Underage Drinking Bibliography - Social Media Campaign

lady2005

SocialInequalityunderagedrinking.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Underage Drinking Bibliography - Social Media Campaign

Social inequality in youth violence: The role of heavy episodic drinking

THOR NORSTRÖM1,2 , INGEBORG ROSSOW2 & HILDE PAPE3

1Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2Department of Drug Policy, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, and 3Department of Substance Use, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

Abstract

Introduction and Aims. Alcohol use is an important risk factor for violence, and violent behaviour is more prevalent in lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups. The aim of this study was to examine whether the SES difference in youth violence can be explained by differential exposure to—and/or differential vulnerability to—heavy episodic drinking (HED). In the latter case, effect modification by impulsivity could be assumed. Design and Methods. We analysed cross-sectional data from a school survey of 15- to 17-year-olds in Norway (n = 9853). We employed two measures of low-SES group. Associations between SES, HED and violence were estimated by Poisson regressions, applying a residual centring procedure to test effect modification. Results. Violent behaviour frequency, HED frequency and impulsivity scores were all elevated in the low-SES group. The SES difference in violent behaviour was significantly reduced when adjusting for HED. The stronger association between HED and violence in the low, compared with the medium-SES/high-SES group, was modified when accounting for impulsivity. Sensitivity analyses suggested robust findings. Discussion and Conclusions. The findings lend support to both the differential exposure hypothesis and to the differential vulnerability hypothesis as well as the hypothesis of an enhancing effect of impulsivity on the HED—violence association. The SES difference in youth violence can be accounted for by: (i) an elevated prevalence of HED in low-SES groups; and (ii) a stronger than average link between HED and violence in low-SES groups due to their higher than average impulsivity score. [Norström T, Rossow I, Pape H. Social inequality in youth violence: The role of heavy episodic drinking. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;00:000-000]

Key words: violence, adolescents, social inequality, heavy episodic drinking, Norway.

Introduction

Social disparities in health problems are of considerable political concern, and insight into the underlying causes is required to reduce these disparities [1]. Among young people, violence-related injuries account for a considerable fraction of the health burden globally, ranking fifth of the causes of loss of healthy life years in the age group 10 to 24 years [2]. Violent behaviour elicits fear and inflicts physical harm on other people; in addition, it is also a major risk factor for being targeted for violent victimisation [3,4]. Thus, there is solid evidence that the offender–victim overlap tends to be substantial—notably among young people. Moreover, several studies indicate that adolescents in low socioeconomic status (SES) groups are more likely to behave violently [5], but the mechanisms underlying this association are poorly understood. One important risk factor for violent behaviour is

alcohol use [6]. Numerous observational as well as

experimental studies have documented a link between drinking and violence [6], and evidence suggests that the association reflects a causal relationship of a dose– response type [7–12]. That is, the risk of aggressive behaviour increases with increasing blood alcohol concentration level and increasing frequency of heavy episodic drinking (HED). This is also found in observational studies among adolescents [13–15]. Even so, a recent systematic review of SES differences in aggressive behaviour in children and adolescents [5] and further literature searches suggest that no study so far has examined whether and if so how SES differences in youth violence can be explained by mechanisms involving this risk factor. In the present study, we used data from a large Norwegian youth survey to explore the potential role of alcohol use in relation to the link between SES and violence.

Our key question is whether drinking may account for some of the SES difference in youth violence. As we will discuss later, two different, but not mutually exclusive,

Thor Norström PhD, Professor, Ingeborg Rossow PhD, Senior Researcher, Hilde Pape PhD, Senior Researcher. Correspondence to Professor Ingeborg Rossow, Department of Drug Policy, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PO Box 4404, Nydalen, N-0403 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]

Received 17 January 2017; accepted for publication 30 May 2017.

Drug and Alcohol Review (2017) DOI: 10.1111/dar.12582 Drug and Alcohol Review (February 2018), 37, 162–169 DOI: 10.1111/dar.12582

2018;37:162–169]

R E V I E W

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5746-7723

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8652-9367

mechanisms may be involved. The first one—differential exposure—implies that adolescents in low-SES groups are more exposed to the potential aggression-arousing effects of alcohol simply because they drink more heavily than others. The second mechanism—differential vulnerability—is likely to be at work if the effect of drinking on violent behaviour is elevated in low-SES groups. If this is the case, another question arises; why are individuals in lower social strata apparently more susceptible to the aggression-arousing properties of alcohol than others?

Differential exposure and differential vulnerability

The literature on SES and adolescent drinking is fairly sparse, and the findings are mixed, that is, both positive, negative and statistically insignificant associations between the two have been reported [16–19]. Thus, only some studies indicate that youth drinking behaviour is elevated in low-SES groups [20–22]. However, it appears that the more hazardous or deviant the adolescent drinking behaviour in question, the stronger is the association with low SES [23,24] corresponding to findings in the adult population [25,26]. Moreover, Pape et al. [27]—who analysed data from the same survey on which the present study is based—found that low SES was associated with early, frequent and heavy episodic drinking. Thus, the research literature offers some indirect indications that SES differences in youth violence in part may be due to differential exposure to the potential aggression-arousing effects of alcohol.

Few studies seem to have examined the differential vulnerability hypothesis, that is, that drinking would have a stronger than average impact on violence in low-SES groups. However, a recent study by Kraus et al. [28] is of interest in this context. They focused on the population at large and not specifically on adolescents and found that alcohol-related aggression remained elevated in groups with low education when variations in alcohol consumption were accounted for. This may be due to an interaction effect or the impact of unobserved factors unrelated to drinking. Likewise, other adult population studies generally show that the risk of alcohol-related harm is strongly elevated in lower social strata, while the SES gradient in drinking tends to be weak and positive [29], suggesting differential vulnerability.

If individuals in low-SES groups indeed are more vulnerable to the effects of heavy drinking, the question is why. Also, among young people, only a tiny fraction of all drinking events result in violence, and very few exhibit violent behaviour while intoxicated [13]. Hence, the alcohol–violence relationship is obviously conditional on the presence of other risk factors, as for instance

impulsivity or dispositional aggressiveness [9,30]. Indeed, individuals who possess such personality attributes are more likely than others to respond aggressively under the influence of alcohol [9,30]. Moreover, there is some evidence that the level of impulsivity is elevated in low-SES groups [31–34], thus giving a scope for differential vulnerability to alcohol exposure to operate in the context of violent behaviour.

Aim of study

Against this background, our study aim was to examine whether violent behaviour in adolescents differs by SES, and if so, whether this difference can be explained by differential exposure to drinking behaviour, or differential vulnerability to drinking behaviour, or both. Moreover, in the case of differential vulnerability, we examined whether this could be attributable to an SES gradient in impulsivity.

Methods

Data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey among junior and senior high school students (most aged 13–19 years) in Norway in the autumn of 2006. The study was approved by the Norwegian Social Sciences Data Services, which ensures that the subjects’ rights are safeguarded. Study participation required informed consent from students and parents; a written informed parental consent was required for students in junior high school, and a passive parental consent was required for students in senior high school. The gross sample (n = 24137) was recruited from 82 junior and senior high schools in all geographical regions of Norway and the response rate was 85.7% [35]. Because of more missing observations on SES indicators (suggesting poorer validity) among the youngest respondents and a higher school dropout rate in low-SES groups among the oldest, our analyses focused on the age group 15–17 years (n = 9853 with valid observations on all variables in the analyses). In this subsample, gender and age were quite evenly distributed (50.2% boys and between 32.1% and 34.8% in each age category). The vast majority (96.5%) reported that one or both parents were born in Norway or in another Nordic country.

Measures

Violent behaviour. The students were asked ‘How many times during the past 12 months have you beaten or kicked someone?’. The six response categories ranged from ‘None’ (coded 0) to ‘More than 20 times’ (coded

2 T. Norström et al.

Youth violence, SES and drinking behaviour 163

25), and we applied mid-point values for the other categories to obtain a semi-continuous measure of violent offending.

Drinking behaviour. As the risk of aggressive behaviour is elevated in intoxicated persons [8], we applied a measure of HED frequency as exposure measure. The students were asked ‘About how many times have you been clearly intoxicated during the past year (past 12 months)?’ and the seven response options ranged from never (coded 0) to several times per week (coded 120).

Socioeconomic status. Measuring adolescents’ SES is considered difficult, both conceptually and methodologically [36]. However, parental SES is often used as a proxy, such as parental education level or occupational status [37]. We obtained a measure of the former through separate questions about mother’s and father’s education level. There were five response options, ranging from ‘Not completed junior high school’ to ‘University or university college’. Data on maternal and paternal education level were collapsed into a three-category variable: ‘High’ (both parents had completed university or university college); ‘Low’ (one parent had vocational training and one parent had only completed junior high school, or one or both parents had less education); and ‘Medium’ (comprising the other intermediate levels of education and combinations). In sensitivity analyses, we applied an alternative SES

measure; a crude indicator of low family income. This was coded 1 when parents were unemployed or on social welfare or otherwise without paid work (applied to both parents in two parent households and the one parent in single parent households) and 0 otherwise.

Modifying variable. We included a measure of impulsivity, constructed as a sum-score of four items from Plutchik’s impulsivity scale [38] (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.67). These items are the same or resemble those included in other scales of impulsivity (e.g. Barratt Impulsiveness Scale [39]). The four items were as follows: do things on the spur of the moment; say whatever pops into your head; do things impulsively; and find it difficult to control your emotions. Response options ranged from ‘Almost never’ to ‘Very often’, and for each item, we coded the latter category 1 and 0 otherwise. Thus, the sum-score ranged from 0 to 4.

Confounding variables. As both the outcome measure (violent behaviour frequency) and the exposure measure (HED frequency) vary by age and gender, we controlled for these in the analyses.

Statistical analyses

We first examined whether the outcome measure (violent behaviour), the exposure variable (HED frequency) and the potential modifying variable (impulsivity) differed by SES groups by comparing distribution means and testing mean differences by T- test. In the subsequent analyses, we used Poisson regression, which is a feasible technique when the outcome is a count variable. We thus estimated a set of Poisson models to examine: (i) to what degree a possible SES gradient in violence was attributable to SES difference in HED frequency (testing the differential exposure hypothesis); and (ii) the possible modifying effect of impulsivity (testing the differential vulnerability hypothesis). The latter was tested by including an interaction term between HED frequency and impulsivity. To avoid the collinearity between the interaction term and the first-order predictors, we followed a procedure suggested by Lance [40], labelled residual centring. First, the interaction term (Impulsivity*HED) was regressed on its two constituent factors. Next, the residuals from this model were saved as a new variable (IMPHEDRES), which was used in the analyses as an interaction term. Because an interaction term is awkward to interpret, we performed an additional test of the differential vulnerability hypothesis by examining whether the HED effect on violence differed between SES groups. If the differential vulnerability hypothesis is valid, we should expect the HED effect on violence to be stronger in the low-SES group than in the high-SES group. The test was performed by regressing violent behaviour frequency on HED frequency in SES-specific models. From these models, we obtained the SES-specific relative risks for violence for different values of HED, in addition to the SES-specific slope coefficients. Further, we investigated how the outcome was affected when impulsivity was included in the models. The difference in the HED effect on violence between the SES groups was tested graphically (comparing risk curves) as well as parametrically (t-tests of the SES-specific slope coefficients obtained from SES-specific Poisson models). As the sampling was clustered by school, we used robust clustered standard errors with school as cluster variable. The statistical analyses were conducted using STATA (version 14).

Results

Violent behaviour frequency was higher among boys than among girls and decreased with increasing age, whereas HED frequency was somewhat higher among boys than girls and clearly higher among older compared with

Youth violence, SES and drinking behaviour 3

164 T. Norström et al.

younger respondents (Table 1). Violent behaviour frequency, HED frequency and impulsivity score were all clearly elevated among students with low parental education level, while the differences between those with medium and high education level were less pronounced. To further illustrate this point, we divided the sample into two groups of fairly similar size, separating those reporting one or both parents to have a university/university college degree (43.3%) from the others. When comparing these two groups, there was no statistically significant difference in violent behaviour frequency (P = 0.169). In subsequent analyses, we therefore used a two-category indicator that delineates a small socially disadvantaged group from all others. The

low-SES group thus comprised students whose parents both had elementary education or one had vocational training (7.8% of the sample), whereas the remaining students made up the medium-SES/high-SES group. We found that violent behaviour frequency, HED frequency and impulsivity score were all statistically significantly elevated in the low-SES category (Table 1).

The elevated incidence of violence in the low-SES groups was echoed in the outcome from the Poisson model, which yielded an RR equal to 1.571 (Table 2, model 1). (The corresponding estimate for low family income was 1.328, SE = 0.147, P = 0.010.) Including HED in the model (model 2) resulted in a marked decrease in the SES effect, which lends support to the

Table 1. Descriptive statistics

HED Impulsivity Violence Proportion violence

>0 Excluding violence = 0

N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD N Mean SD

Age, years 15 3180 4.776 14.975 0.305 0.719 1.840 5.121 0.318 0.466 1010 5.794 7.725 16 3453 8.366 16.722 0.283 0.672 1.579 4.580 0.298 0.457 1028 5.305 7.121 17 3220 12.661 21.411 0.315 0.717 1.373 4.212 0.258 0.438 832 5.313 6.912

Gender Boys 4946 8.993 20.018 0.292 0.717 2.208 5.519 0.354 0.478 1752 6.233 7.804 Girls 4907 8.226 16.093 0.309 0.687 0.979 3.465 0.228 0.419 1118 4.298 6.201

SES High 2936 7.160 15.394 0.272 0.665 1.444 4.521 0.253 0.435 743 5.708 7.515 Medium 6150 8.609 17.747 0.294 0.689 1.571 4.537 0.300 0.458 1845 5.235 7.032 Low 767 14.183 27.785 0.460 0.900 2.381 5.838 0.368 0.482 282 6.475 8.142

SES Medium/high 9086 8.141 17.035 0.287 0.681 1.530 4.532 0.285 0.451 2588 5.371 7.176 Low 767 14.183 27.785 0.460 0.900 2.381 5.838 0.368 0.482 282 6.475 8.142

Low income No 9303 8.523 17.980 0.295 0.696 1.566 4.616 0.288 0.453 2680 5.437 7.276 Yes 550 10.098 21.131 0.398 0.805 2.098 5.201 0.345 0.476 190 6.074 7.368

Statistically significant age differences in violent behaviour frequency (F = 8.13, P < 0.001) and HED frequency (F = 155.50, P < 0.001) and statistically significant gender differences in violent behaviour frequency (F = 174.89, P < 0.001) and HED frequency (F = 4.34, P = 0.037). Impulsivity score did not differ statistically significantly by age (F = 1.78, P = 0.169) or by gender (F = 1.55, P = 0.214). HED, heavy episodic drinking; SES, socioeconomic status.

Table 2. Estimates from Poisson regression models with violence frequency as outcome

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Estimate SE P Estimate SE P Estimate SE P

SES 1.571 0.158 <0.001 1.243 0.090 0.003 1.105 0.081 0.175 HED 1.017 0.001 <0.001 1.014 0.001 <0.001 Impulsivity 1.538 0.037 <0.001 IMPHEDRES 0.998 0.001 <0.001

Estimates of SES express relative risks. Boys and girls are 14–17 years. Control for age and sex (N = 9853). Cluster adjusted standard errors. HED, heavy episodic drinking; SES, socioeconomic status.

4 T. Norström et al.

Youth violence, SES and drinking behaviour 165

differential exposure hypothesis. In the last model (model 3), we included the interaction term between impulsivity and HED (along with its two constituent factors); this proved to be significant, which lends support to the differential vulnerability hypothesis. It is also seen that the SES effect became insignificant in this model. In order to obtain a more specific test of the differential

vulnerability hypothesis, we estimated the HED effect on violence in SES-specific Poisson models. First, we regressed violence on HED only (adjusting for age and gender). Comparing the low-SES and high-SES group, the results suggest that the relative risk of violence increases more steeply with increasing HED in the low- SES group (Figure 1A). This is confirmed by the observation that the difference between the SES-specific slopes was statistically significant (T-value = 2.121, P = 0.034) (Table 3). Next, impulsivity was included in the models. This reduced the HED effects, particularly so in the low-SES group, with the result that the risk curves became parallel (Figure 1B), and the difference between the SES-specific slopes insignificant (T- value = 0.871, P = 0.331). These findings lend support

to the differential vulnerability hypothesis, that is, low- SES adolescents are more vulnerable to HED than high-SES adolescents, and the differential vulnerability appears to be attributable to the enhancing effect of impulsivity on the association between drinking and violence.

Sensitivity analyses

We performed three sensitivity tests. First, the aforementioned analyses were run using negative binomial regression. This procedure yielded estimates quite close to those from the Poisson regressions. The other sensitivity tests were: (i) excluding those reporting no violence; and (ii) using an alternative SES-indicator (indicating low family income). The outcomes from both of these analyses reproduced the same pattern as that reported previously: the significantly elevated SES effect decreased when controlling for HED (supporting the differential exposure hypothesis) and became insignificant when taking the interaction effect between HED and impulsivity into account (supporting the differential vulnerability hypothesis).

Discussion

This study showed that violent behaviour occurs more frequently among adolescents with low parental SES, compared with those with medium or high status—which is in line with previous research [5]. Moreover, our findings suggest that this SES difference in youth violence by and large may be accounted for by two mechanisms involving HED. First, differential exposure to HED, which is an important risk factor for violence. Second, differential vulnerability, implying a stronger than average link between HED and violence in the low-SES group, which in turn seems to be due to the higher than average score on impulsivity in low-SES groups.

Previous studies have shown that children in lower social strata are more exposed to family violence [41,42] and to parenting practices that are conducive to aggression [43], which may to some extent explain the social gradient in youth violence. The literature seems, however, meagre with respect to addressing the potential importance of alcohol in this respect. None of the studies on SES and youth violence in a recent systematic review [5] focused on the role of alcohol use, nor have further literature searches revealed any such study. Because the present study is probably the first to address this topic among adolescents, we cannot make direct comparisons with other studies with regard to our findings of differential exposure and differential vulnerability. Moreover, the bulk of previous research on the

Figure 1. Relative risk (RR) for violence as function of heavy episodic drinking (HED) in the low socioeconomic status group (filled circles, solid line) and the high socioeconomic status group (open circles, dotted line). (A) Control

for age and sex. (B) Control for age, sex and impulsivity.

Youth violence, SES and drinking behaviour 5

166 T. Norström et al.

T a b le

3. S E S -s pe ci fi c es ti m a te s fr om

P oi ss on

re gr es si on

m od el s w it h v io le n ce fr eq u en cy

a s ou tc om

H ig h S E S (N

= 9 0 8 6 )

L o w S E S (N

= 7 6 7 )

H ig h S E S (N

= 9 0 8 6 )

L o w S E S (N

= 7 6 7 )

E st im

at e

S E

P E st im

at e

S E

P E st im

at e

S E

P E st im

at e

S E

H E D

0 (R

ef .)

1 1

3 1 .1 8 1

0 .0 8 7

0 .0 2 4

1 .5 6 5

0 .4 0 2

0 .0 8 1

1 .1 2 2

0 .0 8 0

0 .1 0 8

1 .4 8 1

0 .3 5 3

0 .0 9 9

8 1 .4 8 9

0 .1 4 9

< 0 .0 0 1

1 .8 3 6

0 .6 0 2

0 .0 6 4

1 .3 8 5

0 .1 3 2

0 .0 0 1

1 .8 5 3

0 .6 3 2

0 .0 7 0

1 2

1 .4 1 2

0 .2 0 8

0 .0 1 9

1 .7 0 7

0 .7 2 3

0 .2 0 7

1 .2 9 7

0 .1 7 8

0 .0 5 8

1 .5 2 4

0 .7 3 3

0 .3 8 1

3 0

2 .1 2 4

0 .2 0 4

< 0 .0 0 1

3 .6 7 0

0 .9 6 3

< 0 .0 0 1

1 .8 9 4

0 .1 7 1

< 0 .0 0 1

3 .1 9 4

0 .8 2 4

< 0 .0 0 1

5 0

3 .5 8 2

0 .3 7 1

< 0 .0 0 1

4 .1 7 5

1 .4 4 4

< 0 .0 0 1

2 .7 8 9

0 .2 6 4

< 0 .0 0 1

3 .4 7 0

1 .0 6 6

< 0 .0 0 1

1 2 0

6 .2 8 0

1 .0 8 7

< 0 .0 0 1

1 2 .5 1 8

2 .9 3 0

< 0 .0 0 1

4 .5 8 0

0 .6 8 5

< 0 .0 0 1

4 .8 6 0

1 .4 1 1

< 0 .0 0 1

S lo p e co ef fi ci en

t 1 .0 1 6

0 .0 0 1

< 0. 00

1 1. 01

9 0 .0 01

< 0 .0 0 1

1 .0 13

0. 00

1 0 .0 0 1

1 .0 1 2

0 .0 02

0 .0 0 2

C on tr ol s

S ex

0 .4 5 5

0 .0 3 7

< 0 .0 0 1

0 .4 6 7

0 .0 8 2

< 0 .0 0 1

0 .4 4 9

0 .0 3 6

< 0 .0 0 1

0 .4 9 9

0 .0 8 1

< 0 .0 0 1

A ge

0 .7 6 0

0 .0 3 7

< 0 .0 0 1

0 .7 4 4

0 .0 6 8

0 .0 0 3

0 .7 8 5

0 .0 3 5

< 0 .0 0 1

0 .7 8 3

0 .0 6 8

0 .0 0 9

Im p u ls iv it y

1 .4 8 3

0 .0 4 2

< 0 .0 0 1

1 .5 2 5

0 .0 9 1

< 0 .0 0 1

T -t es t fo r d if fe re n ce

b et w ee n S E S -s p ec ifi c sl o p e co ef fi ci en

ts = 2 .1 2 1 , P = 0 .0 3 4

T -t es t fo r d if fe re n ce

b et w ee n S E S -s p ec ifi c sl o p e co ef fi ci en

ts = 0 .8 7 1 , P = 0 .3 3 1

B o ys

an d gi rl s ar e 1 4 – 1 7 ye ar s. E st im

at es

o f H E D

ex p re ss

re la ti ve

ri sk s. C lu st er

ad ju st ed

st an

d ar d er ro rs . H E D , h ea vy

ep is o d ic d ri n ki n g;

S E S , so ci o ec o n o m ic st at u s.

6 T. Norström et al.

Youth violence, SES and drinking behaviour 167

association between SES and youth violence has been conducted in the USA or other countries with high- income inequality. The present study is an exception in this respect, as Norway has one of the lowest levels of income inequality in the world [44]. In our study, we contrasted a small socially

disadvantaged group to all others. Thus, 92% of the respondents belonged to the medium or the high parental education groups, and we found little difference in violence and drinking between these two SES groups. Consequently, our categorisation of a more marginal SES group was essential for detecting a SES difference in violent behaviour. Moreover, our findings were replicated when using another indicator of marginal low SES (both parents without paid work). If we had used a less restrictive criterion for inclusion in the low-SES group, we would probably not have detected any statistically significant SES difference in violence. This suggests that among Norwegian youth, socioeconomic differences in violence and drinking behaviour are not uniform across social strata, but may be evident only when more marginal SES groups are considered. If this is the case also in many other countries, it offers an explanation to why many studies of drinking behaviour [16,17], and some studies of violence [5] did not find any association with SES. However, it is conceivable that in countries with larger social inequality than Norway [45], a social gradient in violence and hazardous drinking can be found also for less marginal SES categorisations. In line with some previous studies [31–33], we found

an elevated level of impulsivity in the low-SES group. Our findings further suggested that the differential vulnerability was attributable to the modifying effect of impulsivity on the alcohol–violence association. This modifying effect corroborates evidence from experimental studies that impulsive people are more likely to act aggressively under the influence of alcohol [9,30] and also fits within the problem behaviour framework [46] where genetic/personality factors (such as impulsivity) increase the risk for a broad range of problem behaviours and thus explain their co-variation. A major strength of our study was the large data

sample, exceeding those of most previous studies of SES and youth violence [5], and allowing for analyses of complex associations related to more marginal socioeconomic groups of adolescents. Convergent findings from analyses applying different indicators of marginal SES groups and from a subsample of those reporting violent behaviour suggest that the findings are robust. However, several study limitations need consideration.

The cross-sectional study design hampers inferring causality from the observed associations. Data on

violence and HED were based on self-reported information, the accuracy of which is hard to determine. On the basis of an extensive review of the literature, Thornberry and Krohn [47] conclude that self-report data on delinquent behaviours ‘appear acceptably valid and reliable for most research purposes’. Further, as it may be particularly difficult for adolescents to estimate their consumption in terms of standard units, Lintonen and Rimpelä [48] argued that one should rather rely on self-perceived intoxication, as we do, as a simple and valid indicator of adolescent heavy drinking. Nevertheless, the likely presence of measurement errors in our indicators of drinking and violence is expected to have attenuated the estimated association (and its statistical significance) between the two.

Moreover, while the study sample included schools from all parts of Norway, schools from the largest cities in Norway were not included. Consequently, socioeconomic groups at both extremes of the distribution may be underrepresented, and if so, the estimated SES differences may be deflated. The data were collected in 2006, and the prevalence and distribution of violent behaviour in adolescents may have changed since then. However, the mechanisms underlying the complex associations subject to our analyses are likely robust over a decade, and the main findings of associations are therefore probably valid also today.

The present findings suggest that the alcohol factor is a key determinant behind the SES difference in youth violence. Our results thus indicate that this is not merely because low-SES adolescents drink more than others, but also because their drinking has a stronger than average impact on violence risk because of their higher than average impulsivity score. Consequently, by curbing hazardous drinking in young people, several health gains can likely be obtained, including a narrowing of the social gap in youth violence. Considering the fairly sparse literature in this area, it is important to validate the present study by examining the role of drinking behaviour for socioeconomic differences in violence across populations that differ with respect to drinking culture, level of violence or degree of social inequality.

Acknowledgements

Data collection was funded by the Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (now incorporated in the Norwegian Institute of Public Health). The paper was prepared with funding from the Norwegian Directorate of Health and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. The authors are most grateful for the valuable comments and suggestions by two anonymous reviewers on a previous version of this paper.

Youth violence, SES and drinking behaviour 7

168 T. Norström et al.

References

[1] Blas E, Kurup AS. Equity, social determinants and public health programmes. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010.

[2] Gore FM, Bloem PJ, Patton GC, et al. Global burden of disease in young people aged 10–24 years: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2011;377:2093–102.

[3] Berg MT. The overlap of violent offending and violent victimization: assessing the evidence and explanations. In: DeLisi M, Conis PJ, eds. Violent offenders theory, research, policy and practice, 2nd edn. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012:17–38.

[4] Jennings WG, Piquero AR, Reingle JM. On the overlap between victimization and offending: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav 2012;17:16–26.

[5] Piotrowska PJ, Stride CB, Croft SE, Rowe R. Socioeconomic status and antisocial behaviour among children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2015;35:47–55.

[6] Room R, Rossow I. Share of violence attributable to drinking. J Subst Use 2001;6:218–28.

[7] Boles SM, Miotto K. Substance abuse and violence: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav 2003;8:155–74.

[8] Exum ML. Alcohol and aggression: an integration of findings from experimental studies. J Crim Just 2006;34:131–45.

[9] Giancola PR. Alcohol and aggression: theories and mechanisms. In: McMurran M, ed. Alcohol-related violence prevention and treatment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2013:37–60.

[10] Rossow I, Bye EK. The problem of alcohol-related violence: an epidemiological and public health perspective. In: McMurran M, ed. Alcohol-related violence: prevention and treatment. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2013:3–18.

[11] Zerhouni O, Bègue L, Brousse G, et al. Alcohol and violence in the emergency room: a review and perspectives from psychological and social sciences. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2013;10:4584–606.

[12] Duke AA, Giancola PR, Morris DH, Holt JCD, Gunn RL. Alcohol dose and aggression: another reason why drinking more is a bad idea. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2011;72:34–43.

[13] Bye EK, Rossow I. The impact of drinking pattern on alcohol related violence among adolescents: an international comparative analysis. Drug Alcohol Rev 2010;29:131–7.

[14] Fergusson DM, Lynskey MT, Horwood L. Alcohol misuse and juvenile offending in adolescence. Addiction 1996;91:483–94.

[15] Norström T, Pape H. Alcohol, suppressed anger and violence. Addiction 2010;105:1580–6.

[16] Due P, Krølner R, Rasmussen M, et al. Pathways and mechanisms in adolescence contribute to adult health inequalities. Scand J Public Health 2011;39:62–78.

[17] Hanson MD, Chen E. Socioeconomic status and health behaviors in adolescence: a review of the literature. J Behav Med 2007;30:263–85.

[18] Kwok KHR, Yuan SNV. Parental socioeconomic status and binge drinking in adolescents: a systematic review. Am J Addict 2016;25:610–19.

[19] Lemstra M, Bennett NR, Neudorf C, et al. A meta-analysis of marijuana and alcohol use by socio-economic status in adolescents aged 10-15 years. Can J Public Health 2008;99:172–7.

[20] Droomers M, Schrijvers CTM, Casswell S, Mackenbach J. Occupational level of the father and alcohol consumption during adolescence; patterns and predictors. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:704–10.

[21] Richter M, Leppin A, Gabhainn SN. The relationship between parental socio-economic status and episodes of drunkenness among adolescents: findings from a cross-national survey. BMC Public Health 2006;6:1.

[22] Lowry R, Kann L, Collins JL, Kolbe LJ. The effect of socioeconomic status on chronic disease risk behaviors among US adolescents. JAMA 1996;276:792–7.

[23] Legleye S, Janssen E, Spilka S, Le Nézet O, Chau N, Beck F. Opposite social gradient for alcohol use and misuse among French adolescents. Int J Drug Policy 2013;24:359–66.

[24] Janssen E. Assessing the ties of socioeconomic background and gender on the frequency and the type of alcoholic beverages consumed by French adolescents. J Subst Use 2016;21:170–6.

[25] Mäkelä P, Herttua K, Martikainen P. The socioeconomic differences in alcohol-related harm and the effects of alcohol prices on them: a summary of evidence from finland. Alcohol Alcohol 2015;50:661–9.

[26] Paljärvi T, Suominen S, Car J, Koskenvuo M. Socioeconomic disadvantage and indicators of risky alcohol-drinking patterns. Alcohol Alcohol 2013;48:207–14.

[27] Pape H, Norström T, Rossow I. Adolescent drinking—a touch of social class? Addiction 2017;112:792–800.

[28] Kraus L, Tryggvesson K, Pabst A, Room R. Involvement in alcohol-related verbal or physical aggression. Does social status matter? Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 2015;32:449–64.

[29] Collins SE. Associations between socioeconomic factors and alcohol outcomes. Alcohol Res 2016;38:83–94.

[30] Howard R, McMurran M. Alcohol and violence in developmental perspective. In: McMurran M, ed. Alcohol-related violence prevention and treatment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2013:81–102.

[31] Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A. Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. J Health Econ 2010;29:1–28.

[32] Kvaavik E, Rise J. How do impulsivity and education relate to smoking initiation and cessation among young adults? J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2012;73:804–10.

[33] Peretti-Watel P, L’Haridon O, Seror V. Time preferences, socioeconomic status and smokers’ behaviour, attitudes and risk awareness. Eur J Public Health 2013;23:783–8.

[34] White JL, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Bartusch DJ, Needles DJ, Stouthamer- Loeber M. Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. J Abnorm Psychol 1994;103:192–205.

[35] Pape H, Rossow I, Storvoll EE. Metoderapport for Skoleundersøkelsene 2004, 2005 og 2006 i tilknytning til SIRUS’ evaluering av regionprosjektet, Vol. 2007. Oslo: Statens institutt for rusmiddelforskning.

[36] Currie C, Molcho M, Boyce W, Holstein B, Torsheim T, Richter M. Researching health inequalities in adolescents: the development of the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) family affluence scale. Soc Sci Med 2008;66:1429–36.

[37] Hagquist CEI. Health inequalities among adolescents—the impact of academic orientation and parents’ education. Eur J Public Health 2007;17:21–6.

[38] Plutchik R, Van Praag HM, Picard S, Conte HR, Korn M. Is there a relation between the seriousness of suicidal intent and the lethality of the suicide attempt? Psychiatry Res 1989;27:71–9.

[39] Stanford MS, Mathias CW, Dougherty DM, Lake SL, Anderson NE, Patton JH. Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: an update and review. PersIndivid Dif 2009;47:385–95.

[40] Lance CE. Residual centering, exploratory and confirmatory moderator analysis, and decomposition of effects in path models containing interactions. ApplPsychol Meas 1988;12:163–75.

[41] Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ. Exposure to interparental violence in childhood and psychosocial adjustment in young adulthood. Child Abuse Negl 1998;22:339–57.

[42] Meltzer H, Doos L, Vostanis P, Ford T, Goodman R. The mental health of children who witness domestic violence. Child Fam Soc Work 2009;14:491– 501.

[43] Gershoff ET. Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 2002;128:539–79.

[44] Cingano F. Trends in income inequality and its impact on economic growth. Paris: OECD, 2014.

[45] OECD. Inequality 2016 [Available from: http://www.oecd.org/inequality. htm

[46] Jessor R. Risk behavior in adolescence: a psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Dev Rev 1992;12:374–90.

[47] Thornberry TP, Krohn MD. The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. Criminal Justice 2000;4:33–83.

[48] Lintonen T, Rimpelä M. The validity of the concept of’self-perceived drunkenness’ in adolescent health surveys. J Subst Use 2001;6:145–50.

8 T. Norström et al.

Youth violence, SES and drinking behaviour 169

Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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.