This is an attachment to the first post

RESEARCH REPORT

Childhood and adolescent antecedents of substance use in adulthood

Margaret E. Ensminger, Hee Soon Juon & Kate E. Fothergill

Til-- loin I'. H : ) | ) k i i i , U n .,':'> •,\\f. B . i l l i n ' ! . •?.. M D , L I V \

('onv^poiulnnr lo: ABSTR ACT VUii'iiMrcl !•'. I'ltsintiijicr

lll'LliirlNU'ltl III lll.Mllil I'diicV 4 • r,- . I •! I L 1 . 1 J r' -• 1

Aims Id examine childhood iiiitwcdcnls ol rn;jnju:iaa and cocaine use in antl Vl'iiliigi'iili'iil

Tln'Hlo,i(iihiTg,Sili.Mlur I'ublJt lliMllh ildllllhood, ilii'liihris iii)|)kiiisiiiiiv,Tsiiy l^osiyii I'pidetniiilogjcyi, liingiluditial cohorl study ol' African A m e r i c a n lirst (.24 Norlh linKidwnv gradcrs (agi' h] followed to age M. li.iiliniijR'. Ml) 1 I 2ns i i . • . . . . .1 -I J , \ r 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 c I- . . I .• 1 1

['articipiints t hildren (,\ = I 242] and lamilies in t h e ' ) / lirsl grade classrooms

Irom VVdodliuvn. an inner-city conitnunity in Chicago, l-'irst grddc teachers,

Subiiiiiirtl I i lirtcinlxT 211011: molhcrs and children provided assessments over the life course. During adult-vi.'vv .,i,ii|.kird 11 .\pril 2001: (,(,,^1, 9^2 participants were re-intcrvicwed.

.Measurements first yrade teaeher behavior ratings, rt-adiness lor school lests,

seM'-reports of adolescent drug ui:ic. s{)cial bonds and adult self-reports of drug

use were the primary variables.

I'indings Males who were boili .shy and aggressive in lirst grade were more

likely lo be adult drug users compared to those who were neitlier. Shy females

in tirst grade were less likely to he adult marijuana users than non-shy females.

Adolescent social bonds did not moderate the relationships of earlier childhood

behavior to adult drug use. Males who had a 'high/superior' readiness to learn

scores in lirst grade were less likely to be cocaine users as adults, even though

in earlier work we showed that they were more likely to initiate adolescent drug

use. i'cinales scoring as poor periormcrs in lirst grade were less likely to ever use

cocaine compared to females witti higher scores.

Conciusions The combination of sliy and aggressive behavior is an important

anieeetlent for later male drug use and may help distinguish those who will be

persistent users in adulthood from those who experiment in adolescence.

K E Y W O R D S African Ameriean. aggressive and withdrawn behavior,

cocaine use, etiology, longitudinal sludy, school achievement, st)cial bonds.

INTRODUCTION adolescent social bonds predicted drug use in adolescence.

in this paper we extend these inquiries into adulthood.

I'oliey makers often describe drug use as a crucial issue We examine two fretjucntly cited risk factors for drug

alfectiiig thehciiltli and wellheinj; wilhiii inner-city com- use across tfie life course: antisocial or aggressive hehav-

mimities. However, few studies have focused on examin- ior and school achievement, further, we examine the

ing either the £-ourse of drug use or the etiology of drug combination of sliy and aggressive behavior as a risk

use within such populaiions. hi this study we follow a factor for adult drug use. In addition, we lest the hypoth-

cohorl of inner-city children inio adulthood in order to esis that social bonds during adolescence may moderate

imderstand better the antecedents of drug use within the relation between childhood antisocial behavior and

such populaiions. In previous work with this population, later adult drug use,

we found that aggressive and shy-aggressive behavior The cohor! of children that we follow hegan lirst grade

m lirst iirade, readiness for school at an early age and in VVoodlawn, an inner-city community in Chicago in

' • 2 0 ( 1 2 S o r i n y ( o r l f i r . S i i i d y o f . A d i l i i - l i u n I n . \ k ' o h o l i i i i d O I I I . T D r i i j i s AMrliim 9 7 .S i i - K 4 4

Rnsmitiiicr ci ai.

- 67. These cliildrcn were al bigli risk I'or drug use

Inr Ivvo rciison.s. Firstly, llic'v were at risk

hefuii.se ol' Lheir age coiiorl. 'I'hc' assessment ot iidoleseent

clruj.; use comlucled every year siiu't' 1 9 7 T by lhe

LniwrsJty ol' Michigan in lhe moiiiloringlheruture study

shows lliiil lhe Iwo liigliesl years of illicit ilrug use by

Ivvell'lh jiraders iialion-wide were in 197S and 147'̂ J

l|ohnslnn.()*Mailcy&i5aehrnaii 1S)99); lhe cxpeticd dale

o[ gradualiiiii from high school for Ihe VVoodiawii cohorl

was 1978.

Sceoiidly. these children were also al risk because

of Iheir residenee during iirst grade within a high-risk

commiinily. in I 9 d 5 . VVoodlawn had high rales di' u n -

einpioyment and ranked among lhe most impoverished

neighborhoods in fhicagd. Over 9 5','ii of VVoddlavvn resi-

dents were Alrican Ameriean |l)e Vise i 4 6 7 ] . Altfiough

rales oi drug use by /M'ritan Aiuerican adolescents are

less than rates ibr white ackilescents (i5achiuaii et id.

I 9 9 i | . roruparisons (if adults suggest that African

Americans develup more priiblematic use during

adult hood li ietd l9S(i: National institute (if \h-ug

,'\bi.ise I 9 9 i | . C'oniparistms ol' the adull drug use oi'

the VVnodlawn population with a ruitiotuil population

of their age cdiiorl. assessed in the NalioTia! LS C'li-

morbictity Stutly (Kessier ct (//. 1994). showed that the

pasl year prevalence of the two mosl widely used illicit

drugs, marijuana and cocaine, were considerably iiigher

within the VVoodlawn populatinn. tiieir lil'c-timeand past

year priivaieneeoi' heroin was higher, and that their lirug

use was more problematic in terms of rales oi' abuse and

dependence (ijisininger. Anlhony & Met\)rd i 9 9 7 i .

Many stLklies have examined cither ronciu'rent iir lon-

giludinal predictors uf adoleseenl drug use, but i'ewcr

stutlies have examined eansal iniluences irom childhood

to adulLhoiid. One dl' the most cdnsistent findings in Lhe

IdiigHndinal studies of drug use that do span this age

range is that addlesccnt aiul adult drug use is preeeded

by a history of ciutdhood anlisdcial bebavior (Kdbins

196(1. I97.S; IJlock, IJIock ^i Kcyes i 9 8 « ; MeCord I98S;

Hawkins. Ciitalano & Miller 1 9 9 i ; Brook cl al. I 9 9 T ) .

Wliile less examined, some studies (including our

ovvnl have Umnd tbaL children who are botb shy and

aggressive have later risk of antisocial behavior dnring

adolescence. .Shy betiavior and aggressive behavior are

ol'leii thought td be polar tipposites, but in some chiidren

(hey docd-deeur (i.add & liurgcss 1999). iSeverai inves-

tigators lernuhisbehavi))r as withdrawn ralherLhan shy;

we use t!ie lerms interchangeably bere.l These ebildren.

while lacking in sneial contael wiLh others, engage in

behaviors thought of as aggressive, such as bitting, bul-

lying or other misbehavior. Shy or withdrawn behavior

withoul aggression is protective I'or later drug use or

otber aiitisoeial behavior Ilinsminger el al. i 9 8 5: Kerr

el il/. 1497); bowever. the combination df withdrawn

(shy) behavior w i t h aggressive behavior is assoeiated

with higher levels df drug use and delinquency in

ad(.)lescence ll''nsminger ct al. 19S J; Kellam H al. 198 5:

Moskowitz. Schwarlzman ^ l.edingham 19SS; I5loek

etal. l9HS;McCdrd. 198N: Kerr c( <!/. 1997).

1'he adoleseent period is a peak time in the life eourse

I'or bdth drug use and delinquent aetivities. and with

Ihe transitidii to adullh(Hid lhe prevalente o[' anti-

sticial behavior declines (Ilirschi & llditlredsoti I9N5:

VVdlfgang. Thornberry & I'iglio 1 987: Mol'litt I 99 5: Chen

c-v Kandel 1995: DeWi! cl al. 19951. Some evidence sug-

gesls that those who continue having behavior problems

sueh as drng abuse as adults have distinet characterislits

eompared to those wiidse problems are limited to adti-

lesccnce. Moffiti's ( i 99 5| developmental theory, for

example, distinguishes 'life-course-persistent' antisocial

behavior IVdm 'addlesccnce-limited' anlisoeial bebavior.

She propcises thai Ihe majorily of adolescent antisocial

behavior is lemptirary. beginning and ending in adoles-

cence, but tbat ibere are some teens wtiose antisocial

behavior is rooted in cbildbood problems, and these teens

are more likely to continue wilh antisocial behavior inlo

adulthood.

In this paper, we focus tin whether ehildhoiid anli-

soeial behavior, parlicnlarly the combinatitin o! shy and

aggressive bebavior. increases the risk of marijuana use

and eoeaine use in young adulthotid. We hypothesize

that the early combination of shy/wilbdrawn bebavior

and aggressive behavior is one of lhe early risk faelors

that distinguishes among ttiose who continue w i l h anti-

social bebavior. including drug use. and tfiose whodcmoi

(in .Moflit's lerms, the lil'e course persisienl versus Ihc

adoleseent limiteiil.

We also examine whetber soeial bonds during ailoles-

eenee predict adult drug use and/nr serve as moderator

ol' the relalionship helween early aggressive or shy-

aggressive behavior and later substanee use. Aeeording

U) social control thetiry. sirong !ies to sticielal institutions

such as I'amily. sehool, or work decrease the likelihood

that individuals will engage in deviant behavior (Ilirschi

19641. Social bonds during adolescence may inlkienee

drug use behaviors in several ways. I'irst, strong soeial

bonds increase the likelihood of monitoring by teacliers

and i'amily members, w b i d i would alfecl bolh laler inili-

ation (or no initiation) and less use of ilJieit stibstances.

Secondly, tbe mutual responsibilities entailed by strong

ties to school and I'amily lead t(t more self-regulation of

bebavior. I'here is ample evidence that social bonds

(family bonds, school bonds, and parental supervision!

during adoleseenee intluences adolescent drug use

(Rnsminger. Hrown & Kellam 1982: Klliott. Hui/inga

& Ageton 1985; White, i^andina & l.aCrange I9S7:

Hawkins c( ((/. 1999, 1992).

'I'he quest ion is whether adolescent bonds continue lo

•c 201)2 Socjflv ibr Ihc Study of Addifliiiii lo Alfohol and Other . 97. SH S44

Anleeedents of adult stibstiwte use

remain iniporlttiil as itilluL'nccs on aduli drug LI.SL". Both

sthool iiiid I'tiniily rcprL'scnl iniporluril social inslitulions

Ibr aciolL'sc[?nls. hul doe.s lhe imptift of these adolcsft^nt

lies l;isl into adttllhood? Adok-sfciit social bonds may

inllucncc adull drttg use by setting a trajcetory leading

to etlttcational achieveiiient and family tics ttiat would

itthibit the initiittion or roniinuatioti of drtig use as an

adult. Kesearcfi has demonstrated tliat aduli soeial ties

are relatetl to aiittit ri.sk htihaviors (Lewis & Rook 1944:

Hinberson 1487: Satiipsort & Latib I ')4<)). btit few studies

liavr looked at ihe lons^itudinal effeet of adoieseent soeial

ties on subsequent tlrtig itse in adultbood. An important

exei'ption is Brunswick's prospecti\'e sltidy of African

.American adolesceiUs (Brunswick, .Messei & Titus I 9921.

which Ibtmd that adolescent lies to relij^ioiis institutions

were protective against hea\y drtig tise in adultbood.

I'urthermore, tliere is iittle research on adolescent

social bonds as a moderator ot the relationship hetween

childhood risk factors and adult drug use. There is sotne

evidence that adtilt siicial honds moderate childhood pre-

diciors of adult deviant behaviors. Sampson & l.anb

I I 9901 have showi! thiit children Iblkiwetl longi!it(iinally

were less likely to con tin tic in deviant behavior ii they haci

adult social attacliments to jobs atul spouse iiiui commit-

ment toeilucational. work and economic goals.'I he Social

ncvciopment VloLlel (Catalaiio î Hawkins 2I)(I()). whicb

synthesizes social control, social learning aitd differential

assoeiation theories, also supports the hypothesis that

adolescent social honds would nioderale the impact ol

early chiklhood risk laetors on adult substaiu e use.

Poor s( hool performance has been linked Irequently to

tlie initiation of drug use in adolescence (|obnston I 97 i:

Kandel 1978: Kandel. Kessler^ .Viarguiies 1978)- I'ariier

lindings irom the VVoodlawn sttidy showed the opposite

relationship. We Ibund that liiiiher school-readiness test

scores in lirst grade were associated with earlier initiation

of alcobol aitd niiirijiiana use and delinquency in

adolescence (ijisrninger et ul. I 9 S J : I'leniing. Kellani &

BrovMi I9N21. In reporting ihese results, we speculated

that ebikiren wlio were more ready Ibr (irst grade tasks

might also be more ready ti) initiate drug use earlier as

part of adolescent experimentation, hut would not be at

risk lor heavy drug use ov continuation of drug tise. We

now have tbe data to test this speculation. In tbi.s paper,

we will examine wbetber school readiness test scores are

rehited to substance use in young adtilthood and, if so, if

tbe relationship is reverseil from tbe earlier (inding.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

'I'he analyses are designed lo iinswer the following qtiestions:

I Does early childhcmd beha\'ior, particularly the cotnbi-

nation of shy and aggressive behavior, increase the iike-

lih{)od of substance use in adultbood.-

2 Do family and school bonds in adolescence decrease

the likelihood of drug use in adultbood.^

5 Do lamily and school bonds moderate lhe relationship

between early ehiidhood aggressive behavior or the com-

bination of shy and aggressive behavior and adult sub-

stance use.'

4 i)o high readiness lo learn scores in lirst grade, wbich

increased the risk of drug use in adolescence, cotitiiiue lo

inlinence tlriig use in adulthood.'

METHODS

Study design and data collection

Tbe priispective study started in i 9hh-h7 in W(H)dlawn.

an inner-city neighborhood on the south side of Chieago,

VVoodlawn was the tilth poorest of tbe 7h Chicago

neighborhoods when the study began: however, there

was diversity within the neighborhooi! w i t h pockets of

middle-class residents who owned their own homes and

had steady employment. Virttially all the residents

of Woodlawn were African American. Nearly all lirst

graders ( f i = 1 2421 iiUhe nine public and three parochial

schools in tbe fhicagii neighborliood of Woodlawn were

enrolled in tbe study. There were I 5 families who did not

consent for their child to he included in the project.

Teachers assessed the children three times in lirsl grade,

and mothers also provided ratings of their lirst graders in

a home interview iKellam et id. 197S),

In I 9 7 5 - 7 h , when lhe children were teenagers, they

and their mothers were reintervieweii. The detailed

methodology for tbis follow-np has been published else-

where (Kellani, llnsminger ^ Simon 1980: Knsminger

149(1). In terms of attrition bias, we Ibtind that mothers

not reassessed were more likely to have been teen parents

and to have moved frequently before the child was in (irst

grade, but otherwise they were not different from the

mothers we assessed. We (bund no signidcant dilTerenccs

in the early child behavior ratings or psychological well-

being between the teenagers who were interviewed and

those who were not (Kellani el dl. I 480: Hnsminger cl til.

19821.

In 1492-9 i we again tracked the cohort at age 12.

The aim was to rcinterviewall 1242 original participants

regardless of where they lived: lOJS (8 },S%| were

located successfully. Of these. 9S2 were re-interviewed,

59 refused to participate, 44 were tieccascd and three

were (00 incapacitated to participate. The young adults

who were interviewed were compared to those not

interviewed in terms t)f their (Irst grade and adolescent

characteristics to examine attrition bias, Inhere were no

.\ilitpi1juii In .•\ildinioii. 97. S i i-S44

8 56 Manjiircl i:. Ensuiiuiicr

dilTcrences between the individubils who were ynd were not interviewed iii tidLiltliood in terms of their mothers' cdtieiitioruii uttiiirnnenl. their mothers' age :it lirst birth, Lhe lirst grade teachers' behavior ratings or adolescent dru^ use (hlnsmiTiger cl ui 1497; |uon & linsminger I 997l.'rheydiddiircrbv their poverty stat us in lirst grailc and latnily type, 'I'hose in fauiilies who were living below tlie ol'tieial poverty line in first grade (7V,'ijl were less likely lo be iiucrvicwed than thi>se who were not (8 \".'>,). "Those who were interviewed were more likely to eome from mcither-i'athcr I'auiilics 18 i",i>\ than those who were nol (7V;;il. These dilTerenees were relatively small, but statistically signilieant.

Interviews eondueted with the young adidts lasted between 40 minutes and J hours and included questions on laniily, work, erimirud activity, health, neighborh(H)d eharaeteristies. social support, psychiatric symptoms and sell'-reporLs of drug and alcohol use. The National Opinion Research Center eondueted the interviews Ibr the study. Interviewers were trained extensively hoth in iiUer\iewing skills and in location and reeruitment ol'the cohort, Viosi interviewers lived in the Chicago area, and all were AlVican .American.

Measures

.•\diiil subsluiicc use measures were based on self-reports of drug and alcohol u.se obtained irom the adulis in 1942-4 5 with Ihe Miehigan version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (Cll)ll, which was useil in Ihe Nalional i!S Co-Morbidity Study (Kessler cf ai 19441 to assess psychiatric diagnoses and substance use disorders among a nationally representative sample. The queslions focused on age of initiation, frequency, quan- tity ol use and abuse and dependence. I'or this paper, we locus on uiarijuana and cocaine use, Kesptiridents were asked how often they bad ever used marijuana in their life-time and how often they had done so in ihe past year, A three-eategiiry variabie was created that classilied respondents according to whether they had never used marijuana, had used marijuana but not in Ihe past year (previous userl or had used (narijmina in the past year (current user), A siuiilar \'ariable wasereuted for cocaine (see Knsminger ct ui 194f>, for a more detailed deserip- tion of the alcohol anil drug use measure}. We foeus on previous use as well as current use so we can examine tbe hypothesis of adtilescent bmitcd drug use compared tn persistent drug use into adulthood,

Adok'scciil nuirijuuiiu use was measured by asking ado- lescents the frequency of using marijuana during the past month and in their life-time. We use the life-time reports here. Adolescents could choose from six cate- gories ranging from never (= 11 to tnore than 40 times (r-- (-,]. 'î hc responses were tJien divided into three cate-

gories based on distribution in this cohort: 0-2. 5-i4 times and more tban 40 times. These categories eorre- spond to low, moderate and frequen! use. The frequencies of these respoiisi^s are shown in Table f for males and females,

I'irsl ijradc lUjijrcssm' bchuvior uiul shij bcliuvior were

assessed by tcacfiers' ratings of the student's social adaptation to the classroom. The leacher's observa- tion of elassroom adaptation (TOCAI contains rating scitlcs ill live different domains: achievement, concentra- tion, social withdrawal (sbynessl, authority acceptance (aggression! anii maturity. These live domains were designed originally by teachers as being important indi- cators of how the child was doing al adapting to lirst grade (Kellam cl ul. I97S), Children rated as aggressive, shy, or those rated as both shy and aggressive were com- pared with those rated as neither shy nor aggressive (see fable 11,

h'irsi (jnidc iiiclropolitaii rcadiucss lesl IMRT) is a s t a n -

dardized test used to measure a child's readiness for scbool learning by scoring the I'hild's initial responses to the cognitive tasks of lhe classroom (Anastasi 1968). It was administered either by the (irst grade teachers or seliooi staff in the public schools, Tbe test designers (lelined the MKT levels of readitiess: unready, low normal, average, high normal and superior. We combined high/normal and superior scores (see Table 1),

.'\dalcscciit sociul bonds were measures of the teenager's attachments and commitments to two imptirtant social contexts ol' adolescence, family and sclmol, I'lirentiil supervision ol' drug use was also included, Stlwol bonds (tive Items, alpha = 0,6N) rcllected the teenager's attach- ments and commitments to sdiool (i.e. how important is doing well in school, how do your teachers think you are doing, how satisfied are you with your teachers' opinion, how far would you like to g<i in sehool. and how far do you think you will go in sehool), h'(unihi bands Itbree items, alpha = 0,76) were reports oi ieenagers ahout their family attachments {i.e, enjoy being witii members of family, how your parents think you are doing at bome, antl how satislicd with yvur parents' opinion of bow you arc doing). These measures were dichotomized as liigh and not high, l\nvi!Ud snpcrviHioii (three items, alpha = 0,641 asked teenagers what kinds of rules their parents have about their use of (I} beer and wine, (21 drugs and ( J) eigarettcs. Responses ranged from parents absolutely forbidding the use to leaving the decision up to tbe ad{)- leseiMit, Tbese three items were summed together Io uiake a parental supervision on drug rule seale from > to 18, Th{)se who scored about a balf standard deviation above the mean were considered to bave high parental super- vision (see Table 1).

Iwuihi kiihiivund ineluded measures of poverty and residential mobility based on mothers' reports. The ofli-

I i .SoLit̂ l> Inrlhf Sillily nl' .Xtldirtioii lo Ak'ohiil <ind 01 her •\,klh-lui}}. 4 7 , ^ S 5 H44

Antecedents of adult suhstamr use 8 17

Table I C h i k i h o o l rtnd ."idolescent

'intecedenl^. .ind .idult ^ubitanrc uic, by

."•cndcr

Femaler, (%) A'lci/cs i%) p-vclue

l--t fyadc . , 0 - 1242)

Family backj;i"Qund

p!;ver ty ir'dex, 1967 I'below poverty)

Moljilily, biiih to 196/ C'- +)

C'"'ildhood behavior

•leithi^r :,h/ rior .lgtye'v'iivf?

•v.y nnlv

iy,gi p-.sive oniy

i"x')th sh/ .md dggre'̂ sive

M l ! i ^(orcb ('. ^ 1029;

rnndture

',)A' . O'TTl.ll

. i v e i ,v-]i?

iii:nn al/;upcTior

Adolcsce-:c (n = 705)

I :ig'"̂ •KhccI bonds

Hifh ramily Donds

|-'.'ient(il iJiJcrvision

l-l;?,h Tiariiuana u^e ('10+;

50 7 3fi,b

49 0

16.-1

14,2

10'-

16.6

38.6

32.4

12.4

56.1 44.1

44 8

16.3

20.1

[ 8 9

17.6

4 ' ; 0

26.2

1 Li

0.06 <0.05

<O.OI

0.09

39.7

41.?;

1 1.4

34.6 52.2

2fl8

2h7

<O.OI <O.OI

<0.OI

<O.OI

M.̂ n|Lia-"'a use

neve'

|iievifiu^. user

r.iirient use"

Cocairie use

novel

|i'"evious L.ser

(Ul lenl usei

'1 /.6 "37. :

15.3

79.4

111

7.5

37.5 37.9

24.6

70.2

18.0

1 1.8 <0.01

ciiil l.S gdVLTtiMicMi di'linilioti ol povLTly based on house- hold income iind liimily size vviis used. .Mobility was measured as Ibc luiniber (if limes <\ child's residence eluuiged trom birlli Id lirsl grade, (.liildren wbo moved Iwo or more limes before iirsi griitie were considered mobile (see Table ! ).

Analyses

I'irsily, we exriinlne Ihe relations ol" early first grade bebavior. adolesceni iTiarijuana use and adolescent soeial bonds lo fater marijuana and coe;iine use in adulthtiod in inullivariate logistic analyses. We ais{) Ies! for iiiler- actions belween the early first grade behaviors and ado- lescent soeial bonds in relation to later drug use. We iben examine tlie relation ol' early ilnidbood readiness lo iearn and adull dru;; use In hivariate and mullivariate analyses.

.All analyses were performed for males and females separately for several reasons. I-'irsI, otber investifiators bavc emphasized Ibe need lor examining; Ibe etiology of drng use separately for nudes and females (Dunean H al. 1^97; Newfomb 1997). Secondly, for several import;int

predictors tfiat we study (lirst grade aggressive and shy behavior, soeial bunds and adolescent drug use), the fre- quency of lhe responses and the pattern of Ihc responses differ for males and females (see Table 11. Thirdly, in pre- vious analyses of Woodlawn data, males and females differ in iheir eliology of drug use. I'or example, lirst gntde aggressive and sliy and aggressive behavitir biis been relaled lo adolescent subsiance use, delinquency and sebool dropoul for boys bul nol Ibr girls (linsminger (•/ al. i4SJ; Kellam [•( al. 19S3; IJisminger, lamkin & [acobson 1 99fi|. Family bonds were related to adolescent subslance use for females bul nol males (Hnsmiiiger ctd/. 19S i). Ik'cause of Ibesc pasl ctiological differences, we bave stratified the analyses by gender.

Longitudinal sludies always eneounter some missing data problems, mosl ofien because of allrition. One nielboJ for di'aling with missing dala is Ui delete all eases for which dala are missing, whicb deereases the sample si/e and use of available data signilieanlly. In some analy- ses we have calegorized tbose who were missing as one of the data categories that is analyzed. Thus, we can sec whelher Ihe missing category is significant in tbe analy- ses. When the missing data are not signiHcant. eonclu-

2iUl2 Sofk-ly Ibr llR'Siuily nl .Addii-liun In .\lL-nliol aiul 1)1 h e r ii. 4 7 . K i i - S 4 4

8 5N r.. I'.nsmingi'rei al.

sions can be drawn with some ;isstir;inct' ihat iittrilion is not hiiising Ihc rcsuils. ['Or (liosc iiiUilysL's in vviiicii l\]f inissing d;itii fiilcgnry is signilicant. we nceci lo L-oncltjdc lh;it those pnrliriptinls wJio were nttl iisscsscd ;il ;i spe- cilie pdinl dilTered on tlie ottteome hcing exiimined.

For tlie iidiileseenl mcasnrcs. we crcalcd un additionai eatcgory ol" missing Ibr tluise wlio did not eonipletc an adolesfcnt iiilervievv but ediiipleted an atlult interview (II == tS il. These respondents were ineluded in the analy- ses by creating it inissinj; data eategory Ibr aM adiileseent variabies in order to eotitrol Ibr any bias related io noL completing an adolesecnl interview: We perlbrnied \wo dilTerent sets of atialyses: 1 1) including respondents present al all three time points in = bOO): and |2l Inelud- ing responilcnis interviewed in adulthood with an adciitioiial eategory of missing in adoleseenee {n = 4^2] lor those not assessed during adolescence. These sets of analyses were eoiiipared to ensure that any assoeiation between early eharaeteristies and iaicrdrtig tise would be eonseri'ative. In the analyses tfuiL ineiuded adolescent missing category, no dilYerenees ol' Ihe eslimales ol otids ratio were noted (results nol shown).

RESULTS

Frequency of youny adult drug use

Of the 4S2 young adults, ahotil 20';;. were eurrent mari- juana usiTs. )7.S"'i. were previous users ILhey had u.sed niarijuana but not in the past year) and 42.H"i, reported ihey had never tised marijtiariii. Vor eoeaiiie tise, \l)% were ctirrcTit cocaine tisers, ! S% were prev ious users and 7S'!'i) reported ihey htui never used cocaine. Males were more likely than females io be ctirrcTit inariiiiana i25".i males. 1 SVii females) and ciK'aine users (i 2";) males. H% fenialesl.

Shy/aggressive behavior, adolescent school bonds and drug use in younj- adulthood

We examine lirst whether adolesccn! social bonds oiotl-

erale the relations between lirsl grade behaviors and

young adult nse. None of the interactioti terms lor

Tnales or females was signiticant. so we did not include

these inienietions in the mnltivariak' tnoLtels o\' stib-

stanee tise.

Mariiutum use

The multivariate analyses of predictors of adult mari- juana and cocaine use include the shy-aygrcs.sive be- havior from lirsl. grade, adolescent school bonds and adi>lescent mariitiana tise. Parental supervision, family

bonds and sehotil bonds were highly intercorrelated so we ran separate multivariate tests Ibr eaeh one without the other two. We ordy diseuss here the resulls for school bonds. We also ran two separate mtiltivariate analyses to lest the effect o\' parental supervision and tamily hoTids. I'amily poverty and family mobility from lirst j;rade were included as eoTitrols.

Male iidult use oj iiuiriiwuni. In the multivariate analysis, both the eotnbinaticin of shy/withdrawn and aggres- sive behavior in childhood and adolescent marijtiana tise were assoeiated with mak^ adult marijtiana nse, while ad{)!csccnt school bonds were not assoeiated (see Table 2). Those males raied as both shy aiid aggressive in childhood were more likely than those who were neither to be etirrent marijtiana tiscrs (OK = 2.66] than pre\ ions users in adullhood. Maie adults whti hat! used marijuana more than 41) times tiuring adiilescence (heavy iisersi were more likely to be previous users of marijuana (OK = i.4S) or eurrent users (OK = 4.40) compared to those who liatl used marijuana 0 - 2 times (low users) as an adoleseenl. Those who had used marijnana three to

59 times during adolescence (moderate users) were more likely lo he previous users eompared lo those who were low users as adolescents (OK = J.Sfi). Neither of ihe family background \ariables were asstieiatcd with adtill

marijuana tise.

I'e)}uile (tduh use of iiianjmuui. In the multivariate analy- sis, shy behavior in lirst grade and adolescent marijuana use were assiieialed with female marijuana use in adtilt- hood. Those rated as shy were less likely to be a eurrent marijuana user than a previous user in adullhood (OK = i).2h\. eompared to those rated as neither shy nor aggressive in tirsi grade. Adult females who were heavy users of marijuana as an adolescent were more likely to reporl beinga curreni user (OK = (>.69) than a never user, eompared lo those with low use as an adolescent. Those who were moderate marijuana users during adolescence were also more likeiy lo he a current user (OK = 2.98) or a previous user (OK = 2.46) than a never user, in comparison to low users in adolescence. Adolescent school bonds were associated marginally: those Ibmales with low bonds lo schoi)! as an adoleseent were more likeiy to currenlly be using marijuana a( age 52 than those with high bonds (OK = 2.17. /' = 0.05 5) (see Table 2].

Although nol shown here, we suhstituted parental stipervision or faniily bonds for school bonds hi separate analyses. 'The lindings were similar in that neither parenlai supervision nor family boiids were related to marijuana use among adult males, but family bonds were proteetive against marijuana use among adult females at a marginal />-level value (OK = 1.76, p = 0.1)5 !).

21)02 Sociciv i u r l h c S l i i i l v of A d i i i r h o n io A\ca\m\ ;iiul D I I U T l)rus;s Aildii'thni 97. S 1 i-S44

AnU'cedcnls of luiull siih.slancc usi' H

Table 2 Odds ratios of the effects of iamily background, childhood behavior, school bonds, and adoiescenl marijuana use on adult

rr,,ii iju.ina use '.>y .jendei:

rarriily uatiigi ound

Poverty index ! i

MobilityT

(_hildhood bc^i.ivioi

neitnor i = Oj

ihy onlv

a.ijgressive only

Doth

School Donds I'H .. 0|

lole'v; e.n'i mtir yuana

{0 2 •--- 01

,'Vlen ('n

Ckkii .•!/

cm rent

use fve,

.neve. .,'.

!.O4

[ .06

- 275)

,0,' ei lou'i

v,^ Kse f . e f q j .

0.67

0.65

OdJi, of

cu!'cn!

use (Versus

1,55

1 63

Woir)en (n =

Od(/s of

f.uncnt

use fvefsus

' " ' ' ' • ' ' " ' ' ' '

0.63

1 43

/9/i)

O(kh of

pi'.VIOUS

use (versus

nevc^u^ej ^

0.60"

0.68

Ocids of

current

use (Versus"

pievious use)

1.06

2.1 1'

.54

I.BJ

4.40

0.74 i.-13

2.66'

0.46 1 02

2 16

1.78 1.79

1.85

0,26 0.57

1.16

3 4 5'

.60

0.4 7''

..27

2.98''

6.69'

2.46^

2.28'

37

I 21

2,94''

0 '0: ;̂ < COS • n ..: 0,01

Ctxuinc use

Bcfausc of snuill numbers of cticainc users, we compare current users to never users und previous users to never users, und we exclude the comparison of current users to previous users. As with theiiutilysisof miirtjuaiiti use, we show !hc' results with school bonds in the model,

Male adiill u.se of eoeaine. ht the midtivariate ;inijiysis, btith Ibe combinatitin of sbv and aggressive behiivior in lirst yrade anci atioleseent marijuana use were associated with cocaine use in young adulthood, while adolesceni schooi bonds were no{ associated. Those rated as botb shy and aggressive were more likely to be current eoeaine users a.s jidulls (OK = i. 51) tbaTi lliose wbo were neither shy ntir aggressive in lirst grade. Those who were higti users of marijuana during adolesccucc uere more iikely to be a current cocaine user (OR = 2,56| or a previous user (OR = 2,fiSl thtin those who Iiad low marijuiina u,se as a teenager. Neither childhood poverly tuir mobility was related to adult drug use isee'l'able ]•].

Vemule adult use uf eoeaine. l-irst grade poverty und ado- lescent marijuana use were associated with cocaine use in young adult tcmales. Those who had lived in poverty in childhood were less likely to have used eoeaine in adulthood (previous user) than those who had not lived in poverty (OR ---^ 0,28). Females who were high users of

marijuana in adoieseenee were more likely tban those wbo were low or moderate marijuana users to be a current cocaine user (OR - 4.(->\\ or previous cociiine user (OR = 4.7()| in adultbood. I lowever, tirst grade shy and aggressive behaviors were not associated with adull female cocaine use, Adolesceni. school bonds were associated marginally with previous use ol' cocttine (OR = 2.1 J,/;<(),()S),

In two separate muitivariate analyses we substituted parental supervision or family btinds for school bonds, rind tbe lindings remained similar. Thai is, for males neither of the honds was related to adult cocaine use. For females, those with bigb family bonds were more likely to be a never user tban a previous user, while females with low parental supervision in adolescence were more likely to be a current user tban a never user (OR = S,69) (these results are nttt sbown).

First tirade readiness lo learn (MRTj seores and

adult drutj use

We eondueted separate multiviiriate analysis of first grade MRT scores on adult drug use, controlling for family background and adolescent marijuana use. MRT scores were not related to adult marijuana use and those results are not shown here. MRT seores were associated witb aduU eoeaine use. For males, those with high normal/superior MRT scores were less likely to be current

S,jci.'lylorIlu',Slui;lyiir A ID Alcohol ijiid OIIUT Aihiinion. y?, K i 5 - « 4 4

8 4 0 Margaret I'., i'.nsmingcr el u\.

T a b l e 3 O d d : , raiios o f t h e effects o f family background, childhood behavior: ;>chool bond^, and ddolescenl maniuana use on adult cocaine

use by j^encl-ei.

iniiiy bdc kgrOLind

Povorly index, 9 6 /

M o o i h ! / , t j i r l n t o 1967 ("3 +)

Men

d'ds of aneiit VVISU\ IH'W! ii'S

09

C h i l d h o o d Dehavior neither shy :ior aggressive

shy onlv

aggressive onlv

b o t h shy and aggressive

School hnnds (high - 0)

'ovy/mcdium

Ac^olescent mannjana use

(0 / limes ^ 0)

3- 39 times

4 0 + times

1,60

1.68

•i 5 r

1 0/

1 93

2.56'

Odd-, Of

0.80

0.96

0.83

1.84

0,97

Wonien (n = 296)

"eviOLi's (jse Cki:ls oi current use

't-f ;j.s-e) l','er:,US nevtf USe)

2.65

0S5

0.39

0,57

65

I 6 /

4.61'

Odds 0,'

0.95

0.67

1.15

1.89

2 . ' 3

4 /a

(I <- O . i O : ;- •.. O.OI

i'n =- 363)

MRT scales

lmiTi,ilure ( -

1 o w norm-ii

Averag;^

0 ]

Oa<k at

curreri!

use ('ve,'SL.'s

n<yv! LAf-;

0./9

0.90

OdLh ol j)>ev!oui

use (versus

liVVC U\<C)

1 )(>

1.05

Odns 0 cu'ieu!

L(se (w

p!ev:ou

0 6]

0 86

li,qn noi-mal/su|5erior 0 I / ' 2 19 O.O

HT'I ;'n = 39

Odds o; O d N

0,8/

use (v'ecsiJ^

r/evef use)

4.65' 6 40'' 5.68'

0 10, ','••• OD'.i î .i ,;r,id" povei : / ,inr| i-'obilrty j n 4 ,i(lolc-,:ciT. mj'i|u.in,i use.

T a b l e 4 O d d s ratios of the effect o l l i i - , ! -

O'Vide reading readiness scores ( M i l l ) o n

adult cocaine use by gender

cdcaine users t.han those wilh the lowest scores

(OR = O.Ofil. I'or i'cnmles. those who seored in the lowest

catt;gory (i.e. immature) were k̂ ss likely to he a previous

eoi'aine ust-r than Ihose in the highei- eategories (see

Table 4),

Summary (il findings

1 Adoleseents who had used marijuima Trequently were more likely than adtiiescents who were never or less Ire- queni users lo use marijuana und eoeaine as adults. This was true Ibr hoth males and Icmales.

2 iuirly aggressive behavior was not assoeiated direetly with either marijuana use or cocaine use Ibr male or female adults. I lowever. males who were rated as hoth shy ami aggressive in lirst grade were more Ihan two

times as likely to he current users of marijuana in adult- htiod eompared to those who were neither shy nor aggressive. I'irsI grade males who were both shy aiid aggressive also had Ihree times lhe odds of being a eurrent eoeaine user as an adull than those who were neither shy nor aggressive in lirst ynide. Ciiven Ihat adoleseent drug use was included in lhe mndel. these resulls indicale lhe importance of shy and aggressive behavior in inilueneing drug nse beyond adoleseenee.

^ I'emales rated as shy in lirst grade were iess likely to be current marijuana users as young aduits than females who were neither shy nor aggressive in childhood. 4 Adoleseent soeial honds were related to adult mari- juana aTid eoeaine use ibr females |at a p < II. Id level), but noi for males. More speeilieally. sehool bonds, lamily

21)02 Siwiflv lor 11 If Sluily o\' A d d i d i n n l o A l and (IIIKT \ '\iklh'lioii. 4 H44-

Antecedents of adult substance use 841

bonds and ptirental supt'rvision during adolescence were proleclive iigainst ll-malc drug use.

T There was no evidence that adolescent social bonds modi'rtitcd ihc relalionship of early lirsl gr;idc be- havior with later adult drug use Ibr eitlicr males or lemalL's.

fl Males who had 'high/superior' readiness Lo learn scnrcs in lirsl t^raile werr much it'ss likely thaii those who IUKI 'inmialnre' readiness to learn scores to be current cocaine nsers as aclults. The lindings were reversed for tile fetnales—females seorinji in the immature rant^e in lirst grade were less likely to repor! ever using cocaine compareil to lemales with hight-r rcaditu'ss to learn scores.

As indicated in lhe above summary statements, pat- terTis of relationships differed ibi' males and lemales.

While not a main researeh L]uesiion. we did iind that early childhooii pnvcrty vvas proteciive for females, both with regarii to use of marijuana and cocaine.

DISCUSSION

This researc'h extends our longitiuiinai study of a cohort o!' African Americans Irtim Woodlawn. ('hicag<i. Having begini our research when this poiiidatidii was in tirst grade, we now e\|ilore facUirs that increase ihe risk of drug use in young adulthood. In particidar, we in\esli- gate whether lhe risk factors we identilied when Ihe cohort vvas in adoleseenee conlinni. lo increase tlie like- lihood of drug usv in young adidthood.

Allhougii we lound previously thai childhood aggres- sive behavior inereased Ihe likelihood of drug use among iTiale teenagers, we do not lindil lo be related signilieantly fo atlult drug use lor eilher mak's <;r lemales. Whatever impac! of early aggressive bchav ior on later adnll drng use Ihere is. il appears to be medialed ihnmgh its initial impael on adoleseenl drug usi;. Tiiere seems lo he no additional diR-cl contribution.

1 lowever, we diii lind Ihat Ihc combination ol' aggres- sive and shy behavior continues to inerease Ihc risk of male drug use in adulthood, suggesling that it not (inly inlluences indirectly adult drug use through adoleseent ilriig use. but also contributes directly to atlnl! tirug use for [nales. This is an important tinding since \'c\v studies have examined the impact of this conihination o( behaviors, and fewer ha\'c examined it prospcttively for JS years. These data suggest that thi- combination of shy and aggressive behavior is an indicalor of who will become a 'persislent' rather than an 'adoleseenl limiletl' (using Moflit's terminology} user as an adull.

The iinilings Ihat the niities with the i-ombination of shy anti aggressivL> behavior had j!,reatcr risk of ilrug problems in ailulth<iod ma\ liave Sk'verai explanations.

First, these results are consistent with lhe notion that multiple risks increase an individual's vulnerability IRultcr 1980; SamerolT et al. 1993). A second explana- tion, as suggesled hy Ladd & Burgess (1999). is Ihat others may interpret aggressive behavior wilh with- drawn heliavior differently Ihan aggressive behavior alone. 'J'hat is. when individuals are both aggressive and withdrawn, others may perceive the withdrawn hehavior as a sign of arrogance or conlempl for others. This may set up a pattern of difticull relalionships with leachers and peers that persists across the life course with impli- cations for relationships during adulthood. Thirdly, the [)resenceof withdrawn hehavior may signal other delicits that inereaselhe likelihood of eonlinued problems. Those who are bolh withdrawn and aggressive may be laeking social skills that inhibit their relationships with others. In turn, this would decrease the expectations and obliga- tions that others have for them. Roth the secfind and third explanations are consistent with earlier lindings that children who are witlidrawn and aggressive lended to develop relational difliculties with teachers and peers li.add & iiurgess 1999). We suggest that these relational difficulties persist across the life eiiiirsc and are related to the piTsistetice of drug use during adulthood,

Childhood shy hehavior. which was protective during adolescence for males, Init not females, is protective lor adult lemales. It appears that shyness did nol hincicr adolescent cxperimentatitm among these females (as it did anmng the males), but it did decrease their chance of conlinuing marijuana use in young adulthood. Shy behavior may solicit protectiveness trom others in the environmen!. In addition, those who are shy may be more anxious about Iheir interpersonal hehavior and this might translate into a relnclance to engage in hehavior ihat is perceived as tlangerous or deviant. Kerr ct ai (1997) argue thai lhe proteetive parl of shy heliaviiir is hchavioral inhibition. Behavioral inhibition may de- crease the risk of antisoeial behaviors hy interfering with exposure to deviant peers and by inereasing the anxiety or fear surrounding participating in strange or new activ- ities, as snggested above.

llxplanalions by Kerr ct al. (1997) imply thai while shy behavior results in behavioral inhibition, there may be dilTerent elTeels from 'withdrawn' hehavior as indicaletl by a lack of social interactitins. Thus the consirncis of shy and withdrawn may be contbnnded. Measures of shy behavior may nol ditferentiaie these two aspeds. Withdrawn behavior may be nn)re likely to be measnred when I'hildren were rated as heing both shy anil aggressi\'c while behavioral inhibilion would be lhe aspec! of the eonsiruct mosl likely when children were only rated as shy. Therefore, current measure- ment schemes should attempt to differentiate these two constructs.

2 S i i r J t ' l y I b r \ \ w S l i i d v o l . X i l i l i c l i i i n t o \ l i - i ) l u ) l i i i k l O l i i i T \ Aiklirlioii. 97. S i i-S44

8 4 2 Margaret K. Hnsmingcr et al.

liarlicr we found thai a child with high normal/ superior mcfropDlitan readiness tcsl (MRT) scores was at an increased risk of drug use in adolescence (Kellam (•; ((/, I 480: I'Icminy ct ai 1982|, 1'his had hcc-ii a sur- prising linding, given the exicnsivc litcriJlurc dcTnon- slrating Ihc inverse relationship bcivvccn iiUclligciicc and later drug use, and we had hypothesized that Ihis result was due to ihc priiclivity of those with higher sfores to t'xpcrinicn! wiih drugs lor a short-term perioii. The lind- ings in this paper support this hypoihesis, t'nmhininy Ihc results in this paper with our earlier tindings. tnales having high normal/superior MRT scores in childhood were more likely to initiate drugs in adolescence but were also nuirc likely tii diseiintinue this behiivior as young adults. Rather than conclutiL' 1hat school readiness in chiklhood is a risk factor lur drug use, we ean now show Ihat while it is u risk for 'iidolescent liruilCLl' initiiition til drug use, it seems In be protective in terms t>\' long-term or persisU'iil use for males,

I'or I'cntales, scoring in the lowest o\' the lour cate- gories on the lirst grade MK'!' was protective iti terms of iidult drug use. These low-scoring i'emalcs srem id have othi'r protective mechanisms ai work; other work has shown that these girls are more likely io he comiected to family and less likely to have strong peer bonds (Knsminger 19901,

In U'rms of prevention and early intervention, our results suggest that those children who exhibit both shy and aggressive behavior can be a focus of programs. Several prevention programs have targeted early aggres- sive behavior (Coic !'»9(); Kellam ^ Anthony IM9S: Kellam d al. 14981 as a risk Ibr later drug use and antisocial behavior: ihese lindings suggest that those cbiklrcn. especially males, who have both aggressive and withdrawn behavior may be important targets as well.

Several limitalions of this study should be noted. He-cause the cohiirt members were initially Irom a single comtnunity area in Chicago, we do not know whelher similar results would lie found in other populations. While Woodlawn is unique in several ways, the results we loufKl in this paper are consistent with others' lindings both from similar and dissimilar populations, HOVVCVIT, lhe generalizability of these lindings can he answered (iiily by replications in other populations from different |{)cales atui icihorts.

Sample attrition is always present in longitudinal studies, evi-n those with fairly high rates of retrieval such as ours hacj. Our analyses indicate that poverly and i'amily lypc were related lo who was ri'interviewed as adults and may inlluence the tindings, Hariy poverty was related to aduli. drug use for females, but in a contrary direction than we would have hypothesized, i.e, thtise who lived in poor i'ariiiiics Initially were less likely to be current drug users as adults. If there had been no attri-

tion bias, we might have reported even lower rates of drug use for the females. However, il is important to remember that no otber variables that we examined were related to who was successfully interviewed, including self reports of adolescent drug use, early teacher ratings of beiiavion adolescent psychological wellbeing or olher characteristics of the families (Hnsmingcr ct id. 1947: )uon ^ Mnsminger 19971,

I'inally, our assessment of adult drug use relied on self- reports which may lead to an underestimation of drug use, liarlier analyses (I'nsmingcr, Anthony & ,McCord 1497) indicated that Woodlawn study participants who reported no illicit drug use were willing to disclose antiso- cial, criminal and otherwise socially undcsirabk' eveiits, 1'herc was also relatively high agreement between oflicial crime reports am! self reports of crimijial involvement. These' lindings suggest that the study participants were willing to report many adverse behaviors, and thus increases onr conlidence in the self reports of drug use.

The strengths of the study are its initial cpidcminlogi- caliy delined cohorl nf children starting school in an inner city followed prospectively to adulthood and the generally high levels of success in locating and inter- viewing participants. Since we had a delined population to begin with we k[U)w who is missing from the atlull survey, A Hmitation of many cross-sectional surveys is that they often have high initial refusal rates: they may miss itmer-city populatitins Ihat arc likely to be mobile and/or arc incarcerated. It is difticuli in such surveys to know who is missing from the surveyed populalii>n, hecause we had a delincd cohort of lirst graders we know who was not found, who was incarcerated and who was dead. Similarly, school sur\'cys that begin later in a child's career may miss studetits who have dropped out of school or are altentling school very ini'reqtiently. This is less likely when iirst grade is the point of initial cotitad.

Ltingitudinal studies provide a rare (ipportunity to study risk behaviors over the life course. This study allowed us to examine the relation between childhood and adolescent risk factors and adult drug use within an inner-city community. Overall, we lind thai chiklln)od behavior and readiness to learn, social bonds in adoles- cence, and adolescent marijuana use are relaU'd to the risk oi' drug use in adulthotul, but Ihese risk factors vary by gender. In order to understand belter both the iiiitia- lion and maintenance (if drug use, it is critical ihat we stttdy lhe antecedents o\' male and female drug use sepa- rately and over a long period of time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is supported by National Institute of Drug Abuse DA0b6M), Vac their supporl and cooperaiion in

,Sncii'lv l(ir tlic S(inl\ of AiidiclJon In Alrolml Uiul Oilier .\d(lk-lion. 9

Aiiteecilcnts of adult substance use H4 3

this project over many years, we wish to thank the Woodlawn Community and the participants and their families. We acknowledge our colleagues |eannette liranch MA. Sheppard (!, Kellam MO and Deiian King and the Woodlawn Project Board,

REFERENCES

Ariiistasi, A. 'I'rstiiui, >rcl cdn. London:

t i a c i i r i i a r i . | , . VVutliice, | , . O ' M u l k - y , I'., i i i l i r i M n r i . \... K i i r t h , C- I,.

iX N e i y h l i i i r s . II. I 1 9 9 1} R a c i a l / t ' t h i i i c ditt'erL'nci's in s m o k i n y ,

(Iriiikint^, Liiid ilticil d r u g u s e i i m o n g A m i ' r i c i i n h i i j h s c i m i i t

s t ' i i i o r s , I ' i 7 f i - K ' - ) . .^inci-h'iiii linir!}iil ot I'libiir Ihvltli. 8 1 .

',72 577.

Btoc'k. |., ISIiick, j . & Ki-yL-H, S. i 19SS} l.nngilijdiiKilly larctL-lliiig

d r u g UNiigL' in adulcsceiiCL': farly rliikihood |X'r.si)niitil\' a n d

environmoiUat p r e c u r s o r s . ('/(//(/ Dnrlopiiii'iii, S9, 5 5(i S T T .

Urook, ). S., VVliili-i-niiii, M., Cohen, I', Sha])ir(i, \. & Ualka. \-.. ii,

11 ')')S) i.ongiliidinally prediriiii^ lali- adoti-scenl a n d vmiiiy

[HILJII d r u g use: ehitdlioiid a n d udoti'sreni preciirsors. louriuil

i>l ilu- .•\ii!t'i-iuii! l i i i i / c i ' i i y !>/ Child mid.\:!oifi(i'iu / ' s i / i / i i i i f n / . i 4 ,

\2 •,() I 2'.(•).

Hriinsvvic-k, .\., Messeri, i'. & Titus, S. I 19421 IVctlJclivf lacUirs

ill iidiitl sLilislanee a b u s e ; ,i |iros|K\'liv(^ > t̂iniv of Al'riean

.\rriiTk'iin a d o l e s c e n l s . In: (liiiiil^, M. & Tii-keiis, K.. eds.

\'uliirriibiliin u> Mnisc. pp. 41 ' J - 4 72. \Viishirij;t<in, 1)1":

Aineriiari I'syctioiogy Associalion.

t ' a l a l a n o , K, Ŝ. I h i n i i i n s , \. 1). (201)1)) The soehil developnieni

miiilei. A t h e o r y of aritisoeia! belia\'i<ir. In: i l a n k i i i s , [. I)., ed.

Di'Jiiniiii'iHii (Uiil Criiiw: Ciirrrt}! Tiiforn's. p p . 1 4 9 - 1 9 7 . \ e v v

York: C a n i b r i d j i c I n i v e r s ! l \ ' i ' r e s s .

( . ' h e n . K. & K a r u l e l , 1), l l 9 9 S | ' r h e n a U i r a l h i s t o r y lit i t r u j ; LISC>

triiin a d o l e s c e n c e i n l h e m i d I h i i l i e s in a g e n e r a l p o p u l t i l i d i i

saiTiple. .\niiriiiin lounuil oj I'uhtii lU-nlih. 8 5 , 4 I 4 7 .

(•(lie. j . t). [ t M'Kli i ' d u a r d a I h e o r y oi p e e r c e j e e l i o n . I n : A S I K T ,

S. K. i i j , I). Coil', e d s . Vvcr Rcji'diDn IJJ Chihihnod. [ip. l l i S - 5 9 8 .

N e w Y(irk: t ' a m h r i i l j i e l . i i i v e r s i l y P r e s s .

DfA'ise. P. I 1 9 6 71 Chifiuio's \\ iilcnhuj Culm- Cap. i n l e r l l n i v e r s i l y

S o c i a l H e s e a r e l i t ' o n i i T i i l t e e K e p o r l n o . 2 . t ' l i i e a g o , IL: C h i c a g o

Ke!;i<inal I l o s p i l a l .

i ) e V \ ' i l , l ) , . S i l v e r r i i a n , { ; , , ( ; o o d s U i d L M. iK S t o t l u l o , C. ( I ' l ' l o i T t i e

( o i i s l r u e l i o n of risk a n d p r o t e c t i v e l a e t o r i n d i e e s lor a d o l e s -

e e n l alc-otiol a n d o d i o r d r u g u s e . joiiniii! ol Dnuj Issues. 2 S ,

N '>7 <S(i5.

D u n e a n , S. C. A i p e r L A,, t X n i e a n . 'i'. \'.. & H o p s . i l . | I 9 9 7 }

. A d o l e s e e n l a l c o h o l u s e d o v e l o p m e n i a n d y o u n g adLilt o u l -

eonies. Driiii nnd Miolioi Di'pciulfiifc. 49. !') 48.

I ' l l i o u . I ) . , l l u j ^ i j i g a , I ) . A A g e l o i i , S . ( I M 8 T I i : . \ : p h i i n u n !

DrliDiiucufij iiDtl Driifi Usi-. I 5 e \ c r l v l i i l i s . CA: S a j ; e .

linsniing.T, ,VL t;. ) I 9 ' ) l ) | Se.\iiai aeli\'ity a n d proliieni betia\i<irs

a m o n j ; tiiack. urt-)an adoleseerils. t. hikl Dm-h^vucm. 6 1 .

2(1 ;2-2(l4(-).

Lnsniinjier, i\l. 1'.., ,\nlliony, \.& Vlet'oid, ], { ̂ -^971 I lie inrier-eit\

a n d d r u g use: niiliai lindings from an epidemiologieid smdy.

Driujiiiul Mi ohol Di'paidnnr. 48. I 7S-1S4.

I ' J t s m i n g e r , M. !•.. l i r o v v n . C. IL ^ K e i l a m . S. C. ( 1 9 8 2 1 S e x dif-

f e r e n c e s in a n i e e e d e n t s iil s u t i s l i j i u e u s e a m o n g a d n k ' s e e n l s .

loiiniiil ol Sodti! Issues. Mi. 2 T - 4 2 .

LnsiTiinge]-, .\L !•:.. Kellam, S. C. iK Hutiiii, I!. K. I 198 i l S r I i o o l a n d

family origins nl delini_|Liciu-\: e o m p a - i s o n s tn sex. in: \'ari

Dusen, K. T. & Mt'dnick, S. A., eds. I'n'spccliw Sludi&s of Criiiic

iniil DcliiHiiicnqi. pp. 7 3-97, linston, MA: Kluwcr-Mjhoff.

Lnsminger. M. E., Lanikin, R. 1'. & |acobsoii, N, (]99h) School

k'tiving: a longitudinal perspeetive including neighborhood

eftecls. Child DcvclopinniL 67, 2 4 0 0 - 2 4 i 6.

rieming, ).. Kcltam, S. (i. ^ lirown, C H. (19S2I I'iarty predictors

of age of lirsl use of aieofiot, marijuiiiia. and cigarettes. Driuj

(indAholwl Dcpnidfim: 9. 28S-5O5-

Hawkins. [- tJ.. Ciitatano, R- K. Kosterman, R.. Abbolt, K. & Hill,

K. Cl. ( t 9 9 9 | i'rt'venting adoteseenl heatth-risk behaviors

by slrertglheniiig proleetion during ehitdhood. .•\irhivi's of

I'cdialrir and .Adolcsd'nt MfdUiiw. 1 S I 22(i 2 34,

Hawkins, \. I)., Catalano, R. L .!i .VLiller. j . Y, 119921 Rî k and

priiteclive faclors fur ulcoliol and other drug problems in

adolesceni'f anil early adulthood: implications tor sutistance

abuse prevenlion. rsiichoioiiit'id Hiiliciiii. 1 12, h4-l()T.

H e r d , I). i l 9 8 h ) A Review ol Ihiiikhui I'mtTiis and AhoiwI

I'rolileins Aiiioiiii CS lilncks. W a s h i n g t o n , IX': t i n i t e d S t a l e s

Department of Healtti iind Human Strvices.

Hirsehi. 1.119(i9) Cmisesof Di'lhujih-iirii. Berkek'v, CA: Universily

of California.

Hirschi.'t. & Cottfred.son, M. (I 98 51 Age and the exptanation of

I r i m e . A}}h'rieiui lotirnu! of Soeiohyii. S 9 , S S 2 S S 4 .

l o t m s t o n , L. ( 1 9 7 5 ) Drufis nnd An}eritnn )oiilli. A n n Arbor:

Institute for Soeial Keseareti.

J o h n s t o n , L., O'.Malley, I'. & t i a c h m a n , \. 11999) Nntiona! Surwij

liesiili.'i on Dinij I.'.M' /rojn llw Moiiiloniin the I'utnre Studii.

1'I7> !'•}'•)?<. V\astiington, \X': United Slates iJepjirnnent of

lU'altli anil H i n n a n Services,

l u o n , ii, S, iS; t-Jisininger, M. !•;, ( 1 9 9 7 ) Chitdhood. adotescejit,

a n d y o u n g adLdt prediciors ot suieidal tiehaviors: a prospee-

live sludy of African .Anterieans. journal of Child I'siicholofiji

ami I'siiehitUrji. iH. 5 T 5 - S f ) 5 .

t\aridel, I). 119781 Convergences in prospeetive longitudinal

sur\eysof drug use in norin;il populaii<iris. In: Kandel, I)., ed.

lA'iijiitndinu! Heseiurh on Drnji Vsc: i'.nipirieiil /•/Jidinif.s and

Mi'lhodolofih-id l.'<snes. pp. 5- i S . W a s h i n g t o n . DC: H e m i s p h e r e

I'ubiistiing.

Kandel. I)., Kessler, K. & Miirgulies, K. i l 9 7 8 l .Aitleeedenls of

adoteseent initiation into stages ot d r u g s use: a ctevetopmentat

analysis. In: Kandel, I)., cd, Lounilndinti! Rcscm-ih in Dnifi Use:

i'niplrii-id I'indinns fiud Mflhodoloijunl issues, pp. 7 5 9 9 .

Wastiington, \K': lleniisphere--VViley.

Keitani,S,t.;.i!i Anttiony, |. C, ( I 9 9 8 ) Targeting e a r t y i u i t c c e d e n t s

lo [irevent lobaeeo s m o k i n g : iiiulirigs from an epidemioiogi-

catly basett raniloiui/ed lietd trial. A]nerieiin journal ol I'ubliv

lieidlh. HH. I Pit] I 4 9 S .

tseltam, S. C , tirancti. \. I)., Agravvat. K. C, & Hnsmingcr. ,VL i'.

I 1 9 7 5 ) Mi'iiuil llealih anil Gohuj to School: ilw Woodiawn

I'uhfnun ol Assessment. I'.iirlji lulrrwntion. iind Ewdualion.

Chicago, IL: Mniversily of Chieago I'ress,

Keltam, 8. C , ISniiieli, |. I)., Agrawal, K. C. & Kiisntingcr, .VL V..

(19751 Mental health and going to sehoot: the Woodtaivn

program of iisses.smenl, earty inlervention, and evatLiation,

Ctiieago. IL: Lniversily of Chicago IVes.s.

Keltam, S. C. I5r<i\vn, C. fL, Rubin, 15. R. ^ linsminger, \\. ti.

1 198 51 t'alhs leading lo teenage psyi-tiiatrie syntploins and

sutislance use: devetopmenlal epittemioiogieat sludies in

Wooitlawn. hv. Cuv.c. S.. tiarts, V. & t5arrett, \.. eds. Childliood

l'siiehoi>iiiholoii!i <uid Developnienl. p p . 1 7 - 5 1 . N o w Y o r k : R a v e n

I'ress.

Kettani, S. C,.. Lnsniinger. M. !•:, & Simon, M. t5. ( 1 9 8 0 ) .Vtental

healtti iii lirsl g r a d e a n d t e e n a g e d r u g , ntcohot. a n d eigarelte

use. DrnjiandAholiolDept'iidenet'. 5, 2 7 5 - 5 0 4 ,

2 0 0 J Sijcicty Ibr ilicSliiilv ni' AditimiiHi In ;iiui O I I U T l l n i "

X 4 4 Margiirt'l /•,'. !''usn]iiuji'r cl a l .

Kellam. S. (i.. Ling, X., iVkTisca, R,, ISrovvn, C. H. & lalongo. N. National Institule of Drug Abuse ( 1 9 9 1 ) .\'((/i(ijji(( Uousi'th>!d

{ I 99S} The efl'eet of Ihe level of aggression in lhe lirst grade Snrvfii on /Jni;/ Ainisc: Main l-'iudintis. 1990. VVashingtiin, DC:

elassniom on t h e e o u r s e and mallecibilily oi' ag^li'essive behav- [\S Department ol' Health aiid Human Services.

i o r i n t o m i d d l e s c h o o l , ikvclopineni iind I'siiiinipinlioioiiii, 1 0 , Nev\e<imb, VI, 1). i 1 9 9 7 } I ' s y c l i o s o c i a l prcctictors a n d e o i i -

l ' l T - l S S . s e ( | u c n c c s ol driiji. u s e : a iiev(.;lo|)riicntal [K'rspectivc vvitiiui

K e r r \ k , ' I ' r e m b l a y , R. !•!,, I ' a g a n i , L, & V i l a r o , F, ( ] ' ) 9 7 } li<iys' a p t " o s | i c c i i \ c s t u d y , loiiiiuil ol •\ddii'ii\Y Disctiscs. I d , S I

beh;ivioral inhibilion and the ri.sk of laler delini|uency, S9.

\ r i - h h ' c s III i i i ' i i c n i ! i ' s i i c h i t i t r f i , S 4 , S ( ) 9 - S l h , R o b i n s , L. (19(-i(ii Ih-vlujii Childn-n iiri'wn I'p. I5aiiirnore:

Kessler. K., M c ( i o n a g l e , k . , / h i i o , S., S h a n y a n g . N., t ' l i r i s t o p h e r , VVilkens.

P.,. H u g h e s , ,\L, L s h l c m a n . S., VViilehen, H.-i . ^ K e n d l e i , k , S. R o b i n s , L. ( I 9 7 K 1 S t u r d y c h i l d h o o d p r e d i e t o r s ol' iidull o u l -

( l S i 9 4 i LiTetinie iind l _ ? - i n o n t h p r e t ' a i e n e e ol' DS\1-III-K c<iiiie,s: r c p l i e i i t i o i i s I'rom l o n s j i t u d i n a l s l u d i e s . Psiii'holiuiit'id

p s y c h i a l r i c d i s o r d e r s in l h e 1 n i t e d S l a t e s : r e s u l l s I'rom l h e ,\lci/ici»K', 8 , d l 1 - ( t 2 2 .

Niilional ('omorbidit>' Survey, ,]yclii\'i's of (ifiicnd I'siii'liinlrii, Rutler, \ 1 , (19S()1 Chdittiiiuj YoiUh in n Chiuuiiisii .S'licicf;/.

5 1 . S 19. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Tress.

Ladd, C, VV, ̂ lUirgess. k. B, ( 1999) Charling the reliitionshi]> SamerolT, A, |,. Seiler, K., T.iildvvin, A. ^ lialdwiii, C. ( 199 il

Irajeclories of iiggressive, withdrawn, ami aggressive/ Slabilit\' of intelligence Troin preschool lo adolescence: tlu'

withdrawn ehildren during early grade seho<il. Child inlluenee oi' social aud I'iunily risk i'aclors. i'lidil /iri'i'/njiDicni.

Dcvi'lopincnl, 7 0 , 911} 9 i 9 . ()4, SI}--97.

Lewis, M. I'i Rook, K. M 9 9 9 | Soeial eonlrol in personal relation- Sampson. K. |. î Laub, |, (i 9901 Crime and deviLinee over lhe

ships: lnip;iet on iieallh behaviors and psyeiiological distress. lil'eeourse: llie salience oi' aduit soeial bonds. Aiiwrictiii

llciillh I'sijt'holofi!!, I S, h i 7 1 , Soiiohyicid Hcvinv. 5S, d(19-h2 7.

McCord, |, (i 9S,Sl Identifying developmental paradigms Hmberson. i). 11 9 S 7 | I'arnily status and heallh behaviors: soeial

l e a d i n g lo a l e o i u i l i s n i . joiinud of SUidles on .\liohol. 4 4 , e o n t r o l .is a d i m e n s i o n ol' s o e i a l i n t e g r a l i o n . lounud ol llcidlti

{ S 7 - ) ( i 2 . m i d S o f i t i l B c l u i v i o r , 2 ^ . 5 1 ) d 5 1 9 .

MoilllL'l'. 1 199 51 ,\d<ileseenee-limited and lifc-c-otirse-persistenl While, IL. Tandina, R, t̂ LaCrangc. K. ( i 9 S 7 ) Longiludinal pre-

antisociiil behavior: a ileveliipmental taxonomy, Psiirliolonirtd dictorsol' serious substance useaiiiidelini.|ueney, Crim/n.t/ni/.ij.

Rnic^y. 1 0 0 , 1 -IH. i , 7 1 S - 7 4 ( 1 .

M o s k d w i t / . I),, S c l n v L i r t / m a n , / \ , t̂ L e d i n g i i a m , |, i 1 9 S S i VX'oll'gaug, M.. ' r h o r n b e r r y , T. iK' I'i^lio, R. I I 9 N 7 I i'miii

S t a b i l i t y a n d c h i i n g e in a g g r e s s i o n a n d w i t h d r a w a l in Dinj to Miui- -Irom DcHiiqiic}}!;! lo Crime: /•"iif/du'-l.'/i to the

midiile childhood and early adoicsceuee. joiivnid of .\bnoniiii! I'hihiddpliiii Cohort ol /9-J^, Chicago, IL:l niversity of Chicago

I'SIHUOIOIIII. 9 4 , iu 4 1 , Tress,

\i]'ll lit}} *J~ S ' ' S 4 4 • ilKIJ Sofidv I'lirlhi.' Stiii-ly oi Adiliclion In Aieohol and Dllifr Drugs . u u i i u i i r r , / / , .