Adolescent Protective Behavior to Reduce Drug and Alcohol Use, Alcohol-related Harm and...
Transcript of Adolescent Protective Behavior to Reduce Drug and Alcohol Use, Alcohol-related Harm and...
J. DRUG EDUCATION, Vol. 39(3) 289-301, 2009
ADOLESCENT PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR TO REDUCE
DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE, ALCOHOL-RELATED
HARM AND INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE*
LISA BUCKLEY
MARY SHEEHAN
REBEKAH CHAPMAN
Queensland University of Technology,
Kelvin Grove, Australia
ABSTRACT
Typically adolescents’ friends are considered a risk factor for adolescent
engagement in risk-taking. This study took a more novel approach, by
examining adolescent friendship as a protective factor. In particular it investi-
gated friends’ potential to intervene to reduce risk-taking. Five-hundred-forty
adolescents (mean age 13.47 years) were asked about their intention to inter-
vene to reduce friends’ alcohol, drug and alcohol-related harms and about
psychosocial factors potentially associated with intervening. More than half
indicated that they would intervene in friends’ alcohol, drug use, alcohol-
related harms and interpersonal violence. Intervening was associated with
being female, having friends engage in overall less risk-taking and having
greater school connectedness. The findings provide an important understand-
ing of increasing adolescent protective behavior as a potential strategy to
reduce alcohol and drug related harms.
*The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of Injury Prevention and Control
Australia (IPCA) Pty Ltd.
289
� 2009, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
doi: 10.2190/DE.39.3.e
http://baywood.com
Worldwide, injury is the leading cause of death and disability for young people
(Krug, McGee, & Peden, 2002). Much of the injury among young people is asso-
ciated with risk-taking behavior, including transport risks and violence both of
which may occur in association with underage alcohol use. The risk-taking
behavior of adolescents, while it can be considered a normative developmental
process, has injury consequences. Pickett, Garner, Boyce and King (2002) found
that 11-15 year olds who reported the highest number of risk-taking behaviors
were 2.46 times more likely to report medically treated injuries. Adolescents
involved in fighting (Herrenkohl, Maguin, Hill, Hawkins, Abbott, & Catalono,
2000), and who get drunk, take drugs and/or engage in harming behaviors such as
drinking and then operating a bicycle or car are at increased risk of injury
(Chapman & Sheehan, 2005). This suggests a need to better understand ways that
might reduce such risk taking and inform education initiatives.
Adolescents’ associations with their friends or peers is a commonly identified
factor in their engagement in risk-taking behavior such as alcohol and drug use and
interpersonal violence. Such behaviors are social activities (Gerrard, Gibbons,
Vande Lune, Pexa, & Gano, 2002) and provide situations in which a friend may be
physically present and know that an adolescent is about to engage in risk taking
(Mayer, Forster, Murray, & Wagenaar, 1998). The presence of friends has been
shown to be negative, for example both Arnett (2002) and Preusser, Ferguson, and
Williams (1998) found that adolescents with more than two people present in the
car were more likely to have motor vehicle crashes. This study explores the
possibility that the role of adolescent friendship could be used as a protective
factor for reducing or limiting engagement in risk-taking and thereby limiting
injury.
Several studies of older adolescents or young adults suggest that friends might
indeed be a source of active protection. Evidence from college student samples
suggests friends may provide protection by actively intervening in risk-taking
behavior by attempting to prevent drunk driving (Monto, Newcomb, Rabow, &
Hernandez, 1992; Rabow, Newcomb, Monto, & Hernandez, 1990). Similarly
among 16 to 25 year olds Ulleberg (2004) found passengers were willing to speak
up to a risky driver. There are a few studies with adolescents and they too indicate
protecting their friends from engaging in drug or alcohol use or would do so given
the opportunity.
Flanagan, Galley, and Elek (2004) examined the responses to hypothetical
vignettes of 2,697 U.S. adolescents in grades five to twelve (ages 10 to 17 years).
They found that older students compared with younger students were more likely
to ignore their friends’ behavior however, in the case of driving risks, they would
take the keys away from a friend who had been drinking. The potential strategies
of the younger group included talking to the friend or an adult or ending the
friendship. Gender differences were evident with females being more likely than
males to talk to their friends and less likely to ignore the behaviors or stop
being a friend. The focus of Flanagan and colleagues’ research was on the
290 / BUCKLEY, SHEEHAN AND CHAPMAN
types of protective strategies used rather than on factors that might explain the
behavior. Understanding the characteristics of individuals who might be pro-
tective may provide insight into ways the behaviors might be encouraged in a
school based intervention.
Smart and Stoduto (1997) examined individual and friendship factors asso-
ciated with active protection from drug use in a large sample (n = 1184) of U.S.
students in grades 7, 9, 11 and 13. They found that a substantial minority (35.2%)
reported they had protectively intervened in their friends’ illegal drug use, 48.4%
in their smoking tobacco, 36.8% when they were drinking too much, and 34.0% in
their drunk driving. The researchers found that those most likely to intervene were
older, had more close friends who used marijuana, were less likely to take drugs
themselves, were more disapproving of drug use and were more likely to report
being exposed to drug education.
This evidence of protective behavior suggests that intervention programs and
educational strategies might be able to be designed to encourage adolescents to
reduce their friends’ risk-taking. Many psychosocial factors have been examined
in relation to adolescent’s risk-taking including their relationships with their
friends, parents and school. The relationship with parents is predictive of alcohol
use (Chassin & Handley, 2006; Power, Stewart, Hughes, & Arbona, 2005; Urberg,
Goldstein, & Toro, 2005) and the likelihood of involvement in motor vehicle
crashes and driving related offences is reduced by more positive parental influ-
ences such as monitoring, nurturing and family connectedness (Shope, 2001). A
lack of bonding or connectedness of the adolescent to their school has been asso-
ciated with more traffic violations (Bingham, 2006). Experiencing peer pres-
sure has been shown to relate to increased alcohol and drug use (Argrawal,
Lynskey, Bucholz, Madden, & Heath, 2007; Parker & Benson, 2004; Urberg,
Degrimencioglu, & Pilgrim, 1997).
Peer relationships marked by greater anger and poor control of temper have
been associated with general delinquency and violent behavior (Herronkohl et al,
2000; Sigfusdottir, Farkas & Silver, 2004). Further Hussong and Chassin (1994)
found anger predicted adolescent alcohol use. An individual’s ability to regulate
temper may reflect their ability to think through the consequences of their behavior
(Colder & Stice, 1997) and may also be amenable to peer intervention. Clearly
there is a spectrum of psychosocial factors that have been identified to predict risk-
taking behaviors and it is also important to know the characteristics of those young
people who do engage in protective behavior (Buckley & Sheehan, 2004).
In the main most adolescent behavior change programs (i.e., Perry, 1999) have
included strategies to strengthen adolescent resistance to peer pressures to engage
in unsafe behaviors. An alternate form of intervention that encourages protective
behavior has been less common. This study sought to understand protective
behavior in order to inform an intervention design to reduce adolescent risk-taking
and injury. The study examined whether those key variables of connectedness (to
parents and school), perceived peer involvement in risk-taking, peer pressure,
ADOLESCENT INTERVENING IN FRIENDS’ RISK-TAKING / 291
delinquency and self-control (of temper) could predict protective behavior toward
friends’ risk-taking.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The protocol used in this study was granted ethical permission from the relevant
university and education boards. All Year 9 students with written parental per-
mission who were present at school on the day of data collection completed a
questionnaire in a class time that was most convenient to the school. Sampling was
not undertaken in any specific class. 540 students of 5 schools in the South East
region of Queensland, Australia (mean age 13.47 years, 51% female) participated.
Standardised instructions (e.g. about the confidential nature of the survey) were
read by a researcher prior to administering the questionnaire. The legal drinking
age is 18 years and driver licensing age at the time of the survey was 17 years.
Helmet wearing is compulsory when riding a bicycle.
Measures
Peer Protection
Intention to protect a friend was measured using an amended version of the peer
influence survey (Western, Lynch, & Ogilvie, 2003). In response to 11 possible
risk-taking behaviors by their friends, participants were asked whether they would
(i) “report them” or “try and stop them” (coded as protective behavior) or (ii) “join
in,” “do nothing” or “walk away” (coded as not protective). The study examined
protective behavior in the context of “getting drunk a lot,” “using drugs,” “driving
after drinking,” “riding a bicycle after drinking” and “getting into fights.”
Demographics
Students were asked to provide demographic information including age, sex,
and ethnic background.
Risk Taking
The measure of risk-taking behavior was based on the Australian Self-Report
Delinquency Scale, ASRDS (Mak, 1993) and adjustments made by Western and
colleagues (2003). Each item was the description of an act and participants were
asked to respond as to whether or not they had engaged in the act during the past
three months. The co-efficient Chronbach’s alpha for the 25-item measure was .88
292 / BUCKLEY, SHEEHAN AND CHAPMAN
indicating strong internal consistency. The computation of total delinquency score
was developed using item severity weightings based on reported prevalence rates.
A weighting was applied to each behavior which the student indicated that they
engaged in. The severity weighting was based on the proportions of students
reporting the behavior. For example, more serious items (e.g., stealing a car to go
for a joyride) reported by 1.5% of students was weighted higher than the score for
wagging or skipping school reported by 20.7% of students. The total risk taking
score involved summing the weighted scores to reflect severity and prevalence.
Those with more than one third missing data were excluded from the analysis.
Self-control (Temper)
The Temper subscale of the Measures of Self-Control (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik,
& Arneklev, 1993) was selected to assess adolescents’ self-control. The 4 items
(scale range 1-4 per item, “not like me at all” to “a lot like me”) were summed to
produce a total score. The measure had good internal consistency, Cronbach’s
alpha = .79.
Peer Pressure
The 8 items of the peer pressure subscale of the Peer Pressure, Conformity, and
Popularity Questionnaire (Santor, Messervey, & Kusumaker, 2000) were summed
to produce a total score with a higher score indicating greater susceptibility to peer
pressure. The measure had good internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha = .80.
Friends’ Risk Taking Behavior
To assess students’ perceptions of the amount of risk-taking by friends parti-
cipants were asked how many of their good friends had done each of several risk-
taking behaviors in the past 3 months (scaled I “none” to 4 “most”’). Friends’ risk-
taking included drinking alcohol, taking part in fights, and four transport-related
risks (driven a car or motorbike, ridden with a dangerous driver and ridden a
bicycle without a helmet). Item responses were summed to produce a total score of
perceived friends’ involvement in risk taking and had good internal consistency,
Cronbach’s alpha = .80.
Maternal and Paternal Bonding
To measure adolescent bonding or connectedness to mother and father an
amended version of the “care” subscale from the Parental Bonding Instrument
(Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979) was used. Eight items (scaled, I to 4) were
summed to produce a total score with a higher score indicating greater care from
ADOLESCENT INTERVENING IN FRIENDS’ RISK-TAKING / 293
the parent. The measures had strong internal consistency, (Mother bonding,
Cronbach’s alpha = .93 and Father bonding, Cronbach’s alpha = .94).
School Connectedness
To measure school connectedness a shortened version (8-item) of the School as
a Caring Community Profile-II (Lickona & Davidson, 2003) was used. The items
(scaled, 1 to 10) were summed to produce a total score with a higher score indi-
cating greater levels of school caring of support. The items measure connectedness
to teachers and to fellow students, such as “students treat classmates with respect”
and “teachers go out of their way to help students.” The measure had adequate
internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha = .71.
RESULTS
Some descriptive statistics were first calculated both on the frequency of the risk
taking behavior and the frequency of protective behavior. Just over 30% of the
sample reported having consumed alcohol in the 3 months prior to the survey,
1.5% indicated that they had driven a car after drinking and 8% indicated that they
had ridden a bicycle after drinking. Further 6% indicated that they had smoked
marijuana and 36% indicated that they had been involved in at least one violent
behavior. More than half of the students reported they had taken protective behav-
ior to prevent their friends’ taking risks by; getting drunk a lot (50.2%), using
drugs (67.0%), drink driving (82.2%), riding a bicycle after drinking (63.7%) and
getting into fights (50.3%).
Table 1 presents the results of the logistic regression analyses which were used
to predict each of the alcohol and drug related risk-taking behaviors from demo-
graphic factors, peer pressure, delinquency, perceived friends’ risk-taking, paren-
tal connectedness and school connectedness. Results could not be obtained for the
model on protection of drunk driving. For the drunk driving logistic regression the
percentage correctly predicted of non-protective behavior of drink driving was
only 7.2%.
Results of the other logistic regressions showed that being female increased the
likelihood of protection in all the contexts of friends’ risk-taking. Lower risk-
taking among friends was predictive of preventing alcohol use, drug use and drink
cycling. Further, school connectedness but not parental connectedness was pre-
dictive of protective behavior including intervening in friends’ drink cycling and
getting into fights. Only protecting friends from fights was predicted by being of
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or Pacific Islander background compared with
being of White/Caucasian background. None of the models were predicted by
self-control of temper.
294 / BUCKLEY, SHEEHAN AND CHAPMAN
ADOLESCENT INTERVENING IN FRIENDS’ RISK-TAKING / 295
Tab
le1
.F
ind
ing
so
fLo
gis
tic
Reg
ressio
nA
naly
sis
Pre
dic
tin
gP
rote
ctin
go
fF
rien
ds’
Dri
nkin
g,D
rug
Use,
Dri
nk
Cyclin
g,an
dF
igh
tin
gfr
om
Sig
nific
an
tP
sych
oso
cia
lF
acto
rs
Vari
ab
leW
ald
BS
EE
xp
(B)
95
%C
I
Ge
ttin
gd
run
ka
lot
Sex
a
Peer
pre
su
re
Perc
eiv
ed
frie
nd
s’ri
sk-t
akin
g
Usin
gd
rug
s
Sex
Perc
eiv
ed
frie
nd
s’ri
sk-t
akin
g
Dri
nk
cyc
ling
Sex
Perc
eiv
ed
frie
nd
s’ri
sk-t
akin
g
Sch
oo
lco
nn
ecte
dn
ess
Ge
ttin
gin
tofig
hts
Sex
Ab
ori
gin
alo
rT
orr
es
Str
ait
Isla
nd
er
backg
rou
nd
b
Pacific
Isla
nd
er
backg
rou
nd
Peer
pre
ssu
re
Sch
oo
lco
nn
ecte
dn
ess
6.3
10
5.0
88
17
.08
9
10
.41
5
9.8
10
4.8
53
8.0
24
7.1
50
21
.09
0
4.3
96
4.1
98
10
.44
5
6.2
24
–.5
01
–.0
20
–.1
37
–.7
37
–.1
06
–.4
58
–.0
90
.02
9
–.9
52
–1
.11
9
–.7
78
–.3
03
.02
8
.19
9
.00
9
.03
3
.22
8
.03
4
.20
8
.03
2
.01
1
.20
7
.53
4
.38
0
.00
9
.01
1
.60
6*
.98
0*
.87
2**
.47
9**
.90
0**
.63
3*
.91
4**
1.0
29
**
.38
6**
.32
7*
.45
9*
.97
0**
1.0
28
*
.41
0-.
89
6
.96
2-.
99
7
.81
7-.
93
1
.30
6-.
74
9
.84
2-.
96
4
.42
1-.
95
1
.85
8-.
97
3
1.0
08
-1.0
51
.25
7-.
57
9
.11
5-.
93
0
.21
8-.
96
7
.95
2-.
98
8
1.0
06
-1.0
50
No
te:
On
lysig
nific
an
tp
red
icto
rvari
ab
les
are
inclu
ded
.A
hig
her
sco
re=
str
on
ger
en
do
rsem
en
to
fco
nstr
uct.
aR
efe
ren
ce
cate
go
ryis
fem
ale
.bR
efe
ren
ce
cate
go
ryis
Wh
ite/C
au
casia
nb
ackg
rou
nd
.
*p
<.0
5,**p
<.0
1
DISCUSSION
The study demonstrated that more than half of participants would try to protect
their friends from risk behaviors, the largest proportion indicating that they would
intervene in their friends’ drunk driving (83%). This is generally consistent with
the research on adolescent protective behavior which indicated a sizeable minority
(close to one-half) would protect their friends from alcohol and drug use (Smart &
Stoduto, 1997). The findings are important in that they indicate there is potential
for interventions to encourage adolescents to play a role in protecting friends from
risk taking. It is encouraging that more than half would protect their friends, and
while there is a sizeable minority who wouldn’t try to encourage protection to stop
or report their friends’ risk-taking these data support including such strategies in
relevant drug and alcohol related interventions.
It is of note that the least prevalent (e.g., drink driving) behavior is the most
likely behavior that students indicate they would protect their friends from engag-
ing in. This may be associated with perceived higher levels of risk associated with
this behavior. There is both substantial evidence of the harms that can be asso-
ciated with drink driving (Shope, Waller, & Lang, 1996) and of the very strong
community disapproval of drink driving (Pennay, 2006). This is perhaps con-
sistent with other research in that Flanagan et al. (2004) found greater intended
intervening with friends’ marijuana use compared with alcohol use. Similarly
Adeybo (1988) reported college students would intervene in friends’ drunk
driving if they perceived the potential consequences as serious. In a study by
Ulleberg (2004) about passenger intervening, females at least were more likely to
speak up to the driver if they felt the driving was unsafe. Syversten, Flanagan, &
Stout (2009) highlight personal values of privacy may be a reason young people do
not intervene. Thus students might only break such privacy if they perceive the
outcome of not intervening is sufficiently likely to cause harm. It must also be
noted that students may have greater difficulty understanding the seriousness of
certain situations. Again there may be implications here for educational
instructions to inform students of the likelihood of harm from particular behavior.
A number of psychosocial factors predicted the intended protective behavior.
Interestingly, the only significant predictor of protection for all the examined risk-
taking behaviors was sex (suggesting that there may be different factors operating
in different contexts). Females were more likely to indicate that they would try and
stop or report a friend who was getting into fights, getting drunk, drug use or drink
cycling. This was particularly the case for protecting friends from getting into
fights (Adjusted Odds Ratio = .39). This finding is consistent with other literature
on adolescent protective behavior. Flanagan et al. (2004) found that females were
more inclined than males to talk to their friends about drinking, smoking and drugs
and less inclined to ignore the behavior. Further, Ulleberg (2004) found that
females (16-24 years) were more likely to speak up as a passenger of a risky driver.
The research found that female passengers of risky drivers saw fewer costs to
296 / BUCKLEY, SHEEHAN AND CHAPMAN
speaking up, felt more confident to do so and were less accepting of risk-taking
compared with males. Preparedness to engage in protective behavior appears to
differ between the sexes and any effort to facilitate greater protection of peers
should explore the context and basis for such differences.
The findings showed that the psychosocial factors that predicted adolescents’
intention to protect their friends are somewhat consistent across the different types
of friends’ risk-taking behavior. A perception of lower risk-taking of friends was
associated with greater protection from alcohol risks, drug use and drink cycling.
This finding is not consistent with Smart and Stoduto (1997) who found that
protective behavior for alcohol and drug use among friends was predicted by per-
ceived greater marijuana use by friends. The current study used a slightly younger
sample and importantly, students were responding to hypothetical situations rather
than reporting on previous behaviors. There may be a reduction of the association
between intended and actual protective behavior in the risk situation. This would
have implications for school intervention design if supported further.
Only connectedness to school, and not to either parent, was predictive of inter-
vening behavior for any one of the friends’ risk-taking behaviors. The concept of
school connectedness in this study relates closely to protection, in that the measure
relates to an environment characterised by high bonding and students who
look out for and care about fellow students (Lickona & Davidson, 2003). Bonding
to school has been shown to relate to lower levels of self-reported delinquent
behavior (McBride, Curry, Cheadle, Anderman, Wagner, & Dieher, et al., 1995;
Simons-Morton, Davis Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1999). In this study school con-
nectedness was not predictive of protection for friends’ excessive alcohol or drug
use however it does confirm the role schools can play in fostering a supportive
relationship among students and a climate that may lead to benefits in reducing
adolescent risk-taking.
Reported susceptibility to peer pressure related to less engagement in protec-
tion for alcohol use and from getting into fights, the most common of the risk-
taking behaviors at this age. It may be that protection is affected by a context of a
wider social group influence and in a high alcohol consumption community ado-
lescents might feel that they are under greater pressure to comply with a group
norm of drinking.
There are a number of limitations that must be considered in assessing these
findings. Firstly, the study reports on hypothetical responses to situations. It is pos-
sible that adolescents would not actually intervene despite their best intentions in
the case of alcohol use where normative modeling and peer pressure appear to play
important roles. Further, there is no guarantee that an intervention promoting
protection would actually reduce friends’ engagement in risk-taking. Some sup-
portive evidence comes from Shore and Compton (2000) who found in their
research on college students’ drunk driving interventions that participants thought
that their intervention was successful in more than half of all cases. Other previous
research indicates that adolescents self-report that they do indeed protect their
ADOLESCENT INTERVENING IN FRIENDS’ RISK-TAKING / 297
friends from alcohol and drug use (Smart & Stoduto, 1997) and intentions have
been shown to be predictive of future behavior among adolescents (Armitage &
Conner, 2000).
The study was also limited in the range of predictive factors entered into the
model. Although the aim of the study was to focus on individual psychosocial and
demographic factors, the measures did not take the nature of friendship into
account. Prosocial behavior among adolescents and intervening among college
student’s drunk driving has been shown to be affected by the closeness of the
friendship with more likelihood of protective outreach taking place among close
friends (McNamara Barry & Wentzel, 2006; Rabow et al., 1990). Newcomb,
Bukowski, and Pattee (1993) reported that peer approval was positively related to
adolescents’ engagement in prosocial behavior.
The research lends further support to approaches that enlist adolescents to inter-
vene to protect their friends’ from alcohol-related harming behavior. There has been
substantial research to indicate young people turn to their friends for support during
adolescence. The results of this and other studies (i.e., Flanagan et al., 2004; Smart
& Stoduto, 1997) suggest that targeting prevention strategies toward encouraging
adolescents to protect their friends is an important initiative. The current findings
have important implications for intervention design. Classroom based behavior
change programs are a commonly used and potentially effective way in which to
change adolescent behavior (Botvin & Griffin, 2004; Perry, 1999). The research
reported here suggests that facilitating and strengthening protective behaviors may
be a useful addition to the more common approaches concerned with reducing or
resisting peer pressure to use alcohol and drugs. The techniques that have been
demonstrated to be generally effective include interactive programs such as role
plays and discussions (Tobler, Roona, Ochshorn, Marshall, Streke, & Stackpole,
2000). It is likely that students can role play how they might intervene to protect a
friend or participate in a guided discussion about intervening. Given that the
findings of this study highlight that perceptions of friends risk-taking and peer
pressure are associated with intervening the strategies used in alcohol prevention
programs to address peer pressure are also relevant. Supportive school bonding
was shown to relate positively to protecting, at least in the case of drink cycling
and getting into fights. A whole of school bonding approach such as that applied to
reducing risk-taking behavior (e.g., Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps,
1997) might also be effective in the context of protective behavior.
Overall, this study demonstrated strong pro-social and protective behaviors by
early adolescents. It suggests that different strategies for protection exist between
girls and boys and that the likelihood of protection is affected by adolescent’s
perceptions of friends’ risk-taking, their own engagement in delinquent behaviors,
connectedness to their school and peer pressure. These research findings could
inform interventions including curriculum programs and the targeting of health
promotion advertising campaigns.
298 / BUCKLEY, SHEEHAN AND CHAPMAN
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the staff and students of the participating
schools. We wish to acknowledge the wider research team, including John
Western, Vic Siskind and Christine Bond.
REFERENCES
Adeybo, A. (1988). Drunk driving intervention in an urban community: An exploratory
analysis. British Journal of Addiction, 83, 423-429.
Argrawal, A., Lynskey, M. T., Bucholz, K. K., Madden, P. A. F., & Heath, A. C. (2007).
Correlates of cannabis initiation in a longitudinal sample of young women: The
importance of peer influence. Preventive Medicine, 45, 31-34.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Social cognition models and health behavior: A
structured review. Psychology and Health, 15, 173-189.
Arnett, J. J. (2002). Developmental sources of crash risk in young drivers. Injury Preven-
tion, 8, ii17-ii23.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M.S., & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school com-
munities. Educational Psychologist,32, 137-151.
Bingham, C. R. (2006). Patterns of traffic offences from adolescent licensure into early
young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 35-42.
Botvin, G. J., & Griffen, K. W. (2004). Life skills training: Empirical finding and future
directions. Journal of Primary Prevention, 25, 211-223.
Buckley, L., & Sheehan, M. (2004). Behavior change programs. In R. McClure, M.
Stevenson, & S. McEvoy (Eds.), The scientific basis of injury prevention and control.
Melbourne, Australia: IP Communications.
Chapman, R., & Sheehan, M. (2005). The adolescent injury checklist: An investigation of
transport related injuries by Australian adolescents. Paper presented at the Australian
Road Safety, Policing and Education Conference, New Zealand.
Chassin, L., & Handley, E. D. (2006). Parents and families as contexts for the development
of substance use and substance use disorders. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 20,
135-137.
Colder, C. R., & Stice, F. (1998). A longitudinal study of the interactive effects of
impulsivity and anger on adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 27, 255-274.
Flanagan, C., Galley, L., & Elek, E. (2004). Friends don’t let friends . . . Or do they?
Developmental and gender differences in intervening in friends’ ATOD use. Journal of
Drug Education, 34, 351-371.
Gerrard, M. G., Gibbons, F. X., Vande Lune, L. S., Pexa, N. A., & Gano, M. L. (2002).
Adolescents’ substance-related risk perceptions: Antecedents, mediators, and
consequences. Risk Decision & Policy, 7, 175-191.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. I. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing of the core
empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of
Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
ADOLESCENT INTERVENING IN FRIENDS’ RISK-TAKING / 299
Hawkins, J., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and
other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance
abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 64-105.
Herrenkohl, T. J., Maguin, E., Hill, K. O., Hawkins, J., Abbott, R. D., & Catalono, R. F.
(2000). Development risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26,
176-186.
Hussong, A. N., & Chasin, L. (1994). The stress negative affect model of adolescent alcohol
use: Disaggregating negative affect. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 707-718.
Krug, E.G., McGee, K., & Peden, M.M. (2002). Injury: A leading cause of the global
burden of disease 2000. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. L. (2003). School as a Caring Community Profile-II (SCCP
II). Retrieved online 1 March 2005, from: www.cortland.edu/characterlsccp-ii.htm
Maio, R. F., Shope, J. T., Blow, F. C., Copeland, L. A., & Gregor, M. A. (2000). Adolescent
injury in the emergency department: Opportunities for alcohol interventions? Annals
of Emergency Medicine, 35, 252-257.
Mak, A. S. (1993). A self-report delinquency scale for Australian adolescents. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 45, 75-79.
Mayer, R. R., Forster, J. L., Murray, D. M., & Wagenaar, A. C. (1998). Social settings and
situations of underage drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59, 207-215.
McBride, C. M., Curry, S. J., Cheadle, A., Anderman, C., Wagner, E. H., Dieher, W., et al.
(1995). School-level application of a social bonding model to adolescent risk-taking
behavior. Journal of School Health, 65, 63-68.
McNamara Barry, C., & Wentzel, K. R. (2006). Friend influence on prosocial behavior:
The role of motivational factors and friendship characteristics. Developmental Psy-
chology, 42, 153-163.
Monto, M. A., Newcomb, M. D., Rabow, J., & Hernandez, A. C. R. (1992). Social status
and drunk-driving intervention. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 53, 63-68.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A
metoanalytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, and controversial sociometric
status. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 99-128.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A Parental Bonding Instrument. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
Parker, J. S., & Benson, M. J. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent function-
ing: Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence, 39, 520-530.
Patten, C. P., Lopez, K. N., Thomas, J. L., Offord, K. P., & Decker, P. A. (2004). Reported
willingness among adolescent nonsmokers to help parents, peers and others stop
smoking. Preventive Medicine, 39, 1099-1106.
Pennay, D., (2006). Community attitudes to road safety—Wave 19-2—6. ATSB, Canberra,
ACT.
Perry, C. (1999). Creating health behavior change: How to develop community-wide
programs for youth.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pickett, W., Garner, M. J., Boyce, W. F., & King, M. A. (2002). Gradients in risk for youth
injury associated with multiple-risk behaviors: A study of 11,329 Canadian adoles-
cents. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 1055-1067.
Power, T. G., Stewart, C. D., Hughes, S. 0., & Arbona, C. (2005). Predicting patters of
adolescent alcohol use: A longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, 74-81.
Preusser, D. F., Ferguson, S. A., & Williams, A. F. (1998). The effect of teenage passengers
on the fatal crash risk of teenage drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 30, 217-222.
300 / BUCKLEY, SHEEHAN AND CHAPMAN
Rabow, J., Newcomb, M. D., Monto, M. A., & Hernandez, A. C. R. (1990). Altruism in
drunk driving situations: Personal and situational factors in intervention. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 53, 199-213.
Santor, D. A., Messervey, D., & Kusumaker, V. (2000). Measuring peer pressure,
popularity, and conformity in adolescent boys and girls: Predicting school per-
formance, sexual attitudes, and substance abuse. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
29, 163-182.
Shope, J. (2001). Teens, substance abuse, and driving. UMTRI Research Review, 32(3), 6-9.
Shope, J. T., Waller, P. F., & Lang, S. W. (1996). Alcohol-related predictors of adolescent
driving: Gender differences in crashes and offences. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
28, 755-764.
Shore, E. R., & Compton, K. L. (2000). Individual interventions to prevent drunk driving:
Types, efficacy, and a theoretical perspective. Journal of Drug Education, 30,
281-289.
Simons-Morton, B. G., Davis Crump, A., Haynie, D. L., & Saylor, K. E. (1999). Student
school bonding and adolescent problem behavior. Health Education Research, 14,
99-107.
Smart, R. G., & Stoduto, G. (1997). Interventions by students in friends’ alcohol, tobacco,
and drug use. Journal of Drug Education, 27, 213-222.
Syversten, A. K., Flanagan, C. A., & Stout, M. (2009). Code of silence: Students’ percep-
tions of school climate and willingness to intervene in a peer’s dangerous plan. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 101, 219-237.
Tobler, N.S., Roona, M.R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D.G., Streke, A.V., Stackpole, K.M.
(2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 275-336.
Ulleberg, P. (2004). Social influence from the back-seat: Factors related to adolescent
passengers’ willingness to address unsafe drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 7,
17-30.
Urberg, K. A., Degrimencioglu, S. D., & Pilgrim, C. (1997). Close friend and group influ-
ence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology, 33,
834-844.
Urberg, K. A., Goldstein, M. S., & Toro, P. A. (2005). Supportive relationships as a
moderator of the effects of parent and peer drinking on adolescent drinking. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 15, 1-19.
Western, J., Lynch, M., & Ogilvie, E. (2003). Understanding youth crime: An Australian
study. Aldershop, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Direct reprint requests to:
Lisa Buckley
Centre for Accident Research
and Road Safety—Queensland
Queensland University of Technology
K Block
Victoria Park Road
Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059
Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
ADOLESCENT INTERVENING IN FRIENDS’ RISK-TAKING / 301