Does Living with a Substance Abusing

Father Increase Substance Abuse Risk

in Male Offspring?
Impact on Individual, Family, School,
and Peer Vulnerability Factors
Ralph E. Tarter
Katie Schultz
Levent Kirisci
Marija Dunn

ABSTRACT. To determine whether magnitude of risk in offspring of

fathers with substance use disorders differs with respect to liability
severity according to presence or absence of the father in the home.
Boys age 10-12 having biological substance abusing fathers living at
home were compared to a matched group of boys where the biological
substance abusing fathers were separated from their mothers. Comparisons were made on a panel of individual, parent-child interaction, peer,
and school adjustment variables. The variables selected for comparison
are well-established predisposing factors for substance abuse. Substance abuse is more severe in men who are separated from their
spouses. It was also found that 10-12 year old boys living with mothers
who are separated from substance abusing men are rated higher by their
mothers on conduct problems compared to boys living with both parents. Lower involvement and supervision and lower attachment to their
mothers are reported by boys who do not live with the substance abusing father compared to boys living with both parents. The increased risk
for substance abuse in offspring of separated parents where the father is
a substance abuser is concluded to be due to the combination of transThis study was supported by a center grant DA05605 from the National Institute
on Drug Abuse.
Address correspondence to: Ralph E. Tarter, PhD, Center for Education and Drug
Abuse Research (CEDAR), WPIC 3811 OHara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, Vol. 10(3) 2001
! 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

59

60

JOURNAL OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE

mission of more severe liability from the father and fewer resources
available to the single mother for effective parenting. [Article copies
available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:
1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website:
<http://www.HaworthPress.com>! 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights
reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Substance abuse, substance use disorder (SUD), cohabitation, adolescents

Offspring of substance abusing fathers are at increased risk for

developing a substance use disorder (Glantz, 1992; Goodwin & Warnock, 1991; Merikangas, Rounsaville & Prusoff, 1992; Seilhamer and
Jacob, 1990). Studies of adoptees and twins indicate that genetic factors partly contribute to this increased liability (Cadoret, Troughton,
OGorman, & Heywood, 1986; Grove, Eckert, Heston, Bouchard,
Segal & Lykken, 1990). However, paternal substance abuse also exerts an environmental influence on offspring. For example, parents
who consume compounds having abuse liability model acceptability
of this behavior for their children (Kandel & Davies, 1992). Also, a
disrupted family environment such as mutual dissatisfaction between
parent and child is common where the father abuses alcohol or drugs
(Tarter, Blackson, Martin, Seilhamer, Pelham, & Loeber, 1993). Hence,
a substance abusing father who separates from or divorces his spouse
may, therefore, potentially reduce his childrens risk for substance
abuse consequent to elimination of a negative behavioral model as
well as reduction of conflict and stress in the family environment.
Parental separation may, however, alternatively increase the risk for
substance abuse in children. Hetherington (1990) reports, for example,
that single mothers are less informed about their childrens activities,
are less knowledgeable about their companions, and provide less supervision compared to mothers where the father is present in the household. Children whose parents are separated more frequently display
deviant behavior which is well known to be associated with substance
use (Fergusson, Horwood and Lynskey, 1994).
The available findings thus indicate that offspring of separated or
divorced parents where the father is a substance abuser can potentially
have either a positive or negative impact on the childs risk for substance abuse. To date, research has not been conducted to determine

Tarter et al.

61

whether the presence or absence of a substance abusing father covaries with magnitude of substance abuse risk in offspring. Numerous
factors, spanning the domains of individual differences, family functioning and peer relationships have been frequently shown to be associated with an increased risk for substance abuse. By accessing a
sample of men having a substance use disorder based on DSM criteria
(American Psychiatric Association, 1987), this investigation compared
male prepubertal offspring living in intact families with offspring
whose biological parents were separated or divorced on a panel of
individual vulnerability characteristics, pattern and quality of parentchild interactions, school adjustment, and peer relationships. In this
manner, the extent to which risk severity for a substance use disorder
is influenced by parental marital status was determined in high risk
youth.
METHODS
Subjects
The sample consisted of 91 10-12 year old boys. Group 1 boys (n = 59)
had fathers who qualified for a DSM-III-R lifetime diagnosis of a
substance use disorder. The family was intact inasmuch as both the
biological father and mother lived together with their children. Group
2 boys (n = 32) also had fathers who qualified for a lifetime DSM-IIIR diagnosis of a substance use disorder. The parents in this group
were, however, separated or divorced. None of the mothers in either
group qualified for a substance use or other psychiatric disorder at any
time in life, hence, whatever differences are observed between the two
groups of boys cannot be attributed to maternal psychopathology or
substance abuse.
The two groups did not differ on the variables of age (t = .22), grade
level (t = .68), and family socioeconomic status (Hollingshead, 1975)
(t = .13). Religion (!2 = 3.73) and racial distribution (!2 = 1.117) were
also not different between the two groups. Table 1 summarizes the
characteristics of the two groups on these latter variables.
The substance use disorder diagnosis in the father was determined
using the best estimate procedure (Leckman, Scholomaskas, Thompson, Belanger, & Weissman, 1982). Diagnostic formulation was conducted using an expanded version of the Structured Clinical Interview

62

JOURNAL OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE

for DSM (SCID) (Spitzer, Williams, & Miriam, 1987) and accessing
where available, additional information about the persons social, clinical and legal history. The diagnosis was assigned during a diagnostic
conference chaired by a psychiatrist which also included the assessor
of the subject, and a clinical psychologist. None of the fathers were in
inpatient or day hospital treatment at the time of study.
Table 2 presents the distribution of substance use disorders in the
fathers. It can be seen that cocaine dependence (p = .026), opioid
TABLE 1. Characteristics of Substance Abuse Groups

Age
Grade
Household SES
Race
White
Black
Other
Religion
Catholic
Protestant
Other

Intact Families

Separated Parents

(n = 59)

(n = 32)

(s)

(s)

11.26
4.37
35.73
n

(.85)
(.89)
(11.49)
%

11.21
4.22
36.09
n

(.91)
(1.23)
(13.75)
%

.220
.686
.135
!2

NS
NS
NS
p

45
12
2

76.3
20.3
3.4

25
7

78.1
21.9

1.117

NS

26
21
12

44.1
35.6
20.3

14
16
2

43.8
50.0
6.3

3.736

NS

TABLE 2. Distribution of Lifetime Substance Use Disorder Diagnoses in the

Fathers
Intact Families

Alcohol dependence
Cannabis dependence
Cocaine dependence
Opioid dependence
Amphetamine dependence
Sedative dependence
Hallucinogen dependence
PCP dependence

Separated Parents

Fishers Exact Test

36
25
17
9
5
2
1
1

61.0
42.4
28.8
15.3
8.5
3.4
1.7
1.7

25
11
17
12
5
3
4
4

78.1
34.4
53.1
37.5
15.6
9.4
12.5
12.5

NS
NS
.026
.021
NS
NS
.05
.05

Note: Sum of percents in each group is greater than 100 because of comorbid SUD diagnoses.

Tarter et al.

63

dependence (p = .021), hallucinogen dependence (p = .05), and PCP

dependence (p = .05) were more frequent in men where the parents
were separated.
The boys and their families are part of an ongoing longitudinal
study of drug abuse etiology conducted at the Center for Education
and Drug Abuse Research (CEDAR). The results for boys only are
reported herein because an insufficient number of females have been
recruited to date by CEDAR to enable statistical analysis.
Procedure
The research protocol was administered by Masters level trained
research associates. The protocol was designed to tap factors generally
accepted to be associated with substance abuse liability among youth.
To maximize presentation clarity, the measures of risk (or liability) in
the protocol are categorized into four domains: (1) individual differences variables; (2) family variables; (3) peer variables; and (4) school
variables.
Individual Difference Variables
The Dimensions of Temperament Survey-revised (DOTS-R) was
administered to the boys using an interview format (Windle & Lerner,
1986). From the individual scales, the difficult temperament index
(DTI) was derived (Windle & Lerner, 1986). The DTI score ranges
from 0-6; the higher the score the more deviant the childs temperament.
Scores from the Internalizing and Externalizing scales of the Child
Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) were also documented. In addition, the Disruptive Behavior Disorders Scale (Pelham & Murphy, 1987) and the Self-Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974)
were administered. With the exception of the Self-Monitoring Scale,
which was completed by the child, the individual differences measures
were administered to the mother who served as informant on the child.
Family Variables
The Supervision/Involvement Scale (Loeber, 1989), the Child Relationship with Caretaker Scale (Loeber, 1989) and Child Report on
Parental Behavior (Schaefer, 1965) were administered to the boys.

64

JOURNAL OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE

The Family Assessment Measure (Skinner, Steinhauer, & Santa-Barbara, 1983) was administered to the mother from which was derived
the dysfunctional family index. To capture overall quality of interaction, the Mutual Dissatisfaction Inventory (Tarter et al., 1993) was
administered to both mother and child from which the mutual dissatisfaction index was derived. Since all of the boys domiciled with the
mother and in many cases did not have contact with the father, only
mother-child interactions were studied.
Peer Variables
Peer relationships and contextual factors were assessed using the
Peer Delinquency Scale (Loeber, 1989), Conventional Activities of
Friends Scale (Loeber, 1989), Your Relationship Scale (Fuhrman &
Bukomester, 1985), the Friends and Peers Scale (Ammerman, personal
communication), and the Peer Relationship Scale of the Drug Use
Screening Inventory (Tarter, 1990).
School Variables
Academic achievement was documented using the Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Behavioral adjustment in school was determined from the teacher report version of the Child Behavior Checklist
(Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and the Conners Behavior Rating
Scale (Conners, 1969).
RESULTS
The results comparing the two groups are displayed in Tables 3-6.
Boys who live with their substance abusing father differ on three
variables compared to boys whose substance abusing biological father
is separated from the biological mother. Less supervision involvement
(p = .053) and a poorer relationship with caretaker (p = .028) were
observed in families where the substance abusing father was separated
from the mother. More conduct symptoms were also recorded in boys
who lived only with the mother.
DISCUSSION
Numerous studies have demonstrated the importance of the family
structure and system as major contributors to risk for substance abuse

Tarter et al.

65

TABLE 3. Comparison of Boys on Individual Liability Factors According to

Whether the Substance Abusing Father Is Present or Absent in the Home
Intact Marriage

Dimensions of Temperament
Survey
Difficult Temperament Index
Child Behavior Checklist
Externalizing
Internalizing
Disruptive Disorders Behavior
Scale
Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity
Oppositional Defiant
Conduct Disorder
Self-Monitoring Scale

Separated/Divorced

(s)

(s)

2.13

1.54

2.17

1.00

1.35

NS

11.77
8.03

11.43
6.82

15.64
10.50

12.80
7.87

1.407
1.483

NS
NS

8.08
5.73
1.40
12.12

6.68
5.03
1.83
3.01

10.00
7.23
3.46
12.93

6.81
3.61
3.46
3.67

.887
.987
2.805
1.092

NS
NS
.007
NS

TABLE 4. Comparison of Groups According to Quality of Mother-Son Interaction

Intact Marriage
M

Family Assessment Measure

112.48
Child Report on Parental
Behavior Inventory
Acceptance
24.07
Child Centeredness
12.93
Lax Discipline
20.27
Nonenforcement of Rules
17.86
Control through Guilt
16.72
Instilling Persistent Anxiety
17.50
Supervision Involvement Scale
59.26
Child Relationship with Caretaker 16.67
Mutual Dissatisfaction Inventory
2.79

Separated/Divorced

(s)

(s)

8.75

112.79

9.57

.151

NS

5.68
3.08
2.19
2.84
3.58
3.74
6.49
2.14
2.13

22.86
12.93
20.51
16.89
16.27
16.48
56.18
15.40
3.17

6.07
3.24
2.54
2.96
4.05
3.30
8.28
3.23
1.94

.913
.000
.459
1.471
.527
1.241
1.964
2.23
.723

NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
.053
.028
NS

in children. Clearly, the family exercises substantial influence on liability to substance abuse in children. The heightened risk among
children of substance abusing parents to develop a substance use disorder is also well-recognized. Within this latter population, it is not
known how parental substance abuse impacts on childrens liability,
although genetic susceptibility appears to be one source of influence.
This study evaluated the extent to which domiciling with the affected

66

JOURNAL OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE

TABLE 5. Comparison of Groups According to Quality of Peer Affiliations

Intact Marriage

Separated/Divorced

(s)

(s)

Conventional Activities
of Friends Scale

24.41

5.80

22.38

6.31

1.376

NS

Peer Delinquency Scale

4.11

4.17

5.68

5.15

1.553

NS

Your Relationship Scale (w/same

sex best friend)

110.17

23.69

110.20

28.43

.005

NS

DUSI Peer Relationship Scale

19.81

21.11

25.36

18.46

1.040

NS

Peer Attachment Scale (loneliness)

14.84

5.69

15.97

4.31

.933

NS

TABLE 6. Comparison of Groups on School Adjustment and Academic

Achievement
Intact Marriage
(n = 59)

Separated/Divorced
(n = 32)

(s)

(s)

Child Behavior Checklist

(Teacher rating)
Externalizing
Internalizing

20.00
5.78

18.74
6.84

28.33
6.74

24.56
6.13

1.667
.609

NS
NS

Conners Behavior Rating Scale

(Teacher rating)
Oppositional Defiant
Inattention/Overactivity

2.14
3.74

3.20
3.79

3.56
4.89

4.41
3.98

1.616
1.247

NS
NS

Peabody Individual Achievement

Test

104.16

18.33

104.38

15.28

.056

NS

parent augments the childs risk status as determined from indicators

of personal adjustment, family relations, peer interactions and school
performance.
The results of this investigation demonstrate that severity of liability
in offspring is not directly or systematically related to presence of the
substance abusing father in the home. On measures of temperament
and self-monitoring as well as ratings of externalizing and internalizing behavior, children in intact marriages were indistinguishable from
children whose parents were separated or divorced. The only difference observed was on number of conduct disorder symptoms. Children whose mothers were separated from their spouse reported more

Tarter et al.

67

behavior problems in their sons than women in intact marriages. It

should be noted that this higher rating in the former group may reflect
a response bias since it was not replicated by the teacher reports. On
multiple measures of mother-son interaction, two variables distinguished the subjects. More parental supervision and involvement and
a better relationship with caretaker was reported by children in intact
marriages compared to children of separated parents. These latter
findings indicate that the children in intact marriages have a closer and
more nurturing relationship with the mother. One possible ramification of this observation is that parental marital status where the father
is a substance abuser exercises its influence on offspring via protection
by the mother. In effect, even though the father with a substance use
disorder is present in the home, the mother has the resources and
opportunity to sustain a positive and involved relationship with the
son. Where the father is absent, parenting effectiveness is diminished.
Differences between prepubertal boys living in separated or intact
families on peer relationship variables were not observed. Boys whose
parents were separated obtained similar scores to boys whose biological parents were married on measures of normative behavior of friends
and quality of relationship with friends. Furthermore, scores on behavioral adjustment in school and academic achievement level were comparable in both groups of boys.
Notably, substance abusing fathers separated from their spouses had
more severe substance use disorder as revealed by a greater frequency
of opioid, cocaine, hallucinogen and PCP dependence. Not surprisingly,
therefore, more severe drug disorders in the men is associated with
marital breakup. Hence, an additional factor contributing to the results may be that the higher severity of drug disorder in separated
fathers currently and in the past compromised the mothers capacity
for effective parenting. Furthermore, the results do not discount the
possibility that the greater manifest severity of substance use disorder in the father also transmits to offspring greater liability as indicated by the more severe conduct problems in boys whose parents are
separated.
In conclusion, key facets of substance abuse liability, namely, externalizing disposition, deviant peers, dysfunctional parent-child interactions, and school adjustment/performance, were comparable in boys
living with their substance abusing fathers and boys whose biological
substance abusing fathers are separated from the biological mother

68

JOURNAL OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE

and not living at home. Differences were, however, observed between

the two groups with respect to maternal report of conduct symptoms in
their son and quality of mother-son attachment and levels of involvement/supervision. The findings indicate that the presence of the substance abusing father in the home has less negative impact on substance abuse liability in offspring than a family structure where the
substance abusing father is absent. The extent to which increased
liability in children of separated parents ultimately impacts on the
developmental trajectory awaits longitudinal analyses. Whereas robust
differences were not observed in 10-12 year old children, it may be
that parental separation exerts a delayed effect. For example, a recent
population-based study found that the association between the risk for
drinking problems and parental divorce increased between age 23 and
33 (Hope, Power & Rodgers, 1998). The observed differences in this
study between children who domicile with or separately from the
substance abusing father, even though not extensive, are, however, not
trivial; the greater conduct problems in conjunction with less parental
supervision and poorer quality of relationship with the caretaker in
children reared by divorced mothers are potent risk factors for drug
abuse. One possible cause of the differences between high risk boys
living with or separated from their biological drug abusing father is
that the latter subjects have mothers who possess less resources and
opportunities for effective parenting that is compounded by a history
of marital interactions with a more severe substance abusing former
spouse. Nonetheless, whatever the etiology, the results obtained herein
point to the especially crucial role of the mother in influencing the
childs developmental trajectory.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist.
Burlington, VT: Department of Psychiatry.
American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSMIII-R). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Cadoret, R., Troughton, E., OGorman, T. et al. (1986). An adoption study of genetic
and environmental factors in drug abuse. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43,
1131-1136.
Conners, C. (1969). A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 152-156.
Ferguson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., & Lynskey, M.T. (1994). Parental separation, adolescent psychopathology, and problem behaviors. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33 (8), 1122-1131.

Tarter et al.

69

Fuhrman, W., & Bukomester, D. (1985). Childrens perceptions of their personal

relationships in their social networks. Developmental Psychology, 21, 1016-1024.
Glantz, M.D. (1992). A developmental psychopathology model of drug abuse
vulnerability. In M. Glantz & R. Pickens (Eds.), Vulnerability to Drug Abuse
(pp. 389-418). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Goodwin, D.W., & Warnock, J.K. (1991). Alcoholism: A family disease. In R.J.
Frances & S.I. Miller (Eds.), Clinical Textbook of Addictive Disorders (pp.
485-500). New York: The Guilford Press.
Grove, W., Eckert, E., & Heston, L. et al. (1990). Heritability of substance abuse and
antisocial behavior: A study of monozygotic twins reared apart. Biological Psychiatry, 27, 1293-1304.
Hetherington, E.M. (1990). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, and
survivors. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development, 221-241.
Hollingshead, A. (1975). Four Factor Index of Social Status. New Haven, CT.
Hope, S., Power, C., & Rodgers, B. (1998). Strength of association between parental
divorce and risk for drinking problems increases between age 23-33. Addiction,
93, 505-514.
Kandel, D.B., & Davies, M. (1992). Progression to regular marijuana involvement:
Phenomenology and risk factors for near-daily use. In M. Glantz & R. Pickens
(Eds.), Vulnerability to Drug Abuse (pp. 211-254). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Leckman, J., Scholomaskas, D., & Thompson, W. et al. (1982). Best estimate of
lifetime psychiatric diagnoses: A methodological study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 39, 879-883.
Loeber, R. (1989). Peer Delinquency, Positive Parenting, and Supervision/Involvement. Pittsburgh Youth Study. Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Merikangas, K.R., Rounsaville, B.J., & Prusoff, B. (1992). Familial factors in
vulnerability to substance abuse. In M. Glantz & R. Pickens (Eds.), Vulnerability to Drug Abuse (pp. 75-98). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Pelham, W., & Murphy, D. (1987). The Disruptive Behavior Disorders Rating Scale.
Dept. of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Schaefer, E. (1965). Childrens reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child
Development, 36, 417-424.
Seilhamer, R.A., & Jacob, T. (1990). Family factors and adjustment of children of
alcoholics. In M. Windle & J.S. Searles (Eds.), Children of Alcoholics (168-186).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Skinner, H., Steinhauer, P., & Santa-Barbara, J. (1983). The Family Assessment
Measure, 2, 91-105.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
Spitzer, R., Williams, J., & Miriam, G. (1987). Instruction Manual for the Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R. New York: New State Psychiatric Institute.

70

JOURNAL OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Tarter, R. (1990). Evaluation and treatment of adolescent substance abuse: A decision tree method. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 16, 1-46.
Tarter, R., Blackson, T., Martin, C., Seilhamer, R., Pelham, W., & Loeber, R. (1993).
Mutual dissatisfaction between mother and son in substance abuse and normal
families: Association with child behavior problems. American Journal on Addiction, 2, 1-10.
Windle M., & Lerner, R.M. (1986). Reassessing the dimensions of temperament
individuality across the life span. The Revised Dimensions of Temperament Survey
(DOTS-R). Journal of Adolescent Research, 1 (2), 213-230.

for faculty/professionals with journal subscription recommendation

authority for their institutional library . . .
If you have read a reprint or photocopy of this article, would
you like to make sure that your library also subscribes to
this journal? If you have the authority to recommend subscriptions to your library, we will send you a free sample
copy for review with your librarian. Just fill out the form belowand make
sure that you type or write out clearly both the name of the journal and
your own name and address.
( ) Yes, please send me a complimentary sample copy of this journal:
(please write in complete journal title heredo not leave blank)
I will show this journal to our institutional or agency library for a possible
subscription.
The name of my institutional/agency library is:

NAME:
INSTITUTION:
ADDRESS:
CITY:

STATE:

ZIP:

Return to: Sample Copy Department, The Haworth Press, Inc.,

10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580