 1988), and autonomy
(Grotevant, 1983) may underlie how adolescents relate to their families and consequently substance use. Adolescence is considered a time of transition between
childhood and adulthood in which youth start to develop greater levels of maturity
in their behaviors and become more responsible (Scheer, Unger, & Brown, 1996).
Adolescents that are struggling with their autonomy and identity are less likely
to have open communication and involvement with their parents and more family conflict which may lead to substance use. Variations in family variables and
substance use could be associated with developmental issues of adolescence.
The findings can better inform social service providers (e.g., clinicians and
social workers) in the areas of location, family relations, and substance use. The
results support other investigations that urban, suburban, as well as rural youth
are at risk for substance use (Donnermeyer, 1992; Farrell, Anchors, Danish, &
Howard, 1992). Programs that are inclusive of the family across location settings
in their prevention and intervention strategies are likely to be more comprehensive
and subsequently more successful. By targeting only one type of location setting
(rural, etc.), youth and families in other locations may lack needed prevention and
intervention services.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The data in this article were collected with the support of the Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, the Ohio Office of
Criminal Justice Services, and the Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research,
Colorado State University. We thank Michael Gower, Russell Davis, and Jeff
Workman for their assistance and three anonymous reviewers for their comments
and suggestions.
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 7th Biennial Meetings of
the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego, California, February 1998.
REFERENCES
Bachman, J. G., Wallace, J. M., Jr., OMalley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., Kurth, C. L., Neighbors, H. W.
(1991). Racial/ethnic differences in smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among American high
school seniors, 197689. American Journal of Public Health, 81, 372377.

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

114

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Scheer, Borden, and Donnermeyer

Barnes, G. M., & Welte, J. W. (1986). Patterns and predictors of alcohol use among 7th12th grade
students in New York State. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47, 5362.
Brook, J.S., Brook, D.W., Gordon, A.S., Whiteman, M., & Cohen, P. (1990). The psychosocial etiology
of adolescent drug use: A family interactional approach. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 116.
Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1986). Ecological stability and the dynamics of delinquency. In A. J. Reiss and M.
Tonry (Eds.), Communities and crime (pp. 79103). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Coombs, R. H., & Coombs, K. (1988). Developmental stages of drug use: Changing family involvements. Journal of Chemical Dependency Treatment, 1, 7398.
Dembo, R., Williams, L., Wothke, W., & Schmeidler, J. (1994). The relationships among family
problems, friends troubled behavior, and high risk youths alcohol/other drug use and delinquent
behavior: A longitudinal study. The International Journal of Addictions, 29, 14191442.
Donnermeyer, J. F. (1992). The use of alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs by rural adolescents: A
review of the recent research. Drugs and Society, 7, 3175.
Edwards, R. W. (1992). Drug and alcohol use by youth in rural America: An introduction. In
R. W. Edwards (Ed.), Drug use in rural American communities (pp. 18). New York: The Haworth
Press, Inc.
Edwards, R. W. (1994). Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use by youth in rural communities. In J.
Blaser (Ed.), Perspectives on violence and substance use in rural America (pp. 6586). Chicago:
The Midwest Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities and the North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Farrell, A. D., Anchors, D. M., Danish, S. J., & Howard, C. W. (1992). Risk factors for drug use in
rural adolescents. Journal of Drug Education, 22, 313328.
Freudenberg, W. R., & Jones, R. E. (1986). The density of acquaintanceship: An overlooked variable
in community research. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 2763.
Grotevant, H. D. (1983). The contribution of the family to the facilitation of identity formation during
early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 3, 225237.
Grunbaum, J. A., Basen-Engquist, K., & Pandey, D. (1998). Association between violent behaviors and
substance use among Mexican-American and non-Hispanic White high school students. Journal
of Adolescent Health, 23, 153159.
Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other
drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64105.
Holmbeck, G. N., & Hill, J. P. (1988). Storm and stress beliefs about adolescence: Prevalence, selfreported antecedents, and effects of an undergraduate course. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
17, 285306.
Hundleby, J., & Mercer, G. (1987). Family and friends as social environment and their relationship to
young adolescents use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44,
125134.
Johnston, L. D., OMalley, R. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1992). Smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use
among American secondary school students, college students, and young adults. 19751991. (NIH
Publication No. 93-3481). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Kaufman, E., & Kaufman, P. (1979). Family therapy of alcohol abuse. New York: Gardner Press.
Kowalski, G. S., & Duffield, D. (1990). The impact of the rural population component on homicide
rates in the United States: A county-level analysis. Rural Sociology, 55, 7690.
Norem-Hebeisen, A., Johnson, D. W., Anderson, D., & Johnson, R. (1984). Predictors and concomitants
of changes in drug use patterns among teenagers. Journal of Social Psychology, 124, 4350.
Oetting, E. R., & Beauvais, F. (1987). Peer cluster theory, socialization characteristics, and adolescent
drug use: A path analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 205213.
Oetting, E. R., & Beauvais, F. (1990). Orthogonal cultural identification theory: The cultural identification of minority adolescents. The International Journal of Addictions, 25, 655685.
Sampson, R. J. (1985). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of personal victimization.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 740.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel
study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918924.

P1: FLF/FGL
P2: FNN
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs]

HS075-43

April 3, 2000

Family Factors and Adolescent Substance Use

17:25

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

115

Scheer, S. D., & Unger, D. G. (1998). Russian adolescents in the era of emergent democracy: The
relationships among family environment, drug use, and depression. Family Relations, 47, 297
303.
Scheer, S. D., Unger, D. G., & Brown, M. H. (1996). Adolescents becoming adults: Attributes for
adulthood. Adolescence, 31, 127132.
Spoth, R., Yoo, S., Kahn, J. H., & Redmond, C. (1996). A model of the effects of protective parent and
peer factors on young adolescent alcohol refusal skills. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 16,
373394.
Swaim, R. C., Bates, S. C., & Chavez, E. L. (1998). Structural equation socialization model of substance
use among Mexican-American and White non-Hispanic school dropouts. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 23, 128138.
Wills, T. A., Vaccaro, D., & McNamara, G. (1992). The role of life events, family support, and
competence in adolescent substance use: A test of vulnerability and protective factors. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 349374.

Copyright of Journal of Child & Family Studies is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.