A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use

A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug UseAuthor(s): John P. Hoffmann and Robert A. JohnsonSource: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Aug., 1998), pp. 633-645Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/353534 .Accessed: 30/05/2013 03:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of Marriage and Family.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 03:13:17 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN P. HOFFMANN AND ROBERT A. JOHNSON National Opinion Research Center

A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use

Using 3 years of data from the National House- hold Survey on Drug Abuse, we examine the distribution of drug use among adolescents aged 12-17 years by family structure. In addition, we investigate the plausibility of two hypotheses that purport to explain the association between family structure and adolescent behavior, namely economic resources and residential mobility. The results of cross-tabulations and multivariate logistic regression models indicate that the risk of drug use, including problem use, is highest among adolescents in father-custody families (father-only and father-stepmotherfamilies), even after controlling for the effects of sex, age, race-ethnicity, family income, and residential mobility. The risk of drug use is lowest in mother-father families. Economic resources and residential mobility fail to explain these relationships, thus casting doubt on their ability to explain the association between family structure and an important adolescent behavior.

The development and consequences of adolescent drug use are important social issues. Adolescents who use drugs are at heightened risk of low academic achievement, high school dropout, early

National Opinion Research Center, Washington Office, 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036 (hoffmann @ norcmail.uchicago.edu).

Key Words: adolescent, alcohol, drug use, family structure, marijuana.

sexual initiation, teenage nonmarital pregnancy, troubled interpersonal relationships, and marital disruption in adulthood (Johnson & Kaplan, 1990; Newcomb & Bentler, 1988). A parallel line of research demonstrates that each of these outcomes is also associated with residence in single- parent or stepparent families (Astone & McLana- han, 1991, 1994; Downey, 1994, 1995; Downey & Powell, 1993; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Wu, 1996). Although the link between family structure and adolescent drug use has been explored in a number of previous studies (Flewelling & Bau- man, 1990; Hoffmann, 1994, 1995; Needle, Su, & Doherty, 1990; Thomas, Farrell, & Barnes, 1996), there are several lessons from the more general research on family structure that should be applied to research on adolescent drug use.

The first lesson is that research on the relationship between family structure and adolescent drug use requires large samples to distinguish precise effects. Most studies have been forced to rely on categorization schemes that do not recognize potential differences between father-custody and mother-custody families. For example, much of the research in this area has assessed differences between single-mother families and mother-father families (Hoffmann, 1993; Thomas et al., 1996) or among single-parent, stepparent, and mother-father families (Flewelling & Bauman, 1990; Hoffmann, 1995; Needle et al., 1990). Yet a key result that has emerged from the general literature about family structure is that there are important differences between adolescents in mother-stepfather

Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (August 1998): 633-645 633


Journal of Marriage and the Family

and father-stepmother families and between those in single-mother and single-father families (Am- bert, 1986; Downey, 1995; Downey & Powell, 1993; Lee, Burkham, Zimiles, & Ladewski, 1994). In general, adolescents who reside with their mothers fare better than those who reside with their fathers in both single-parent and stepparent families. Given the small proportion of adolescents who reside with fathers but not with mothers (Bianchi, 1995; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993), it is not surprising that many studies of family structure and adolescent drug use, which often rely on small samples, have not heretofore distin- guished the effects of father versus mother absence from the family.

A second lesson concerns the theoretical models used to explain the effects of family structure on adolescent outcomes. Much of the research on family structure and adolescent drug use has been descriptive. A typical approach is to examine the distribution of drug use by family structure and then control for various demographic characteristics to determine if the relationships persist. Al- though this provides important information about the association between family structure and drug use, it fails to explain theoretically why this association exists. The general literature on family structure provides several hypotheses that may be appropriate for explaining family effects on adolescent drug use (Hoffmann, 1995; Thomas et al., 1996). Four hypotheses that have emerged from this literature concern economic resources, residential mobility, parent-child socialization, and stress (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Downey, 1995; Thomson, McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992; Thomson, Hanson, & McLanahan, 1994).

We examine the first two of these four hypotheses that are designed to explain the effects of family structure. Assuming that adolescents from mother-father families are less likely than adolescents from other types of families to use illicit drugs (Hoffmann, 1993, 1995; Needle et al., 1990; Thomas et al., 1996), these two explanations suggest that differences in economic resources- often measured as family income-or residential mobility explain much of the association between family structure and negative outcomes among adolescents (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Downey, 1995; Thomson et al., 1994). The economic resources hypothesis suggests that single-parent families, especially single-mother families, tend to have relatively less income than other families. This is both because family disruption leads to income loss and because low income increases the

risk of family disruption (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Wu, 1996). For example, the median family incomes of mother-father, single-father, and single- mother families in 1992 were $44,192, $22,217, and $13,268, respectively (U.S. Bureau of the Cen- sus, 1996). Moreover, although only about 10% of mother-father families live below the poverty line, 47% of single-mother families and 22% of single-father families live below the poverty line (Bianchi, 1995). Low income is presumed to affect adolescent development negatively, especially academic achievement and motivation, by making it more difficult for parents to support activities that benefit the adolescent (McLanahan & Sande- fur, 1994; Thomson et al., 1994). A similar argument applies to adolescent drug use. Greater economic hardship makes supervision and parental support more difficult, thus increasing the likelihood of drug use (Conger et al., 1991; Johnson, Su, Gerstein, Shin, & Hoffmann, 1995).

Although the economic resources hypothesis suggests why single-parent families, in particular single-mother families, affect certain adolescent outcomes, it is not as useful for describing why adolescents from stepparent families also suffer from negative outcomes (Downey, 1995). The median family income of stepparent families is relatively close to the median family income of mother-father families (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). However, a recent finding is that stepparent families and single-parent families tend to change residences more often than mother-father families (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Long, 1992), and stepparent families tend to change residences more often than single-parent families (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). A change in family structure often forces at least part of the family to relocate. For example, when a parent re- marries, she and her children often move into her new spouse's residence. Moreover, a divorce usu- ally requires one parent to move out of the home but also may cause a custodial parent to move because the family's income is no longer sufficient to afford the residence (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991). Even when income is adequate and families move to communities with greater resources, residential mobility is thought to disrupt adolescent development by severing social and community ties, thus leading to social isolation and marginalization and possibly friendships with other marginal peers who affect behavior (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; Raviv, Keinan, Abazon, & Raviv, 1990). Literature on residential mobility supports this interpretation. Adolescents who

634


Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use

move frequently are more likely than those who are stable to have behavioral, emotional, and academic problems (Reynolds, 1989; Wood, Halfon, Scarlata, Newacheck, & Nessim, 1993). How- ever, research has not explored the link between residential mobility and adolescent drug use.

Much of the theoretical basis of the links among family structure, economic resources, and mobility relies on a social capital argument. Par- ents with more economic resources and stronger ties to the community (which are often severed by a family breakup or reconfiguration) are able to in- vest more resources in their children's social and intellectual development, thus making aberrant behavior less likely (Biblarz & Raftery, 1993; Cole- man, 1988). However, a social capital argument also points to the potential overlap of economic resources and residential mobility. That is, families with greater economic resources tend to change residences for different reasons (e.g., movement to a better neighborhood) than those with fewer resources (e.g., less income forces movement to a poorer neighborhood). This implies that there may be an interaction between economic resources and residential mobility that should be considered in any examination of the effects of family structure. One might reasonably expect residential mobility to affect adolescent drug use only when economic resources are lacking.

The two other hypotheses that are used to de- scribe family structure effects-stress and socialization-overlap substantially with the economic resources and mobility hypotheses. That is, a lack of economic resources and greater residential mobility-as well as changes in family structure- often are conceptualized as stressful events in the lives of adolescents (Raviv et al., 1990; Shuval, 1982), and stressful life events are related significantly to adolescent drug use (Conger et al., 1991; Hoffmann & Su, 1997). Moreover, socialization of adolescents by parents may be damaged by economic hardship, greater mobility, and changes in family structure. These interrelated phenomena make childrearing more difficult. Each may lead to greater stress for parents, and economic hardship and single parenthood make the monitoring of adolescent behavior more demanding (Amato, 1987; Conger et al., 1991; Hoffmann, 1995). Given data limitations, we explore only the direct implications of the economic resources and mobility hypotheses. However, an implicit assump- tion is that factors of stress and socialization may explain why the effect of family structure on adolescent drug use is influenced by economic cir- cumstances and residential mobility.

In sum, we propose to examine the relationships between a variety of family structures and adolescent drug use. Using a large, nationally representative data source, we compare the prevalence of drug use among adolescents from mother- father families with the prevalence of use among adolescents from single-parent families, stepparent families, and other family types. Given the large sample size, a key advantage of this comparison is the ability to examine mother-custody and father-custody families. Moreover, we test the utility of the economic resources and residential mobility hypotheses as explanations of the relationship between family structure and drug use by examining whether the introduction of family income and changes in residence attenuates the association between family structure and adolescent drug use in a multivariate model. We also explore the interaction of economic resources and residential mobility to determine whether their potential effects on adolescent drug use are conditional and whether such an interaction explains any of the effects of family structure.

DATA AND METHODS

The data used to test the relationship between family structure and drug use are derived from the combined 1991-1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), the principal source of data on the prevalence of drug use in the United States (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Ser- vices Administration, 1995b). Based on a multi- stage area probability sample, the annual surveys are cross-sectional and are designed to represent the noninstitutionalized population of the U.S. aged 12 years and older. The target population is thought to represent more than 98% of the total U.S. population aged 12 years and older. We use data from the combined 1991-1993 NHSDA on adolescents, aged 12-17. Of the 87,915 respondents in the 1991-1993 surveys, 22,237 were adolescents. These 12- to 17-year-old respondents represent approximately 20.7 million adolescents in the U.S. (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1995b).

Each NHSDA interview takes about 1 hour to complete and is designed to maximize honest re- porting of drug use. Adolescent respondents are allowed to participate only after the interviewer has received parental permission. Self-administered answer sheets are used by respondents for all questions about alcohol and illicit drug use, so that responses are not revealed to the interviewer or to

635



other persons who may be present at the interview. Self-administered questionnaires tend to reduce underreporting of drug use, especially among adolescents (Turner, Lessler, & Devore, 1992).

Measurement of Variables

One of the limitations of previous research on the relationship between family structure and adolescent drug use is the reliance on relatively small samples. Most samples, whether based on the U.S. or on regional populations, do not include enough father-custody families to obtain precise estimates of drug use in single-father or father- stepmother families. Moreover, in much of the research on family structure, the presence of other adults in the home is not considered (Downey, 1994). If we are truly interested in the effects of living with a single mother, a single father, or a mother and a father, then the presence of other adults should be considered (Hoffmann, 1995; Kellam, Adams, Brown, & Ensminger, 1982). The large size of the 1991-1993 NHSDA sample allows relatively pure measures of which adults reside in the home. Furthermore, the NHSDA includes a much larger sample of father-custody families than most other nationally representative data sets. Therefore, this database allows us to precisely estimate patterns of drug use among adolescents who live in this rapidly growing type of family. (See Bianchi, 1995.)

Family structure is measured by seven questions that ask about the presence or absence of the following people in the family home: mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, other relative (not including the respondent's own children, siblings, or parents-in-law), nonrelative, and spouse. The questions addressing "mothers" and "fathers" do not distinguish between biological and adoptive parents. However, data from the Current Popula- tion Survey indicate that, in 1990, only about 2% of children living in mother-father families were adopted (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992b). The category, "other relative," can include the adolescent's grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, and so on, but it does not include the adolescent's mother, father, stepfather, stepmother, spouse, siblings, children, and parents-in-law because each is asked about separately.

A cross-classification of these seven dichoto- mous items results in 128 possible family types. Of these, we identified 50 that are represented in the NHSDA. We then developed nine mutually exclusive categories that focused on the most

common types of families: mother-father only (mother and father, but no other adult relative or nonrelative, reside in the home), mother-father- other relative, mother-stepfather, father-stepmother, mother-only, father-only, mother-other relative, other relative only, and other family types. Each category was "pure" in the sense that, by definition, other adult relatives or nonrelatives did not live in the home unless specified. For example, in mother-only families, adolescents reported the presence of their mothers but no other adult relative or nonrelative. The category of "other family types" included a heterogeneous group of families in which adolescents lived with various combina- tions of relatives, nonrelatives, and spouses (199 adolescents, representing about 160,000 people in the U.S., reported the presence of a spouse in the home). Table 1 shows the distribution of the nine family types. As indicated in the final two rows, the first eight types represent almost 94% of the U.S. population of adolescents (approximately 19.3 million adolescents).

To validate the distributions of family structure in the NHSDA, we compared the distributions of similar family types in the NHSDA with the 1991-1993 Current Population Survey con- ducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1991, 1992a, 1993). The Current Population Survey included the following family types: mother-father, mother-only, father-only, and neither parent present. We developed comparable family types with the NHSDA data. Comparisons were made for the total adolescent samples, aged 12-17, and by sex and race (White, African American, and His- panic). Based on two-sample t tests, we found modest differences between the two nationally representative data sources: The 1992 and 1993 NHSDA estimate a slightly smaller percentage of adolescents living with "both parents" (72.9% and 72.7% vs. 69.4% and 69.6%), and all 3 years of NHSDA data reveal a smaller percentage living in "father-only" families (2.7%, 2.2%, and 2.8% vs. 3.6%, 3.6%, and 3.5%). These differences were more pronounced among African American and Hispanic adolescents than in the total sample, but, on balance, the similarities suggest that the NHSDA provides a good representa- tion of family structures in the U.S.

In order to test the economic resources and mobility hypotheses, we use measures of family income in the past year and residential mobility in the past 5 years. Family income is stratified into quartiles (25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles) based on extensive information derived from household

636


TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND ADOLESCENT DRUG USE BY FAMILY STRUCTURE, NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1991-1993

Family Type

Variable

Sex (%) Male Female

Mean age

Race-ethnicity (%) White African American Hispanic Othera

Family income (%) Less than $17,000 $17,000-$29,999 $30,000-$48,000 More than $48,000

Mother- Mother- Other Other lother- Father- Mother- Father- Mother Father Other Relative Family Father Other Stepfather Stepmother Only Only Relative Only Type Total

52.4 51.0 45.4 48.2 49.9 56.7 49.0 51.1 50.1 51.2 47.6 49.0 54.6 51.8 50.1 43.2 51.0 48.9 49.9 48.8 ;

14.4 14.4 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.6 14.6 14.8 14.9 14.5 '

77.0 47.7 78.4 80.0 53.2 74.4 36.6 37.6 66.0 69.1 8.3 18.3 10.5 10.1 32.0 8.9 41.4 41.4 17.3 15.3

10.5 24.8 9.2 6.9 11.9 10.8 16.1 16.1 12.9 11.6 4.1 9.2 2.0 3.0 2.9 5.8 2.8 4.9 3.8 4.0 G

c~

17.6 24.0 28.5 29.9

Mean number of moves in past 5 years

33.2 28.1 26.9 11.8

19.9 27.6 29.1 23.4

10.0 31.8 35.1 23.1

38.3 24.1 19.9 17.7

19.4 12.0 27.2 41.4

47.9 28.2 16.7 7.2

42.4 30.4 17.4 9.8

41.9 24.5 18.4 15.2

24.8 24.7 25.9 24.6

0.6 0.8 1.5 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.9 1.0

Drug use in past year (%) Marijuana Other illicit drugsb Drunk three or more times Problem usec

6.9 8.4 10.0 16.8 11.5 17.1 12.4 15.1 18.4 9.4 6.2 6.3 10.2 15.4 7.9 14.9 7.7 11.0 13.2 7.7 8.3 6.8 11.4 15.5 9.6 14.4 9.5 10.9 14.3 9.4 4.5 3.4 5.3 11.8 5.7 11.0 6.0 7.2 8.1 5.3

267 4,285 469 1,112 867 1,528 22,237

Estimated population size (in millions) 11.77 0.85 1.55 0.32 3.23 0.39 0.66 0.55 1.37 20.68

Percentage of population 56.9 4.1 7.5 1.5 15.6 1.9 3.2 2.6 6.6 100.0

alncludes Asians and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and others. bIncludes use of cocaine, inhalants, hallucinogens, amphetamines, barbiturates, and opiates. CIncludes problem use of alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs. See the text for a further definition.

Sample size 11,260 1,181 1,268



members about all sources of income. This strat- egy divides the sample into the following income groups (monetary values are approximate): < $17,000, $17,000-$29,999, $30,000-$48,000, and > $48,000. Due to data limitations, a continuous measure of family income was not available for use in the analysis. Nevertheless, the distribution of income groups found in the NHSDA cor- responds closely to the distribution of family incomes reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census for 1991-1993 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).

Residential mobility is measured by a single item asking how many times in the previous 5 years the adolescent has moved. Responses to this question ranged from zero to 20 times. The mean number of times the adolescents in the sample moved in the past 5 years was about one.

The NHSDA asks questions about numerous types of drug use. We assess use of marijuana and other illicit drugs in the past year (any past-year use of cocaine, amphetamines, inhalants, barbiturates, or opiates). Because family structure may have stronger implications for more serious forms of drug use (Needle et al., 1990; Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1987), we also examine variables that measure being drunk three or more times in the past year and problem drug use in the past year.

Problem drug use is designed to assess negative behavioral consequences and symptoms of dependence among respondents. The items that the NHSDA employs to examine problem use co- incide closely with items used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1987) to measure psychoactive substance use disorder. The questionnaire asks whether one's drug use in the past year or month caused one to (a) feel de- pressed or lose interest, (b) get involved in argu- ments or fights, (c) feel lonely or isolated, (d) feel nervous or anxious, (e) develop health problems, (f) experience difficulty in thinking clearly, or (g) feel irritable or upset. These questions were asked for alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs. Re- sponses to these questions were combined with responses to questions about "trying to cut down" and using more of the drug to "get the same effect" in order to define five criteria for problem drug use: (a) the drug caused one or more of the seven consequences or symptoms, and the drug was used in the past month; (b) the drug caused the adolescent to get less work done during the past year, and the drug was used in the past year; (c) the adolescent was unable to reduce his or her use of the drug in the past year; (d) the adolescent

needed more of the drug to get the same effect in the past year; (e) the adolescent felt sick when he or she tried to cut down on use in the past year.

Respondents were classified as problem users during the past year if two or more of the five criteria were satisfied. (See the discussion of this measure in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1996.) Overall, 5% of the sample met the criteria for problem drug use.

Family structure is clearly related to race and ethnicity (Bianchi, 1995), so it is important to control for these effects in the model. We distinguish four racial and ethnic groups in the analyses: Whites (69%), African Americans (15%), Hispanics (12%), and others (e.g., Asian, Native American, 4%). We also control for the effects of sex and age because each may affect the relationship between family structure and drug use (Downey, 1995). Age is treated as a continuous variable and ranges from 12 to 17 years.

There are other variables that affect the relationship between family structure and adolescent behavior. In particular, parent-child relations and economic resources beyond income (e.g., books in the home) may mediate the effects of family structure on educational outcomes and adolescent behavior (Downey, 1995; Hoffmann, 1995). It is also important to consider changes in family structure because the immediate aftermath of a change may be the most risky period for adolescent mis- behavior (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991). Unfortu- nately, the NHSDA does not include questions that allow the measurement of these variables. The survey is designed to determine the prevalence of drug use, rather than the process by which drug use emerges. Moreover, the analyses do not control for local community-level or school-level effects on adolescent behavior. (See McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994, Chapter 7.) Therefore, the analyses present a limited examination of the association between family structure and adolescent drug use. Given the large sample size and the representative nature of the data, however, the results provide an important picture of how family structure affects drug use during adolescence.

Statistical Analyses All estimates reported here are based on the weighted NHSDA data. Therefore, the estimates are nationally representative. Point estimates and standard errors take into account the complex sam- pling design used in the NHSDA. SUDAAN 6.3 is used to derive these estimates (Shah et al., 1993).

638



The first step in the analysis is to cross-classify demographic data and drug use by family structure. Next, in order to examine the effects of family structure on adolescent drug use while controlling for demographic characteristics, we estimate logistic regression models to determine the odds of drug use by adolescents in the various family types. Mother-father families are the reference group in this analysis. The logistic regression parameters are exponentiated to express the results in terms of odds ratios, specifically the odds of drug use by adolescents from the various family types divided by the odds of drug use by adolescents in mother- father families (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 1989; Kleinbaum, 1994). In order to test the economic resources and mobility hypotheses, we introduce family income and residential mobility stepwise into the models and, finally, as an interaction term. If family structure affects drug use because of its association with family income or mobility, we expect to see an attenuated effect of family structure in the models once these variables are included (cf. Astone & McLanahan, 1994).

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the distribution of demographic characteristics and adolescent drug use by family structure. Overall, about 57% of adolescents live with a mother and a father (representing almost 12 million adolescents), almost 16% live with a mother only, and about 2% live with a father only. The distributions of sex and age are fairly uniform by family structure, although males are slightly overrepresented in father-only families, and fe- males are overrepresented in mother-stepfather families. The racial distributions support past research in showing that African American youths are more likely than White youths to live in mother-only families and mother-other relative families (Bianchi, 1995). Moreover, African Amer- ican and Hispanic adolescents are overrepresented in other relative-only families.

The distribution of family income and residential mobility also supports previous research in demonstrating that mother-father families are more likely than mother-only or stepparent families to be in the higher income brackets. A comparison of mother-only and father-only families confirms that the former are relatively impover-

TABLE 2. ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRUCTURE ON MARIJUANA USE IN PAST YEAR AMONG ADOLESCENTS, NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1991-1993

Explanatory Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Family structurea Mother-father-other relative 1.24 1.32 1.31 1.28 Mother-stepfather 1.50** 1.51** 1.51** 1.34* Father-stepmother 2.73** 2.86** 2.83** 2.44** Mother only 1.75** 1.93** 1.95** 1.77** Father only 2.79** 2.72** 2.77** 2.36** Mother-other relative 1.92** 2.10** 2.10** 1.90** Other relative only 2.41** 2.36** 2.34** 2.01**

Male 1.27** 1.27** 1.30** Age 1.73** 1.73** 1.75** Race-ethnicityb

African American 0.70** 0.69** 0.71** Hispanic 1.01 1.08 1.03 Other 0.66* 0.66* 0.62*

Family incomec Less than $17,000 1.03 0.96 $17,000-$29,999 1.08 1.04 $30,000-$48,000 1.13 1.11

Number of moves in past 5 years 1.16** R2 .02 .12 .12 .12

Note: Sample size is 22,230. The estimates are odds ratios derived from a logistic regression model. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 (less than 1.0) imply that marijuana use is more likely (less likely) than in the reference category, after controlling for the effects of other explanatory variables in the model.

aReference group is mother-father families. bReference group is White adolescents. CReference group is over $48,000 (upper quartile of income distribution).

*p


ished, and the latter are relatively well off finan- cially (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Whereas almost 40% of mother-only families are in the lowest income quartile, more than 40% of father- only families are in the highest income quartile.

Stepparent families and father-only families tend to be more mobile than other family types, with the mean number of moves in the past 5 years at about 1.5 or higher (Astone & McLanahan, 1994). Furthermore, as other research has shown (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), stepparent families are, on balance, more mobile than single-parent families, but this holds only for the comparison between mother- stepfather and mother-only families (1.5 vs. 1.2, difference significant at p < .05 level). Father-only families are just as mobile as father-stepmother families (g = 1.6 for each).

The distribution of drug use also confirms past research. The lowest prevalence of use of marijuana and other illicit drugs is reported by adolescents who live in mother-father families. Adolescents in mother-father families also report a relatively low prevalence of being drunk and problem drug use in the past year. The highest prevalence of mari-

juana use, other drug use, and problem use is reported by adolescents in father-stepmother, father- only, and other relative-only families (cf. Flewel- ling & Bauman, 1990; Hoffmann, 1993; Needle et al., 1990; Thomas et al., 1996). However, given that these family types are also highly mobile, it is unclear whether family structure or residential mobility is driving these patterns.

Tables 2-5 present the results of the logistic regression models. The first model in each table examines only the effects of family structure on drug use. Model 2 introduces sex, age, and race- ethnicity into the model. Model 3 includes family income, and Model 4 includes residential mobility. (The interaction effects of income by number of moves are not shown in the tables because they were not significant. Their inclusion did not change the other results in any of the models.) The R2 statistic equals the proportion of deviance, gauged by the log likelihood chi-square statistic, that is explained by the models (Shah et al., 1993).

Model 1 of Table 2 shows that adolescents from mother-stepfather families are 1.50 times as likely as adolescents from mother-father families to report marijuana use in the past year. More-

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRUCTURE ON OTHER ILLICIT DRUG USE IN THE PAST YEAR AMONG ADOLESCENTS, NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1991-1993


Family structurea Mother-father-other relative 1.01 1.08 1.09 1.08 Mother-stepfather 1.70** 1.68** 1.70** 1.49** Father-stepmother 2.75** 2.75** 2.75** 2.34** Mother only 1.29* 1.46** 1.48** 1.34** Father only 2.63** 2.59** 2.61** 2.18** Mother-other relative 1.26 1.48 1.51 1.35 Other relative only 1.85** 2.05** 2.08** 1.75**

Male 0.87 0.87 0.87 Age 1.28** 1.28** 1.30** Race-ethnicityb

African American 0.51** 0.52** 0.53** Hispanic 1.00 1.02 1.03 Other 0.72 0.72 0.68



Note: Sample size is 22,230. The estimates are odds ratios derived from a logistic regression model. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 (less than 1.0) imply that other illicit drug use is more likely (less likely) than in the reference category, after controlling for the effects of other explanatory variables in the model. Other illicit drugs include cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants, barbiturates, amphetamines, and opiates.


*p


over, adolescents from father-stepmother families and adolescents from father-only families are over twice as likely as adolescents from mother- father families to report marijuana use in the past year. These effects persist and, in the case of father- stepmother families, increase, once controls are introduced for sex, age, and race-ethnicity. Con- trary to what the economic resources and mobility hypotheses predict, family income and residential moves have little effect on the association between family structure and marijuana use. However, mobility has an independent effect on marijuana use. More residential moves are associated with an increased likelihood of marijuana use.

Tables 3 and 4 show patterns similar to Table 2. Adolescents in father-stepmother families and father-only families have the highest likelihood of illicit drug use and drunkenness in the past year. These associations are affected only modestly by the introduction of family income and residential mobility.

Although the results thus far suggest that living in mother-father families offers a lower risk of drug use, any use of marijuana or even other illicit drugs in the past year may not be problematic for a large portion of adolescents. (See Newcomb

& Bentler, 1989.) A question that remains is whether the absence of a mother or father from a family increases the risks of more problematic forms of use. The information in Table 5 is in- tended to investigate this question by examining the associations of family structure with problem drug use, a measure designed to mimic the DSM- III-R (1987) evaluation of psychoactive substance use disorder. Problem drug use is relatively rare among adolescents. Only about 5% report problem use. However, the association of drug use and father-custody families persists, even for this more serious form of use. Table 5 demonstrates that adolescents living in father-stepmother families and in father-only families are over two times as likely as adolescents living in father-mother families to report problem drug use, even after controlling for the effects of demographic characteristics, family income, and residential mobility. Residential mobility has a modest attenuating effect, but it fails to explain the association between family structure and problem drug use (cf. McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). Mother-only families are associated with only a slightly higher risk of problem use (cf. Needle et al., 1990; Thomas et al., 1996).

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRUCTURE ON BEING DRUNK THREE OR MORE TIMES IN THE PAST YEAR, NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1991-1993


Family structurea Mother-father-other relative 0.81 0.91 0.93 0.92 Mother-stepfather 1.42* 1.43* 1.46* 1.32 Father-stepmother 2.02** 2.11** 2.14* 1.88* Mother only 1.17 1.42** 1.43** 1.32** Father only 1.85** 1.79* 1.73* 1.49* Mother-other relative 1.16 1.46 1.49 1.36 Other relative only 1.34 1.45 1.48 1.28

Male 1.22* 1.23* 1.25* Age 1.92** 1.92** 1.92** Race-ethnicityb

African American 0.38** 0.38** 0.39** Hispanic 0.77** 0.78* 0.78* Other 0.66 0.67 0.64*

Family incomec Less than $17,000 0.90 0.85 $17,000-$29,999 0.78* 0.75* $30,000-$48,000 0.89 0.87


Note: Sample size is 22,230. The estimates are odds ratios derived from a logistic regression model. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 (less than 1.0) imply that reported drunkenness is more likely (less likely) than in the reference category, after controlling for the effects of other explanatory variables in the model.


*p


DISCUSSION

Research has demonstrated the existence of a significant relationship between family structure and adolescent drug use. Our results confirm the finding that living with a mother and a father decreases the risk of several types of drug use, from episodes of drunkenness to problem drug use. However, a key issue that has not been addressed well in previous studies is whether economic resources or residential stability explain these robust relationships. In several studies, the lower income of single- mother families and the greater residential mobility of stepparent families explain much of the effect of family structure on adolescent outcomes, such as high school completion and nonmarital childbearing (Astone & McLanahan, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Wu, 1996). Lower income and higher mobility may be latent indicators of a lack of social capital needed for successful adolescent development (Coleman, 1988), and thus they negatively affect several milestones that mark the tran- sition from adolescence to adulthood.

Although the economic resources and mobility hypotheses have not been applied to research on family structure and drug use, they offer plausible

explanations for at least part of the association between family structure and drug use. If one as- sumes that fewer economic resources and greater residential mobility are disruptive to family life because they produce more stress for parents and adolescents, reduce the amount of time that family members can spend together, and upset social ties by marginalizing adolescents (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), then the lower income of single- mother families and the diminished residential stability of stepparent families might explain the association between family structure and various types of drug use.

However, our models examined these hypotheses directly and found a general lack of support for either an economic resources explanation or a mobility explanation. (Even the interaction between income and mobility failed to show an effect.) Adolescents from certain types of family structures, in particular those from father-custody families, continued to show a significantly heightened risk of drug use, even after controlling for the effects of several demographic characteristics, family income, and residential mobility. Unlike the results obtained when other outcomes, such as

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED EFFECTS OF FAMILY STRUCTURE ON PROBLEM DRUG USE AMONG ADOLESCENTS, NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1991-1993


Family structurea Mother-father-other relative 0.80 0.94 0.92 0.90 Mother-stepfather 1.20 1.19 1.16 1.03 Father-stepmother 2.87** 2.86** 2.86** 2.46** Mother only 1.31 1.58** 1.54** 1.41* Father only 2.64** 2.61** 2.64** 2.25** Mother-other relative 1.37 1.80* 1.72* 1.54 Other relative only 1.65 1.97* 1.90* 1.60

Male 1.16 1.16 1.19 Age 1.58** 1.58** 1.60** Race-ethnicityb

African American 0.34** 0.32** 0.33** Hispanic 0.76* 0.73* 0.74** Other 0.30** 0.30** 0.27**


Number of moves in past 5 years 1.15** R 2 .01 .09 .09 .10

Note: Sample size is 22,230. The estimates are odds ratios derived from a logistic regression model. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 (less than 1.0) imply that problem drug use is more likely (less likely) than in the reference category, after controlling for the effects of other explanatory variables in the model. Includes problem use of alcohol, marijuana, or any illicit drug. See the text for a definition of problem use.


*p


high school graduation or premarital childbearing, are analyzed, the results presented in this article show that mobility and income do not account for the association between family structure and adolescent drug use (cf. Astone & McLanahan, 1994; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994).

The lack of support for the hypotheses might be traced to the distinctive etiologies of adolescent drug use and other outcome measures. Although adolescent drug users are at heightened risk of dropping out of high school and premarital childbearing (Johnson & Kaplan, 1990), the effects of family structure on drug use may be distinct. For example, adolescent drug use is closely linked to peer behavior, availability of drugs, and perceptions of risk associated with use (Hoffmann, 1995; Kandel, 1996). If family structure also has some direct or indirect effect on these intervening variables, then family structure effects would persist, even after controlling for economic resources and residential mobility. Moreover, family income is strongly associated with high school graduation and premarital childbearing (Astone & McLanahan, 1994), but it is only weakly associated with drug use (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1995b). Thus, we have at least some evidence that the correlates of drug use and other outcomes differ.

One promising path that may elaborate the link between family structure and drug use is to explore the mediating effects of patterns of parent- child socialization (Hoffmann, 1995). Family structure, especially when changes occur, affects relations between parents and adolescents (Cher- lin, 1992; Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991; Thomson et al., 1992). Changes in family structure are linked to heightened stress in the family, and this stress may lead to behavioral problems such as the initiation or escalation of drug use (Hoffmann & Su, 1997; Needle et al., 1990). Because the data used in this analysis do not have information on changes in family structure, stress, or parent- adolescent relations, we cannot test this hypothesis.

A second path is to examine why adolescents who live in father-custody families (father-only or father-stepmother) consistently have the highest risk of drug use. Given our results showing that residential mobility does not explain these effects, we can only speculate about the mechanisms that lead to heightened risk of drug use and problem use in father-only and father-stepmother families. One possibility is that stepmothers tend to be relatively detached from stepchildren (Thomson et al., 1992). Maternal forms of support may be especially

important in preventing drug use, so a lack of attachment to stepmothers could lead to a greater likelihood of drug use. However, a more plausible explanation is that the courts tend to give fathers custody of children who have already evidenced a predisposition or a manifestation of problem behaviors. One variable that affects custody decisions- from both the parents' and the courts' perspectives-is a perception of how well the parents can cope with a child or adolescent who shows signs of behavioral problems (Crosby-Currie, 1996; Fox & Kelly, 1995; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). It is plausible that an adolescent with a history of behavioral problems, which might include drug use, is more likely to live with or be placed with his or her father. Therefore, we would expect such adolescents to report higher risks of drug use and problem use. A careful examination of this explanation requires longitudinal data that follows adolescents through changes in family structure and determines their behavior before and after families are formed (Furstenberg & Cherlin, 1991). The NHSDA data are not appropriate for examining this hypothesis.

Although we have found a protective influence of mother-father families and a risky influence of father-custody families on adolescent drug use, there are several limitations to our analysis, some of which have already been mentioned, that re- quire additional research to overcome. Most important, the NHSDA data are cross-sectional and provide no information about changes in family structure or at what point the adolescent began to live in the specific family structure. Second, we could not consider the effects of parent-child interactions, other family interactions, peer relations, resources in the home (e.g., computers, books), or stressful life events, even though each of these factors affects the likelihood of adolescent drug use and other outcomes (Downey, 1994, 1995; Kandel, 1996; Thomas et al., 1996). A likely path from family structure to drug use includes the mediating effects of parent and peer relations.

Nevertheless, these results provide a national picture of family structure and adolescent drug use and point toward the need to determine the precise psychosocial mechanisms that link these two variables. Given that a growing number of adolescents live in single-parent and stepparent families, especially in single-father families (Bianchi, 1995; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993), we must continue to consider their adjust- ment and well-being. The confirmed relationship between family structure and a host of develop-

643



mental outcomes, including educational achievement, sexual behavior, and drug use, demands that we not ignore the living arrangements of adolescents when developing and implementing pre- vention programs, treatment policies, and other activities designed to enhance adolescent development. It also suggests that conceptual models built to explain adolescent behavior should include the particular family structure within which adolescents reside.

NOTE

We would like to thank Dean R. Gerstein, Felicia Gray, S. Susan Su, and several anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on previous drafts of this article.

REFERENCES

Amato, P. (1987). Family processes in one parent, stepparent, and intact families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 327-337.

Ambert, A. (1986). Being a stepparent: Live-in and vis- iting stepchildren. Journal of Marriage and the Fam- ily, 49, 327-337.

American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices and high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320.

Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure, residential mobility, and school dropout: A research note. Demography, 31, 575-584.

Bianchi, S. M. (1995). The changing demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of single-parent families. Marriage & Family Review, 20, 71-97.

Biblarz, T. J., & Raftery, A. E. (1993). The effects of family disruption on social mobility. American Socio- logical Review, 58, 97-109.

Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage (Rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S94-S120.

Conger, R. D., Lorenz, F. O., Elder, G. H., Melby, J. N., Simons, R. L., & Conger, K. J. (1991). A process model of family economic pressure and early adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 430-449.

Crosby-Currie, C. A. (1996). Children's involvement in contested custody cases: Practices and experiences of legal and mental health professionals. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 289-311.

Downey, D. B. (1994). The school performance of children from single-mother and single-father families: Economic or interpersonal deprivation? Journal of Family Issues, 15, 129-147.

Downey, D. B. (1995). Understanding academic achievement among children in stephouseholds: The role of parental resources, sex of stepparent, and sex of child. Social Forces, 73, 875-894.

Downey, D. B., & Powell, B. (1993). Do children in single-parent households fare better living with same- sex parents? Journal of Marriage and Family, 55, 55- 71.

Flewelling, R. L., & Bauman, K. E. (1990). Family structure as a predictor of initial substance use and sexual intercourse in early adolescence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 171-181.

Fox, G. L., & Kelly, R. F. (1995). Determinants of child custody after divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 693-708.

Furstenberg, F. F., & Cherlin, A. J. (1991). Divided families: What happens to children when parents part. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hoffmann, J. P. (1993). Exploring the direct and indirect family effects on adolescent drug use. Journal of Drug Issues, 23, 535-557.

Hoffmann, J. P. (1994). Investigating the age effects of family structure on adolescent marijuana use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 215-235.

Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). The effects of family structure and family relations on adolescent marijuana use. In- ternational Journal of the Addictions, 30, 1207-1241.

Hoffmann, J. P., & Su, S. S. (1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency and drug use: A strain theory assessment of sex differences. Journal of Re- search in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 46-78.

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Johnson, R. A., Su, S. S., Gerstein, D. R., Shin, H., & Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). Parental influences on de- viant behavior in early adolescence: A logistic re- sponse analysis of age-and gender-differentiated effects. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 167-193.

Johnson, R. J., & Kaplan, H. B. (1990). Stability of psy- chological symptoms: Drug use consequences and intervening processes. Journal of Health and Social Be- havior, 31, 277-291.

Kandel, D. B. (1996). The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: An algebra of interpersonal influences. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 289-315.

Kellam, S. G., Adams, R., Brown, C. H., & Ensminger, M. E. (1982). The long-term evolution of the family structure on teenage and older mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 539-554.

Kleinbaum, D. G. (1994). Logistic regression. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Zimiles, H., & Ladewski, B. (1994). Family structure and its effect on behavioral and emotional problems in young adults. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 405-437.

Long, L. (1992). International perspectives on the residential mobility of America's children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 861-869.

Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLanahan, S. S., & Sandefur, G. D. (1994). Growing up with a single parent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Needle, R. H., Su, S. S., & Doherty, W. (1990). Di- vorce, remarriage, and adolescent substance use: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 157-169.

644



Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Consequences of adolescent drug use: Impact on the lives of young adults. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1989). Substance use and abuse among children and teenagers. Ameri- can Psychologist, 44, 242-248.

Raviv, A., Keinan, G., Abazon, Y., & Raviv, A. (1990). Moving as a stressful life event for adolescents. Jour- nal of Community Psychology, 18, 130-140.

Reynolds, A. J. (1989). A structural model of first-grade outcomes for an urban, low socioeconomic status, mi- nority population. Journal of Educational Psychol- ogy, 81, 594-603.

Shah, B., Folsom, R. E., LaVange, L. M., Wheeless, S. C., Boyle, K. E., & Williams, R. L. (1993). Statistical methods and mathematical algorithms used in SUDAAN. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Insti- tute.

Shuval, J. T. (1982). Migration and stress. In L. Gold- berger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: The- oretical and clinical aspects (pp. 677-691). New York: Free Press.

Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1987). An 8-year study of multiple influences on drug use and drug use consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1094-1105.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis- tration (1993). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main findings 1991. Rockville, MD: Author.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis- tration (1995a). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Mainfindings 1992. Rockville, MD: Author.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis- tration (1995b). National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Main findings 1993. Rockville, MD: Author.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis- tration (1996). Mental health estimates from the 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD: Author.

Thomas, G., Farrell, M. P., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). The effects of single-mother families and nonresident fathers on delinquency and substance abuse in Black and White adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 884-894.

Thomson, E., Hanson, T. L., & McLanahan, S. S. (1994). Family structure and child well-being: Eco- nomic resources vs. parental behaviors. Social Forces, 73, 221-242.

Thomson, E., McLanahan, S. S., & Curtin, R. B. (1992). Family structure, gender, and parental socialization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 368-378.

Turner, C. F., Lessler, J. T., & Devore, J. W. (1992). Ef- fects of mode of administration and wording on re- porting of drug use. In C. F. Turner, J. T. Lessler, & J. C. Gfroerer (Eds.), Survey measurement of drug use: Methodological issues (pp. 177-219). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1991). Marital status and living arrangements: 1991 (Current Population Re- ports, Series P-20, No. 461). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992a). Marital status and living arrangements: 1992 (Current Population Re- ports, Series P-20, No. 468). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992b). Marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the 1990s (Current Population Re- ports, Series P-23, No. 180). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993). Marital status and living arrangements: 1993 (Current Population Re- ports, Series P-20, No. 478). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1996). Money income in the United States (Current Population Reports, Series P- 60, No. 193). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarlata, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of family relocation on children's growth, development, school function, and behavior. Journal of the American Medical Associa- tion, 270, 1334-1338.

Wu, L. L. (1996). Effects of marital instability, income, and income instability on the risk of premarital birth. American Sociological Review, 61, 386-406.

JMF 898

FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION CURRICULUM GUIDELINES REVISED AND EXPANDED!

Offers guidelines for developing or assessing family life education programs over the life span. A must-have for anyone involved in family life education program development or assessment.

Editor David J. Bredehoft, Ph.D., has revised and expanded the contents of the NCFR Family f. Life Education Curriculum Guidelines to include a number of excellent resources for anyone working in family life education. Contents include: University 7and Collegc Cturricullum Guide- G it lines, A Framleworkfor Life-Span Family Life Ediication, a K-12 sexuality curriculum guide, an evaluation guide, a parent education program guide, and family life education references and resources.

$14.95 CFLE/NCFR member * $17.95 Non-member Contact the NCFR office for ordering information.

National Council on Family Relations 3989 Central Ave. N.E., #550 * Minneapolis. MN 55421

Toll Free: (888) 781-9331 * (612)781-9331 * FAX (612) 781-9348 l E-mail: [email protected] * Web: www.ncfr.com C llE

I

645


Article Contentsp. 633p. 634p. 635p. 636p. 637p. 638p. 639p. 640p. 641p. 642p. 643p. 644p. 645

Issue Table of ContentsJournal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Aug., 1998), pp. 551-804Front Matter [pp. 551 - 724]Relationship QualityRelationship Outcomes and Their Predictors: Longitudinal Evidence from Heterosexual Married, Gay Cohabiting, and Lesbian Cohabiting Couples [pp. 553 - 568]The Course of Marital Success and Failure in Five American 10-Year Marriage Cohorts [pp. 569 - 576]Gender and Fairness: Marital Satisfaction in Two-Earner Couples [pp. 577 - 594]

Intergenerational RelationsAttitudes Regarding Obligations to Assist an Older Parent or Stepparent Following Later-Life Remarriage [pp. 595 - 610]"Because They're My Parents": An Intergenerational Study of Felt Obligation and Parental Caregiving [pp. 611 - 622]Family Experiences and the Erosion of Support for Intergenerational Coresidence [pp. 623 - 632]

AdolescenceA National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use [pp. 633 - 645]Perceptions of Parents: A Measure of Adolescents' Feelings About Their Parents [pp. 646 - 659]An Ecological, Risk-Factor Examination of Adolescents' Sexual Activity in Three Ethnic Groups [pp. 660 - 673]

Marital DisruptionHusbands' and Wives' Resources and Marital Dissolution [pp. 674 - 689]The Impact of Husbands' and Wives' Relative Earnings on Marital Disruption [pp. 690 - 703]

Family and School AchievementThe Family and Educational Aspirations [pp. 704 - 714]Family Structure, Schoolmates, and Racial Inequalities in School Achievement [pp. 715 - 723]

Of General InterestWho's Counting? Quasi-Facts and Stepfamilies in Reports of Number of Siblings [pp. 725 - 733]Spousal Influence on Retirement: His, Her, and Their Perceptions [pp. 734 - 744]The Effects of Childhood Family Structure on Leaving and Returning Home [pp. 745 - 756]Family Type and Depression in Pregnancy: Factors Mediating Risk in a Community Sample [pp. 757 - 770]Attunement between Parents and Professional Caregivers: A Comparison of Childrearing Attitudes in Different Child-Care Settings [pp. 771 - 781]

FeedbackThe Fallacious Assumptions and Unrealistic Prescriptions of Attachment Theory: A Comment on "Parents' Socioemotional Investment in Children" [pp. 782 - 790]In Defense of Parental Investment [pp. 791 - 795]

Book Reviewsuntitled [pp. 796 - 797]untitled [pp. 797 - 798]untitled [pp. 798 - 799]untitled [p. 799]untitled [pp. 799 - 800]untitled [pp. 800 - 801]untitled [pp. 801 - 802]untitled [p. 802]untitled [pp. 802 - 803]untitled [pp. 803 - 804]untitled [p. 804]

A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use

Documents

Transcript of A National Portrait of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use