National Institute on Drug Abuse

RESEARCH

MONOGRAPH SERIES

Drug Abuse Among

Minority Youth:

Methodological Issues

and Recent Research

Advances

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • Public Health Service • National Institutes of Health

130
Drug Abuse Among

Minority Youth:

Advances in Research

and Methodology

Editors:

Mario R. De La Rosa, Ph.D.

Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

and

Juan-Luis Recio Adrados, Ph.D.

Visiting Research Scientist

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Universidad Complutense

Madrid, Spain

NIDA Research Monograph 130

1993

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Public Health Service

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Drug Abuse

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This monograph is based on the papers and discussions from a technical

review on “Epidemiologic Drug Abuse Research on Minority Youth:

Methodological Issues and Recent Research Advances” held on July 17-18,

1991, in Bethesda, MD. The technical review was sponsored by the National

Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).

COPYRIGHT STATUS

NIDA has obtained permission from the copyright holders to reproduce certain

previously published material as noted in the text. Further reproduction of this

copyrighted material is permitted only as part of a reprinting of the entire

publication or chapter. For any other use, the copyright holder’s permission

is required. All other material in this volume except quoted passages from

copyrighted sources is in the public domain and may be used or reproduced

without permission from the Institute or the authors. Citation of the source is

appreciated.

Opinions expressed in this volume are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the opinions or official policy of the National Institute on Drug

Abuse or any other part of the US. Department of Health and Human Services.

The U.S. Government does not endorse or favor any specific commercial

product or company. Trade, proprietary, or company names appearing in this

publication are used only because they are considered essential in the context

of the studies reported herein.

NIDA Research Monographs are indexed in the “Index Medicus.” They are

selectively included in the coverage of “American Statistics Index,” “Biosciences

Information Service,” “Chemical Abstracts,” “Current Contents,” “Psychological

Abstracts,” and “Psychopharmacology Abstracts.”

National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIH Publication No. 93-3479

Printed 1993

i i
Contents

Page

Introduction and Overview 1

Mario R. De La Rosa, Juan-Luis Recio Adrados,

and Norweeta Milburn

THEORETICAL ISSUES

Integrating Mainstream and Subcultural Explanations of

Drug Use Among Puerto Rican Youth 8

Orlando Rodriguez, Juan-Luis Recio Adrados,

and Mario R. De La Rosa

Orthogonal Cultural Identification: Theoretical Links

Between Cultural Identification and Substance Use 32

E. R. Oetting

Acculturation: The Broader View. Theoretical

Framework of the Acculturation Scales 57

Juan-Luis Recio Adrados

Interactional Theory: Its Utility in Explaining Drug Use

Behavior Among African-American and Puerto Rican Youth 79

Judith S. Brook

Network Theory: A Model for Understanding Drug Abuse

Among African-American and Hispanic Youth 102

Marvin D. Krohn and Terence P. Thornberry

iii
Examining Conceptual Models for Understanding Drug

Use Behavior Among American Indian Youth 129

Jeff King and Julian F. Thayer

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS

Acculturation Strain Theory: Its Application in

Explaining Drug Use Behavior Among Cuban and Other

Hispanic Youth 144

William A. Vega, Rick Zimmerman, Andres Gil,

George J. Warheit, and Eleni Apospori

Validity of Self-Reports in Student-Based Studies

on Minority Populations: Issues and Concerns 167

John M. Wallace, Jr., and Jerald G. Bachman

Interviewing Minority Youth About Drug Use:

Telephone vs. In-Person Surveys 201

Leonard LoSciuto, William S. Aquilino,

and Frederick C. Licari

Hispanic Dropouts and Drug Use: A Review of the

Literature and Methodological Considerations 224

Ernest L. Chavez

Getting Into the Gang: Methodological Issues

in Studying Ethnic Gangs 234

Karen A. Joe

Identifying, Gaining Access To, and Collecting

Data on African-American Drug Addicts

Leon E. Pettiway

Surveying and Tracking Urban Elementary School Children’s

Use of Abusable Substances 280

Patricia J. Bush, Mary Ann D’Elio, Charlotte D. Peoples,

and Heather M. Schell

School and Community Politics: Issues, Concerns,

and Implications When Conducting Research in

African-American Communities 298

Julius Debra and Darlene J. Conley

iv
Substance Use Disorders Among Young Minority Refugees:

Common Themes in a Clinical Sample 308

Joe Westermeyer

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Current Gaps and New Directions for Studying Drug

Use and Abuse Behavior in Minority Youth 321

Mario R. De La Rosa, Juan-Luis Recio Adrados,

Nancy J. Kennedy, and Norweeta Milburn

List of NIDA Research Monographs 341

v

Introduction and Overview

Mario R. De La Rosa, Juan-Luis Recio Adrados, and

Norweeta Milburn

During the past decade, some advances have been made in understanding

the nature and extent of the drug use problem encountered by minority youth.1

Results obtained from this research have provided suggestive evidence that

American Indian high school seniors are more likely than their non-Hispanic

white, Hispanic, African-American, and Asian-American counterparts to use

and abuse licit and illicit drugs (Beauvais et al. 1989; Bachman et al. 1990).

Data also suggest that stress caused by assimilation into American society

and lack of family cohesiveness and support may be related to the drug use

behavior of Hispanic and African-American youth (Vega et al., this volume:

Szapocznik and Kurtines 1980). Information on the prevalence and causes

of drug use among minority youth has been utilized by human service and

health care providers, law enforcement officials, and policymakers to develop

interventions and policies geared toward addressing the drug problem

experienced by these youth.

Despite these research advances, little is known about the patterns, causes,

and consequences of illicit and licit drug use and abuse among minority youth.

The limited literature suggests that, because of cultural influences, unique

economic situations, and formal and informal social network systems, the

drug-using behavior of minority youth may vary significantly from that of

nonminority youth. Thus, there is an urgent need for etiologic research that

investigates the interactive roles of intrapersonal, interpersonal, familial,

cultural community, and other larger societal factors on the onset, casual use,

escalation to use, maintenance, development of dependence, cessation of use,

and relapse to use of licit and illicit drugs among minority youth. Studies are

also needed that would investigate protective factors among minority children

who are at risk but have refrained from using drugs or from escalating to abuse

from initial limited exposure. There is also a need for epidemiologic studies

to determine the prevalence of drug use among Asian-American and Hispanic

youth of South and Central American and Caribbean extraction. Research on

the interrelationship between drug abuse and violence among school dropouts,

gang members, and other minority youth should also be undertaken.

1
This paucity of research on the drug use behavior of minority youth can

be attributed to several factors; the following ones seem to stand out:

(1) inadequate exploration of the important role that ethnic and racial factors

play in the drug use behavior of growing ethnic or racial minority populations;

(2) inaccessibility of these populations to drug abuse researchers because

of the mistrust that many ethnic groups, including African-Americans, have

toward drug abuse researchers; (3) lack of trained minority drug abuse

researchers; (4) lack of well-designed community-based research projects

that would utilize qualitative and quantitative methodologies in combination

when collecting data on minority youth; and (5) lack of resources to conduct

well-designed drug abuse etiologic research projects.

The lack of information on the extent and nature of drug use and abuse

problems among minority youth limits the development of culturally relevant

and, therefore, effective drug abuse prevention and treatment programs

directed toward this group. Human service and health care workers who

provide drug abuse services to minority youth have long argued that current

drug abuse prevention and treatment programs are not effective in addressing

the drug use problems found among these youth. They attribute this failure to

the fact that the majority of preventive and treatment programs are based on

data collected from research studies conducted on nonminority youth. Because

the problem of drug use and abuse affects the physical and emotional wellbeing of minority youth, there is an urgency to develop interventions that will

effectively counteract this problem.

With this sense of urgency, on July 17-18, 1991, a technical review-titled

“Epidemiologic Drug Abuse Research on Minority Youth: Methodological

Issues and Recent Research Advances,” sponsored by the Epidemiologic

Research Branch, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Division of

Epidemiology and Prevention Research-was held in Bethesda, MD. The

major objective of this conference was to stimulate further research on the

potentially unique nature of the drug-using behaviors of minority youth by

reviewing current research and proposing future research directions. Data

‘were presented on recent findings from theory-driven research studies on the

etiology of drug use among minority youth. In addition, information regarding

methodological problems and other barriers affecting the lack and quality of

research in this field also was presented.

The papers presented at this technical review are contained in this monograph

and fall into three categories: (1) review of theory-driven research findings

and other theoretical considerations, (2) methodological problems and other

barriers, and (3) future research orientation.

The first set of chapters presents findings from theory-driven research or

discusses theoretical issues relevant to research on the drug-using behavior

2
of minority youth. In their chapters, Rodriguez and colleagues, Oetting, and

Recio Adrados seek to address the important role that acculturation-related

stress and cultural values toward substance abuse play in the drug-using

behavior of Hispanic and American Indian youth.

The findings presented by Rodriguez and colleagues point to the need to

expand existing theoretical models to include a subcultural component when

exploring the drug-using behavior of Puerto Rican and other Hispanic youth.

They provide evidence that suggests that future etiologic research on the drugusing behavior of Puerto Rican youth should extensively explore the role that

cultural values toward drug use and loss of cultural identity play in the drugusing behavior and drug-dealing activities of these youth. Oetting’s chapter

discusses the importance of cultural identification in the well-being of American

Indian youth. According to Oetting, those American Indian youth who lose their

cultural identity are more susceptible to use and abuse of drugs than those

who do not. Recio Adrados provides a review of different theoretical models

underpinning the development of scales to measure the complex phenomenon

of acculturation. He argues that many of the efforts made in measuring the

construct of culture are in need of further theoretical expansion. Recio Adrados

calls for the development of a multidisciplinary theoretical approach to further

the knowledge base regarding the importance of cultural changes in the lives

of immigrant groups. He states that such a theoretical approach could lead to

the development of scales that would more accurately determine the impact

that cultural changes and cultural values have on the drug-using behavior

and emotional well-being of ethnic minority youth.

The chapters by Brook and by Krohn and Thornberry explore the role that

network and family systems have on the drug-using behavior of Puerto

Rican and African-American youth. Brook provides the results from a

project that explored the impact of familial relationship and attachment,

the school environment, peer relationships, individual personality traits,

and other domains on the drug-using behavior of African-American and

Puerto Rican youth. These results suggest that the domains of personality,

family, and drug context have direct influence on the drug-using behavior of

these youth. In particular, Brook found that nonconflictual and affectionate

mutual attachment relationships between parents and children led to lower

levels of drug use among these children.

Similarly, Krohn and Thornberry present findings from a research project

that explored the network systems of white non-Hispanic, African-American,

and Puerto Rican youth drug users and nonusers, The findings suggest

that nonusers tend to have stronger family network systems than do users

regardless of race and ethnic background. On the other hand, users appear

to have more supportive and intimate relationships with their friends than do

nonusers. However, the friendship networks of users were less stable than

3
those of nonusers regardless of race and ethnic background. Overall, family

networks play a more important role in the drug-using behavior of Puerto Rican

youth than African-American youth and white non-Hispanic youth.

The last chapter in this section, by King and Thayer, examines two promising

theoretical models that might explain substance use among American Indian

youth: a life stress model and a modified peer cluster model. According to

King and Thayer, the life stress model proposes that the primary predictive

factors for substance abuse are life stress, availability of social support from

family, and other formal and informal social institutions. The peer cluster theory

hypothesizes that the strongest predictive factors for substance abuse are peer

influences, particularly association with deviant peers. Both models were tested

to determine their relative ability to predict rates of substance use among the

youth interviewed. Goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated that both models were

of equal quality in accounting for the patterns among factors hypothesized to

relate to substance abuse.

The second section of this monograph addresses a variety of methodological

issues affecting the quality of data collected on the drug use and abuse

behavior of minority youth. Findings from the research illustrate the need

for better data collection procedures when conducting drug use research

in minority populations. Vega and colleagues present information on the

development of scales that accurately measure the impact that culture changes

and orientation have on the drug-using behavior of Hispanic adolescents. They

provide a detailed description of the steps taken in the development of these

scales, including the problems encountered. They argue that the development

of such scales is only a first step in the difficult process of developing an

integrative theoretical approach to exploring the drug-using behavior of

Hispanic and other ethnic minority youth.

Wallace and Bachman address the critical issue regarding the reliability

and validity of self-reports in student-based studies of minority populations.

Using data from a large national representative sample of high school seniors,

Wallace and Bachman investigated whether minority high school seniors

underreport their drug use. Examination of the data suggests that, although

caution should be used when reporting and interpreting racial differences in

school-based survey responses, especially when such differences are relatively

small, large racial and ethnic subgroup differences in self-reported drug use are

generally valid and reliable.

The chapter by LoSciuto and associates examines the impact that mode of

interview (face-to-face vs. telephone) of interview has on the self-report of rates

of drug use of 18- to 25-year-old African-Americans and Hispanics compared

with self-reports by same-age and older white non-Hispanic respondents. The

findings suggest that the response rates for the telephone interview were similar

4
to those reported in face-to-face interviews for white non-Hispanics but not

for African-Americans. Telephone interviews resulted in a lower response

rate for alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine use compared with the face-to-face

interviews for African-Americans. Rates for Hispanics were not included

because of the small number of subjects in this study.

The problems associated with collecting data on the drug-using behavior

of Hispanic school dropouts is the focus of the chapter by Chavez. Issues

related to identifying, interviewing, and retaining Hispanic school dropouts in

drug abuse studies and problems regarding the definition of what constitutes

a school dropout are addressed. Recommendations are also made for the

need for longitudinal studies and other research on this topic.

Similarly, Joe and Pettiway both discuss issues related to the collection of

data on ethnic gangs and young African-American addicts. Joe provides a

brief overview of the current state of research on ethnic gangs, looking at the

nature of these studies, primary methods used, and reasons for the sporadic

development of an ethnic-specific focus. Second, Joe examines how

researchers can begin studying ethnic gangs, focusing on the methodological

procedures—specific tasks, general problems, specific ethnic concerns, and

strategies—that researchers need to be aware of when conducting

ethnographic-based research on ethnic, particularly Asian, gangs.

Pettiway discusses several methodological issues associated with identifying,

gaining access to, and collecting data on young African-American drug users

when utilizing an ethnographic approach. He also discusses the need to

develop a plan of action to deal with the following issues: addressing safety

concerns; hiring, training, and supervising the project staff; learning street

language; ensuring continual funding of the project; and obtaining cooperation

of the academic institution or organization with which the researcher is affiliated

in the overall administration of the project.

Bush and colleagues focus on the need to develop effective plans to track

inner-city youth who participate in school-based drug use and abuse studies.

The authors provide a detailed description of the activities undertaken in their

study to ensure maximum subject retention. Essential to their retention efforts

were the development of a good working relationship with school officials and

a survey log to allow the staff to track students while protecting their identity.

Bush and coworkers argue that, without a good tracking system, school-based

drug abuse longitudinal studies on urban samples may be jeopardized.

The chapter by Debro and Conley emphasizes the need to bridge the existing

gaps between drug abuse researchers and African-American communities. To

obtain access to African-American communities, drug abuse researchers first

must develop rapport with these communities. Essential to the improvement

5
of this relationship is the recognition by researchers that subjects, as well as

the larger minority communities, need to be appropriately compensated. In

addition, the lack of well-trained African-American researchers negatively

affects the collection of data on the drug use behavior of minority individuals.

The final methodological chapter is by Westermeyer, which focuses on

(1) presenting data on the drug-using behavior of young minority refugees of

Southeast Asian and other ancestry and (2) making future recommendations

on etiologic drug abuse research on this population. The results suggest that

many refugees adopt a drug-using lifestyle and that additional research is

needed to understand the drug-using behavior of these individuals.

The concluding chapter of this monograph discusses the need for additional

etiologic and epidemiologic research on the nature and extent of the drug

use and abuse problem among minority youth. De La Rosa and colleagues

emphasize the need for the development of a more integrative conceptual

model and data collection approach in future research on the drug-using

behavior of minority youth. The development of such a comprehensive

approach can lead to the development of more effective drug abuse

prevention and treatment strategies to address the problem of drug use

and abuse confronted by minority youth.

Participants, authors, and other individuals provided valuable contributions to

the technical review and to this monograph. It is hoped that this monograph will

serve to inform public health officials, clinicians, and researchers concerning

some of the basic issues regarding the drug-using behavior of minority youth

and stimulate further research directed toward the prevalence, patterns,

causes, and consequences of drug use and abuse among minority youth.

NOTE

1. As has been defined in this monograph, minority youth are 24 years of age

or younger and include foreign-born as well as U.S.-born (first-, second-,

and third-generation) Asian-Americans and Pacific Islander youth (i.e.,

Vietnamese, Filipinos, Koreans, Cambodians, Chinese, Japanese,

Samoans); Hispanic youth (i.e., Mexican-Americans, Cuban-Americans,

Puerto Ricans, South and Central Americans, and other Caribbean youth

of Spanish ancestry); African-American youth; youth immigrating recently

from other countries (such as Haiti, Jamaica, Uganda, and Nigeria); and

American Indian and Alaska Native youth belonging to any of the more

than 200 tribes currently found in the continental United States and in

Alaska. In addition, although the focus of this research monograph is on

minority youth, some of the issues discussed can be utilized in improving

understanding of the drug use problem faced by older minority individuals

(25 years and older) in some cases and by nonminority youth and adults.

6
REFERENCES

Bachman, J.G.; Wallace, J.M., Jr.; Kurth, C.; Johnston, L.D.; and O’Malley,

P.M. Drug Use Among Black, White, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian

American High School Seniors (1976-7989): Prevalence, Trends, and

Correlates. Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper 30. Ann Arbor, Ml:

Institute for Social Research, 1990.

Beauvais, F.; Oetting, E.R.; Wolf, W.; and Edwards, R.W. American Indian

youth and drugs, 1976-1987: A continuing problem. Am J Public Health

81:372-377, 1989.

Szapocznik, J., and Kurtines, W. Acculturation, biculturism, and adjustment

among Cuban Americans. In: Padilla, A.M., ed. Acculturation: Theory,

Models, and Some Findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980. pp. 139-

159.

AUTHORS

Mario R. De La Rosa, Ph.D.

Social Science Analyst

Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

Epidemiologic Research Branch

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Rockwell II Building, Room 615

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Juan-Luis Recio Adrados, Ph.D.

Visiting Research Scientist

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Profesor Titular de Sociología

Facultad de Ciencias Politicas y Sociología

Universidad Complutense

28023 Madrid

SPAIN

Norweeta Milburn, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Psychology

Hofstra University

Hempstead, NY 11550

7
Integrating Mainstream and

Subcultural Explanations of Drug

Use Among Puerto Rican Youth

Orlando Rodriguez, Juan-Luis Recio Adrados, and

Mario R. De La Rosa

INTRODUCTION

Drug use and delinquency researchers have developed useful, empirically

tested models (Brook et al. 1990; Elliott et al. 1985; Jessor and Jessor 1977;

Kandel 1974; Kaplan 1975) but have done so on the basis of a database

generally restricted to white, middle-class youth from small cities and/or

suburban areas. Therefore, there is little information on the extent to which

existing mainstream theories are applicable to minority, poor youth from innercity areas, the population believed to be most at risk of engaging in delinquency

and alcohol and other drug use.

In contrast, subcultural explanations of drug use and other problems among

minority youth have been based on a rich store of data (for the most part

qualitative) focusing on sociocultural aspects of inner-city life that are unique

to specific problem behaviors (Anderson 1978; Curtis 1975; Hannerz 1969;

Horowitz 1982; Liebow 1967; Rainwater 1970). However, the theories have

been derived without theoretical or empirical reference to mainstream

explanations of deviance. This chapter is based on the premise that conceptual

models from mainstream and subcultural explanations of deviance should be

integrated into extended models that distinguish between the universal and

culturally specific aspects of theories. This strategic approach has been

employed in a series of analyses attempting to extend Elliott and associates’

(1985) Integrated Social Control (ISC) model to drug use and delinquency

among Puerto Rican youth. This chapter summarizes these analyses and

amplifies them by considering in greater depth how the theoretical assumptions

and methodological approaches to the notion of acculturation may be integrated

with mainstream approaches.

8
MAINSTREAM AND SUBCULTURAL EXPLANATIONS OF DRUG USE

Although mainstream theories of deviance are largely based on the

experiences of nonminority youth, they constitute an essential point of

departure for conceptualizing minority adolescent deviance. These theories

differ on the factors they emphasize as central, but most agree on the types

that must be included.

Most theories view delinquency as a reaction to disadvantaged status in terms

of ethnicity or class (Rutter and Giller 1983; Braithewaite 1981; Datesman et al.

1975) that adversely influences individuals’ options in life. Social psychological

processes have been posited to link disadvantaged status to deviance. An

important example is strain theory (Cloward and Ohlin 1960; Simon and

Gagnon 1976; Elliott and Voss 1974), which emphasizes discrepancies

between achievement aspirations and expectations as the motivational

mechanism for deviance.

In some theories, a social environment tolerant of crime and drug use is viewed

as contributing to adolescents engaging in deviant behavior (Conger 1971;

Shaw and McKay 1942; Smith 1983). An antisocial environment may provide

opportunities for involvement in deviant behavior through the availability of

inappropriate behavior models to emulate or through instrumental opportunities.

For example, drug use is more likely if drugs are available in the neighborhood

(Dembo et al. 1979, 1986).

Most mainstream theories view deviance as the result of failures in conventional

bonding by the family, school, and other institutions whose functions are to

socialize youth to the conventional order (Kandel 1980; Jessor and Jessor

1977; Brook et al. 1990). When socialization is effective, youth develop an

emotional attachment to the school and family, a commitment to conventional

activities, an involvement with such activities, and a belief in the moral order

underlying conventional bonds (Elliott et al. 1985; Kaplan et al. 1984; Kandel

1980; Jessor and Jessor 1977; Hirschi 1969).

Peer bonding is another critical element in explaining deviance. In the

social learning perspective (Akers 1977; Sutherland 1947) adolescents learn

delinquency by modeling-exposure to friends’ delinquent behavior, peers’

social approval of delinquent acts, and anticipated rewards for engaging in

delinquency. Peer group influences on deviance are especially likely when

there is weak bonding to the family and school (Elliott et al. 1985; Kandel 1980;

Jessor and Jessor 1977; Hirschi 1969).

More proximal to problem behavior and influenced by the more distal social

factors discussed above is the adolescent’s self-concept—the overall sense of

9
personal worth and efficacy (Bandura 1982; Brook et al. 1990; Kandel 1974;

Kaplan 1975; Kaplan et al. 1984). Serious psychological disorders such as

depression may underlie poor self-concept (Jensen et al. 1988; Mitchell et al.

1988).

The factors discussed above can be integrated. For example, Rodriguez

and Zayas (1990) point out that disadvantaged status, low income, and

discrimination, together with social environments that tolerate deviance,

may be posited to weaken conventional bonding and strengthen deviant

peer bonding. Weak conventional bonds and strong deviant peer bonds

may directly influence deviance, but they may also foster a weak self-concept,

a more proximate and psychological influence on deviance. Models such as

these, which generally have not been informed by insights from studies of

minority group behavior nor tested among minority subpopulations, are

nevertheless assumed to be universally applicable. Therefore, it is important

to consider how explanations derived from the sociocultural experiences of

minority groups provide insights not encountered within mainstream

approaches. Delinquency and drug use research on minority populations

has often relied on explanations that link such behaviors to subcultural

characteristics, for example, ethnically derived norms and values about the

male role (Anderson 1978; Curtis 1975; Horowitz 1982). Other subculturally

based concepts, such as delinquent subculture (Miller 1958) and lower class

subculture (Curtis 1975; Hannerz 1969; Lewis 1961; Liebow 1967; Rainwater

1970; Suttles 1955), emphasize the existence of survival strategies to deal

with disadvantaged status.

Although subcultural theories have had an important influence in deviance

research, they have not been integrated into mainstream drug use and

delinquency research. Often based on difficult-to-replicate qualitative research,

they have seldom been empirically tested through large-scale sample surveys.

How then can models attempting to integrate subcultural and mainstream

explanations be tested? To address this issue, the authors applied Elliott and

colleagues’ (1985) ISC model to inner-city Puerto Ricans. The ISC model

integrates factors relevant to major explanations of deviance—strain theory

(Elliott and Voss 1974; Simon and Gagnon 1976), social control theory (Hirschi

1969), and social learning theory (Akers 1977; Conger 1976). The model posits

that strain—discrepancies between aspirations and expectations about school,

family, and occupation—indirectly influences deviance through its negative

effects on conventional bonding to the family and school (a social control

construct). Conventional bonding in turn indirectly reduces deviance through

its negative effect on tolerance of deviance (social control) and deviant peer

bonding (a social learning construct). Thus, the effects of strain and

conventional bonding are filtered through deviant peer bonding.

10
The factors emphasized in the ISC model are also conceptualized in adolescent

drug use research. For example, Johnson and coworkers (1987) found that

integrated differential association and situational group pressure notions

satisfactorily explained the role of peers in the etiology of drug abuse. In a

similar way, Krohn (1974), Jacquith (1981), and Kaplan and colleagues (1984)

found the same effects. Peer group drug use and bonding also predict drug

use in the empirical studies by Meier and Johnson (1977), Kandel (1978, 1985),

Ginsberg and Greenley (1978), Jessor and coworkers (1980), Clayton (1981),

Glynn (1981), Clayton and Lacy (1982), Krosnick and Judd (1982), Bank and

colleagues (1985), Needle and coworkers (1986), Castro and colleagues

(1987), Kandel and Andrews (1987), Newcomb and Bentler (1987), and Brook

and coworkers (1990). However, the ISC model may be useful to apply to drug

use because of its attempt to integrate different conceptual approaches to

deviant behavior (including strain theory, which is less often applied to drug

use) and because of its demonstrated applicability to both behaviors in the

National Youth Survey (NYS) (Elliott and Huizinga 1984; Elliott et al. 1985).

Our analyses were based on the assumption that mainstream models of

problem behavior are applicable to Hispanics, Like mainstream youth,

Hispanics may face problems of getting along with their families and teachers,

are subject to influences of peer pressures, and experience varying levels

of frustration based on the extent of discrepancy between their aspirations

and expectations. However, our analysis focused on how subcultural factors

relevant to Hispanics and other minority groups interrelate with factors drawn

from the ISC model.

As in ethnographic studies of African-American populations, some studies of

Hispanic problem behavior have followed the general approach of examining

the influence of subcultural norms on delinquency and other behaviors

(Horowitz 1982; Moore 1978). However, in examining Hispanic subcultural

influences, a more common approach is found in the concept of acculturation,

which refers to the social psychological process whereby immigrants and their

offspring change their behavior and attitudes toward those of the host society

as a result of contact and exposure to the new dominant culture (Berry 1980;

Padilla 1980). The importance of the concept lies in its ability to capture an

important psychosocial aspect of the immigrant experience, the problem of

meeting the normative demands of two different cultures. Because it involves

conflict and stress, acculturation has been linked to dysfunctional behavior

(Anderson and Rodriguez 1984; Rogler et al. 1991; Szapocznik and Kurtines

1980; Szapocznik et al. 1980).

How is acculturation linked to problem behavior? In one conceptualization,

immigration is seen as disrupting adherence to the country of origin’s values,

norms, and social bonds, one of whose functions is to inhibit dysfunctional

behavior. For most immigrant groups, acculturation involves adaptation from

11
a traditional culture, which provides controls on behavior, to the more modern

American culture, which places fewer restraints on nonconventional behavior.

Unacculturated families may lack knowledge of accepted behavior norms in

the United States and, therefore, may be less likely to socialize their children

adequately, which in turn may influence problem behavior by weakening family

and school bonds. Evidence for this hypothesis is provided by studies finding

higher rates of alcohol and other drug use, suicide, eating disorders, and other

problem behaviors among acculturated and/or second-generation Hispanics

(Sorenson and Golding 1988; Caetano 1987; Gilbert 1987; Pumariega 1986;

Buriel et al. 1982; Graves 1967).

A closely related conception focuses on the relationship between acculturative

stress, intergenerational conflict, and problem behavior. Immigration may

generate stress as immigrants try to adapt to and resolve differences between

the old and new cultures (Vega et al. 1985a , 1985b; Born 1970). For example,

in their study of drug use among adolescent Cuban-Americans, Szapocznik

and associates suggest that the discrepancy between the parents’ and

adolescents’ level of acculturation will cause conflict for the adolescent and,

therefore, a greater dependency on the peer group (Szapocznik and Kurtines

1980; Szapocznik et al. 1980). (See also Fitzpatrick [1971] with respect to

delinquency among Puerto Rican youth and Beauvais and colleagues [1985]

with respect to drug use among American Indian youth.) Adolescents in this

situation may turn to drug use as a way of resolving acculturation conflicts with

parents. In contrast to theories that view imbeddedness in traditional culture

as inhibiting problem behavior, the biculturalism hypothesis asserts that those

competent in negotiating the contradictory demands of both cultures should

behave less dysfunctionally than those oriented to either Hispanic or American

culture.

In several analyses, Rodriguez and Recio (in press), Rodriguez and colleagues

(1990), and Rodriguez and Weisburd (1991) addressed the applicability of the

ISC model to drug use and delinquency among inner-city Puerto Rican youth,

focusing on the following two research questions.

First, would the factors operate among Puerto Rican adolescents in the same

way as among mainstream youth, that is, with the same correlative strengths and

in similar interrelationships? A related question is, would the factors operate

similarly with respect to drug use and delinquency? It was hypothesized that

two aspects of the sociocultural situation of Puerto Rican adolescents—the

significance of the family in Puerto Rican culture and the relationship between

conventional institutions and peer groups in the inner city—would influence the

interrelationships among family, school, and peer involvement and their effects

on deviant behavior (Rodriguez and Weisburd 1991). The sociological and

anthropological literatures have often noted the influence of Hispanic family

norms and values in Puerto Rican society (Roberts and Stefani 1949; Rogler

12
1978; Rogler and Hollingshead 1985) and the relevance of the Hispanic family

for instrumental and emotional support (Recio 1975; Rogler and Cooney 1984).

The family was expected to have a stronger influence among Puerto Ricans

than was the case for the national sample. By implication, it was expected that

peer involvement would be less important.

The inner-city character of the Puerto Rican sample suggested that

conventional institutions would have different effects on peer groups than the

effects expected for a mainstream population. Conventional institutions in the

inner city may control adolescents through individual rather than collective

action (Suttles 1955). As inner-city institutions, the family and school may

exert less control over adolescent behavior in the street than is the case in

other communities because there is likely to be less communication between

these institutions. Consequently, inner-city youth may be more able than other

youth to keep separate their actions in school, the family, and the peer groups.

Thus, in contrast to what Elliott and associates (1985) found for mainstream

adolescents, among Puerto Rican adolescents the family and school were

expected to have direct negative effects on drug use.

A related issue concerned the relationship between alcohol and other drug

abuse and delinquency. Our analysis focused on whether the relationship

was spurious or causal (Elliott and Ageton 1976; Gandossy et al. 1980; lnciardi

1981; Collins 1981; Watters et al. 1985; White 1990). Either both behaviors are

elements in a concurrent pattern of behaviors (Kandel 1980; Jessor and Jessor

1977) or both behaviors are explained by a common cause (White et al. 1987;

Elliott et al. 1985). The ISC model has been shown to be equally applicable

to drug use and delinquency; that is, the factors have similar strengths and

interrelationships. The authors expected the same with respect to Puerto Rican

adolescents.

Second, how would acculturation, the major factor identified in examinations

of Hispanic adolescent deviance, interrelate with the ISC factors? Two

hypotheses were entertained. One was that adherence to traditional Hispanic

culture would inhibit deviance through the greater role accorded to institutional

authority, as embodied by parents and teachers. Thus, the authors theorized

that acculturation would exert powerful but indirect effects on drug use and

delinquency through its influence on conventional and deviant peer bonding.

Acculturated youth would be less bonded to their families and schools and more

bonded to deviant peers and, thus, would be more likely to engage in drug use

and delinquency. In a second and contrasting hypothesis, we assumed that

biculturally involved youth would be less likely to engage in drug use and

delinquency. Figure 1 summarizes the hypothesized extension of the ISC

model that guided our analyses.

13
FIGURE 1. Extension of ISC model to Puerto Rican adolescents

METHODS

The authors attempted to answer these questions in the Puerto Rican

Adolescent Survey (PRAS), whose analyses are summarized here and

amplified by indepth examinations of the model.

The PRAS is a two-wave (1986 and 1987) representative sample survey of

12- to 19-year-old Puerto Rican males from the South Bronx, NY (Rodriguez

1991). Sampling yielded 1,170 eligible males, 1,077 of whom (92 percent)

agreed to participate in the study. Respondent loss in the second wave was

less than 17 percent, resulting in an overall response rate of 76 percent.

The NYS was based on a probability sample of adolescents ages 11 to 17 in

the continental United States. The first wave consisted of 1,725 adolescents

and represented 73 percent of all eligible youth selected for participation.

Analysis focused on 869 males in the first and second waves. The data used

for this study came from the first two waves, 1976 and 1977, obtained from the

archives of the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Science

Research. Both studies used the same data gathering procedures and the

same measures (Elliott et al. 1983; Rodriguez and Weisburd 1991). In both

surveys, information was self-reported in confidential face-to-face interviews,

which occurred in most instances in the respondents’ homes. Respondents

were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality, and all data collected were

protected by a Certificate of Confidentiality from the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services.

14
Our analysis replicated Elliott and coworkers’ (1985) measures. The predictive

measures were family strain and school strain, family normlessness and school

normlessness, family involvement and school involvement, attitudes toward

deviance, involvement with drug-using peers, and previous drug use and

delinquency. Two measures of drug use in the second interview year were

used as separate final dependent variables, The first replicates Elliott and

colleagues’ study, based on self-reported use of five hard-core drugs. The

second measure adds other serious drugs such as cocaine and crack, as well

as marijuana and alcohol. The first measure was used to compare the PRAS

and NYS samples, whereas the second, not replicable in the national data, was

used to further analyze the PRAS sample. The delinquency measure was also

drawn from Elliott and coworkers’ measures and is based on self-reports of 26

felony and less serious offenses, The model was extended by adding age, an

important control variable in adolescent deviance research, and measures

of acculturation and biculturalism. Szapocznik’s scale (Szapocznik et al. 1978)

was included as a measure of acculturation and biculturalism. The same items

were used in both measures, but in the latter, middle responses, denoting

acceptance of both US. and Hispanic culture, were assigned the highest value.

Table 1 shows how the measures used in the analysis were defined and

constructed. Variable means and deviations are shown in table 2. The

numbers after the variables indicate the time order (i.e., Wave 1 or Wave 2)

posited by Elliott and colleagues (1985). Both the ISC predictors and

acculturation scales yielded adequate alpha coefficients in reliability tests

(Elliott et al. 1985; Szapocznik et al. 1978).

RESULTS

Application of the ISC Model to Puerto Rican Youth

Two aspects of the sociocultural situation of Puerto Rican adolescents were

hypothesized to influence the interrelationships among the factors in the ISC

model: the significance of the family in Puerto Rican culture and the greater

social distance between conventional institutions and the peer group in the

inner city. Family involvement and family normlessness were hypothesized to

have stronger effects on drug use and peer involvement in the PRAS sample

than in the NYS. Peer drug involvement was hypothesized to have a smaller

effect in the PRAS sample. The inner-city character of the sample was

expected to make the influences of the family and school on drug use more

direct in the PRAS than in the NYS; therefore, the family and school indices

were hypothesized to have stronger direct paths in the PRAS than in the NYS.

To test this, Rodriguez and Recio (in press) replicated Elliott and coworkers’

(1985) analyses with the PRAS sample. As Elliott and colleagues had done,

Rodriguez and Recio applied the full model, with the addition of age (see

figure 1), which, along with the strain variables, appears in the earliest part

15
TABLE 1. Measures and definitions of variables used in analysis

Variable Definition

Drug use

Delinquency

Involvement

with deviant peers

Attitudes toward

deviance

First and second waves: Frequency over 12 months

prior to interview in using cocaine, LSD, barbiturates,

amphetamines, and heroin. For the PRAS sample, a

second measure of Wave 2 drug use: frequency of use

during the past year of tobacco, alcohol, marijuana or

hashish, hallucinogens, inhalants, phencyclidine (PCP),

tranquilizers, amphetamines, barbiturates, crack, cocaine,

heroin, opium, and other narcotics.

Elliott and coworkers’ General Delinquency Scale, based

on 26 items from self-reported delinquency scale,

including Uniform Crime Report Part I offenses, minus

a sexual intercourse item. Frequency of committing

offenses over past 12 months. Nine categorical

responses ranging from 1 for “none” to 9 for “2-3 times

a day” were also used.

Product of Peer Involvement Index x (Peers’ Deviance

Index-mean). Peer Index, Drugs: How many of the

respondent’s friends used (1) marijuana or hashish and

(2) prescription drugs, for example, amphetamines or

barbiturates, when there was no medical need for them

during the past year? Response categories ranged from

“all of them” (5) to “none of them” (1). For delinquency,

the same procedure was used with respect to 10 index

offenses. A summary score was obtained by adding

responses. Peer involvement: Extent of time spent with

peers on (1) weekday afternoons, (2) weekday evenings,

and (3) weekends. Responses ranged from (1) none to

(6) five weekdays and from (1) none at all to (6) a great

deal on weekends.

Asks the respondent to state how wrong are six delinquent

acts, with four responses ranging from “very wrong” to “not

wrong at all.” A score was obtained by summing over the

three items for each scale, with a high score reflecting a

conventional orientation.

16
TABLE 1. (continued)

Variable Definition

Family and school Extent to which the respondent views his relationship to

normlessness family and school as governed by conventional norms or

as requiring a transgression of these norms. The scale

assesses “subject’s commitment to conventional social

norms” (Elliott et al. 1985). The family normlessness

scale contains four items; the school normlessness scale

contains five items. The questions ask for the extent of

the respondent’s disagreement with items, for example,

“it is important to be honest to your parents, even if they

become upset or you get punished” and “to stay out of

trouble, it’s sometimes necessary to lie to teachers.”

Five responses, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly

disagree.” A score was obtained by summing over the

number of items for each scale, with a high score

reflecting commitment to conventional norms.

Family and school Amount of time spent with the family and in academic

involvement activities at school. For each scale, three questions ask

the respondent to report the number of afternoons and

evenings in an average week, Monday through Friday,

and the time spent on weekends in each setting. The first

two items in each scale use an open-ended response set

(from 0 to 5 afternoons or evenings), whereas the item on

weekend involvement uses a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from “a great deal” to “very little.” A score was obtained

by summing over each scale, with a high score reflecting a

high level of involvement.

Home and school Extent of reported discrepancy between aspirations and

strain expectations in each of five aspects of family and school

life (e.g., “getting along with your parents”). The aspiration

question has three responses: “very important,”

“somewhat important,” and “not important at all,” and the

expectation question has three responses: “very well,”

“O.K.,” and “not well at all.” Responses to the two

questions were cross-classified to construct a six-point

discrepancy scale, with 1 indicating the lowest strain

(“very important”—“very well”) and 6 indicating the highest

strain (“very important”—“not well at all”). A score was

obtained by summing over the five items for each scale.

17
TABLE 1. (continued)

Variable Definition

Acculturation Acculturative Behavior scale x Cultural Preferences scale.

First scale measures extent of adherence to American vs.

Hispanic cultural traits such as language used with family

and friends, ethnicity of friends, and ethnic selfidentification—responses ranging from 1 to 5 (e.g.,

“speak Spanish only” to “speak English only”). Cultural

Preferences scale measures extent of enjoyment of

American music, radio, television, and dances; there are

four items with responses ranging from 1 to 5 (‘not at all”

to “very much”).

Biculturalism Acculturative Behavior scale + Cultural Preferences scale.

Same items as in acculturation scale but with responses

recoded so that middle response is given the highest

value. For example, language spoken with family is

recoded so that 1 =“only English” or “only Spanish,”

2=“mostly English” or “mostly Spanish,” and 3=“both

English and Spanish.”

of the model. These variables are followed by measures of family and school

involvement and normlessness. Finally, to explain involvement with drug use,

the model includes attitudes toward deviant behavior, involvement with drugusing peers, and drug use at an earlier period, along with variables entered

earlier in the model.

As summarized in columns 1 and 2 of table 3, results were similar for both

samples. (In all tables, R-square results are significant at the .001 level.

To make comparisons between the two samples possible, all tables show only

unstandardized regression coefficients [Hanushek and Jackson 1977]; only

the final path results are shown in the tables.) In both samples, direct paths

leading to self-reported hard-core drug use were from involvement with deviant

peers and prior use. (In addition, in the NYS, attitudes toward deviance had a

direct effect when age was added to the model.) The strain variables affected

the conventional bonding variables, and these in turn affected involvement with

deviant peers, but neither strain nor conventional bonding variables directly

influenced drug use or delinquency. However, a different causal pattern, more

in line with predicted effects, appeared when the operation of the ISC factors

was examined on a more inclusive measure of drug use (column 3 of table 3).

Family and school involvement had significant direct effects, but these variables

18
TABLE 2. Means and standard deviations of variables

Puerto Rican Adolescent Survey

Variable Mean Standard Deviation N

Hard-core drug use 2 .18 1.2 898

Hard-core drug use 1 .28 1.5 1,065

Use of all drugs 2 23.20 34.5 888

Delinquency 2 25.90 4.9 898

Delinquency 1 26.10 4.8 1,065

Involved with drug peers .13 16.3 893

Involved with delinquent peers 2 2.80 85.7 886

Attitudes toward deviance 2 21.80 2.7 898

Family normlessness 1 9.10 2.5 1,073

School normlessness 1 12.30 2.7 1,075

Family involvement 2 13.20 4.0 898

School involvement 2 7.70 4.6 898

Family strain 1 13.40 5.1 1,048

School strain 1 15.00 4.7 1,047

Acculturation 1 413.60 96.6 1,065

Biculturalism 1 23.30 4.7 1,071

Age 15.60 2.2 1,071

National Youth Survey

Variable Mean Standard Deviation N

Hard-core drug use 2 .29 1.3 868

Hard-core drug use 1 .33 2.6 869

Delinquency 2 26.60 6.1 868

Delinquency 1 26.80 5.5 869

Involved with drug peers 2.90 31.7 721

Involved with delinquent peers 2 19.40 62.9 718

Attitudes toward deviance 2 30.00 4.6 869

Family normlessness 1 9.10 2.5 864

School normlessness 1 11.50 2.7 858

Family involvement 2 12.90 3.5 867

School involvement 2 9.20 3.2 852

Family strain 1 13.30 4.6 866

School strain 1 14.80 4.0 857

Age 13.90 1.9 869

19
TABLE 3. ISC model applied to drug use and delinquency; NYS and PRAS till-model unstandardized ordinary

least-squares estimates

Variable

Hard-Core Drugs

NYS PRAS

(1) (2)

All Drugs

PRAS

(3)a

Delinquency

NYS PRAS

(4) (5)

Hardcore drug use 1

Delinquency 1

Involved with deviant peers 2

Attitudes toward deviance 2

Family normlessness 1

School normlessness 1

Family involvement 2

School involvement 2

Family strain 1

School strain 1

Age

R-square

.375* .242*

- -

.011* .014*

-.025** -.031

-.010 .005

-.008 .004

-.009 -.005

-.011 -.007

-.003 -.007

-.001 .008

-.026 .016

.30 .17

3.53*

-

.371*

-.890***

-.035

.080

-.585***

-1.14*

.003

.120

3.85*

.25

-

.356*

.043*

-.153*

-.007

-.116

-.079

.032

-.043

.032

-.347*

.48

-

.342*

.022*

-.098

-.021

.062

-.116***

-.095**

-.026

-.022

-.338*

.37

*p<.001; **p<.01; ***p<.05

aColumn 3 is based on a more inclusive measure of drug use than column 2 (see text).
were not significant in the NYS. Thus, the effect of family involvement was much

higher when more comprehensive drug use was examined. On the other hand,

counter to expectations, the magnitude of the peer involvement coefficient was

higher in the PRAS sample with all drugs than in the NYS with only hard-core

drugs. The analyses also revealed differences in the roles of prior drug use and

age. In the PRAS sample, prior drug use showed a much stronger effect when

other drugs were included, and age had a positive direct effect on drug use.

The results provided preliminary verification of our assumption that Hispanic

sociocultural characteristics need to be taken into account in the application

of explanations derived from other populations.

In Elliott and associates’ analyses, the ISC factors have remarkably similar

effects on delinquency and drug use, which is also the case with the PRAS data,

but there is no one-to-one correspondence in the path coefficients of factor

effects on delinquency and drug use. In previous analyses, Rodriguez and

Weisburd (1991) applied the ISC model to delinquency among the PRAS sample.

Their analysis tested and partially verified the proposition that the sociocultural

character of this population would lead to a stronger effect of family and direct

effects of family and school factors on delinquency. Columns 4 and 5 of table 3

summarize the results of applying the ISC factors to delinquency in the PRAS

and NYS samples. In the results shown in table 3, age was added to the model,

whereas Rodriguez and Weisburd’s earlier analysis exactly replicated Elliott and

colleagues’ model.

The results showed the divergent effects of the ISC factors in the two samples,

but also showed within-sample similarities with respect to the ISC factors’

effects on drug use and delinquency. Interestingly, the inclusion of age in the

regressions significantly improved the predictive power of the ISC model and

strengthened the roles of family and school bonding as direct influences on

delinquency and drug use among Puerto Ricans, thus accentuating the

differences between the factors’ operation in the PRAS and NYS samples.

An interesting finding was the effect of age on delinquency and drug use. Age

had a negative effect on delinquency and a positive effect on drug use. The

findings are in line with previous findings on the modal ages of involvement with

delinquency and drug use, which indicate that delinquent involvement precedes

drug use (Kandel 1978).

Interrelationships Between Acculturation and ISC Factors In

Explanations of Puerto Rican Drug Use and Delinquency

The authors’ model attributes direct and strong effects to the family and

peer influence variables drawn from Elliott and coworkers’ ISC theory (1985).

However, we expected acculturation (or biculturalism) to have strong but

indirect effects on family, school, and delinquent peer bonding.

21
To test this, the authors added Wave 1 acculturation as an endogenous

variable to Elliott and coworkers’ full ISC model (figure 1). Acculturation

was hypothesized to influence drug use and delinquency through its effects

on the family, school, peer, and deviant attitude measures. Table 4 shows

results from the first path equation, adding acculturation to the ISC factors.

Acculturation had indirect effects on drug use on factors related to conventional

and deviant peer bonding. In intermediate path results not shown in the table,

acculturation had significant effects on family involvement and involvement

with peers who are deviant. (Figure 2 illustrates all significant paths in the

drug use regressions.) The direction of effects was as expected. For

example, acculturated youth were less involved with their families and were

more involved with deviant peers. However, two unexpected findings are

underscored in the final path results shown in table 4. First, acculturation

also had strong direct effects on drug use. Second, the direct effects of

acculturation applied only to drug use, not to delinquency. Our analysis did

not substantiate the predicted effects for biculturalism, the measure of which

did not have significant effects on either delinquency or drug use. The

predicted indirect effects were also not borne out. Bicultural youth were less

bonded than monocultural youth to school and family and were more bonded

to deviant peers.

DISCUSSION

The analyses reported in this chapter address the broad question of how to

integrate mainstream and subcultural explanations of drug use and other

problem behaviors. Concretely, these analyses examined the applicability

of the ISC model to inner-city Puerto Rican youth and determined whether

the model can be extended by ascertaining its factors’ interrelations with

acculturation and biculturalism. Generally, the ISC model developed by Elliott

and associates is applicable to Puerto Rican drug use and delinquency. Both

studies converge on showing direct effects of prior drug use, tolerance of

deviance, and peer involvement on delinquency and drug use. However, the

Puerto Rican findings provide support for the predictions based on prior

ethnicity and inner-city research. Consistent with the importance of family in

Puerto Rican culture, family involvement had significant direct effects. In

addition, the data confirm the prediction that school factors would also have

direct effects on drug use, based on the assumption that family, school, and

peers are more distinct from each other in inner-city environments than they

are in white, middle-class communities.

Examining delinquency and drug use in each sample provided some insights

into the complex issue of the causation involved with both types of behaviors.

In the NYS sample , the ISC factors operate uniformly on both behaviors. More

differences are evident in the PRAS sample, with our subcultural predictions

more appropriate to drug use than to delinquency. However, Rodriguez and

22
TABLE 4. Extended ISC model applied to drug use and delinquency; PRAS

full-model unstandardized ordinary least-squares estimates

Variable Drug Use Delinquency

Hard-core drug use 1

Delinquency 1

Involved with deviant peers 2

Attitudes toward deviance 2

Family normlessness 1

School normlessness 1

Family involvement 2

School involvement 2

Family strain 1

School strain 1

Age

Acculturation

3.627*

-

.350*

-.901***

-.158

.169

-.502

-1.111*

.060

.092

4.003*

.038*

-

.342*

.022*

-.092

-.020

.062

-.119*

-.097**

-.027

-.023

-.348*

-.001

R-square .26 .37

*p<.001; **p<.01; ***p<.05

colleagues (1990) found more disparate results in the PRAS sample when they

examined specific types of delinquent offenses.

In interpreting the analysis results, some limitations of the data should be

kept in mind. The few Time-1 drugs asked about somewhat constrains the

generalizability of results. As in many self-report surveys, there may be

underreporting of drug use, a fact that probably affected the proportion of

variance explained in both data sets. The restriction of the PRAS data to males

also limits comparison of results with the NYS sample. Nonetheless, these

limitations are offset by the opportunity the data provide to compare the etiology

of drug use between an important minority group and a national sample.

The findings confirm the important role that has been theorized for acculturation

in Hispanic problem behavior (Anderson and Rodriguez 1984; Szapocznik

and Kurtines 1980; Szapocznik et al. 1980) and in the behavior of other minority

groups (Beauvais et al. 1987; Oetting et al. 1988). Because many may find the

link between deviance and acculturation to U.S. society to be counterintuitive,

the findings also lend credence to the notion that adherence to traditional

Hispanic culture provides protection against dysfunctional behavior. However,

the lack of direct effects with respect to delinquency shows some limitations in

the explanatory power of acculturation. Acculturation concerns the extent to

23
FIGURE 2. Extended path model of drug use significant path models in

PRAS data

which a person can resolve dilemmas of self-identity. Drug use may involve

the expression of internal conflicts or psychic dilemmas more than delinquency,

many of whose behaviors involve instrumental aims. Thus, there may be a

greater psychological link between acculturation and drug use than with respect

to delinquency.

It is also of particular interest that this analysis finds no attenuating effect of

biculturalism on deviance. This is in contrast to Szapocznik and associates’

assertions (1980) concerning adjustment among Cuban adolescents. However

they focused on a different problem behavior and examined a majority firstgeneration population, whereas this sample is primarily second generation,

which may have had an effect on the saliency of acculturation as a problem

behavior-related issue. Discrepant findings in this area call for more sensitive

measures of acculturation and biculturalism (Rogler et al. 1991).

The findings support the theoretical strategy guiding the authors’ analysis of

Hispanic drug use and delinquency. Results indicate that theories such as

the ISC model are applicable to minority groups’ experiences. At the same

time, subcultural concepts that emerge from minority groups’ sociocultural

24
experiences are also useful and can enhance mainstream models, Thus,

the results suggest the utility of examining minority youth deviance within

mainstream conceptual frameworks and extending these frameworks by

integrating them with concepts relevant to the sociocultural reality of minority

groups.

REFERENCES

Akers, R.L. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Perspective. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth, 1977.

Anderson, E. A Place on the Corner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1978.

Anderson, E., and Rodriguez, 0. Conceptual issues in the study of Hispanic

delinquency. Research Bulletin. Vol. 7, Issues 1-2. Bronx, NY: Hispanic

Research Center, Fordham University, 1984.

Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 37:122-

147, 1982.

Bank, B.; Biddle, B.; Anderson, D.; Hauge, R.; Keats, D.; Keats, J.; Marlin, M.;

and Valantin, S. Comparative research on the social determinants of

adolescent drinking. Soc Psychol Q 48:164-177, 1985.

Beauvais, F.; Oetting, E.; Chavez, E.; and Swaim, R. Cultural Identification

Scale. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Behavioral Sciences Institute, 1987.

Beauvais, F.; Oetting, E.R.; and Edwards, R.W. Trends in drug use of Indian

adolescents living on reservation; 1975-1983. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse

11(3-4):209-229, 1985.

Berry, J. Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In: Padilla, A., ed.

Acculturation: Theory, Models, and Some New Findings. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press, 1980. pp. 9-25.

Born, D. Psychological adaptation and development under acculturative stress:

Toward a general model. Soc Sci Med 3:529-547, 1970.

Braithewaite, J. The myth of social class and criminality reconsidered. Am

Social Rev 43:36-57, 1981.

Brook, J.S.; Brook, D.W.; Scovell Gordon, A.; Whiteman, M.; and Cohen, P. The

Psychosocial Etiology of Adolescent Drug Use: A Family Interactional

Approach. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 116 (2), 1990.

Buriel, R.; Calzada, S.; and Vasquez, R. The relationship of traditional MexicanAmerican culture to adjustment and delinquency among three generations of

Mexican-American male adolescents, Hispanic J Behav Sci 4:41-55, 1982.

Caetano, R. Acculturation and drinking norms among U.S. Hispanics. Alcohol

Alcohol 22:427-433, 1987.

Castro, F.G.; Maddahian, E.; Newcomb, M.D.; and Bentler, P.M. A multivariate

model of the determinants of cigarette smoking among adolescents. J Health

Soc Behav 28:273-289, 1987.

25
Clayton, R.R. The delinquency and drug use relationship among adolescents.

In: Lettieri, D.J., and Ludford, J.P., eds. Research Analysis and Utilization

System: Drug Abuse and the American Adolescent. National Institute on

Drug Abuse Research Monograph 38. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)81-1166.

Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. pp. 82-103.

Clayton, R.R., and Lacy, W.B. Interpersonal influences of male drug use and

drug use intentions. Int J Addict 17:655-666, 1982.

Cloward, R., and Ohlin, L.E. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of

Delinquent Gangs. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960.

Collins, J., Jr. Drinking and Crime-Perspectives on the Relationships Between

Alcohol Consumption and Criminal Behavior. New York: Guilford, 1981,

Conger, J.J. A world they never knew: The family and social change. Daedalus

100:1105-1138, 1971.

Conger, R.D. Social control and social learning models of delinquent behavior:

A synthesis. Criminology 14:17-40, 1976.

Curtis, L. Violence, Race, and Culture. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1975.

Datesman, S.K.; Scarpitto, F.R.; and Stephenson, R.M. Female delinquency:

An application of self and opportunity theories. J Res Crime Delinq 12:107-

123, 1975.

Dembo, R.; Blount, W.R.; Schemiedler, J.; and Burgos, W. Perceived

environmental drug use risk and the correlates of drug use and non-use

among inner-city youths: The motivated actor. Int J Addict 21:977-1000,

1986.

Dembo, R.; Farrow, D.; Schemiedler, J.; and Burgos, W. Testing a causation

model of environmental influences on the early drug involvement of inner-city

junior high school youths. Am J Alcohol Abuse 6:313-336, 1979.

Elliott, D.S., and Ageton, A.R. Delinquency and drug use. In: Drug Use and

Crime: Report of the Panel on Drug Use and Criminal Behavior. National

Institute on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services: U.S. Public Health Service: Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and

Mental Health Administration, 1976.

Elliott, D.S.; Ageton, S.; Huizinga, D.; Knowles, B.A.; and Canter, R.J. The

Prevalence and Incidence of Delinquent Behavior. Boulder, CO: Behavioral

Research Institute, University of Colorado, 1983.

Elliott, D.S., and Huizinga, D. Social class and delinquent behavior in a national

youth panel. Criminology 21:149-177, 1984.

Elliott, D.S.; Huizinga, D.; and Ageton, S. Explaining Delinquency and Drug

Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.

Elliott, D.S., and Voss, H. Delinquency and Dropout. Toronto: Heath, 1974.

Fitzpatrick, J. Puerto Rican Americans: The Meaning of Migration to the

Mainland. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971.

Gandossy, R.; Williams, J.; Cohen, J.; and Hardwood, H. Drugs and Crime: A

Survey and Analysis of the Literature. Washington, DC: National Institute of

Justice, 1980.

26
Gilbert, M.J. Alcohol consumption patterns in immigrant and later generation

Mexican American women. Hispanic J Behav Sci 9:299-313, 1987.

Ginsberg, I.J., and Greenley, J.R. Competing theories of marijuana use: A

longitudinal study. J Health Soc Behav 19:22-34, 1978.

Glynn, T.J. From family to peer: Transition of influence among drug-using youth.

J Youth Adolesc 10:363-383, 1981.

Graves, T.D. Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community.

Southwestern J Anthropol 23:337-350, 1967.

Hannerz, V. Soulside. New York: Columbia University, 1969.

Hanushek, E.A., and Jackson, J.E. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists.

New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Hirschi, T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,

1969.

Horowitz, R. Honor and the American Dream: Culture and Social Identity in a

Chicano Community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1982.

Inciardi, J.A. Introduction. In: Inciardi, J.A., ed. The Drug-Crime Connection.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

Jacquith, SM. Adolescent marijuana and alcohol use: An empirical test of

differential association theory. Criminology 19:271-280, 1981.

Jensen, J.B.; Burke, N.; and Garfinkel, B.D. Depression and symptoms of

attention-deficit disorder with hyperactivity. J Am Acad Child Adolesc

Psychiatry 27:742-747, 1988.

Jessor, R.; Donovan, J.E.; and Widmer, K. Psychosocial Factors in Adolescent

Alcohol and Drug Use: The 1978 National Sample Study and the 1974-78

Panel Study. Boulder, CO: Institute of Behavioral Science, University of

Colorado, 1980.

Jessor, R., and Jessor, S.L. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development:

A Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Johnson, R.; Marcos, A.; and Bahr, S. The role of peers in the complex etiology

of substance abuse. Criminology 25:323-340, 1987.

Kandel, D.B. Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annual Review of

Sociology. New York: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1974.

Kandel, D.B., ed. Longitudinal Research on Drug Use: Empirical Findings and

Methodological Issues. New York: Hemisphere-Halsted Press, 1978.

Kandel, D.B. Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annual Review of

Sociology. New York: Annual Reviews, Inc., 1980.

Kandel, D.B. On processes of peer influences in adolescent drug use: A

developmental perspective. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse 4(3/4):139-163, 1985.

Kandel, D.B., and Andrews, K. Processes of adolescent socialization by parents

and peers. Int J Addict 22:319-342, 1987.

Kaplan, H.B. Self-Attitude and Deviant Behavior. Pacific Palisades, CA:

Goodyear Publishing Co., 1975.

Kaplan, H.B.; Martin, S.S.; and Robbins, C. Pathways to adolescent drug use:

Self-derogation, peer influence, weakening of social controls, and early

substance use. J Health Soc Behav 25(3):270-289, 1984.

27
Krohn, M.D. An investigation of the effect of parental and peer association on

marijuana use: An empirical test of differential association theory. In: Riedel,

M., and Thornberry, T.P., eds. Crime and Delinquency: Dimensions of

Deviance. New York: Praeger, 1974.

Krosnick, J.S., and Judd, CM. Transitions in social influence at adolescence:

Who induces cigarette smoking? Dev Psychol 18:359-368, 1982.

Lewis, O. The Children of Sanchez. New York: Random House, 1961.

Liebow, E. Tally’s Corner: A Study of Negro Street Corner Men. Boston: Little,

Brown, 1967.

Meier, R.F., and Johnson, W.T. Deterrence as social control: The legal and

extralegal production of conformity. Am Social Rev 42:292-304, 1977.

Miller, W. Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. J Soc

Iss 14(3):5-19, 1958.

Mitchell, J.; McCauley, E.; Burke, P.M.: and Moss, S.J. Phenomenology of

depression in children and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry

27:12-20, 1988.

Moore, J.W. Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs, and Prison in the Barrios of Los

Angeles. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1978.

Needle, R.; McCubbin, H.; Wilson, M.; Reineck, R.; Lazar, A.: and Mederer, H.

Interpersonal influences in adolescent drug use: The role of older siblings,

parents, and peers. Int J Addict 21:739-766, 1986.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Substance use and ethnicity: Differential

impact of peer and adult models. J Psychol 120:83-95, 1987.

Oetting, E.R.; Beauvais, F.; and Edwards, R.W. Alcohol and Indian youth:

Social and psychological correlates and prevention. J Drug Iss 18(1):87-101,

1988.

Padilla, A. The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in acculturation. In:

Padilla, A., ed. Acculturation: Theory, Models, and Some New Findings.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980. pp. 47-84.

Pumariega, A.J. Acculturation and eating attitudes in adolescent girls: A

comparative correlational study. J Am Acad Child and Adolesc Psychiatry

25:276-279, 1986.

Rainwater, L. Behind Ghetto Walls. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.

Recio, J.-L. “Family as a Unit and Larger Society: The Adaptation of the Puerto

Rican Migrant Family to the Mainland Suburban Setting.” Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Graduate Center of the City University of New York,

1975.

Roberts, L., and Stefani, R.L. Patterns of Living in Puerto Rican Families. Rio

Piedras, Puerto Rico: Editorial Universitaria, 1949.

Rodriguez, O. The Puerto Rican Adolescents Survey (Machine Readable Data

File). Bronx, NY: Hispanic Research Center, Fordham University, 1991.

Rodriguez, O., and Recio Adrados, J.L. The applicability of the Integrated Social

Control model to Puerto Rican drug use. J Crime Justice, in press.

28
Rodriguez, O.; Sommers, I.; Fagan, J.; and Hardyman, P. “Drug-Crime

Relationships Among Puerto Rican Male Adolescents.” Paper presented

at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore, MD,

November 1990.

Rodriguez, O., and Weisburd, D. The Integrated Social Control model and

ethnicity: The case of Puerto Rican delinquency. Crim Just Behav 18(4):464-

479, 1991.

Rodriguez, O., and Zayas, L. Hispanic adolescents and antisocial behavior:

Sociocultural factors and treatment implications. In: Stiffman, A.R., and

Davis, L.E., eds. Ethnic Issues in Adolescent Mental Health. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage, 1990. pp. 147-161.

Rogler, L.H. Help patterns, the family, and mental health: Puerto Ricans in the

United States. Int Migration Rev 12:248-259, 1978.

Rogler, L.H., and Cooney, R.S. Puerto Rican Families in New York City:

Intergenerational Processes. Hispanic Research Center Monograph No. 11.

Maplewood, NJ: Waterfront Press, 1984.

Rogler, L.H.; Cortes, D.E.; and Malgady, R.G. Acculturation and mental health

among Hispanics: Convergence and new directions. Am Psychol 46(6):585-

597, 1991.

Rogler, L.H., and Hollingshead, A.B. Trapped: Puerto Rican Families and

Schizophrenia, 3d ed. Maplewood NJ: Waterfront Press, 1985.

Rutter, M., and Giller, H. Juvenile Delinquency: Trends and Prospects.

Baltimore, MD: Penguin, 1983.

Shaw, C.R., and McKay, H.D. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1942.

Simon, W.H., and Gagnon, J.H. The anomie of affluence: A post-Mertonian

conception. Am J Social 82(2):356-378, 1976.

Smith, W.C. Contemporary child saving: A study of juvenile justice decisionmaking. Juv Fam Court J 34:63-74, 1983.

Sorenson, S.B., and Golding, J.M. Suicide ideation and attempts in Hispanics

and non-Hispanic whites: Demographic and psychiatric disorder issues.

Suicide Life-Threatening Behav 18:205-218, 1988.

Sutherland, E.H. Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1947.

Suttles, G. The Social Order of the Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1955.

Szapocznik, J., and Kurtines, W.M. Acculturation, biculturalism and adjustment

among Cuban Americans, In: Padilla, A., ed. Acculturation: Theory, Models,

and Some New Findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980. pp. 139-160.

Szapocznik, J.; Kurtines, W.M.; and Fernandez, T. Bicultural involvement and

adjustment in Hispanic-American youth. Int J intercultural Rel 4:353-365,

1980.

Szapocznik, J.; Scopetta, M.; and Kurtines, W. Theory and measurement of

acculturation, Int J Psychol 12:113-130, 1978.

29
Vega, W.A.; Hough, R.L.; and Miranda, M.R. Modeling cross-cultural research

in Hispanic mental health. In: Vega, W.A., and Miranda, M.R., eds. Stress

and Hispanic Mental Health. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)85-1410. Washington,

DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985a. pp. 1-29.

Vega, W.A.; Warheit, G.J.; and Meinhardt, K. Mental health issues in the

Hispanic community: The prevalence of psychological distress, In: Vega,

W.A., and Miranda, M.R., eds. Stress and Hispanic Mental Health. DHHS

Pub. No. (ADM)85-1410. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., US. Govt. Print.

Off., 19856. pp. 30-47.

Watters, J.; Reinarman, C.; and Fagan, J. Causality, context, and contingency:

Relationships between drug abuse and delinquency. Contemp Drug Prob

Law Q 12:351-373, 1985.

White, H.R. The drug-delinquency nexus in adolescence. In: Weischeit, R., ed.

Drugs, Crime and Criminal Justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 1990. pp. 215-

256.

White, H.R.; Pandina, R.J.; and LaGrange, R. Longitudinal predictors of serious

drug abuse and delinquency. Criminology 15:715-740, 1987.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This chapter was prepared with support from National Institute on Drug Abuse

grant DA-05630 and Division of Services Research, National Institute of Mental

Health, grant MH-30569 A1. The National Youth Survey data utilized in this

chapter were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and

Social Research. The data for the National Youth Survey, 1976: Wave 1 and

1977: Wave 2 were collected by the Behavioral Research Institute. Neither

the collectors nor the consortium bear responsibility for the analyses or

interpretations presented here. Patricia Hardyman of the National Council on

Crime and Delinquency and David Weisburd of Rutgers University School of

Criminology helped develop the acculturation measure used in our analyses.

AUTHORS

Orlando Rodriguez, Ph.D.

Professor, Sociology/Anthropology Department

Director, Hispanic Research Center

Fordham University

Thebaud Hall

Bronx, NY 10458

30
Juan-Luis Recio Adrados, Ph.D.

Visiting Research Scientist

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Profesor Titular de Sociología

Facultad de Ciencias Politicas y Sociología

Universidad Complutese

28023 Madrid

SPAIN

Mario R. De La Rosa, Ph.D.

Epidemiologist

Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Rockwall II Building, Suite 615

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

31
Orthogonal Cultural Identification:

Theoretical Links Between Cultural

Identification and Substance Use

E.R. Oetting

INTRODUCTION

Success within a culture brings many benefits. Some of these advantages are

defined in terms of cultural values, such as money, rank, property, control, or

admiration. Other benefits from cultural success may be more fundamental,

such as greater opportunities to have and raise children or even the possibility

of a longer lifespan. The consequences of cultural failure can be devastating.

Navarro (1991), for example, points out that people with less education and

lower incomes, markers for cultural success in U.S. society, die from heart

attacks and cerebrovascular disease far more often than their upper-class

counterparts. Culturally marginal individuals lack influence and interpersonal

regard within their cultural contexts, and their social environments usually

present few rewards. They must turn elsewhere to find an involvement in life

or to find satisfaction and enjoyment in living and are more likely to engage in

deviant and destructive behaviors.

The use of psychoactive substances is found in essentially all cultures and

provides examples illustrating how cultural identification may be related to

behavior. The first part of this chapter presents a general model for cultural

identification. It shows how successful identification is maintained and how

it relates to subcultures and to the culturally appropriate use of psychoactive

substances. The next part discusses how cultural identification breaks down

and how this failure can encourage illicit or culturally inappropriate substance

use. The final section of the chapter explains how orthogonal cultural

identification theory differs from typical models and considers implications

for minority youth. Although the principles presented here would apply to

any minority group existing within a dominant majority culture, at the request

of the editor the examples that are used involve American Indians because

they are considered in only one other chapter in this volume.

32
CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION

Cultural identification, a personality trait, is a persistent, long-term underlying

characteristic that organizes cognitions emotions, and behaviors. Those with

high identification with a culture perceive themselves as adapted or adjusted to

that culture. They see themselves as involved in the culture and as capable

and competent within it. The person with high cultural identification is more

likely to see events from the perspective of that culture, will make evaluative

judgments about people and events that are based on cultural beliefs and

values, will choose behaviors that are culturally congruent, and will be

successful in cultural activities.

Cultural identification, like other personality traits, develops and is

maintained through interactions with the environment, in this case, the

cultural environment. Figure 1 is a general model illustrating how cultural

identification is maintained. The model may appear anfractuous, but once

examined critically, it is straightforward and logical. It shows that both the

individual and the culture have needs or demands that must be met by the

other. To the extent that those needs are met, both the culture and the

individual will thrive. Figure 2, presents the same model, but defines what

occurs when there are problems that lead to the decline of cultural identification.

Comparing the two figures may clarify how the model works.1

The model in figure 1 illustrates the relationship between culture and the

individual. “Culture” is listed at the bottom of the model and “Person” at the top.

The diagram shows how they interact. Throughout this discussion, the term

“culture” is reified, distorting to some extent its meaning. To understand cultural

identification, however, it is necessary to discuss how culture and the person

interact. This interaction occurs through cultural activities, and nearly all

activities involve other people. Those people act individually and collectively.

They provide the opportunity for cultural interchange and activities, assess

the person’s behavior, make judgments about it based on cultural criteria,

and respond accordingly, providing reinforcement or punishment. In this way,

the culture serves as the equivalent of a functional organism and to simplify

descriptions, it is treated as such throughout this chapter.

Figure 1 shows that all cultural activities have two components: (1) cultural

demands that require certain actions or behaviors from participants and (2)

cultural responses, how the culture reacts when people participate in cultural

activities. The person must interact with the culture to meet these cultural

demands. “Person,” therefore, is placed at the top of the diagram, where

cultural identification is shown as one facet of the personality. The figure

shows that cultural identification has two components that are involved with

the interaction with the culture: culture-related actions, the behaviors that

occur in cultural contexts, and culture-related needs, personal requirements

that are met through cultural involvement.

33
FIGURE 1. Maintenance of cultural identification

Step 1: Culture presents demands. Cultural demands are requirements made

of people when they interact in specific cultural contexts. These requirements

run the entire gamut of cultural content. Examples include using language

appropriately; expressing the “right” cultural attitudes; using gender-appropriate

gestures; playing defined roles in ceremonies: or engaging in culturally

approved child care, work, or play.

Step 2: Actions respond to demands. Culture-related actions are designed

to meet these cultural demands and include nearly every behavior that occurs

within or in relation to social contexts, for example, speech, dress, posture,

attention, walking, dancing, typing, driving, painting, and elimination.

Step 3: Culture responds to the person’s actions. The culture evaluates

whether these actions meet cultural requirements and responds accordingly.

Cultural responses can be simple verbal and nonverbal communications.

They can include objects such as money or clothing, symbols such as rank or

a marriage tattoo, or actions. The essential element is that, when the person

behaves in ways that meet cultural demands, the culture responds in ways

that the culture views as positive.

34
FIGURE 2. Decline of cultural identification

SOURCE: Copyright 1991 by E.R. Oetting. Reprinted with permission.

Step 4: Needs are met through culture’s responses. For a cultural response

to be truly reinforcing, it must meet the cultural needs of the person. Culturerelated needs can be as fundamental as the need for food, water, shelter, and

social exchange or as peripheral as the desire for a new pair of designer jeans.

All these needs, even the most basic ones, are met in today’s world through

cultural interactions, The culture provides the context in which these needs are

met.

An example may help to illustrate how the model works. The culture first

provides an activity, such as a visit with a neighbor. The interaction presents

cultural demands (i.e., the neighbor expects certain behaviors in this situation).

Those might be friendliness, low emotional intensity, general agreement with

ideas, or attentive listening. When the person engages in appropriate culturerelated actions—talking, smiling, providing information, listening, gesturing—the

neighbor finds the behaviors appropriate and responds with expected behaviors

in return. Each thereby meets the other’s cultural needs. Both are satisfied

with the exchange and feel good about it. Both will seek further visits.

This interaction may appear to be a minor one, but this type of social

intercourse is a primary building block of cultural identification, important in

all cultures but extremely important in some. In some cultures, for instance,

35
in desert communities, more than 4 hours of an average day are spent visiting

with neighbors. The talking, gossiping, and exchange of ideas help ensure

conformity, that neighbors become culturally compatible. The exchanges also

include, for example, large amounts of cultural information, data on “proper”

attitudes and beliefs, treatment of common ailments, and potential solutions to

household, work, or child-raising problems. This content is incorporated into

cultural identification and shapes and alters subsequent behaviors,

Most culture-related responses occur in contexts with other people, but it is

not essential for others to be present. Reading, for example, involves only

an implicit cultural interaction between the author and the reader, but it is

nevertheless a cultural activity. The book serves as a cultural response.

The author’s ideas and concepts are filtered through the reader’s cultural

cognitions. The results may or may not meet the reader’s needs and can

support, contradict, or add new cultural constructs and ideas. Other media—

radio, television, records—provide the same kind of cultural interactions.

Benefits From Cultural Identification to the Person

The right side of the model in figure 1 lists the major effects on the person

that occur when the culture’s responses do meet the individual’s needs. The

primary effect of a match between needs and cultural responses is that the

individual develops or maintains a high level of cultural identification, ensuring

that the person remains within the culture and stays active. Retention within

the culture is one of the most important results of reinforcement. It provides

for continuing the successful interaction between culture and the individual.

The immediate benefit of this continuing cultural interaction is that the person’s

needs are met—needs that run the gamut from basic human requirements to

the most peripheral and shallow wants and desires, from concrete and specific

objects to abstract principles and ideals. The cultural response serves as a

reinforcer, shaping and maintaining the behavior, and is usually perceived as

pleasant and enjoyable. The net effect is likely to include a sense of

competence and an increase in life satisfaction.

At the most basic level, the match between cultural response and needs may

simply involve meeting the individual’s expectations for particular responses.

The needs for cultural security and stability are often high priorities, and getting

the expected response for a particular behavior is comforting and reinforcing.

The environment becomes predictable and safe.

Benefits to the Culture

Whereas the right side of the diagram in figure 1 deals with rewards and

benefits to the individual, the left side focuses on the benefits to the culture.

Cultural demands always include those that allow the culture to survive, which

occurs primarily through meeting people’s needs. When needs are met, the

culture is likely to increase in value to that person. Positive feelings encourage

36
involvement in cultural activities, allowing the culture to meet the needs of other

members. The rewarded person is also likely to recruit others into cultural

activities. Through individuals’ increased participation, the culture gains in the

ability to provide reinforcement and reward for all members.

SUBSTANCE USE AS AN ELEMENT IN CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION

Caffeine is a psychoactive substance, and across the world, coffee and tea are

perhaps the most commonly used “drugs.” They exemplify culturally appropriate

substance use. They are such an integral part of social interchange in some

cultures that their use has become synonymous with social intercourse; “Let’s

have coffee” actually means “Let’s have a conversation.” These substances also

provide a useful example of the power of cultural acceptance. To those who use

coffee or tea, it seems vaguely ridiculous that there were historical periods when

their use was viewed as “sinful” and that some cultures still proscribe them. The

widespread use of coffee and tea as social lubricators shows that a high level of

cultural identification can virtually require involvement with psychoactive

substances.

Caffeine is probably among the least damaging psychoactive substances, so

cultural acceptance may seem reasonable. But tobacco is clearly an addictive

and, in the long term, deadly drug. Yet in much of the world, smoking is still

culturally accepted and is often an integral part of almost every conversation,

particularly among men. The model for maintenance of cultural identification

in figure 1 applies to tobacco use. There will be cultural demands centering

around use, and meeting those demands will require use of the tobacco and

skill in the accompanying “rituals” or patterns of use.

A high level of cultural identification would ordinarily be an asset to the individual,

but when smoking is culturally appropriate, people with high levels of cultural

identification will be more likely to use tobacco. Among the cultures where this is

still occurring are many American Indian tribes, In recent years there has been a

societal shift in the United States toward intolerance of tobacco use, and use is

declining among American youth in general (Johnston et al. 1989). However,

this decline is not occurring among American Indian youth. Cigarette use by

reservation youth is still much higher than that of other youth (Beauvais et al.

1989), although rates may differ greatly across reservations. On one reservation,

for instance, nearly every adult smokes, and 89 percent of the 9th through 12th

graders are already smoking. In contrast, on another reservation, only 26 percent

of the youth of that age smoke (current data from Tri-Ethnic Center files at

Colorado State University).

The use of alcohol is also culturally appropriate within many groups and

occurs in many contexts. Each group and social context has its own cultural

requirements for using alcohol, and the person who meets those requirements is

reinforced for the behavior. American Indians are like other Americans; every

tribe has certain general expectations about alcohol use, and within each tribe are

37
subcultures that have different patterns of use. However, there are patterns

that occur frequently. One of these patterns is binge drinking, mentioned early

by Levy and Kunitz (1974), but still a frequent pattern among American Indian

drinkers, American Indian youth, for example, use alcohol less frequently than

other youth, but get drunk more often (Oetting et al. 1989). There are historical

factors that may have encouraged this type of drinking. For example, Federal

and tribal prohibition laws that made it difficult to obtain or keep alcohol meant

that alcohol was available only occasionally, and when available, there was

likely to be a large amount, providing an occasion for a “party.” A general

tendency to “share,” common to many American Indian cultures, may have

helped encourage this pattern.

The major point of this discussion is that there are cultural demands for

substance use and that the culture will reinforce culturally appropriate

substance use, whether or not that is good for the individual. A high

level of cultural identification is usually an asset to the person, but when

substance use is culturally required, high identification can lead to potentially

damaging consequences. Alcohol and tobacco present serious health risks

for American Indians, and there is at least indirect evidence that the use

of these two substances is determined, in part, by cultural requirements

or demands. Tolerance for tobacco use and for binge drinking are both

declining in the rest of American society, and as tolerance declines, cultural

activities that require these behaviors are decreasing as well, at least in some

subcultures. However, there is little evidence as yet that those changes are

occurring among American Indians who live on reservations. There are many

American Indians who are doing their best to alter these patterns of behavior,

but they do not seem to be reaching the groups that actually engage in the

behaviors.

Feedback: Maintenance of the System

Minor problems in adjustment between the culture and the person occur

constantly and are a normal part of the adaptation of both the culture and the

person. Nobody exists in a continual state of perfect rapport with his or her

culture. People test limits, get confused, construct inaccurate cognitions,

deviate from cultural norms, try new roles, and grow and change. Culture

alters: Ecologies shift, environmental pressures force new compromises,

resources are lost and gained, and norms and values change. However,

feedback provides a mechanism that can successfully carry the individual and

the culture through these changes. When the person’s responses only partially

meet cultural needs or the culture’s responses fail to completely meet the

individual’s needs, cultural cognitions provide hypotheses about what needs

to be done.

In their attempts to organize and make sense of the world and their place in it,

people form cognitions about their behaviors and their culture; they develop

cognitive frameworks to “explain” the perceived connections between their

38
behavior and the culture’s response to that behavior. The resulting ideas

and beliefs become that individual’s view of his or her culture and its content.

These cognitions also form a substrate that helps determine cultural needs.

When people’s beliefs and ideas about how their culture will respond to their

actions are confirmed, a need for cultural consistency is met; people are made

to feel that they “understand” their culture. The cognitions are reinforced and

become a major element in cultural identification.

Behaviors, responses, needs, and cognitions can all change through

feedback to modify the system and bring it back into adjustment. When

there is a strong culture and high levels of cultural identification exist, there is

likely to be a considerable congruence in perception and cognition, and the

adjustments are likely to be small and to occur quickly. Figure 2 is a general

model of the decline of cultural identification, Problems can occur anywhere

in the model. If the problem eventually leads to a serious mismatch, either

between cultural demands and actions or between needs and cultural

responses, cultural identification will suffer, and ultimately, if enough people

lose cultural identification, the culture will be damaged as well.

FAILURES IN CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION

As long as the culture and the person are reasonably healthy, the interactions

between culture and the individual are mutually supportive. People tend to

shape a culture that can meet their needs, and the culture tends to shape

needs that it can meet. However, a serious breakdown anywhere in the system

will lead to problems and, if not repaired, will lead eventually to a chronically

damaged interaction that fails to meet personal needs or to a dissolution of

the link between the individual and the culture.

Failure To Match Actions With Demands

A description of a breakdown in the system will illustrate how cultural

identification can be damaged and how the effects ripple outward from that

problem. Suppose that an individual is either unwilling or unable to meet the

culture’s demands. An example might be a serious behavioral offense, for

example, violation of a strong taboo. In most societies that violation might be

murder, rape, or another serious criminal act. Although the deviant act may

meet personal needs or even meet the needs of a criminal gang, in most of

our society the behavior does not match with the demands of the larger culture.

If the violator is caught, the person’s actions have clearly failed to meet cultural

demands, and the cultural response will be rejection, isolation, or in this case,

imprisonment or execution,

Most cultures operate on the assumption that punishment will lead to change,

and there is some hope that feedback can lead to change and to emergence of

behaviors that are culturally appropriate. If that should happen, the model for

39
maintenance of cultural identification could be reinstated. But in this case, there

is a good chance that a downward cycle will be established instead.

When the culture punishes, fails to reinforce, or otherwise does not meet the

individual‘s cultural needs, the result is likely to be unpleasant for the person

involved. The right side of the model in figure 2 lists some of the resulting

effects on the person. Stress increases, and the lack of rewards probably leads

to a general state of unhappiness and perhaps anger. The person is in conflict

with the culture, reducing cultural identification and increasing involvement with

culturally deviant subgroups, thereby increasing the chances for further

culturally deviant behaviors.

Failure of Cultural Responses To Meet Needs

When the culture loses resources, it may lose the ability to meet people’s

needs, even if they behave in culturally appropriate ways, For example,

people are a primary cultural resource. If a tribe is losing its members through

disease or emigration or a rural community is losing its population to the cities,

or young people are losing interest in being initiated into a clan, there will not

be people to meet the cultural needs of the remaining members. A culture can

also lose its ability to provide appropriate cultural responses through loss of

other resources. Social disorganization may prevent recognition of ability or

promotion in status. Knowledge may be lost. Folk medicine, myths, and

legends fade from memory. Traditional skills may no longer be taught and

may disappear.

The costs to the individual who has needs that are no longer being

met through these cultural activities are very real. Social benefits and

pleasure and enjoyment of life decline. There is no opportunity to practice

cultural competencies, and the sense of competence decays. With lack

of reinforcement, it is hard to maintain cultural cognitions. Cultural

identification suffers, with problems showing up in many different ways.

The person may leave or develop negative attitudes about the culture.

To try to maintain some ability of the culture to meet their needs, the

remaining members of the group may pull more closely together and isolate

themselves from the larger culture. They may insist on the integrity and truth

of their beliefs and values even though they have little opportunity to practice

the related behaviors. Because the culture does not have resources and can

offer little reinforcement, it has little or no ability to recruit new members who

could rebuild the culture. Unhappiness and loss may exacerbate the problem,

because others who show any identification with an alternative culture may

be driven away.

These examples show that failure in cultural identification can be rooted in

either the individual or in the culture. The model in figure 2 shows that a failure

anywhere in the model will eventually have the same effect, a decline in cultural

40
identification and a loss to the culture. Generally, it is the individual who suffers.

The culture involves many people and is a self-maintaining structure that resists

damage much better than an individual can.

But cultures can and do fail. A strong culture consists of many people, long

traditions, interlocking activities, and even physical structures that shape

behaviors and attitudes, But when its people fail in cultural identification, the

culture must eventually fail. A culture at its peak may appear to be so strong

that it is unassailable, but almost every human culture that existed prior to the

past century has either disappeared or changed so radically that its adherents

would no longer recognize it. Paradoxically, there may be more identifiable

and distinctively different human subcultures today than have existed in all

human history.

CULTURE AND SUBCULTURES

“Culture” is a term that has been used to refer to a wide range of social

concepts, contexts, and constructs. It is possible to speak of ethnicity as

culture, of a national culture, of the culture of religion, of the drug culture,

or even of the culture of a specific marriage. Most often the term is used to

describe the customs, beliefs, social structure, and activities of any group of

people who share a common identification and who would label themselves as

members of that group. An examination suggests that these various cultures

then form a hierarchy, ranging from very large nationality or racial groups to

small subcultures consisting of only a few people.

At the most general system level are broadly defined, large, amorphous

groups of people that the individual believes share certain of his or her general

characteristics and/or beliefs, These macrocultures would include, for example,

American Indians, Muslims, or Canadians, Within these broad glosses, but still

at the macrolevel, are more specific cultures that are somewhat more narrowly

defined, for instance, Apaches, Shiite Muslims, or French Canadians. It is a

definitional characteristic of these macrolevel cultures that it is impossible for

any person to meet and interact with even a modest proportion of those who

share that cultural identity.

At a lower system level are even more narrowly conceived ethnic, religious,

or other identities, along with associational groups such as clans, moieties,

schools, professions, clubs, and street gangs. Identification can be high with

any of these broadly defined cultural or associational groups. Even smaller

groups may exist within these structures; for example, heroin users may form

a subculture within the larger context of a barrio youth gang. Although it is

stretching the classic meaning of culture to include very small groups and

dyads, the logical continuum would continue on to include microcultures—

primary groups such as families or peer clusters.

41
Any of these groups could be viewed as a culture, having its own culture-related

activities, demands, and responses, and the model of cultural identification

would fit with a minimum of translation. However, it is probably more useful to

limit the term “culture” to the macrolevel, relating to ethnicity, race, nationality,

or broad religious identifications and to use the term “subculture” to describe

groups that share a reasonably apparent set of mores, traditions, and beliefs,

including institutions, associational groups, and the major primary groups,

Macrolevel Cultural ldentification

Cultural identification tends to develop in direct interaction with the people

who are involved in various subcultures, The person becomes like those

people he or she is interacting with. But no person can experience interactions

with a meaningful proportion of the people of his or her ethnicity or nationality,

Therefore, macrolevel cultural identifications such as ethnic or religious

identification are abstract attributions of cultural content. This means that

an individual’s cultural identification may have little to do with the behaviors

and traits of the large mass of people who are members of a nationality

or ethnic group. Instead, it is that person’s beliefs about those traits that

determine the content of cultural identification, beliefs that are learned

through the major socialization links—family, friends, teachers, media,

acquaintances, and others in the person’s immediate environment.

However, the cultural cognitions learned in these interactions are

incorporated into cultural identification with the larger ethnic group.

The individual usually attributes to this larger group mythic qualities

that meet some idealized cultural image, an image that was learned

in the close confines of that person’s primary relationships.

A person is likely to become involved in subcultures that include the same

general kinds of people and that are all part of the same macroculture. This

means that the individual encounters essentially the same attitudes and beliefs

in nearly every social context he or she experiences. When that happens, the

person is likely to begin to feel that these values are independent of social

context and are, therefore, fundamental “truths.” The person may be willing

to sacrifice life itself to meet these idealized perceived cultural demands.

An example would be the Japanese kamikaze pilots of World War II, the

“falling flowers” who chose to sacrifice their lives for their country.

Although most behaviors are in response to immediate subculture

requirements, macrolevel cultural identifications are highly important for

understanding people. They involve cultural cognitions that the person carries

across subcultures, that are not limited to one or two subcultures, and that will

therefore relate to behaviors and attitudes that are consistent and persistent

across different situations. These consistencies help individuals adapt to other

subcultures within their own macroframework, because they are likely to be

congruent with the requirements of those cultures. Unfortunately, it is also

these beliefs that create blind spots, preventing someone from seeing that

42
another culture holds different ideas and that those ideas may have validity.

This becomes a particular problem when the people of one culture hold power

over the people of another, because the power holders are likely to righteously

impose these perceived “truths” on the minority culture.

Nested Subcultures

An individual will have a series of cultural and subcultural identifications. These

will not be separated from each other in early life, because the young child has,

essentially, only one culture—that of the family. As the person’s social horizons

expand through life, however, differential identification with different subcultures

will occur. Many of the subcultures the person will identify with will be located

within broadly defined cultures and can even be seen to be specific parts of

those cultures, The values and belief systems within these nested subcultures

are likely to be reasonably congruent with each other and with the macroculture.

However, the cultural demands of subcultures will differ, so an individual may

be able to meet the requirements of some subcultures and not of others.

There also will be other subcultures that exist in association with a larger culture

that espouse values and make behavioral demands that are incongruent with

those of the larger culture and with most other subcultures that are nested

within that culture. Usually, if these subcultures exist continuously over an

extended period, a careful analysis will show that, despite their apparent

inconsistency, they play a functional role in the larger social ecology. They

meet the needs of a significantly large group of people, needs that the culture

and other subcultures are not meeting.

An understanding of how culture relates to behavior must take these

complicated and interlocking identifications into account. Except for members

of very small primitive tribes, any individual will be identified with several

different cultures and subcultures. For example, the male student at a

residential American Indian community college who is also a “cowboy”

would likely behave differently in the two subcultures. This student might be

highly successful within American Indian culture and would, therefore, have

a high level of American Indian identification. But trying to predict alcohol

consumption simply from that macrolevel American Indian identification without

taking into account identification with these two subcultures would lead to

erroneous results because the student might behave entirely differently in the

two contexts. Virtually all American Indian community colleges have a strong

standard against using alcohol while in residence and studying. During the

week, cultural requirements would demand that this student be industrious,

responsible, and stay sober, and many students follow these guidelines.

However, when he competes at a weekend rodeo, the cultural demands of

some cowboy groups would suggest that he be wild, somewhat irresponsible,

and drink heavily. Even this picture would be incomplete. Although there are

youth who would behave in this pattern, there are “recovering” cowboys who

would not touch alcohol and American Indian students who use alcohol while

on campus.

43
When people cannot meet their needs in one subculture, they will seek

another where their needs can be met. School is likely to be a highly

important subculture. For young people, the school subculture may provide

many opportunities to fail. Students may have language problems or an

attention disorder, be rebellious or hostile, or have personal problems that

prevent them from meeting the cultural requirements of the school. Figure 3

shows what happens to American Indian youth who do not develop a successful

identification with the school culture. The lower the school identification, the

more likely they are to develop peer drug associations and to have friends who

use drugs and who would not stop them from using drugs. These drug-using

peer clusters probably provide an alternative subculture where the youth can

meet his or her needs, needs that the school failed to meet.

A large and complex culture may have hundreds or even thousands of

subcultures; therefore, failure in one of these cultures may not mean failure

in the larger cultural context. The dropout may find an alternate method

for meeting the larger culture’s demand for an education, for example, by

alternative school or general equivalency diploma, or may seek another

FIGURE 3. Relationship between school identification and peer drug

association

SOURCE: Copyright 1991 by E.R. Oetting. Reprinted with permission.

44
subculture where needs can be met. The ultimate result may be beneficial or

damaging. There are many dropouts who play successful roles in society.

Unfortunately, there are also many dropouts in prison.

Transitions Across Subcultures

When moving from one subculture to another, the individual rapidly assesses

the nature of the subculture and its requirements and shifts behaviors and

attitudes accordingly. When dealing with familiar subcultures, these transitions

take place smoothly and without any particular effort or even awareness that a

change has occurred, and this change takes place even though requirements of

different subcultures are inconsistent. The ability to move from one subculture

to another with ease, despite inconsistencies, is readily accepted. However,

with regard to macrocultures, there has been a continuing belief that the

transitions must be difficult. This has led to a series of models that have

attempted to deal with transitions between macrocultures. The following section

considers some of these models.

MODELS OF CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION

Much of the interest in macrolevel cultural identification has focused on the

problems of minority populations trying to exist in and adapt to a majority

culture. Several different models have tried to describe this adjustment,

Figure 4 diagrams some of these models, using U.S. minority groups as

examples. The diagrams may inappropriately simplify some of these theories,

but they illustrate graphically the contrasts between the positions. This figure

and a further discussion of the models appear in a previous article by Oetting

and Beauvais (1990-91).

Dominant Majority Model

At the upper left in figure 4 is the dominant majority model, which places the

majority culture in a positive position and sees minorities as adapting to and

ultimately being incorporated into the “good” and “right” culture. Although this

is an ethnocentric, value-laden, and prejudiced position, it is one that has been

prevalent, particularly earlier in this century. For example, the American Indian

youth who was trapped in a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) boarding school 25

years ago would have had no option but to behave in accordance with the

dominant majority model. In the original charters for BIA schools, it was made

explicit that American Indian children were to be taught the English language

and were to replace their own legends with stories about Abraham Lincoln and

George Washington. One American Indian woman recalls that when she was

7 years old, she was forced to kneel on the hot air vent for 20 minutes every

morning because she kept using the Navajo word for “toothbrush.” American

Indian children in the boarding school were living in a “dominant majority” world,

and they failed to learn its lessons at their peril.

45
FIGURE 4. Models of minority populations within majority culture

SOURCE: Oetting and Beauvais 1990-91, p. 659, reprinted by courtesy of

Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Transitional Models

In transitional theories, the minority culture is more likely to be viewed as

valuable and positive, but cultural identification will, nevertheless, be lost, and

the person will eventually be incorporated into the majority culture. The model

assumes that people in transition will have problems because they are caught

between the old and the new cultures and therefore are faced with value and

behavioral conflicts, Theories that “explain” drug use in minority populations by

acculturation stress often assume that movement from the old to the new will

always be difficult and are based, at least implicitly, on a transitional model.

Alienation Models

The alienation model, the third one down in figure 4, is an expanded transitional

model that assumes that there will be movement toward the majority culture but

does not assume that problems will always be encountered. Graves (1967) has

pointed out that some people can operate effectively while in transition, whereas

others cannot. Both transitional and alienation models assume that movement

46
or adaptation to the new culture must take place. They do not consider the

possibility of a continuing multicultural adaptation However, these theories

are likely to provide a reasonably accurate description of what occurs when

an individual or a family is permanently displaced, isolated in a foreign

community, and must learn to exist in another culture. Because a significant

minority community is not available to them, they will be unable to maintain

their identification with the old culture; it is not available and cannot provide

opportunities for cultural exchanges or cultural rewards. Those who can cope

and can meet the requirements of the new culture will be reinforced and will

develop a new cultural identification. Those who cannot will become alienated;

they cannot maintain their prior cultural identification, and they cannot develop

a new one.

Multidimensional Models

These models also assume that there will be a transition but view it as involving

several different dimensions (Olmedo et al. 1978; Olmedo and Padilla 1978).

For example, a person could have lost the minority language but still retain a

high level of loyalty to the minority group. The multidimensional model assumes

that people will be somewhere between the two cultures on each dimension.

It does not leave room for the ability to meet the cultural requirements of both

cultures, nor does it indicate that people may not be able to meet the

requirements of either culture.

Bicultural Models

Bicultural models, sometimes called transcultural models, are illustrated at

the top right of figure 4. Unlike the models that place people between cultures,

they provide an alternative outcome: becoming involved in a new culture that

does not demand relinquishing the old. Ramirez (1984) describes this bicultural

or multicultural person as one who has “. . . extensive socialization and life

experiences in two or more cultures and participates actively in these cultures

. . . the behavior is flexible in the sense that he or she uses different problem

solving, coping, human relational, communication and incentive motivational

styles” (p. 82). A person who lacks the ability to achieve in either culture is

usually not considered in the bicultural model.

Orthogonal Cultural Identification

The diagrams in figure 4 suggest that the first five models share a common

element: Two cultures are placed at opposing ends of a continuum. With the

exception of the bicultural model, the assumption is that cultures are ipsative,

that involvement in one is at the cost of involvement in another. The final

model is a simplified diagram that illustrates the theory of orthogonal cultural

identification (Oetting and Beauvais 1990-91). It shows that identification

with one culture can be independent of identification with any other culture.

Instead of being placed in opposition to each other, cultural identification

47
dimensions are at right angles; they are, in principle, uncorrelated. All other

models limit the possible patterns of cultural identification that can exist: in most

of them, a gain in one culture is offset by a loss in the other. The orthogonal

model points out that any combination or pattern of cultural identification is

possible. A person may have a single identity, may be bicultural, may have

a high identification with one culture and a modest one with another, or may

have a weak identification with any culture.

In the orthogonal model, competence or preference for one culture is

independent of that for any other culture. Bicultural theory, for example, may

ask the following question, “What is your music preference? Only Spanish,

Mostly Spanish, Equally Spanish and English, Mostly English, English Only”

(Cuellar et al. 1980). Orthogonal theory would require asking about preference

for each kind of music independently, so that people could show, for example,

that they disliked both kinds of music, liked each moderately, or liked one a lot

and the other only a little.

The orthogonal model also indicates that it is the level of cultural identification

that is important, not whether people are in transition. If there is a transition in

progress, the person can move in any path through the cultural identification

space. As identification with one culture increases, identification with another

can decrease as the transitional models suggest, but it can also stay the same

or even increase. As long as the path of the transition continues to include a

reasonably high level of cultural identification with one or more cultures, a

transition does not have to be accompanied by stress. As figure 2 shows,

however, if there is a loss of overall identification, stress is likely.

The orthogonal model also has a “zero point.” Unlike other models, it shows

that it is possible to have a low level of identification with any culture. The other

models in figure 4 all include an assumption that people start with a high level of

cultural identification and move toward another high level of identification, Only

in the alienation model is there a path for them to go astray. But not everyone

starts with a high level of identification. Although everyone lives in a cultural

context, merely living in that context does not mean that the person has a high

level of cultural identification.

For example, families can show a continuing pattern of low identification across

many generations. Almost every community has marginal families, people who

live on the fringes of society. They are rejected by mainstream families, and

their children are usually looked down on and viewed with suspicion. They

have little or no access to the benefits of their culture. They are not members

of important clans, do not hold office, rarely have respected jobs or other

productive roles, and may be required to do the “dirty work,” the work that is

viewed as noxious by others and that nobody else will do. Their potential for

deviance is high, including alcohol abuse and crime. They are then viewed as

a family of “drunks” and “criminals,” providing the culture with a further excuse

for continuing the pattern of rejection, Members of this family have a cultural

48
identity; they would label themselves as a member of an ethnic group. They do

not, however, have a significant level of cultural identification.

Some of the problems in interpreting the links between cultural identification

and substance use of American Indians stem from this issue. It is not

uncommon to find that an undue proportion of those American Indians who

have become “skid-row” alcoholics use predominantly an American Indian

language. Because language has been used as a marker for cultural

identification, these alcoholics who speak little English have been assumed

to have a high American Indian identification, and the assumption could be

made that American Indian identification helps make them susceptible to

alcohol abuse. But it is far more likely that these alcoholic American Indians

do not have a high cultural identification with either American Indian or nonAmerican Indian culture. They speak little English because they have not been

successful in non-American Indian culture, but they probably also have little real

involvement with American Indian culture; they are not among those who are

clan or tribal leaders and are not admired or respected by other American

Indians.

The diagram of orthogonol identification in figure 4 includes two cultures, but

additional cultures can be added using additional dimensions. The model is

also generalizable to subcultures, A macroculture, such as American Indian,

can be listed on the abscissa and a subculture, such as “school,” on the

ordinate. Two or more subcultures can also be listed, such as “school” and

“street gang,” and the positions of groups of people can be plotted in the

enclosed space. Some positions are more likely to be occupied than others,

but the orthogonal model indicates that any pattern is possible.

The fact that cultures or subcultures have opposing values, beliefs, or

behavioral requirements does not completely eliminate the possibility that

people will be able to espouse any combination of cultural identities. All

cultures are already pluralistic and require constant adjustment to dissonant

cognitions and behaviors. Cross-cultural adaptation is only a further extension

of this adaptation. If the adjustment to one culture prevents meeting the

demands of another culture, it can eventually lead to a loss of identification;

if not, identification with both systems can remain high.

The orthogonal model provides more options and is capable of incorporating the

other models of cultural identification. Why then have so many models placed

cultures in opposition to each other in a zero-sum game? Probably because

there is an element of historical truth in those models. In the United States, for

example, history indicates that minority cultures have often been eliminated or

absorbed. In the world scene, separate cultures have existed for hundreds of

years as neighbors in opposition, passing on to each new generation a history

of mutual prejudice and enmity. To place these cultures in polar opposition

would be natural.

49
Although it is not an essential element of the theory, the orthogonal model at

least suggests another possibility: Cultures do not restrain the individual; they

present opportunities. The length of the vector from zero, regardless of where

it points, indicates the ability of the person to contribute and the ability of the

cultures to provide rewards. If individuals could develop tolerance and forgive

historical transgressions, if they could be freed to involve themselves in different

cultural dimensions, a tolerant and multicultured world might enrich everyone’s

lives by providing multiple opportunities to give and to receive.

CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION, OTHER PERSONALITY TRAITS, AND

DRUG USE

Cultural identification is a melding of participation, success, and satisfaction.

It is involved in nearly every interaction that people have with their social

environment. Therefore, it is a characteristic that “flavors” nearly every aspect

of the personality and is likely to be variously correlated with other traits, some

of which may be important for understanding drug use.

Cultural Identification and Self-Esteem

The strong and culturally successful family is able to provide the child with

access to the culture’s reinforcements and rewards and is therefore better able

to develop in the child the ability to meet the culture’s demands. The child with

these advantages will develop a high level of cultural identification. That

identification involves forming accurate cultural perceptions and cognitions

and helps the child develop skills that meet cultural demands. When children

engage in successful cultural interactions, they develop a belief in their own

competence and capability. They have a feeling that they are in control over

those parts of their environment that relate to culture. The child will be, and will

feel, competent, capable, and proud of his or her accomplishments and will feel

reinforced by and in tune with the culture. These abilities and feelings are the

essence of self-esteem. Oetting and Beauvais (1990-91) have shown that the

higher the level of cultural identification of American Indian youth, whether

American Indian, non-Hispanic white, or bicultural, the greater their self-esteem.

Self-esteem should relate to drug use, because those who are less culturally

competent should have more need for drugs, but Swaim and colleagues’ (1989)

review of the literature shows that self-esteem has not been a particularly strong

predictor of substance use. The complexity of subcultural identification in U.S.

society suggests a reason for the low relationship. As an example, youth with

problems in school should not, according to the model in figure 2, be meeting

their needs for recognition and respect and should therefore develop lower

self-esteem. But figure 3 shows that they are also more likely to become

associated with drug-using peer clusters. Youth with poor school identification

may be meeting their personal needs through those peer clusters, achieving

acceptance in part through drug use, and their self-esteem may then increase.

A pattern similar to this one has been shown to exist for dropouts. At the time

50
they drop out, their self-esteem is at its lowest; after dropout, it increases

(Wehlage and Rutter 1986), probably because they develop successful

identification with new subcultures at work and play.

Cultural Identification and Deviance

Care must be used in defining deviance, because behavior that is deviant in

one culture may not be deviant in another. Deviance, however, can be defined

culturally and would then, by definition, be antithetical to cultural identification.

Therefore, high cultural identification should be negatively related to deviance

and, for those substances that are not tolerated by the culture, to drug use.

There is, however, a complicating factor. Deviance and deviant attitudes may

be linked strongly to a subculture and not to the macroculture. Drug use and

other deviant behaviors may be supported by the immediate interactions with

other youth in deviant peer clusters even though they are not reinforced by the

macroculture. High cultural identification at the macrolevel may reduce the

chances that a youth will get involved with a deviant subculture but may have

little potency in counteracting the effects of adaptation to this drug-using peer

subculture once a youth is involved. Cultural identification may therefore have

only a slight effect on reducing the chances of drug use associated with

deviance.

Cultural ldentification and Sensation Seeking

Relating cultural identification to sensation seeking presents a different

challenge. The links to drug use may be complex and depend on the extent

that sensation seeking is congruent with cultural values and attitudes about

appropriate behavior. Values of the Plains tribes, for example, include the

“warrior” tradition, Boys are expected to be adventurous and courageous, but

there is less expectancy that girls will engage in the same behaviors. A Plains

family with high cultural identification would therefore be more likely to reinforce

males for behaviors associated with sensation seeking. In adolescence, this

could translate into greater male experimentation with drugs in families with

high cultural identification but might produce reduced sensation seeking and

drug use in females from those same families. In families with low cultural

identification, the traditions would not be as strong, and boys who had a

tendency toward sensation seeking might not be reinforced differentially.

There would then be fewer differences between males and females.

Summary: Cultural ldentification and Drug Use

There are no simple, clear links between cultural identification and drug use.

A high level of identification can lead to substance use if the culture approves.

It can prevent use if the culture disapproves. It can even protect one gender

while encouraging use in the other. Despite this complexity, a high cultural

identification is almost always an asset; it suggests access to society’s

51
resources, success in meeting a culture’s requirements, and growing out of

that, general satisfaction with life.

The example of the excitement-seeking male illustrates both the costs and

the benefits that can accrue from cultural identification, Excitement-seeking

males may show their culturally approved adventurousness by playing with the

extremes of alcohol use or by experimenting with other drugs, but even then,

cultural identification is likely to be an asset rather than a liability. Those youth

are likely to be involved with peer clusters that are not really culturally deviant:

they will experiment, but they have other options in society and are not likely to

be involved in other deviant behaviors. Their experiments will probably be

limited to the drugs that are more socially acceptable, such as tobacco, alcohol,

and marijuana. Their high level of cultural identification ensures that they will

have other socially appropriate ways of meeting their needs, and they are not

likely to move on to chronic use of harder drugs.

On the other hand, low cultural identification is always a source of problems,

and these troubles may or may not include substance use. Low identification

means that people are not meeting the requirements of an important subculture.

They are forced to try to meet their personal and social needs by identifying

with another subculture, and they are likely to locate other youth who are

having problems in meeting cultural requirements. These youth will form

peer clusters that meet each other’s needs and that have a high potential

for deviance, including drug use. As one young girl said, “I’m not smart, I’m

not a jock, I don’t have money to be a ‘deb,’ but y’know, like I can take drugs!”

The implication might be that serious drug use is limited to youth with poor

cultural identification. But the orthogonal model also indicates that any pattern

of cultural and subcultural identification is possible. There are youth who

apparently have a high level of macrolevel identification, but who still get

heavily involved with drugs. They have access to resources, they meet the

requirements of the subcultures in their environment, and they should therefore

be able to meet all their needs within the social structure. Despite this potential,

they identify with deviant peer clusters. These youth either have pathological

needs that cannot be met by ordinary means or they have, through chance or

choice, become involved with other youth who have problems. Once involved

with a deviant peer cluster, they develop needs that can be met only within

that kind of group, so the involvement is self-perpetuating, Their high level of

cultural identification is still an asset because, if these youth survive the deviant

peer cluster, they may turn out to be successful members of society. They have

skills developed in the mainstream of society to fall back on.

In contrast, the most severely troubled people are those who have been unable

to establish a solid cultural identification with any macroculture or with any but

the most deviant subcultures. These anomic people have few ways to meet

any of their needs. Virtually all their social contacts are among the more

deviant groups, and they are likely to be heavily drug involved.

52
The best example might be chronic inhalant users. Inhalant-dependent

adults are likely to come from the ranks of those who are culturally marginal,

regardless of the culture in which they are trying to exist (Oetting and Webb, in

press). They do not have the ability to meet cultural requirements, even of the

deviant subcultures that might provide alternatives for other people. Even in the

subculture of heroin addicts, those who chronically use inhalants are usually

viewed as outsiders and as incompetent. They do not have the ability to hustle

heroin, to “take care of business” (Altenkirch and Kindermann 1986).

American Indians have more than their share of inhalant users, among both

youth and adults (Beauvais and Oetting 1988a, 1988b; Beauvais et al. 1985;

Oetting et al. 1989). This may be a function of the chronic problems on

reservations where there are limited resources, serious cultural disorganization,

and school problems, including high dropout rates. There is chronic

unemployment, and existing patterns of adult alcoholism continue to seriously

damage the family’s ability to provide support. Too many young American

Indians do not have much chance of developing a high level of identification

with either American Indian or non-American Indian culture.

PREVENTION: ENHANCING CULTURAL IDENTIFICATION

The base of all cultural identification is the family. For the young child, the

culture is the family. The family teaches language, which is laden with cultural

cognitions. The family provides early training that establishes behavior patterns

and that creates ideas about expected behaviors and outcomes, especially

those that define a “good boy” and a “good girl.” Family cultural attitudes and

expectations permeate the youth’s environment; they are the youth’s reality.

This early learning frequently “sets” cultural identifications, particularly those

at the macrolevel, leaving a persistent and long-term identification at least

through the adolescent years and, often, if the person remains in the family’s

cultural context, throughout the lifespan. For this reason, ethnic, racial, religious,

or national identification are likely to be very strongly linked to and essentially

equivalent to the family’s cultural identification. Providing families with the

abilities and the resources to create a strong cultural identification in their children

is therefore an essential step. A community needs to provide opportunities for

families and children to share cultural activities. Parents should be encouraged

to teach cultural skills, legends, ideas, and values. Older members of extended

families need to be given a chance to pass on cultural knowledge and attitudes.

The required immersion of children in a separate school subculture means that

meeting the cultural requirements of the school is also essential. One of the

major problems for American Indians has been the separation of the school

culture from the American Indian macroculture. For too many years, the BIA

schools were a subculture of Anglo society and not of American Indian culture.

Worse yet were the boarding schools, where young American Indians were

forced to adapt to an Anglo subculture while losing contact with their family’s

culture. Boarding school children could not meet their needs through their

53
families, so they turned to other youth. Peers rarely apply strong sanctions

against deviant behavior, and the highest rates of drug use among American

Indian youth have been found in boarding schools. It is only in recent years

that American Indian tribes have been regaining control over their school

systems, but they need more than control; they need to develop school

environments that provide youth with opportunities to build cultural identification

with either Anglo or American Indian culture or both. If young people are to

develop a strong cultural identification, the schools need to become a nested

subculture, reflecting the culture of the people. In the case of today’s American

Indians, the schools must provide an environment congruent with both

American Indian and Anglo cultures, Families need to become more closely

bonded with the schools so they can prepare their children for and influence

the school subculture.

Cultural identification must then be played out in the community. The

community provides cultural resources and a constant flow of both subtle

and obvious cultural messages. As they emerge into adult roles, youth need

to find cultural messages that are consistent with their expectations and

activities that engage their skills and provide meaningful rewards. They need

to live in environments where they have a chance to engage in rich, meaningful,

and satisfactory cultural activities. If the community can offer opportunities only

for hopelessness and passivity, or for anger and aggression, there is little

chance for building a solid cultural identification.

Reservation people suffer from poverty, unemployment, high rates of health

problems (including tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases), adult

alcoholism, and high rates of adolescent drug use. The culture needs

resources to meet people’s needs, starting with these fundamental needs.

Reservation communities need to be able to provide employment, education,

training, health care, cultural activities, and opportunities that allow their people

to meet physical, social, and personal needs. The communities also need to

provide multiple opportunities to engage in culturally relevant activities. It is

not enough to provide an isolated sweat lodge experience or to have 1 hour a

week of instruction in American Indian culture in the schools. There must be

continuous opportunities for cultural activities and a wide range of different

activities so that people have a chance to utilize their various talents and skills,

In history, either cultures have remained isolated and in conflict with

neighboring cultures, or minority cultures have been conquered and absorbed.

The orthogonal model of cultural identification offers another option, the

possibility that cultures can remain alive, healthy, and independent of each

other in the same physical environment. If that can be achieved, people will be

able to choose to develop high levels of cultural identification with either of the

two cultures or with both, depending on their own values, needs, and abilities.

American Indian reservations offer an opportunity to test these possibilities.

They are still deep reservoirs of American Indian culture and also provide

opportunities for involvement in Anglo culture. The options promised by

54
orthogonal cultural identification theory exist in these communities. Most

American Indians today are to some extent bicultural, but all the different

patterns and combinations of cultural identification exist (Oetting and Beauvais

1990-91). American Indian reservations offer a chance for a great natural

experiment. If they can find the resources they need, rebuild the school

systems to fully reflect American Indian as well as Anglo culture, and survive

as tolerant multicultural societies, they can point to one possible way toward

resolving some of the cultural conflicts that are tearing at today’s world.

NOTE

1. Although not derived directly from other models, this theory of cultural

identification is adumbrated by the work adjustment theory of Dawis and

colleagues (1968).

REFERENCES

Altenkirch, H., and Kindermann, W. Inhalant abuse and heroin addiction: A

comparative study on 574 opiate addicts with and without a history of

sniffing. Addict Behav 11:93-104, 1986.

Beauvais, F., and Oetting, E.R. Indian youth and inhalants: An update. In:

Crider, R.A., and Rouse, B.A., eds. Epidemiology of Inhalant Abuse: An

Update. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 85. DHHS

Pub. No. (ADM)88-1577. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., US. Govt. Print.

Off., 1988a. pp. 34-48.

Beauvais, F., and Oetting, E.R. Inhalant abuse by young children. In: Crider,

R.A., and Rouse, B.A., eds. Epidemiology of Inhalant Abuse: An Update.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 85. DHHS Pub. No.

(ADM)88-1577. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,

1988b. pp. 30-33.

Beauvais, F.; Oetting, E.R.; and Edwards, R.W. Trends in the use of inhalants

among American Indian adolescents. White Cloud J 3(4):3-11, 1985.

Beauvais, F.; Oetting, E.R.; Wolf, W.; and Edwards, R.W. American Indian

youth and drugs: 1975-1987—a continuing problem. Am J Public Health

79(5):634-636, 1989.

Cuellar, I.; Harris, L.C.; and Jasso, R. An acculturation rating scale for MexicanAmerican normal and clinical populations. Hispanic J Behav Sci 2:199-217,

1980.

Dawis, R.V.; Lofquist, L.H.; and Weiss, D.J. A Theory of Work Adjustment. (A

Revision.) Minnesota Studies in Rehabilitation, XXIII. Minneapolis, MN:

University of Minnesota, 1968.

Graves, T.D. Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community.

Southwestern J Anthropol 23:337-350, 1967.

Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Bachman, J.G. Drug Use, Drinking, and

Smoking: National Survey Results From High School, College, and Young

Adult Populations, 1975-1988. National Institute on Drug Abuse. DHHS Pub.

No. (ADM)89-1638. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,

1989.

55
Levy, J.E., and Kunitz, S.J. Indian Drinking: Navajo Practices and Anglo

American Theories. New York: Wiley, 1974.

Navarro, V. The class gap. Nation April:436-437, 1991.

Oetting, E.R., and Beauvais, F. Orthogonal cultural identification theory: The

cultural identification of minority adolescents. Int J Addict 25(5A & 6A):655-

685, 1990-91.

Oetting, E.R.; Beauvais, F.; and Edwards, R.W. Alcohol and Indian youth:

Social and psychological correlates and prevention. In: Wright, R., Jr., and

Watts, T.D., eds. Alcohol Problems of Minority Youth in America. Vol. 2.

Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press, 1989. pp. 143-163.

Oetting, E.R., and Webb, J. Psychosocial characteristics and their links with

inhalant use: a research agenda. In: Sharp, C.; Beauvais, F.; and Spence,

R., eds. Inhalant Abuse: A Volatile Research Agenda. Rockville, MD:

National institute on Drug Abuse, in press.

Olmedo, E.L.; Martinez, J.L.; and Martinez, S.R. Measure of acculturation for

Chicano adolescents. Psychol Rep 42:159-170, 1978.

Olmedo, E.L., and Padilla, A.M. Empirical and construct validity of a measure of

acculturation for Mexican Americans. J Soc Psychol 105:179-187, 1978.

Ramirez, M. III. Assessing and understanding biculturalism-multiculturalism in

Mexican-American adults. In: Martinez, J.L., and Mendoza, R.H., eds.

Chicano Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1984.

Swaim, R.C.; Oetting, E.R.; Edwards, R.W.; and Beauvais, F. The links from

emotional distress to adolescent drug use: A path model. J Consult Clin

Psychol 57(2):227-231, 1989.

Wehlage, G.C., and Rutter, R.A. Dropping out: How much do schools contribute

to the problem? Teachers College Rec 87(3):374-398, 1986.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The theory of cultural identification presented in this chapter has grown out of

research on drug use of minority youth funded by National Institute on Drug

Abuse grants DA-07074, DA-03371, and DA-04000.

AUTHOR

E.R. Oetting, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Psychology

Scientific Director

Tri-Ethnic Center for Prevention Research

Colorado State University

C136 Clark Building

Fort Collins, CO 80523

56
Acculturation: The Broader View.

Theoretical Framework of the

Acculturation Scales

Juan-Luis Recio Adrados

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to expand the theoretical framework underlying

most of the scales of acculturation developed in the field of mental health since

the late 1970s. The book “Acculturation: Theory, Models, and Some New

Findings” (Padilla 1980) soon became a landmark for those working in the area

of measurement of acculturation.

Surprisingly, in Padilla’s theoretical framework, a single author (Gordon 1964,

1978) was cited as the source of inspiration. Recently, Vega and colleagues

(this volume) and Rodriguez and Recio Adrados (in press), among others, have

also attempted to measure the impact of acculturation within the field of drug

abuse.

In spite of a decade of efforts to develop new scales, little has been achieved

to increase the substantive knowledge about the complex phenomenon of

acculturation. Furthermore, the scarce findings have seldom been brought to

bear on prevention- or intervention-oriented programs in mental health-related

areas. This may be due to the uncertain nature of these findings and to the

wide variety of the American cultural panorama under study, which requires

a comprehensive research program.

However, the lack of awareness of much of what has been developed in other

closely related disciplines seems to be the main reason behind the deficiency

of the theoretical framework of acculturation scales. Consequently, this

chapter suggests several theoretical developments and considers several

methodological revisions to shed some light on the state of the art in the field

of acculturation measurement.

No comprehensive review of the available instruments is attempted here,

because Rogler and colleagues (1991) have recently published an excellent

one. Instead, a few instruments within the major theoretical approaches utilized

57
to develop acculturation scales are analyzed to show their main strengths and

weaknesses, while keeping the focus on the underlying theories.

UNIDIMENSIONAL ACCULTURATION SCALES

Existing scales of acculturation have been written and validated against the

backdrop of a fairly unitary, though not very elaborated, theory within the

boundaries of behavioral or cognitive clinical psychology. Such theory looks

at acculturation as a unidimensional and unidirectional process that individuals

from other cultures, usually of minority status, go through to take up the various

traits of the dominant culture. This model of acculturation, which underlies most

of the scales examined in this chapter, also can be regarded as bipolar, because

an individual’s assumption of the culture of the host society always entails the

simultaneous abandonment of the culture of origin.

The main strength of the scales drawing on such a theory is a methodological

one: Measurement is simplified by relying mainly on the use of language and

other easily identifiable patterns of behavior of the dominant culture. However,

several theoretical weaknesses point to a resulting deficient validity of the scales

at issue, which could be labeled lack of a context.

Items on language use and preferences are always included in the mentioned

scales. However, mere use of a certain language, though significant, is not

as important as the “speech act” (Wuthnow et al. 1984; Habermas 1979) in which

language is situated and evaluated. A psychiatric vignette (Rogler et al. 1989) in

a different context illustrates this issue. In this scenario, two bilingual Hispanics

speak English, not to communicate better with each other but to thwart

communication with and isolate a third Hispanic unable to speak English.

At other times, the preference for English among bilingual Hispanics intends

either to signal social distance in relation to those linguistically less competent

or to persuade the partner to adapt to the rules of the major institutions in society.

In both cases, the meaning of language remains inaccessible to those not aware

of both the situation and the social structure underlying it.

Similarly, with regard to selection of television programs (a frequent item in the

acculturation scales), the context also seems to have fundamental significance.

The watcher’s position in social structure as well as his or her ideology may

define the meaning of program choices much more than preference for the

lifestyle of the dominant culture. For example, a traditional-minded bicultural

person may always watch the news in English because the opinions being

aired on the Spanish channel are too liberal.

58
Moreover, other variables such as friendships, which also are frequently included

in the acculturation scales, follow a bipolar orientation, performing as ambivalent

indicators either of acculturation or of assimilation into the social structure.

Although not all their instruments seem to have been validated to date, a study by

Lang and colleagues also showed that “the best adjusted Latinos (satisfied with

their lives and subjectively happy) were bicultural, although oriented more toward

the Latino culture than the Anglo culture” (Lang et al. 1982, p. 433).

This finding contrasted with the unidimensional nature of the instruments utilized

by Lang and associates. The Global Acculturation Scale, especially designed

for the study by Lang and coworkers (1982), and the Cuellar scale (Cuellar

et al. 1980) on which it draws, combine both the psychological and a certain

sociological orientation by taking into account the generational level, the years

of education, and the percent of life lived in the United States in addition to

language usage and other commonly included items. Accordingly, Lang and

coworkers (1982) found that income and education were significant predictors

of psychological adjustment. However, self-reported feelings of satisfaction and

conformity in certain life areas need further validation and, more important, are no

substitute for evidence concerning simultaneously ongoing processes of ethnic

identification. Such evidence has not been an area of concern for researchers

who follow the unidimensional approach.

Above all, what is missing in most of the scales that follow the unidimensional or

bipolar model of acculturation is attention to the context in which an immigrant

experience with the host society takes place, including variables of a constraining

or morphological nature such as socioeconomic status (SES). With the exception

of Olmedo and associates (1978) and of Lang and colleagues (1982), social class

of stratum is not accounted or controlled for by the acculturation scales, which

is a symptom of the “disembodied” treatment of acculturation that prevails in the

field, that is, one that does not pay sufficient attention to the morphological or

sociostructural aspects of culture but that focuses mainly on ideas and values.

The deficit is even more apparent in the presence of the obvious SES

differences, for instance, between Cubans and Puerto Ricans on the U.S.

mainland.

Importance of Context: SES vs. Culture

Leighton’s (1982) elaboration of the concept of culture can help clarify this

issue. For Leighton, as for functionalist sociologists, culture in a strict sense

is a set of patterns that make a society work. No satisfactory explanation is

provided by Leighton (1982) of the dysfunctional aspects or, in a specific way,

of the existence of conflict and cultural change in every society. Seldom, if ever,

can ethnic groups in a minority status within a larger society have a culture in

this sense because they are not endowed with resources or mechanisms such

59
as those enumerated by Parsons (1966) and Aberle (1950) that allow them to

function as a whole society.

For Leighton, culture in a diffuse sense is the set of beliefs and practices of a

certain social class or stratum (such as the so-called “culture of poverty”) that

is essentially reactive or adaptive to the socioeconomic situation. He believes

that many cultural differences attributed to ethnic groups sometimes are nothing

but traits of disprivileged groups reacting and adapting in a defensive way to

their plight. At other times, such traits are just remnants (of a culture that no

longer exists) that still serve as identity signals for certain fringe groups. The

marginalization of these groups is further buttressed by their pseudocultural,

or underclass culture-oriented, identification (Leighton 1982).

Leighton is correct in warning of the danger implicit in assuming that those

patterns constitute a whole way of life. Marginal groups would then run the risk

of becoming the object of discriminatory treatment on the part of the majority

group in society. The fact is that those classes or strata (i.e., fringe or marginal

groups) possess both an “aspirational culture” that resembles that of the other

classes and a “class culture” that exhibits the traits of a partial and defensive

lifestyle (Recio Adrados 1977).

Moreover, any concept of culture—in its broader sense as a collective lifestyle

—necessarily includes a limiting or morphological component, namely, the

reference to its material, biological, and psychosocial resources. Therefore, an

excessive separation of culture from social structure, such as the one implicit in

the theory grounding most of the acculturation scales examined in this chapter,

simplifies reality and does not serve the interests of the minority groups.

For Rogler, the absence of SES among the indicators of acculturation

constitutes an asset rather than a deficit (Rogler et al. 1991). However,

many of the problems Rogler detects with both the theories of acculturation

and the inconclusive findings of the extant research seem the product of an

excessively psychologizing approach or of the lack of a multidisciplinary

synthesis. Sociology, anthropology, and social psychology could contribute

the specific and institutional aspects Rogler finds missing in the studies on

acculturation of migrants. Acculturation, above all, is a sociocultural process.

Therefore, psychologists alone cannot provide adequate research because

individual traits need to be put into context by drawing on the expertise of

various scientific traditions.

Acculturative Stress Model

Models that focus on acculturative stress are useful applications of the basic

unidimensional theory. The process of acculturation, as conceptualized by

such theory, entails migrants’ psychological and even pathological stress,

60
which can result in various kinds of deviant behavior, including drug abuse.

Conceivably, most of the research in this area has been carried out by

psychologists dealing with mental health problems (see references in Rogler

and colleagues 1991 and in Vega et al., this volume).

Vega and colleagues (this volume) work out a model to “determine the salience

of acculturative stressors as causal factors in the onset of drug use.” Their

chapter “reports the development of several scales intended to measure cultural

orientation and acculturative stressors” because “there was a need to develop

scales for use with the Hispanic adolescents in order to test the model.” This

model is presented as “a logical step toward,” not as “a basis for a theory of

acculturative stress and drug use.” Furthermore, the model assumes that

the mediating factors, such as adequate family functioning, can counteract

the negative influence of the acculturative stressors and thus prevent the

occurrence of drug use.

Vega and associates deserve credit for being among the first to study the

relationship between acculturation-related stress and drug use. Also, their

measure of acculturation is surely one of the most complete in the field.

However, the model on acculturative stress is in need of more precise

conceptualization and theoretical articulation. Above all, distinguishing cultural

orientation from acculturative stressors and cultural protective factors, although

useful from the operational point of view, needs clearer justification. In addition,

the model’s sequence of variables leading to drug use (figure 1, Vega et al.,

this volume) is not fully reasoned.

First, both cultural orientation and strain are treated as exogenous variables

(e.g., not to be explained by the model), which amounts to depriving them of

their necessary context (a concept dealt with extensively above). Second, the

inclusion of self-esteem in the model is not likely to help clarify the enigmas

presented by the process of culture change any better than the social science

literature Vega and coworkers criticize. Theoretical articulation of the socialcontextual and psychological variables is required so that reciprocal interaction

between them is taken into account.

The main methodological suggestion derived from the above remarks is the

need for comprehensive nonrecursive (reciprocal) and recursive (unilinear)

causal analyses. For example, a person’s cultural orientation does not only

affect his or her school involvement but also depends, in turn, on the years

of schooling In the host society; not only does self-esteem depend on social

support networks, but it also affects those networks.

Even more to the point, dominant culture definitions of psychopathological

distress should be studied interactively relative to minority group definitions of

61
disease and not just as intermediate variables in a linear sequence leading to

deviant behavior (as defined by the dominant culture).

Beyond methodological issues, the theory of acculturative stress (Vega et al.,

this volume) is also in need of revision and further development insofar as it is

embedded in a model of acculturation. First of all, it is surprising that ethnic

awareness is associated with negative characteristics such as deviance

and substance use instead of being viewed as a protective factor against

acculturative strain. This may be due to a narrow conceptualization of ethnic

consciousness as an acculturative stressor accounting for perception of

discrimination. However, no suggestion is made as to the need for studying

reciprocal causality between perception of discrimination—a stressor—and

ethnic awareness (Vega et al., this volume).

The concept of self-esteem (“personality traits” in the model) is offered as an

explanation for the perception of cultural strain and as an intervening variable

either precipitating or preventing drug use. According to the theory (Vega

et al., this volume), the lower the self-esteem, the greater the perception of

discrimination or the higher the awareness of the minority status. But it seems

that the opposite interpretation would make at least as much sense.

No suggestion is made regarding the opportunity of exploring either the role

of SES as an indirect or mediate predictor or, in a specific way, the relation

among low SES (scarce resources), ethnic awareness, and perception of

discrimination. Both associations (low SES and ethnic awareness and low

SES and perception of discrimination) are likely to occur under certain

conditions of socialization and coercion.

The acculturation theory suggests that “cultural orientation” is a “background

factor” in the proposed model (Vega et al., this volume), although the reason

for this is unclear. “Familism,” seemingly one of the indicators of “cultural

orientation,” is implicitly ascribed a buffer or protective role in mediating the

postulated influence of the acculturative stressors on deviant behavior.

However, references to existing theories of collective identity and cultural

change are missing, which could provide the necessary cohesion for the

various disparate propositions.

Cultural factors are thus supposed to stimulate and, at the same time, reduce

deviant behavior. This polarization of “cultural orientation” seems to be aimed

at proving its relevance to deviant behavior. As a consequence, “family cultural

orientation” is assessed only by questions concerning how “American” or how

“Latin” are the mother’s, father’s, and youth’s own customs (Vega et al., this

volume). This method seems rather weak as a foundation for a background

variable. Deeper aspects of the immigrant’s life history in the society of origin

(e.g., basic life values and beliefs) should also be taken into account.

62
Given the relatively undeveloped state of the theory of acculturative stress

and drug use, theory building, at this stage, would greatly benefit from a more

naturalistic research approach. Only by drawing on the actor’s perspective

is it possible to start unraveling the complex interrelationships among ethnic

awareness, perception of discrimination, individual cultural values, perception

of family’s degree of acculturation, language behavior, and individual attitudes

showing familism. These variables fully spell out what the above-mentioned

labels abbreviate at the risk of diminishing clarity.

Maybe the first step in that direction should be to focus on the key concept

of ethnic consciousness or identity. There is a relatively abundant socialpsychological literature on which further conceptualization could build. The

next step would be to inquire into the reciprocal relationship between “ethnic

awareness” (or “identity”) and “perception of discrimination,” which, as already

indicated, also appears in need of clarification. In summary, the premises of

acculturative stress theory (Vega et al., this volume) need further appraisal and

development.

Cultural factors may both aggravate and assuage situations leading to deviant

behavior. Little is known, however, about the conditions making for such an

uncertain impact. A conclusion might be drawn that, in view of the limitations

of the acculturative stress theory, it is important to incorporate propositions of

relevant psychosocial-related theories and findings of ethnographic and other

qualitative naturalistic studies before building new scales that add little to the

substantive knowledge of the process.

Multidimensional Models

A more refined theoretical treatment of acculturation is put forward in

Szapocznik’s bicultural model (Szapocznik et al. 1980; Szapocznik and Kurtines

1980). To a certain extent, this model represents a positive exception to the

state of the art in the psychological field. It holds

that if the cultural context within which acculturation takes

place is bicultural, then the acculturation process will tend

to take place along two independent dimensions. The first

dimension consists of a linear process of accommodating to

the host culture; the second consists of a complex process of

relinquishing or retaining the characteristics of the culture of

origin (Szapocznik et al. 1984, pp. 323-324).

The bicultural model recognizes, therefore, the eventual dynamic behavior of

the minority group during the process of acculturation and not just its passive

resistance as connoted by the majority of the existing psychological scales.

However, although it pays attention to the eventual pluricultural setting of the

63
host society, Szapocznik’s model falls short in conceptualizing the time-space

dimension of the process of acculturation, which is discussed later in this

chapter.

Mendoza’s (1989) Cultural Life Style Inventory is yet another instrument

developed to measure acculturation. Mendoza and Martinez (1981) had

previously devised a multidimensional model of acculturation. The recent

“cultural lifestyle matrix” (Mendoza 1989) tries to identify the most frequent

cultural tendency among the following: cultural resistance (rejecting the

acquisition of new cultural norms while maintaining the native ones), cultural

shift (substituting alternate cultural norms for the native ones), and cultural

incorporation (adapting norms from both cultures). Along the five dimensions of

Mendoza’s inventory (namely, intrafamilial language use, extrafamilial language

use, social affiliation, cultural familiarity, and cultural identification and pride), he

found that certain customs from both the native and the host culture tended to

coexist across generations (Mendoza 1989). These findings served to

substantiate a process of biculturalism.

However, Mendoza rejects the inclusion of demographic factors such as

SES, generation level, and educational level in his instrument because, as he

argues, “they are not sensitive indicators of individual differences” and “they do

not share a one-to-one correspondence with the process of cultural change”

(Mendoza 1989, p. 374). By implication, the items listing cultural customs and

practices in his inventory are attributed to show such a correspondence—a

more than dubious attribution. Also, the content validity of those items was

established by using relatively small samples of Mexican-Americans of first,

second, and third generations. Mendoza’s bidimensional approach shows, at

best, that the choice of a bidimensional or bicultural model alone does not solve

all the problems facing the acculturation scales (Mendoza 1989). Here again,

context is missing.

Although the development of instruments for assessing all sorts of individual

traits belongs to social psychologists, acculturation, like mental health, occurs

not only within the individual but also in the socioecological interaction within

the group and within the wider environment. Therefore, to avoid an excessive

psychologization of the object acculturation, it becomes necessary to control for

social class or SES unless the SES indicator is used in operationalizing the

concept when analyzing the relation of any other phenomenon to acculturation.

By controlling for social class or SES, it is possible to distinguish cultural

differences from socioeconomic factors. Thus, for example, female-headed

homes can be seen not as a cultural variable but as a component of the

adaptive “class culture” (Recio Adrados 1977).

These questions will be solved through empirical research that should be

based on a multidisciplinary theoretical approach. What is at stake is the

64
greater (cultural) or lesser (stratum or class) persistence of various patterns

of belief and behavior within determined ethnic or migrant groups. The

assumption is that those “culture of poverty,” or class-cultural, traits that

develop as a reaction to a marginal or discriminatory situation experienced by

some groups will disappear as soon as there is change in the circumstances

negatively affecting those groups. According to Margaret Mead (cited by

Leighton 1982), it takes at least three generations to determine whether a

certain trait or pattern of behavior is reactive or cultural.

Inconclusive Findings of the Acculturation Scales: A Balance

Rogler and colleagues (1991) have recently published a critical review of the

acculturation scales and of the theories underlying them within the context of

migration and mental health. They suggest that the relationship between

acculturation and psychological distress can be positive, negative, or

curvilinear.

In the case of a positive relationship, well-acculturated subjects are more likely

to show psychopathological symptoms, such as drug abuse, that are endemic

to the host society. The relationship is negative when less acculturated

subjects are more likely to show symptoms deriving from their lack of adaptive

skills to the new environment. In the curvilinear relationship, the appearance

of those symptoms is higher at both extremes, reaching a minimum when an

optimal balance between the culture of origin and the culture of the host society

is achieved. In other words, the curvilinear relationship between acculturation

and psychological distress is best demonstrated by the bicultural model.

The basic assumption of these theories is the presence of acculturative strain

whenever there is a difference between the culture of the host society and that

of either the ethnic native minority or the migrant group. The resulting strain is

mediated through the minority group’s perception of discrimination and of its

inability to cope with the demands of the host society. There is also general

agreement as to the positive, stress-alleviating character of biculturalism

following Szapocznik’s therapeutically oriented approach (Szapocznik et al.

1980, 1984).

However, what is surprising in Rogler and colleagues’ (1991) review, from

an applied research and prevention perspective, is the inconclusiveness of

the research. Twelve research studies show a positive relationship between

acculturation and psychological distress; 13 show a negative relationship;

2 show both a negative and a positive relationship; and, finally, 3 show a

curvilinear one.

Because of the lack of uniformity of the assessments, Rogler and colleagues

(1991) do not attempt a metaanalysis of the studies. The effect sizes could

65
not be compared due to a lack of statistical information. However, Rogler and

colleagues do find a certain degree of commonality in the studies that focus

on alcohol and other drug use and abuse. Five of six studies show a positive

relationship between acculturation and psychological distress and suggest the

importance of sex-role differences. Yet they conclude from these studies that

the existing theory is too general because it does not consider, for instance, the

unique character of the various types of migration according to their imported

institutional practices and various regions of arrival (such as rural, urban,

metropolitan, more or less densely populated by immigrant groups).

In consonance with Rogler and colleagues’ views, a broader view of acculturation

is proposed here, namely, one that should encourage more specific theorizing

and a more naturalistic research approach, both aimed at the application of their

findings in preventive interventions.

TOWARD A MORE COMPREHENSIVE MULTIDISCIPLINARY

APPROACH TO THE THEORY OF ACCULTURATION

From Adaptation to Quality of Life as the Ultimate Goal for Acculturation

Existing studies that focus on the process of acculturation seem to have reached

an impasse. The problem seems to lie with (1) the limited conceptualization

and theory and (2) overemphasis on almost redundant psychometrics. Perhaps

a global concept such as quality of life should be brought to bear on the

acculturation problem to further elucidate both its theoretical and its social policy

dimensions. Quality of life is surely related to social integration or, at least, to

adaptation, in the sense of a functional performance of universalistic roles

(namely, those required from all its members by the host society) bringing

about the actor’s satisfaction (Recio Adrados 1975).

Some recent conceptualizations (Mendoza 1989; Berry and Kim 1988), although

delineating various phases and orientations in the process of acculturation, are

basically in agreement with the multidimensional scales discussed above. Berry

and Kim (1988), however, seem to create a new problem of conceptualization.

They identify five phases as the process relates to mental health status:

(1) precontact, (2) contact of the two groups impelled by different purposes,

(3) intergroup and psychological conflict (although not necessarily occurring),

(4) crisis point (which is also a possibility), and (5) some kind of adaptation.

Various types of permanent conflict and crisis are also possible.

However, equating varieties of adaptation with four modes of acculturation—

assimilation, integration, separation, and marginalization—seems to promote

confusion. In fact, the third and fourth modes, namely, separation (or

segregation) and marginalization (self-chosen separation from both the host

66
 culture and the culture of origin), seem to be negatively qualified, whereas

adaptation is normally used to denote some degree of positive stabilization

either of an integrative or an assimilative kind, as illustrated by Berry and

Kim’s (1988) first two modes.

Adaptation can be defined, in the context of migration, as “a functional

performance of universalistic roles, namely those common to both the host

society and the migrant group, bringing about some measure of actor’s

satisfaction” (Recio Adrados 1975). Thus, the subjective dimension of

adaptation is based on an objective one, for example, holding a job or doing

satisfactory schoolwork.

The mere adoption of behavioral patterns of the host society such as language

might be accompanied by a state of severe strain and emotional alienation

leading to a sudden disengagement from the performance of the universalistic

roles. On the other hand, stressing value and emotional orientation, while not

considering actual behavior, could also develop into a state of isolation that is

dysfunctional for both the migrant and the receiving society. Actual performance

of universalistic roles, however, may go hand in hand with a wide set of

particularistic roles, namely, those having their frame of reference in the

society of origin.

Soclostructural Dimensions of the Acculturation Process

Most of the flaws affecting the state of the art of the theory underlying the

acculturation scales relate to an insufficient conceptualization of acculturation.

Acculturation is primarily a social phenomenon or, more precisely, a social

practice.1

 To establish a solid theoretical background for the study of the

acculturation process, Giddens’ (1984) theory of structuration, or of the

constitution of society, seems to be a good choice because it successfully

attempts to strike a balance between the forces making for order and those

striving for innovation and change.

Giddens puts aside any epistemological reservations about his project and

considers his theory to be an ontology of potentialities inherent in social life.

For him, the basic domain of study of the social sciences are “social practices

ordered recursively across space and time” (Giddens 1984). When applied to

the acculturation process, this means that the minority group disposes of various

kinds of resources on which to ground the management of its interaction with

the dominant society. Although the perception of enticements in a geographical

area is a prerequisite for pulling prospective migrants out of their habitat and

culture, it takes a relative endowment of skills and aspirations for the migrant

group to undertake such an enterprise.

67
Such a view finds support in Giddens’ conceptualization. For instance, “human

agency” is the power for intervening in changing the state of things. It is widely

recognized that power and conflict are concepts hardly accounted for in the

functionalist theories of action. For Giddens, however, social power presupposes

resources or transforming capacities both in the material (allocative resources)

and personnel (authoritative resources) areas and is exerted in a “dialectic of

control.”

Thus, the theory of structuration helps to discover another weakness in the theory

underlying the psychological scales of acculturation, namely, its silence about

the collective properties of the migrant group. “Underlying all routine practices,

agents develop an unconscious sense of trust in the fabric of the social activities

and the object world that comprise the course and circumstances of their daily

lives” (Giddens and Turner 1987). This unconscious sense of trust surely helps

the persistence of the culture of origin, Szapocznik and Kurtines’ (1980)

“bicultural model” of acculturation implicitly includes the migrant’s sense of

basic security, which allows him or her to partially relinquish cultural elements

of the original culture while attending to the incorporation of cultural elements

from the host society.2

Giddens’ concept of duality of structure (Giddens 1984; Giddens and Turner

1987) also backs up this dynamic or proactive conceptualization of the minority

status underlying a multidisciplinary and multidimensional approach to the

acculturation process. Duality of structure means that the collective properties

of society do not exist outside of action but are implicated in its production and

reproduction (Cohen 1987). That is, Giddens (1984) is as much concerned with

the explanation of structure and reproduction of society as with accounting for

sociocultural change.

Besides enjoying an unconscious sense of trust in the social structure, social

actors-migrants among them—knowledgeable in tacitly understood social

procedures are, according to Giddens (1984), partly constitutive of social

practices and, therefore, of the collective properties of society.

This broader, sociologically oriented view runs counter to the one dominating

the theory grounding most of the acculturation scales where the power of the

dominant society seemingly overwhelms any cultural strategy eventually carried

out by the minority group. Such strategy is for all practical purposes ignored in

that theory. Its narrow focus zeroes in on a quasi-mechanistic and unilinear

process of replacement of one culture with another without attending to the

eventual involvement of the minority group in the active promotion of its culture

of origin. This promotion has often been achieved either through national and

regional clubs and associations or through programs of bilingual and bicultural

education, among other strategic devices.

68
Although Giddens’ theory of structuration is generally attentive to the actors’

resources, it regrettably neglects “personalized relationships”or “anchored

relations” (Goffman 1971), which play an important role in the acculturation

process. Family relationships, which are examples of personalized

relationships, are surely the main contributing agents to the reproduction

of the culture of origin of the migrant group.

Finally, as Wittgenstein stated, time-space is constitutive of the identity of object

or events (cited in Giddens and Turner 1987, p. 208). Therefore, the object of

acculturation should include the temporal dimension by stretching backward to

the prehistory of the migrant group in the society of origin as well as all the

ecological diversity affecting the group’s development.

In Giddens’ view, relations among actors situated in time-space and conducting

social practices (“position practice” relations) include normative definitions or

role prescriptions, whereas their incumbent agents are linked to determined

physical and social locales (Giddens 1984, pp. 83-84). Empirical research is

needed to determine the degree to which the region of origin keeps on working

as locale, or frame of reference, for the migrant group even without a situation

of copresence. In this way, the process of acculturation is placed within the

naturalistic or real-life context.

Regarding the time dimension, anticipatory socialization, for instance, is a

valuable resource to which the migrant can turn in maintaining the culture of

origin. For example, Wilpert (1980) was able to show that the educational

aspirations of the young migrant Turks in Germany, in correspondence with

the goals pursued by the family migration, were higher than those of their

German counterparts. Even the often utopian expectation for return migration

in the distant future, as part of this time-space context, has an important and

sometimes decisive impact on the migrant orientation toward the host society.

Therefore, a comprehensive concept of acculturation should seek to strike

a balance between the family resources, including anticipatory socialization

in the country of origin, on the one hand, and the family’s performance of

universalistic roles (namely, those demanded by the host society from all its

members) on the other (Recio Adrados, in press).

Collective or Ethnic Identity

Ethnic identity is an important concept, though one of the most neglected, in the

theoretical foundation of the acculturation scales. The reason for that omission

may be a mere mechanistic or “cultural-mystical” approach, namely, a belief in

the superiority of the dominant culture, on the one hand, and in the inability of

minority groups to unquestioningly accept that culture in its totality, on the other.

69
However, empirical research on Spanish migrant working class families in

Holland and Switzerland demonstrated the ability of second-generation youth

to selectively and ideologically (i.e., according to contingent convenience)

choose among different group identities both in family life and in the larger

society (Recio Adrados, in press).

Soest and Verdonk (1984) define ethnic collective identity as “an ideology

originating from the primordial (or psychological) and social (or situational)

interests of an ethnic group and of its individual members, which is worked out

in the social practices of the group and its members.” Such a definition follows

closely the conceptualizations by Taboada-Leonetti (1981) and Aronson (1976).

Taboada-Leonetti’s concept of collective ethnic identity as ideology seems to

back up the position taken in this chapter and in its turn is in agreement with

Giddens’ definition of ideology as “those asymmetries of domination which

connect signification to the legitimation of sectional interests” (Giddens 1984,

p. 33).

Structures of meaning, therefore, are only analytically separable from

domination and from legitimation. Thus, social practice of both symbolic and

power-building (or resource-mobilizing) character remains the only source of

the constitution of society and its structural processes.

Taboada-Leonetti’s (1981) and Giddens’ (1984) conceptualizations

coincide even more in their opposition to any sort of predetermination and

uniformization of the social practices entailed in the process of acculturation

insofar as this process forms part of the structuration of society. Minorities of

any sort can see their position far better represented here than in those theories

of acculturation more or less tributary to the unilinear functionalist or culturalmystical orientation. For Taboada-Leonetti, the collective identity is a group

image deriving from certain sets of identity traits recurrent in the individuals

integrating the group. Such an image, always changing, performs as a model

being proposed to the group members as a sort of projection of the same

group as well as an anticipatory ideal image elaborated by each of the group

members.

Therefore, a double dialectical relation exists between the individual and the

group identity and between the collective group image and the activities through

which the group defines itself. In fact, minorities’ social movements and

demands take root on this collective identity.3

In other words, the group identity performs as an ideology, namely, as a social

practice representative of the relationships of the individual both with the group

and with the larger society. This collective identity or ideology not only has an

adaptive character but also includes a social practice of production of conflictual

and resistance symbols against the locus being allocated to the ethnic group by

70
the society. The same identity also includes a more or less utopian claim to a

different place in that society. This conceptual framework, which proved its

usefulness in interpreting the situation of various Mediterranean minorities in

central Europe (Recio Adrados, in press), completely diverges from the theory

underlying the unidimensional acculturation scales developed in the United

States during the past decade.

METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON CULTURALLY SENSITIVE

MEASUREMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH

In a parallel way to Rogler and colleagues’ (1991) conclusions on acculturation

scales, Berry and Kim (1988), in their short review of recent findings on

acculturation and the mental health of the migrants, also show inconclusive

evidence and state that “the earlier generalizations about the inevitable lower

mental health status of migrants are no longer tenable.” Available scales,

questionnaires, and other instruments are mostly standardized for use with

Anglo-American populations, The lack of cultural sensitivity of these techniques

of measurement and diagnosis may be responsible for the attribution of lower

mental health status to migrants. The “emic” (indigenous to the culture)

interpretation of deviant behavior or mental pathology may respond, for

example, to spiritualist doctrines performing therapeutic positive functions,

as shown by Rogler (1989) among Puerto Ricans.

Notwithstanding the inconclusiveness of the findings in the psychological

treatment of this subject, Rogler and colleagues (1991) label the work done so

far as an attempt to deal with “the exogenous impact of acculturation on mental

health.” They seem to imply that the acculturative phenomenon was not

intended to be explained by the available models but rather to be taken for

granted. They further propose the study and explanation of the endogenous

impact of acculturation as a relatively unexplored field of research.

Rogler and colleagues (1991) expect the outcome will be a complex set of

propositions expressing the multiple relationships between cultural and internal

psychological processes. That is, acculturation would shape subjectively the

psychological structures through which distress is expressed. However, Rogler

and colleagues’ insistence on the internal character of the acculturation impact

seems to forget the holistic, or global, character of the process, which needs

operationalizing through behavioral and mental indicators (e.g., using English,

not feeling discriminated against but rather feeling treated as equal to the

majority members).

These behavioral and mental factors can be brought to bear on the study

of psychological distress to elucidate its full meaning. For example, the

Hispanic cook, in the vignette mentioned above, was intentionally isolated

71
by his fellow Hispanic workers and then was diagnosed as suffering depression

as a consequence of his inability to speak English. However, considering

acculturation as an endogenous force (Rogler’s expression interpreted above)

should not entail narrowing it down to only its mental indicators, as he seems

to imply. Acting out is a symptom or behavioral component that could be linked

either to another behavioral component of acculturation, such as having only

minority friends, or to a mental component, such as “perceiving discrimination.”

Nosoiogical categories or types of diseases, Rogler and colleagues imply,

are culturally defined or culture bound, not only in their internal psychological

components but also in their external ones insofar as psychological distress

is expressed through both internal and external symptoms. Acculturation,

therefore, performing as both an endogenous and an exogenous force through

its mental and external dimensions, should be conceptually related to both the

external and internal components of nosological entities. Consequently, the

main object of study in research should be psychological distress as defined by

the partly acculturated minority, because meanings derived from both cultures

are intertwined in that definition, eventually bringing forth original ones.

Along this line, Fabrega’s (1974) model of illness behavior could be applied with

some modifications both to acculturative stress and to drug behavior.4

 First,

labeling of acculturative stress should not be easily taken for granted but rather

studied as a dependent variable. In a second step, once the various stressors

have been properly identified, naturalistic techniques would be needed for

grounding further quantitative research on the various cognitive or informational

stages through which the migrants or minority members assess each of the

straining factors.

Because the same label (e.g., depression or alcohol abuse) may respond

to different indicators or operational units, Fabrega (1974) says that crosscultural comparisons will be possible only if the researcher takes up an

objective disease framework (namely, a syndrome of physiological or

behavioral alterations of universal distribution) susceptible of being

associated to a framework of folk illness behavior as defined in the native

taxonomies of peoples.

The methodological implementation of such a model could be as follows. Folk

illness behavior (or a folk version of drug use effects), as defined in the native

taxonomies, would be surveyed in a stratified random sample of first-, second-,

third-, and fourth-generation migrants. By using a quasi-experimental design,

the folk illness behavior could thereafter be related to the presence or absence

of the “objective disease” as diagnosed through standard clinical testing. The

incidence rate would then be compared with that of a matched control group of

Anglo-Americans of fifth or higher generation whose patterns of drug use

effects are detected through standard self-report instruments.

72
Cross-cultural comparisons are always difficult, however, because “folk illness

labels often seem to be applied in a random, haphazard manner” (Fabrega

1974, p. 180), although this may be a wrong impression due to deficient field

coding procedures. In any case, even excellent comparative studies of drug

use of a quantitative kind, like those of Caetano (1988) on alcohol, need to

be complemented and integrated with those of the socioanthropological

interpretive kind if the findings are to be useful in the fields of treatment

and prevention. Also, in the field of mental health, a more satisfactory

conceptualization of acculturation remains the basic issue while the building

and validation of culturally more sensitive instruments are pursued.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasingly multicultural character of American society urgently demands

the broadening of the research spectrum on drug abuse, health, and other

social problems, while taking as a baseline the already available theoretical and

methodological constructs in the area of culture. The fact that these findings

are widely scattered in neighboring disciplines of the human sciences should

spur efforts of theoretical integration and multidisciplinary research.

Consequently, further theoretical developments and elaboration of new models

should take into account the most recent literature in the closely related fields

of anthropology, sociology, and social psychology as seems fitting to the

multifaceted nature of the process of acculturation. In addition, ethnic collective

identity, following the lead by Tajfeld (1974), Zavalloni (1973), Liebkind (1979),

Taboada-Leonetti (1981), and Aronson (1976), among others, should be given

full recognition through deeper theoretical elaboration of its cognitive dimension,

including its ideological aspect.

The migrant or minority group should recognize, therefore, the potentiality for

the positive, mixed, and negative modes of acculturation contemplated by

Berry and Kim (1988), obviating thereby its mere passive stance within the

model. In other words, the various resources available to minorities should be

accounted for in any model, including devices for their mobilization such as

the knowledgeability of social actors and material and symbolic power, both

prior to and during migration. Consequent partaking in the dialectic of control

allows both the agents of the host society and those of the ethnic group the

reproduction of their autonomic strategies over the others’ actions (Cohen

1987).

Given the scarcity of specific studies focusing on second-generation migrants,

which are crucial for the development of the theory of collective identity and of

the process of acculturation in the European literature, an emphasis on studies

of second-generation youths, especially in the context of family life, would be

welcome. Finally, unidimensionality or predetermination of the process of

73
acculturation should be discounted given the social actors’ capability to bring

about historical variations in their own behavioral patterns, notwithstanding their

obvious limits and constraints. insofar as “all reproduction is contingent and

historical” (Giddens and Turner 1987), an integrated theory of acculturation

should be built through the consideration of “negative” case studies of those

acculturative processes that suddenly change their course, for example, from

conflict to adaptation of some sort or vice versa.

The acculturative stress model (Vega et al., this volume) is in need of

further specification of the intervening variables, which requires a previous

multidisciplinary conceptualization of the acculturation process itself. in a

specific way, the SES of the migrant individual and group and the dynamics of

the collective identity performing as an ideology should be taken into account

to predict the perception of discrimination leading to stress. In addition, the

double dialectic between ethnic identity and perception of discrimination, on

the one side, and between perception of discrimination and actual strain, on

the other, should be explored further through causal recursive and nonrecursive

models.

Research on acculturative stress, such as culturally sensitive research on

any other mental health topic, requires, as Rogler (1989, p. 300) recognizes,

a pretest stage of immersion in the culture of the study group through

ethnographic or other qualitatively oriented techniques. This seems to be

the only feasible way to integrate local cultural meanings with conventional

scientific categories.

NOTES

1. The term social action should be avoided here because, as Giddens (1984)

says, the so-called theories of the action in sociology are more or less of a

functionalist sort stressing society rather than the subject with his or her

inherent capacity for transforming the former. Action theories, especially

those conceptualized or inspired by Parsons (1937), are of the normative

kind whereby social order is ensured through the internalization of

supposedly widely shared values by the individual.

2. However, nothing is said in that model about the norms eventually

leading the process toward the optimization of that basic trust in the

new social structure under empirically determined conditions.

Szapocznik’s therapeutic intent focuses on the psychological

drawbacks of monoculturalism and on the resulting cultural conflict

opposing those parents unacculturated to the host society to the at

least partly acculturated adolescents (Szapocznik et al. 1984).

74
3.

4.

Taboada-Leonetti (1981) has modified the McPartland (1971) instrument

“Who am I?” to study the migrant’s self-image in the context of the host

society. Liebkind (1979) has also resorted to Kelly’s (1955) inventory to

explore the cognitive content of the social identity through the individuals’

subjective reactions to belonging to various groups.

The model organizes “social and cultural data tied to occurrences of

illness that influence the behavior of the sick person.” The focus is on

the information processed by a person during the various stages of such

an occurrence: (1) illness recognition and labeling: (2) illness disvalues

or undesirable traits: (3) treatment plans and action alternatives; (4)

assessment of treatment plans: (5) treatment benefits; (6) treatment costs

(e.g., time, money, loss of personal control); (7) net benefits or utility: (8)

selection of treatment plan: and (9) setup for recycling and subsequent

reevaluation. As Fabrega says, this is an economic model grounded on

elementary decision theory and is not useful “for explaining the behaviors

of persons or groups for whom illness is a global undifferentiated state”

(Fabrega 1974, p. 177). Also, the linkage of decisions to illness may follow

patterns different from those implied in the logical structure of the model,

making possible only an inspirational or flexible usage of its sequence.

REFERENCES

Aberle, D.F. Functional prerequisites of a society. Ethics 60:100-111, 1950.

Aronson, D.R. Ethnicity as a cultural system: An introductory assay. In: Henry,

F., ed. Ethnicity in the Americas. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton, 1976.

Berry, J.W., and Kim, U. Acculturation and mental health. In: Dasen, P.; Berry,

J.W.; and Sartorius, N., eds. Health and Cross-Cultural Psychology: Toward

Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988. pp. 207-236.

Caetano, R. A comparative analysis of drinking among Hispanics in the United

States, Spaniards in Madrid, and Mexicans in Michoacan. In: Towle, L.H.,

and Harford, T.C., eds. Cultural Influences and Drinking Patterns: A Focus

on Hispanic and Japanese Populations. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse

and Alcoholism Research Monograph No. 19. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)88-

1563. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1988. pp. 273-

311.

Cohen, I.J. Structuration theory and social praxis. In: Giddens, A., and Turner,

J.H. Social Theory Today. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987.

Cuellar, I.; Harris, L.C.: and Jasso, R. An acculturation scale for Mexican

American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic J Behav Sci 2(3):199-

217, 1980.

Fabrega, H., Jr. Disease and Social Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

1974.

Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984.

75
Giddens, A., and Turner, J.H. Social Theory Today. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press, 1987.

Goffman, E. Relations in Public. New York: Basic Books, 1971.

Gordon, M.M. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1964.

Gordon, M.M. Human Nature, Class, and Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1978.

Habermas, J. Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon

Press, 1979.

Kelly, G.A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Vols. I, II. New York:

Norton, 1955.

Lang, J.G.; Muñoz, R.F.; Bernal, G.; and Sorensen, J.L. Quality of life and

psychological well-being in a bicultural Latino community. Hispanic J Behav

Sci 4(4):433-450, 1982.

Leighton, A.H. Relevant generic issues. In: Gaw, A., ed. Cross-Cultural

Psychiatry. Boston: John Wright, 1982.

Liebkind, K. The Social Psychology of Minority Identity. 2d ed. Research

Reports. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Social Psychology,

1979.

McPartland, T.S. Manual for the Twenty Statements Test. Kansas City, MO:

Department of Research, The Greater Kansas City Mental Health

Foundation, 1971.

Mendoza, R.H. An empirical scale to measure type and degree of acculturation

in Mexican-American adolescents and adults. J Cross-Cultural Psychol

20(4):372-385, 1989.

Mendoza, R.H., and Martinez, J.L., Jr. The measurement of acculturation. In:

Baron, A., Jr., ed. Explorations in Chicano Psychology. New York: Praeger,

1981.

Olmedo, E.L.; Martinez, J.L.; and Martinez, S.R. A measure of acculturation for

Chicano adolescents. Psychol Rep 42:159-170, 1978.

Padilla, A.M. The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in acculturation.

In: Padilla, A.M., ed. Acculturation: Theory, Models, and Some New

Findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980. pp. 47-84.

Parsons, T. The Structure of Social Action. New York: Free Press, 1937.

Parsons, T. Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966.

Recio Adrados, J.-L. “Family as a Unit and Larger Society: The Adaptation of

the Puerto Rican Migrant Family to the Mainland Suburban Setting.” Doctoral

dissertation, Graduate Center of the City University of New York, 1975. Ann

Arbor University Microfilms.

Recio Adrados, J.-L. Marginación social: Concepto y perspectivas.

Documentación Social 28:11-28, 1977.

76
Recio Adrados, J.-L. La identidad de la segunda generación immigrante en el

marco de la teoria de la aculturación y integración. In: De Prada, M.A.;

Mancho, S.; Pereda, C.; Recio Adrados, J.-L.; Seoane, L.; Verdonk, A., eds.

Los Hijos de los Emigrantes. Madrid: Prodhufi, in press.

Rodriguez, O., and Recio Adrados, J.-L. The applicability of the Integrated

Social Control model to Puerto Rican drug use. J Crime Justice, in press.

Rogler, L.H. The meaning of culturally sensitive research in mental health. Am J

Psychiatry 166(3):296-303, 1989.

Rogler, L.H.; Cortes, D.E.; and Malgady, R.G. Acculturation and mental health

status among Hispanics: Convergence and new directions for research. Am

Psychol 46(6):585-597, 1991.

Rogler, L.H.; Malgady, R.G.; and Rodriguez, O. Hispanics and Mental Health: A

Framework for Research. Malabar, FL: Robert A. Krieger, 1989.

Soest, R.V., and Verdonk, A. “Ethnic Identity: A Study of the Concept and Some

Theories of Ethnicity.” (Mimeo/internal report.) lnstituut voor Preventive en

Sociale Psychiatrie, Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam, 1984.

Szapocznik, J., and Kurtines, W. Acculturation, biculturalism and adjustment

among Cuban Americans. In: Padilla, A.M., ed. Acculturation: Theory,

Models, and Some New Findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980. pp.

139-159.

Szapocznik, J.; Kurtines, W.M.; and Fernandez, T. Bicultural involvement in

Hispanic American youths. Int J Intercultural Rel 4:353-365, 1980.

Szapocznik, J.; Santisteban, D.; Kurtines, W.; Perez-Vidal, A.: and Hervis, 0.

Bicultural Effectiveness Training: A treatment intervention for enhancing

intercultural adjustment in Cuban American families. Hispanic J Behav Sci

6(4):317-344, 1984.

Taboada-Leonetti, I. ldentite individuelle, identite collective. Problems poses par

I’introduction du concept d’identite en sociologie. Quelques propositions

theoriques a partir de trois recherches sur I’immigrations. lnformations sur

les Sciences Sociales 20(1):137-167, 1981.

Tajfeld, H, Social identity and intergroup behavior. Soc Sci Inf 13(2):65-93,

1974.

Wilpert, C. Die Zukunft der zweiten Generation. Koenigstein/Ts.: Verlag Anton

Hain, 1980.

Wuthnow, R.; Davidson Hunter, J.; Bergesen, A.: and Kurzweil, E. The critical

theory of Juergen Habermas. In: Wuthnow, R.; Davidson Hunter, J.;

Bergesen, A.; and Kurzweil, E. Cultural Analysis. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1984. pp. 179-239.

Zavalloni, M. Social identity: Perspectives and prospects, Soc Sci Inf 9:307-321,

1973.

77
AUTHOR

Juan-Luis Recio Adrados, Ph.D.

NIDA Visiting Research Scientist

Profesor Titular de Sociología

Facultad de Ciencias Politicas y Sociología

Universidad Complutense

28023 Madrid

SPAIN

78
Interactional Theory: Its Utility in

Explaining Drug Use Behavior Among

African-American and Puerto Rican

Youth

Judith S. Brook

INTRODUCTION

The family interactional framework and its application to drug use has at

least three major characteristics (for a more complete discussion, see Brook

et al. 1990). First, the family is viewed as a system consisting of the potential

adolescent drug users, siblings, and parents. This framework emphasizes

a close mutual attachment between the parent and child in which the child

identifies with the parent and the relationship is characterized by affection

and lack of conflict.

The second characteristic concerns the interrelationships and interactions

of the family system with five significant domains: (1) acculturative influences,

examples of which are African-American and Hispanic activities and familism

(this domain represents an addition to the family interactional framework);

(2) ecological factors, such as the school environment; (3) the adolescent’s

personality and behavior traits, such as risk-taking behavior; (4) the domain

of peer group attributes, such as deviance: and (5) drug context variables

(e.g., friends’ drug use and drug availability).

The third characteristic of the framework deals with the sequencing of

domains that ultimately lead to the adolescent’s drug use. This chapter also

assesses whether the theory can be generalized to different ethnic groups,

more specifically, inner-city African-Americans and Puerto Ricans. Therefore,

this chapter has three foci:

1. The impact of the family domain, as well as the other domains, on the

adolescent’s stage of drug use

79
2. The exploration of a hypothetical sequence (specified below) that embeds

the family domain in pathways that include the remaining domains and that

culminate in drug use

3. The extent to which family protective factors can mitigate risks stemming

from the environment

INTERRELATIONSHIP AMONG DOMAINS

An overall view of the sequential pathways of the family interactional theory

is as follows: Acculturation and ecological factors influence the parentadolescent attachment, which in turn affects the adolescent’s personality and

behavior. The adolescents personality contributes to the type of peers he or

she selects for friends, which then affects the drug context domain. Finally, the

drug context domain has an effect on the youngster’s drug use. In addition, the

personality, peer, and family domains have “direct” effects on the youngster’s

drug use.1 These domains are also mediated by the drug context domain.

According to this version of the family interactional perspective, the parentadolescent relationship is central, and the cornerstone of that relationship is

mutual attachment. Recently, attachment has been applied to the affectional

bond between youngsters and parents, as well as to the attitudes of children

toward their parents. Indeed, Hirschi, as far back as 1969, noted that when

individuals’ bonds to society are weakened, engagement in deviant behavior

is likely. Brook and colleagues (1988, 1990) have demonstrated that the

parental attachment (the presence and quality of a warm, intimate, and

continuous bond between parent and child) has a significant impact on the

youngsters’ drug use as well as on their psychological functioning.

This theoretical formulation hypothesizes that there are four separate,

continuous dimensions important to the parent-child attachment relationship:

(1) identification; (2) lack of conflict; (3) warmth, which refers to the lasting

affectional bond between parent and child; and (4) involvement, which refers

to the extent to which the parent centers attention on the child.

Attachment also serves to increase the probability that reinforcement by the

parent of the child’s conventional behavior is effective. Such attachment is

a precondition for later identification with parental values and increases the

likelihood that the youngster will imitate parental behavior. Indeed, it is

believed that parental attachment increases the parent’s influences over the

child’s development through the processes of identification, modeling, and

reinforcement.

Another parent-child dimension, as noted by Becker (1964), is that of control

vs. permissiveness. A controlling parental style is one in which the parent

80
delineates rules for the child in a clear fashion, monitors the child’s behavior,

and applies consistent and contingent reinforcement to the child’s behavior.

Permissiveness is the opposite end of the continuum. The family interactional

theory incorporates concepts from both social learning and social control theory

(Bandura and Walters 1963; Hirschi 1983; McCord 1991).

PARENT-CHILD ATTACHMENT AND ADOLESCENT PERSONALITY

According to the family interactional theory, the parent-child mutual attachment

is linked with the development of non-drug-prone personality characteristics

in the child, which then serve to insulate the youngster from drug use.

Several studies have focused on only one part of the attachment process.

Nevertheless, their results still shed some light on the mutual attachment

between the parent and the child. In general, these tend to show that aspects

of the attachment relationship are implicated in the adolescents psychological

well-being (Coopersmith 1967; Gallagher 1976). In a related context, lack

of an affectional identification and intimacy in communication appears to

increase the probability of delinquent behavior (Hirschi 1969). In a series

of studies, Radke-Yarrow and colleagues (1983) concluded that parental

techniques of an affectional nature are positively related to prosocial outcomes.

Thus, it would appear that the attachment relationship between the parent and

child is related to the development of non-drug-conducive personality traits.

The goal of this chapter is to look at several components of mutual attachment

in the family interactional theory and determine whether they are linked to

adolescent personality attributes that insulate the adolescent from drug use.

PARENT-CHILD ATTACHMENT AND ADOLESCENT PEER RELATIONS

With respect to the association between the parent-child attachment

relationship and adolescent peer relations, it is assumed that the two domains

are linked by aspects of the child’s personality. In other words, it is assumed

that a positive attachment relationship between the parent and child will be

associated with the development of non-drug-prone personality characteristics,

which will then influence the youngster to select nondeviant peer groups.

Although there is a dearth of literature looking at the relationship between

the parent-child attachment relationship and adolescent peer relations, there

have been several studies in this area attesting to such a linkage. For instance,

in a longitudinal study done in Finland, Pulkkinen (1983) reported that children

of child-centered parents were confident in social relations, responsible, and

achievement oriented. In contrast, children of non-child-centered parents

dated, smoked, and drank at an earlier age and were moody, impulsive, and

not interested in school. Elliott and Voss (1974) reported that an abrupt

weakening of family bonds puts the adolescent at risk for delinquency to the

extent that bonding to conventional activities and context has not yet occurred,

81
resulting in an overdependence on peers. Elder (1980), in a summary of

results from several studies, reported that youths with close relationships to

their parents often selected friends whose values were congruent with those

of their parents. For example, students who achieved good grades tended to

be close to their parents and socially competent with peers.

The author’s view, as explicated in the family interactional theory and some

of the evidence just cited, is that a close bond between parents and adolescent

will result in the parents having a greater influence on their offspring, and this

condition leads the adolescent to choose friends whose values are in accord

with those of their parents. In other words, having traditional parents will

predispose the adolescent to pick nondeviant friends.

PARENT-CHILD ATTACHMENT AND ADOLESCENT DRUG USE

Components of the parent-child attachment relationship have been found by

many investigators to be associated with adolescent drug use (Brook et al.

1988; Coombs et al. 1991; Frankel et al. 1975; Hendin et al. 1985; Jessor

and Jessor 1977; Mercer et al. 1978; Penning and Barnes 1982; Stanton

1979). As previously noted, attachment is an affectional bond between parent

and child that is long lasting and of considerable intensity. Investigators have

used several behavioral and psychosocial variables to measure parent-child

attachment, including parental affection and involvement, an adolescent’s

closeness to and identification with the parents, and various aspects of the

nature of the relationship between adolescents and parents. In addition,

parental control insulates the youngster from drug use.

ECOLOGY

A previous section of this chapter considered the family interactional framework

as it relates to adolescent drug use. A more complete understanding of the

family will emerge only when the family is viewed in the larger context of

ecological factors. Ecological factors discussed in this chapter include the

school environment, victimization, and the street culture. Although the literature

is scanty, there is some evidence that the school environment and the school

culture have an effect on the child’s development (Minuchin and Shapiro 1983).

Certainly there is evidence that disassociation from school, as indicated by low

academic achievement or underachievement and dislike of school authorities,

is an important predictor of drug use by early or middle adolescence (Hawkins

et al. 1985). Other ecological factors that hypothetically would foster drug

use include neighborhoods characterized by physical deterioration and social

disorganization and those in which victimization is always a possibility.

82
ACCULTURATION

Related to the ecological domain is the domain of acculturation. Because

of the dearth of empirical evidence, it is not certain that any of the acculturation

measures such as Hispanic activities, African-American activities, and familism

would have a direct impact on the adolescent’s drug use. However, it is

believed that these measures might be important as interactive factors.

DRUG CONTEXT

Finally, to complete the overall model, it is hypothesized that the family domain

is mediated by the personality and drug context domains. The drug context

domain is conceptually seen as being closest to drug use and consists of those

variables that are directly related to drug use. Several investigators have found

that drug context variables such as availability and friends’ use of drugs have a

direct effect on the youngster’s drug use (Ginsberg and Greenley 1978; Glynn

1981; Kandel and Andrews 1987; Krosnick and Judd 1982; Newcomb and

Bentler 1987).

INTEGRATED MODEL

The hypothesized interrelation of the domains (i.e., ecological, acculturation,

parent-adolescent relationship, adolescent personality traits, peer factors, drug

context, and drug use) is diagrammed in figure 1. The direct effects on drug

use are depicted as solid arrows. The drug use effects that are mediated are

shown by dotted arrows between the boxes.

The acculturation and ecological influences on adolescent drug use are

mediated by the adolescent personality and the parent-adolescent relationship

domains. The parent-adolescent relationship domain affects the adolescent’s

personality, which in turn is related to the selection of peers, which then has an

impact on the drug context domain. The adolescent drug context has a direct

effect on the youngster’s use of drugs. The adolescent personality, family, and

peer domains also have direct effects.

Some of the relationships depicted as unidirectional may be reciprocal, for

instance, the relationship between the parent-adolescent relations and the

adolescent’s personality. A causal flow from the parent-adolescent relationship

domain to the adolescent personality domain is believed to be greater than the

reverse. Overall, the author considers the relationships depicted in the model

as probabilistic rather than universally definitive and therefore useful as guiding

hypotheses in research.

83
FIGURE 1. Hypothesized model

INTERACTIVE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL WITH FAMILY, DRUG CONTEXT,

ECOLOGICAL, AND ACCULTURATION FACTORS

It is important to look at the interaction of specific family characteristics with

the larger social environment (drug context, ecological, and acculturation

factors) when analyzing parent behavior. Family and situational conditions

may not be additive but may have effects that are conditional on one another.

Thus, the expression of the parent-child attachment may be dependent on the

degree of familial orientation and its later impact on drug use. A number of

interactionist models have been proposed (Magnusson and Allen 1983).

Based on previous research, the author postulates that a risk/protective

mechanism describes the interaction of family with these situational conditions.

In the case of the risk/protective mechanism, risk factors are mitigated by

protective factors in the adolescent’s family. A risk factor increases the

adolescent’s probability of drug use. For example, a peer risk factor would

be peer deviance; a drug context risk factor would be peer marijuana use;

an ecological variable would be school environment; and an acculturation

84
variable would be ethnic activities. A protective factor leads to less drug

use. An example of a family protective factor is parental warmth.

The risk/protective mechanism is illustrated in figure 2, in which a drug risk

variable (peer deviance) is ameliorated by a family protective variable (father

identification). As shown by the solid, sloping line, father identification offsets

the potential risk of high peer deviance. Therefore, the focus on ethnicity

involves two kinds of analyses. The first is concerned with whether the causal

analysis described above is similar or different in the two ethnic groups. The

second involves a comparison of protective mechanisms in the two groups,

The extent to which the risk/protective mechanism may differ in the two ethnic

groups is difficult to evaluate based on the literature. Therefore, this aspect of

the study described below is quite exploratory. It is assumed that there will be

some universal factors that serve as protective factors and some that will be

specific to either African-Americans or Puerto Ricans.

METHOD

Subjects

The sample consisted of 695 African-American (400 males, 295 females) and

637 Puerto Rican (312 males, 325 females) adolescents in grades 7 through

10. The subjects were selected from 12 schools, primarily in the East Harlem

FIGURE 2. Interaction of peer deviance and father identification

85
area of New York City. The schools were specifically chosen to obtain a

sufficient number of African-American and Puerto Rican students living in innercity areas. The subjects were asked to volunteer during classroom orientation

sessions. Those who agreed signed consent letters. Passive consent letters

were then sent to their parents, Each student who participated received a tape

player as an incentive. In one school, $6 vouchers for use in the school store

were substituted.

Measures

The scales used in this research are based on item intercorrelations and

reliabilities and are grouped into six domains: (1) adolescent personality

characteristics, (2) family relations, (3) peer factors, (4) ecological variables,

(5) acculturation measures, and (6) drug context variables. Several of the

scales are adaptations of measures previously used in other studies. The

scales had to be adapted to ensure their linguistic and cultural relevance.

The scales, their sources, and their reliabilities appear in table 1.

Based on Kandel’s stages of drug use (1975), a measure of increasing

involvement in illicit drugs was developed. At the lowest level is no drug use,

legal or illegal. The next level is legal drug use (i.e., alcohol or tobacco). The

next higher stage is marijuana, and this is followed by the highest stage, which

consists of the use of illicit drugs other than marijuana (e.g., amphetamines,

phencyclidine [PCP] or angel dust, cocaine, crack, hallucinogens, heroin,

methaqualones, barbiturates, “ecstasy,” methamphetamine hydrochloride [ice]).

The following shows the number of individuals at each stage of drug use: No

drug use=373 African-Americans, 327 Puerto Ricans; legal drug use only=260

African-Americans, 212 Puerto Ricans; marijuana use=30 African-Americans,

50 Puerto Ricans; other illicit drug use=32 African-Americans, 48 Puerto

Ricans. Puerto Ricans reported greater illegal drug use than AfricanAmericans: x

2

(3, n=1,332)=13.6, p<.05. There were no sex differences in drug

use among the Puerto Ricans, but African-American females reported greater

use than African-American males: x

2

(3, n=695)=10.49, p<.05.

RESULTS

Pearson correlations were computed between the adolescent’s stage of drug

use and the personality, family, peer, drug context, ecological, and acculturation

factors. The correlations were computed separately for the African-Americans

and the Puerto Ricans and appear in table 2.

As shown in table 2, variables in four of the domains (personality, family,

peer, and drug context) were highly related to the youngster’s stage of drug

use. More than 80 percent of the variables in these domains were significant.

86
TABLE 1. Sources and reliabilities of scales

Scales by Domain Source Alpha

Adolescent personality,

behavior, and attitude

Tolerance of deviance/risk taking

Achievement

Hardworking

Rebellion

Ego integration

Depression

Anger at discrimination

Self-deviancy

Drug risk

Sexual activity scale

Family

Mother warmth

Mother control

Mother nonconflictual relations

Mother Identification

Mother cigarette use

Mother alcohol use

Mother tranquilizer use

Father warmth

Father control

Father nonconflictual relations

Father expectations

Father time spent

Father ldentification

Father cigarette use

Father alcohol use

Father tranquilizer use

Sibling marijuana use

Sibling other illegal drug use

Parents vs. peers

Significant other warmth

Peer

Time spent with peers

Achieving peers

Peer deviancy

Ecology

School environment

Victimization

Street culture

Acculturation

Hispanic activity

African-American activity

Familism

Drug Context

Drug availability

Peer cigarette use

Peer alcohol use

Peer marijuana use

Peer other illegal drug use

Jackson 1974; Jessor et al. 1968

Jackson 1974

Jackson 1974

Smith and Fogg 1979

Original

Derogatis et al. 1974

Original

Gold 1968

Johnston et al. 1987

Newcomb and Bentler 1988

Avgar et al. 1977; Schaefer 1965

Avgar et al. 1977; Schaefer 1965

Schaefer and Finkelstein 1975

Original

Original

Original

Original

Avgar et al. 1977; Schaefer 1965

Avgar et al. 1977; Schaefer 1965

Schaefer and Finkelstein 1975

-79

51

.77

.80

Avgar et al. 1977

Original

Original

Orlginal

Original

Original

Original

Original

Original

Avgar et al. 1977

.89

.65

.82

.79

.67

.86

.55

.76

.67

.59

.43

.66

.56

.61

.83

.77

.89

38

Original .45

Original .61

Gold 1966 .68

Original .36

O. Rodriguez, personal communication, June 1989 .88

O. Rodriguez, personal communication, June 1989 .65

Padilla 1980 .76

Original .77

O. Rodriguez, personal communication, June 1989 .82

Johnston et al. 1987

Original

Original

Original

Original

.92

87
TABLE 2. Correlations of variables with stage of drug use

Measures African-Americans Puerto Ricans

Personality/behavior/attitudes

Risk taking

Achievement

Hardworking

Rebellion

Ego integration

Depression

Materialism

Discrimination

Self-deviancy

Drug risk

Sexual behavior

Family

Mother warmth

Mother control

Mother conflictual environment

Mother identification

Father warmth

Father control

Father conflictual environment

Father expectations

Father time spent

Father ldentlfication

Parent vs. peer

Sibling marijuana use

Sibling illegal drug use

Mother alcohol

Father alcohol

Peer

Time spent with peers

Achieving peers

Peer deviancy

Drug context

Peer alcohol

Peer marijuana

Drug availability

Acculturation

Hispanic activities

African-American activlties

Familism

Ecology

School environment

Victimization

Street culture

.32*** .34***

-.22*** -.24***

-.06 -.09*

.24*** .25***

-.17*** -.20***

.13*** .12**

.13*** .14**

.04 .03

.41*** .44***

-.14*** -.07

.21*** .26***

-.14*** -.14***

-.03 -.01

.22*** .26***

-.24*** -.16***

-.10* -.15***

-.06 .04

.11** .20***

-.09* -.06

-.11** -.14***

-.15*** -.15***

.22*** .24***

.34*** .31***

.20*** .19***

.13*** .16***

.11** .19***

.10** .14***

-.23*** -.18***

.20*** .23***

.23*** .26***

.33*** .36***

.13*** .13***

-.01

-.07

-.15***

.05

-.11**

-.03

-.05

-.09*

.06

-.06

*p<.05; **p<.01: ***p<.001

88
A second finding of significance is that several specific variables in each of the

domains were found to be related to the youngster’s stage of drug use. For

example, within the personality domain, youngsters at higher stages of drug

use were more involved in risk-taking behavior, reported lower achievement,

tended to be more rebellious, reported greater intrapsychic distress, and were

more involved in delinquency and early sexual behavior. Within the family

area, aspects of the mutual attachment relationship such as parental warmth,

a nonconflictual environment, identification with the parent, and an orientation

to parents rather than peers seemed to insulate youngsters from drug use.

With regard to peer factors, higher stages of drug use were associated with

having friends who are nonachievers and friends who are involved in

delinquency. As for the drug context area, availability and peer drug use are

related to the youngster’s drug use. Variables in two distal sets, ecology and

acculturation, appeared to be of lesser importance. The third major finding is

that the risk factors associated with drug use in African-Americans are similar

to those identified in Puerto Ricans. And, finally, the risk factors identified as

being important in the youngsters’ drug use are similar to those found in other

populations (Brook et al. 1990).

Next, each of the independent variables by the demographic variable

(i.e., sex, age, and mother’s educational level) was examined to see whether

the independent variables interacted with the demographic factors. To make

this examination, the author and colleagues ran a series of regressions,

examined the interaction, and after entering all the variables in each of the

domains, looked at each independent variable and its interaction with the

demographic factors. More than 95 percent of the demographic interactions

were not significant. Therefore, it appears that various measures give similar

predictions for the various sex, age, and maternal education groups,

An attempt was made to determine whether the empirical findings supported the

hypothesized model (see figure 1). To examine the family interactional model,

hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used. First, each domain was

looked at without controls. Then each domain controlling for the domains next

in sequence was examined.

As shown in table 3, what is common to both the African-Americans and the

Puerto Ricans and supportive of the model is the importance of the three

domains (family, personality, and drug context), each of which has a direct and

relatively independent effect on drug use. It also should be noted that the R

2

for the family set also drops with control on the personality and drug context

domains. Moreover, the R

2

 for the personality set drops with control on the

drug context set. Therefore, for both ethnic groups the following pathways are

also supported: (1) The family has a distal influence on drug use via the

personality and drug context domains: (2) the personality domain is mediated

89
TABLE 3. R

2

 explained in stage of drug use for sets of variables

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001; F tests were computed; 132 for drug context with control for each domain in sequence was significant

KEY: AA=African-American; PR=Puerto Rican
by the drug context domain; and (3), as hypothesized in the model, the drug

context domain is correlated with drug stage despite control on the remaining

domains.

Some lack of support for the model in both ethnic groups occurs in the case

of the acculturation domain. For instance, the acculturation domain is not

mediated by the personality and family domains as was hypothesized. Among

African-Americans, the drug context domain does not serve as a mediator for

ecological influences. A nonhypothesized path emerged in both ethnic groups.

The peer domain does not have a direct effect on drug use in either ethnic

group, but is mediated by the drug context domain.

The family interactional theory’s emphasis has been on the role of family

variables as protective factors interacting with broader social influences. The

protective features of the family may act as mitigators of risk factors. A series of

two-way interaction terms was computed to examine the following interactions

postulated in the introduction: (1) family variables by drug context, (2) family

factors by ecological variables, (3) family variables by acculturation, and

(4) family factors by peer.

A series of hierarchical regression analyses was run to determine which

interaction terms were related significantly to the adolescent’s stage of drug

use. To reduce the total number of interactions examined, the two variables

that were most highly related to drug stage in each of the domains were

included as risk factors. For each significant interaction term that emerged,

the relationship between adolescent drug use and a family variable was plotted

separately for each of the conditional variables (acculturation, drug context,

peer, and ecology). For each of these conditional variables, the drug-family

relationship was plotted for 1 standard deviation (SD) above the mean and

1 SD below the mean. As shown in table 4, the risk factors for the AfricanAmericans stemming from the domains of drug context, acculturation, ecology,

and peer were offset by low family drug use and a close mutual attachment

relationship between the parent and the child. A similar pattern appeared for

the Puerto Ricans, as shown in table 5. The results further suggest that there

are several general protective buffers for African-Americans and Puerto Ricans.

Ethnic differences in protective factors also emerged. Because the drug

context domain is most proximal, it was decided to focus on that domain as

an important risk area. For African-Americans, models of low drug use in

the family were more important as buffers for the drug context domain than

the attachment and control variables. In contrast, for the Puerto Ricans

attachment and control variables were of greater importance than the drug

modeling as buffers for the drug context domain.

91
TABLE 4. African-Americans: Interactions involving amelioration of risk

factors by protective family factors resulting in lower stage of

drug use

Risk Factor

Family Protective Factor Significance Level for

Ameliorating Risk Factor Two-Way Interaction

Drug context

Peer marijuana use

Peer alcohol use

Peer

Peer deviance

Low peer achievement

Ecological

Street culture

School

Acculturation

African-American activities

Familism

Low mother tranquilizers

Low father tranquilizers

Parent oriented

Low mother cigarette use

Low mother alcohol use

Low mother tranquilizers

Parent oriented

Low father tranquilizers

Mother identification

Father identification

Parent oriented

Low sibling illegal drug use

Low mother alcohol use

Low father tranquilizers

Father warmth

Father identification

Mother identification

Low sibling illegal drug use

Parent oriented

Father nonconflictual environment

Father expectations

Mother tranquilizers

*

*

**

**

*

*

**

*

**

**

**

**

**

*

*

**

**

**

*

*

*

**

NOTE: Significance level for two-way interaction based on t value;

*p<0.05; **p<0.01

92
TABLE 5. Puerto Ricans: Interactions involving amelioration of risk factors

by protective family factors resulting in lower stage of drug use

Risk Factor

Family Protective Factor Significance Level for

Ameliorating Risk Factor Two-Way Interaction

Drug context

Peer marijuana use **

**

**

**

*

*

Peer alcohol use

Peer

Peer deviance

Peer achievement

Ecological

School, street culture

Acculturation

Low familism

Sibling marijuana use

Mother control

Father warmth

Father control

Father expectations

Father identification

Mother control

Father warmth

Father expectations

Mother tranquilizers

Mother control

Mother warmth

Mother identification

Low mother cigarette use

Low father cigarette use

Low father tranquilizers

Low sibling marijuana use

Low sibling illegal drug use

Mother identification

Mother tranquilizers

*

*

**

**

*

**

*

*

**

*

*

*

*

*

Low Hispanic activities Mother tranquilizers *

NOTE: Based on t values; *p<0.05; **p<0.01

DISCUSSION

The results of this study lend some support to the developmental model

derived from family interactional theory for both African-Americans and

Puerto Ricans. Domains of personality, family, and drug context have a

direct influence on the adolescent’s stage of drug use. Thus, drug-prone

personality characteristics are associated with a higher drug stage despite

93
the existence of a benign family and a non-drug-context environment. Similarly,

the family risk factors are associated with higher stages of drug use despite the

existence of a drug-resistant personality and a non-drug-context environment.

At the same time, drug-context factors are related to a higher drug stage

despite the existence of benign personality traits and a drug-resistant family

environment.

In addition to the direct paths, the indirect paths of the family interactional model

receive support as well. The family interactional formulation presented here

stresses the importance of the adolescent’s attachment to his or her parents.

The findings confirm an association between a nonconfiictual and affectionate

mutual attachment relationship and drug-resistant personality traits in the

adolescent. It is important to note that both the mother-child attachment and

the father-child bond are significant. The formulation also stresses the

importance of siblings, and the data show a highly significant correlation

between sibling and adolescent drug use.

A drug-resistant adolescent is one who is no? a risk taker, is achievement

oriented, and is able to delay immediate for future gratification. Such a

youngster is unlikely to associate with peers who use drugs and does not

need to turn to drugs to express his or her need for external stimuli or to

cope with inner turmoil.

The hypothesized pathways between the acculturation, ecological, and peer

domains are not supported in the present study. It is surprising that the peer

domain did not have a direct effect on the adolescent’s drug stage in either

the African-American or the Puerto Rican groups. In previous studies (Jessor

and Jessor 1977; Kandel et al, 1978; Oetting et al. 1989), peer influences have

had a direct effect on adolescents’ use of drugs. In much of the previous

research, peer influences referred mainly to peer drug use. Once peer drug use

is removed from the nondrug aspects of the domain (e.g., peer achievement),

the direct effect of peers seems to disappear. Thus, it may be that a more

differentiated view of peer effects is called for. When speaking about peer drugmodeling effects, the effects are direct, but when viewing the more generalized

peer influences, the effects may be attenuated It is also noteworthy that the

relationship between the peer and personality domains may be reciprocal.

That is, personality factors may affect the selection of peer group members.

In turn, involvement in a particular peer group may influence the individual’s

personality. Thus, the results indicate that in accordance with the hypothesized

model, there is evidence of the personality; peer, drug domain sequence. The

nonhypothesized findings reveal a flow or pathway from peer to personality

to drug variables.

94
In general, the pathways leading to drug use in African-Americans and

Puerto Ricans suggest the following sequence: A mutual attachment

relationship characterized by an affectionate and nonconflictual parent-child

bond is associated with the adolescent’s internalization of his or her parents’

conventional attitudes and behavior. (This assumption is based on previous

research [Brook et al. 1990] that indicates that parental conventionality is

based on a secure mutual attachment and that such an attachment is related

to adolescent conventionality.) The adolescent’s conventionality is associated

with the selection of more achieving and less deviant peers who do not use

drugs. It serves to insulate that adolescent from a drug environment and drug

use. Although conventionality is the major causal pathway as noted above,

some personality, family, and drug context influences also have a direct effect

on drug use. In addition, ecological influences affect the drug context domain,

which is implicated in the adolescent’s drug use.

Before a discussion of the implications of the study, two methodological

issues need to be addressed. First, because the adolescents studied live

in an inner-city area characterized by high rates of drug use and crime, the

ability to generalize is limited. Second, greater attention needs to be paid

to the operationalization of acculturation and the extent to which the scales

assessed the various aspects of this important concept.

The family interactional model tries to differentiate among four dimensions

of acculturation: (1) language preference and usage, (2) cultural heritage,

(3) ethnic pride and identity, and (4) interethnic interactions. This acculturation

may be multidimensional. In assessing its effects, one must remember that

acculturation involves the assimilation of the new culture by individuals at the

same time that they retain the values of their origin (Padilla 1980; Szapocznik

et al. 1980). In addition, present research (e.g., Padilla [1980] with Hispanics,

Szapocznik and colleagues [1980] with Cubans, and Rogler and Cooney

[1984] with Puerto Ricans) indicates that a discrepancy between parent and

adolescent levels of acculturation may cause conflict, which may in turn result

in the adolescents returning to their peer group for social rewards, thus

increasing their risk for problem behaviors.

So far, the data presented here, as well as in a number of unpublished

analyses, indicate that acculturation does not have a direct effect on an

adolescent’s drug use. It may be that the measuring instruments were not

sensitive enough to assess the multidimensional nature of acculturation.

Another possibility is that acculturation is complex and needs to be looked

at in interaction with other risk factors. Preliminary analyses based on

unpublished data suggest that acculturation proper serves as a buffer for

risk factors such as unconventionality and negative peer influence. Firmer

conclusions regarding the interactional nature of acculturation await further

analyses. Despite these limitations, the study has several important results.

95
A major finding of this research is that single risk factors from each of the

domains are also related to drug stage for both African-Americans and Puerto

Ricans. These specific risk factors from five of the domains have been found

to be of importance in studies of white adolescents as well (Newcomb and

Bentler 1988). Major risk factors include risk-taking behavior and lower

achievement (in the personality area), less mutual attachment (in the family

domain), low peer achievement (in the peer domain), peer drug use (in the

drug context domain), and school environment (in the ecology area). In

general, it appears that many of the risk factors associated with drug use

are significant in both African-Americans and Puerto Ricans. Moreover,

as previously noted, the causal pathways are similar in both ethnic groups.

The importance of family protective factors are highlighted by the study’s

findings that they serve as buffers for risk factors stemming from four major

areas: drug context, peer, ecology, and acculturation. These family protective

factors are operative in both groups. Consistent with the literature on the

importance of familism among Puerto Ricans, the attachment variables more

often served as protective factors against risks than did models of non-drug

use (Coombs et al. 1991). Among African-Americans, parental models of

non-drug use more often than attachment variables served as protective

factors. Adding to the support for this differential finding is the fact that Puerto

Ricans scored higher on familism than did African-Americans. The data

suggest the appropriate targets or domains for intervention among AfricanAmerican and Puerto Rican adolescents. It would seem that the family,

personality, and drug context domains qualify for intervention targets because

they show direct effects on drug use. However, the acculturation, ecology, and

peer domains are limited in their direct impact on drug use. Once the influence

of peer drug modeling is removed from the peer domain, its ability to have direct

effects is limited.

A second consideration in evaluating the target is the degree to which a

particular target affects drug use, that is, what portion of the variance in

the dependent variable is accounted for by a potential target. Because the

personality and family domains contribute greater variance than the others,

intervention in these areas would prove most efficacious in preventing drug

use.

A third approach to intervention would make use of the sequencing of the

domains. Thus, an earlier intervention may prevent the risk factors with which

it is correlated from emerging at a later time. If one wished to intervene early

in the causal chain of events, intervention should take place at the family level

and should be geared to altering the attachment relationship and familial drug

models. Changes in the attachment relationship should lead to changes in the

adolescent’s personality characteristics. As the author has theorized, a strong

parent-child bond is associated with strong internalization of parental values,

96
behavior, and attitudes. A strong parent-child attachment may also provide

children with the feeling that they can control what happens to them and that

they can acquire the problemsolving skills needed to do so.

A later point of intervention might be directed at altering the adolescent’s

personality toward greater conventionality, which would lead to avoidance

of drug context environments. Finally, one might also intervene at the drug

context level. Removing an adolescent from a drug environment should reduce

drug use in the adolescent. Overall, the implication of these connections is that

one can break into the causal chain leading to drug use at similar critical points

in both African-Americans and Puerto Ricans.

A fourth way of conceptualizing intervention stemming from this research

involves the interaction of risk and protective factors. Because cross-sectional

data are being used, the interactional findings become particularly important.

They do not depend on temporal sequencing of interventional targets. For

example, intervention in a current negative family situation may therefore

serve as a protective factor for risks stemming from current drug context.

Furthermore, the interactional results indicate differences between the AfricanAmericans and Puerto Ricans with respect to family protective factors. There

is also the suggestion that the important risks stemming from drug context

can be altered by family protective factors.

Results of the present study suggest several directions for future research.

First, future research using prospective designs would enable more

investigators to make confident causal inferences. In addition, there remains

a need for indepth studies of the nature of the parent-child attachment and

how this affects the child’s ultimate drug behavior. These findings indicate

that a more complete understanding of the etiology of drug use in AfricanAmerican and Puerto Rican adolescents requires incorporation of socialization

influences. The findings also highlight the importance of understanding the

many child-rearing factors that affect the drug behavior of African-American

and Puerto Rican adolescents.

A theoretical focus on the dimensions of each domain is also needed. For

example, a mutual attachment includes a relationship characterized by

affection, responsiveness to the child, and empathy. Further study might

elaborate on the relationship of each of these components of attachment

to the family and the social context of drug use.

Future researchers should further study the interaction of risk and protective

factors. The study described in this chapter identified some family protective

factors that are universal and others that are more specific to either AfricanAmericans or Puerto Ricans. Further elucidation of both general and specific

97
buffers in different ethnic groups should contribute greatly to an understanding

of how to reduce drug use in different ethnic groups.

This investigation was limited mainly to psychosocial factors. There are

additional frameworks that span a broader range of disciplines, including the

neurobiological, and involve data from other species and other cultures. Future

investigations of adolescent drug use will undoubtedly benefit from studies that

incorporate these broader orientations in a more complete interdisciplinary

approach.

Recently, there has been an increase in behavioral genetic research. In

addition, one can anticipate that there will be increasing attempts to apply the

theory and methods of molecular/biological genetics to the study of drug use.

Understanding the nature of such genetic influences at different levels of

interaction with environmental influences should further explain the etiology

of drug use.

NOTE

1. A direct effect refers to impacts that are not mediated by other domains in

the causal model presented in figure 1. The term is not meant to preclude

hypothetical mediators that may be included in other models.

REFERENCES

Avgar, A.; Bronfenbrenner, U.; and Henderson, C.R., Jr. Socialization practices

of parents, teachers and peers in Israel: Kibbutz, moshav, and city. Child Dev

48:1219-1227, 1977.

Bandura, A., and Walters, R.H. Social Learning and Personality Development.

New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.

Becker, W.C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In:

Hoffman, M.L., and Hoffman, L.W., eds. Review of Child Development

Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. pp. 169-252.

Brook, J.S.; Brook, D.W.; Gordon, AS.; Whiteman, M.; and Cohen, P. The

psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family interactional

approach. Genet Psychol Monogr 116(2), 1990.

Brook, J.S.; Whiteman, M.; Brook, D.W.; and Gordon, A.S. Depressive mood in

female college students: Father-daughter interactional patterns. Genet

Psychol 149:485-504, 1988.

Coombs, R.H.; Paulson, M.J.; and Richardson, M.A. Peer vs. parental influence

in substance use among Hispanic and Anglo children and adolescents.

J Youth Adolesc 20(1):73-88, 1991.

Coopersmith, S. The Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: Miller

Freeman Publications, 1967.

98
Derogatis, L.R.; Lipman, R.S.; Rickels, K.; Uhlenhuth, E.H.; and Covi, L. The

Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behav

Sci 19:1-15, 1974.

Elder, G.H. Family Structure and Socialization. New York: Arno Press, 1980.

Elliott, D.S., and Voss, H. Delinquency and Dropout. Lexington, MA: D.C.

Heath, 1974.

Frankel, P.; Behling, C.F.; and Dix, T. The parents of drug users. J Coll Student

Personnel 16:244-247, 1975.

Gallagher, J.R. Emotional Problems of Adolescents. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1976.

Ginsberg, I.J., and Greenley, J.R. Competing theories of marijuana use: A

longitudinal study. Health Soc Behav 19:22-34, 1978.

Glynn, T.J. From family to peer: Transition of influence among drug-using youth.

J Youth Adolesc 10:363-383, 1981.

Gold, M. Undetected delinquent behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 3:27-46, 1966.

Hawkins, J.D.; Lishner, D.M.; and Catalano, R.F., Jr. Childhood predictors and

the prevention of adolescent substance use. In: Jones, CL., and Battjes,

R.J., eds. Etiology of Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention. National

Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 56. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)87-

1335. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. pp. 75-

126.

Hendin, H.; Pollinger, A.; and Haas, A. The adaptive significance of chronic

marijuana use for adolescents and adults. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse

4(3,4):99-115, 1985.

Hirschi, T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,

1969.

Hirschi, T. Crime and the family. In: Wilson, J.Q., ed. Crime and Public Policy.

San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 1983.

Jackson, D.N. Personality Research Form. Goshen, NY: Research

Psychologists Press, 1974.

Jessor, R.; Graves, T.D.; Hanson, R.C.; and Jessor, S.L. Society, Personality,

and Deviant Behavior: A Study of a Tri-Ethnic Community. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston, 1968.

Jessor, R., and Jessor, S.L. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development.

New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Johnston, L.D.; Bachman, J.G.; and O’Malley, P.M. Monitoring the Future

Study, 1986. Ann Arbor, Ml: Institute for Social Research, University of

Michigan, Survey Research Center, 1987.

Kandel, D.B. Stages in adolescent involvement in drug use. Science 190:912-

914,1975.

Kandel, D.B., and Andrews, K. Processes of adolescent socialization by parents

and peers. Int J Addict 22:319-342, 1987.

Kandel, D.B.; Kessler, R.C.; and Margulies, R.Z. Antecedents of adolescent

initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. J Youth Adolesc

7:13-40, 1978.

99
Krosnick, J.A., and Judd, C.M. Transitions in social influence at adolescence:

Who induces cigarette smoking? Dev Psychol 18:359-368, 1982.

Magnusson, D., and Allen, V.L. An interactional perspective for human

development. In: Magnusson, D., and Allen, V.L., eds. Human Development.

New York: Academic Press, 1983. pp. 3-31.

McCord, J. Questioning the value of punishment. Soc Prob 38(2):167-179,

1991.

Mercer, G.W.; Hundleby, J.D.; and Carpenter, R.A. Adolescent drug use and

attitudes toward the family. Can J Behav Sci 10:79-90, 1978.

Minuchin, P.P., and Shapiro, E.K. The school as a context for social

development. In: Hetherington, E.M., ed., and Mussen, P.H., series ed.

Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social

Development. New York: Wiley, 1983. pp. 197-274.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Substance use and ethnicity: Differential

impact of peer and adult models. J Psychol 120:83-95, 1987.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Consequences of Adolescent Drug Use.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.

Oetting, E.R.; Swaim, R.C.; Edwards, R.W.; and Beauvais, F. Indian and Anglo

adolescent alcohol use and emotional distress: Path models. Am J Drug

Alcohol Abuse 15:153-172, 1989.

Padilla, A. The role of cultural awareness and ethnic loyalty in acculturation. In:

Padilla, A., ed. Acculturation, Theory, Models and New Findings. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press, 1980. pp. 47-84.

Penning, M., and Barnes, G.E. Adolescent marijuana use: A review. Int J Addict

17:749-791, 1982.

Pulkkinen, L. Youthful smoking and drinking in a longitudinal perspective.

J Youth Adolesc 12:253-283, 1983.

Radke-Yarrow, M.; Zahn-Waxler, C.; and Chapman, M. Children’s prosocial

dispositions and behavior. In: Hetherington, E.M., ed., and Mussen, P.H.,

series ed., Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality,

and Social Development. New York: Wiley, 1983. pp. 469-545.

Rogler, L.H., and Cooney, R.S. Puerto Rican Families in New York City:

Intergenerational Processes. Maplewood, NJ: Waterfront Press, 1984.

Schaefer, E.S. Children’s report of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Dev

36:413-424, 1965.

Schaefer, E.S., and Finkelstein, N.W. “Child Behavior Toward Parents: An

Inventory and Factor Analysis.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of

American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, 1975.

Smith, G.M., and Fogg, C.P. Psychological antecedents of teenage drug use.

In: Simmons, R., ed. Research in Community and Mental Health: An Annual

Compilation of Research. Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1979. pp. 87-

102.

Stanton, M.D. Drugs and the family. Marriage Fam Rev 2:1-10, 1979.

100
Szapocznik, J.; Kurtines, W.M.; and Fernandez, T. Bicultural involvement in

Hispanic-American youths. Int J Intercultural Rel 4:353-365, 1980.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant DA05702-04 and Research Scientist Development Award, Level II, DA-00094.

David Brook, M.D., assisted in the development of the family interactional

theory.

AUTHOR

Judith S. Brook, Ed.D.

Professor

Department of Psychiatry

New York Medical College

Valhalla, NY 10595

101
Network Theory: A Model for

Understanding Drug Abuse Among

African-American and Hispanic Youth

Marvin D. Krohn and Terence P. Thornberry

INTRODUCTION

An impressive amount of research has established that youth are likely to

behave in a manner consistent with the behavior of their friends (for a review,

see Akers 1985). In accounting for deviant behavior, friends’ drug use or

delinquency is perhaps the strongest and most consistent correlate of

adolescent misbehavior (Conger 1976; Kandel 1978a; Kornhauser 1978).

It is therefore surprising that more is not known about why this relationship

exists Not only is the causal order of these variables in question (Thornberry

1990), but also little is known about the structure of friendship networks or

the processes that generate the similarity in behavior patterns.

The relative ignorance concerning the nature of these friendship networks is

due, in part, to the fact that theories of adolescent misbehavior have focused

only on the existence of such networks (e.g., differential association theory)

or on a particular characteristic of the network (e.g., social control theory’s

emphasis on attachment).1

 The recent introduction of principles derived from

the social network perspective on criminology (Friday and Hage 1976; Krohn

1986) has emphasized the importance of the structural characteristics of the

social network in understanding the influence of peer networks on behavior.

A few research studies have begun to compare structural characteristics of

the social networks of delinquents and drug users with those of nondelinquents

and abstainers (Gilmore et al., in press: Hawkins and Fraser 1985; Kandel and

Davies 1991; Krohn et al. 1988). Given the limited number of studies devoted

to this issue and limitations in their focus and methodology, however, little is

known about differences in the structural characteristics of social networks of

drug users and nonusers.

The present study responds to this gap in knowledge by comparing the

characteristics of the social networks of alcohol and marijuana users with

those of nonusers among a sample of racially diverse, inner-city adolescents.

Particular attention is directed at whether there are differences in the network

102
characteristics of users and nonusers among adolescents of different ethnic

and racial groups.

Social Network Perspective

The social network perspective is rooted in the work of Simmel (1922),

sociometric analysis (e.g., Moreno 1947), and formative work in cultural

anthropology (e.g., Bott 1957). This perspective has had diverse sociological

applications, but work in the area of urban or community sociology (Fischer

4982; Fischer et al. 1977; Laumann 1973; Wellman and Leighton 1979) and

that which focuses on social networks as social support systems (Lin et al.

1986) are most relevant to its use in studying drug use.

A social network is defined as a “specified set of links among social actors”

(Fischer et al. 1977, p. 33). Thus, the focus of network analysis is on the

structure and content of those links rather than on the individual characteristics

of the actors. How a network is structured and where a particular individual is

within that set of relationships are considered important in determining the

behaviors of the individual actors involved in the network.

The social network perspective assumes that all social networks constrain

the behavior of their participants to some extent. However, the degree of

constraint depends on the structure of the social network, how tightly the

person is integrated into it, how central it is, in the person’s life, how it links

to the person’s other networks, how stable the network has been, and so on.

Of course, the type of behavior in which network members participate affects

the type of behavior to which any member is constrained,

Drug use is likely whenever an individual is enmeshed in some, and especially

many, networks that allow or encourage such behavior. This is especially the

case if the networks are interlocking, for example, if the friends not only hang

out in the person’s neighborhood but also attend the same school. On the

other hand, conventional behavior is likely when the person is enmeshed in

interlocking networks that reward conformity, for example, peer groups

organized around school activities or athletics.

The present study focuses on the homophily, density, intimacy, multiplexity,

and stability of social networks, A review of prior research on the social

networks of drug users and delinquents that has examined these characteristics

is organized around these concepts.

Structural Characteristics of Networks and Drug Use

Homophily refers to the simiiarity of friends in terms of a number of attributes,

including both personal characteristics such as race and attitudes and

103
behaviors such as the use of drugs (Kandel 1978b, 1985; Wister and Avison

1982). People generally select friends of similar age and of the same gender,

race, and neighborhood. There is no reason to assume that the social networks

of drug users would not also be homophilic, and Kandel (1985) has found that

the most likely attributes shared by friendship pairs of all adolescents are

sociodemographic characteristics such as age and gender. Given the illegal

nature of substance use, users may be more likely to form friendship networks

with other users whom they feel they can trust. Indeed, Kandel (1985) found

that common behaviors such as illicit drug use are the next most shared

characteristic. Research that compares users with nonusers has found that

although there are few differences regarding the similarity of sociodemographic

characteristics among users and nonusers (Kandel and Davies 1991), users

are more likely to share behavioral characteristics than are nonusers (Kandel

and Davies 1991; Wister and Avison 1982).

Density refers to the degree to which each member of a social network knows

or likes all other members of the network. The greater the density, the more

constraint the network is expected to have over the behavior of its members,

because behavior that is not approved by the network and is committed in front

of one member soon becomes known by other members and, therefore, might

jeopardize more friendships. Few differences have been observed in the

density of social networks of users and nonusers (Wister and Avison 1982;

Hawkins and Fraser 1985; Kandel and Davies 1991).

Social networks also can be characterized by how intimate or supportive

the relationships are among members. Kandel and Davies (1991) found no

significant differences in the degree of intimacy or support provided by friends

of users and nonusers, and Giordano and colleagues (1986) presented similar

findings regarding delinquents and nondelinquents.

Multiplexity refers to the number of different role relations any two people

have with one another or the number of contexts in a relationship (Fischer

et al. 1977). Krohn (1986) has suggested that if an adolescent is involved

with members of his or her personal networks (including peer networks) in

more than one conventional context (e.g., school and church), then his or her

behavior will be more constrained and deviance will be less likely. However,

if an adolescent is involved in multiple contexts that are not supervised,

deviance will be more likely. Krohn and colleagues (1988) found that joint

participation across a number of conventional contexts with both parents

and friends reduced the likelihood of adolescent cigarette smoking. Hawkins

and Fraser (1985) found that the social networks of opiate abusers contained

fewer members from conventional settings and more from illegal business

contacts than did the networks of users of less potent drugs.

104
The stability of friendship networks has seldom been examined, yet it might be

one of the more important characteristics of friendship. Although there may be

a tendency for respondents to indicate warm feelings toward their friends or that

their friends help them (both are part of the definition of friendship), stability is a

more objective behavioral manifestation of the closeness of friendship. Stability

most often has been measured by a question asking respondents how long

their friendships have lasted (Giordano et al. 1986; Hawkins and Fraser 1985).

When measured in this fashion, friendships among delinquents have been as

stable as those among nondelinquents (Giordano et al. 1986).

To date, knowledge of the characteristics of social networks among those

who use drugs or commit delinquent behaviors is limited to research from a

small number of studies. Few have systematically measured the five network

characteristics mentioned above, and some studies have not included

comparison groups of non-drug users,

Social Networks and Ethnicity

Prior research has demonstrated that there are differences in some structural

characteristics of social networks and the relative importance of those networks

among Hispanics and African-Americans when compared with those of whites.

Perhaps because of their minority status and the discrimination that may limit

the range of their social networks, Hispanics and African-Americans rely more

on their families for social support than do whites (Becerra 1988; SánchezAyéndez 1988; Delgado and Humm-Delgado 1982; Booth et al. 1990; Clark

1989; Singleton 1989; Gfoerer and De La Rosa, in press; De La Rosa 1988).

For these groups, the family often refers not only to the nuclear family but also

to an extended family of relatives and special neighbors (Delgado and HummDelgado 1982). Whereas whites are likely to seek help from friends and

neighbors, Hispanics and African-Americans are more likely to call on their

extended family network.

One consequence of the reliance on the family for social support is that the

family takes on greater importance in insulating individuals from the stress

of daily life (De La Rosa 1988). Hence, disruptions in family relationships

may lead to drug use as a form of rebellion against family control (Booth

et al. 1990). Hispanics may also be affected by the impact of acculturation

on traditional family relationships. Hence, some studies have found that

adolescents from more acculturated Hispanic families are more likely to use

alcohol and other drugs (De La Rosa et al. 1990; Booth et al. 1990; Gfoerer

and De La Rosa, in press).

The friendship networks of Hispanics and African-Americans also appear to be

different from those of whites. Children of all races appear to prefer friends of

the same race (Hallinan and Teixeira 1987); however, white students tend to be

105
more ethnocentric (Clark 1989). Clark (1989) suggests that it is more difficult

for African-Americans than for other ethnic/racial groups to establish close

friendship ties with peers who attend the same school, which leaves the

adolescent without adequate support to deal with the stress associated with

school-related problems. Also, it results in African-American students being

more likely than students from other ethnic groups to develop friendships with

neighborhood youngsters regardless of whether they attend the same school.

Ayers and Clark (1985) found that African-American adolescents were more

likely to live within walking distance of their best friends than were white

adolescents. White adolescents were more likely to see their friends in school

or church, whereas African-Americans saw friends more often in public settings.

This may result in friendship networks being centered around arenas that are

unsupervised and, therefore, allow for misbehavior (Selno and Crano 1986).

Summary

Peer and family networks clearly have an important role in determining the

behavior of adolescents, including illegal behavior such as drug use and

underage drinking. However, it is not as clear how these social networks

function to affect behavior. The social network perspective suggests that the

structural characteristics of friendship and family networks be examined to

address this question. In doing so, particular attention must be paid to the

differences in the characteristics of social networks for different ethnic groups.

Prior research has established that the social networks of African-Americans

and Hispanics differ from those of whites, These differences, in turn, could

account for variations in the relative influence of these networks in generating

the aberrant behaviors. For example, Newcomb and Bentler (1986) found that

peer use of drugs was least important for African-Americans compared with

whites, Hispanics, and Asians.

The dearth of research on the structural characteristics of the social networks

of drug users compared with those of nonusers is unfortunate because it is

known that there is a strong relationship between having friends who use

drugs and drug use. In order to understand how those networks influence

or are influenced by such behavior, it would be helpful to determine whether

there are any differences in the network characteristics of users and nonusers.

Therefore, the present study provides descriptive information on network

characteristics of alcohol and marijuana users and compares these with the

characteristics of nonuser networks to better inform the etiology of drug use

and the development of intervention programs.

METHODS

Data for the present analysis are drawn from the Rochester Youth Development

Study (RYDS), which examines the development of drug use and delinquent

106
behavior in a high-risk, urban sample. The RYDS is a seven-wave panel study

in which each student and the person who has primary responsibility for his or

her care (usually a parent) are interviewed at 6-month intervals. Data are also

collected from the Rochester schools, police department, and other agencies

that serve youth. A focus on adolescent friendship networks and drug use

began with Wave 2 data collection; therefore, the present analysis is based

on data from Waves 2 through 4.

Sample

The sample consists of 987 students who attended the seventh and eighth

grades of the Rochester city public schools during the 1987-88 academic

year. To ensure that serious, chronic offenders are included in the study,

the sample overrepresents high-risk youth in the following manner. Males

are oversampled (75 vs. 25 percent) because they are more likely to be

chronic offenders and to engage in serious delinquent behavior than are

females. In addition, students are selected proportionately to the resident

arrest rates of the census tracts in which they lived at the time the sample

was drawn. Thus, students from the areas of the city with the highest rates

of arrest are proportionately overrepresented, and students from the lowest

arrest rate areas are proportionately underrepresented. Because the true

probability of a youth living in a particular census tract is known, the strategy

of weighting the cases is able to produce a quota proportionally allocated

sample. The sample is weighted by a factor that is inversely proportionate

to the probability of being selected from a particular census tract in the

analyses that follow.2

The current analysis is based on the 885 adolescents for whom Wave 2

through Wave 4 interviews were completed. This represents 90 percent

of the initial sample. Characteristics of respondents for Waves 2 through

4 are comparable (see table 1), with only slight differences in terms

of age, sex, ethnicity, and resident arrest rates of census tracts.

The resulting sample at Wave 2 was 68.5-percent African-American,

16.4-percent Hispanic, and 15.1-percent white. Students ranged in

age from 12 to 15 years at Wave 2, although more than 70 percent

were 14 and 15. These proportions are close to what was expected

given the population characteristics of the Rochester schools and the

decision to oversample high-risk youth.

Interviews with students are conducted by the RYDS staff in private rooms

provided by the school. If the student cannot be contacted in school, he or

she is interviewed at home. Interviews are about an hour in length.

107
TABLE 1. Characteristics of the unweighted sample at Waves 2, 3, and 4

(percent)

Characteristic Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4

Age at Wave 2

< 13

13

14

> 14

Sex

Male

Female

Ethnicity

African-American

Hispanic

White

Census tracts grouped by

resident arrest rates

1= highest

2

3

4

5

6= lowest

1.8 2.0 2.0

26.2 26.7 26.4

43.3 44.4 44.2

28.7 27.0 27.5

72.5 72.6 72.7

27.5 27.4 27.3

68.5 68.4 68.0

16.4 16.5 16.5

15.1 15.1 15.5

32.4 33.4 32.9

32.2 31.8 32.5

18.5 18.1 17.9

9.9 9.7 9.5

5.2 5.2 5.4

1.8 1.8 1.8

Measurement of Variables

To obtain detailed information concerning adolescents’ friendship networks,

respondents are asked to name their three best friends. A series of questions

is then asked concerning demographic characteristics and behaviors of each

of these friends. Network measures such as homophily, density, intimacy,

multiplexity, and stability are limited to the network that includes up to three

of the respondent’s best friends. Although an open-ended format in which the

respondents are allowed to list all their friends followed by specific questions

regarding their characteristics would be preferable, time constraints did not

allow for this.

The homophily of a respondent’s network is measured with a series of items

asking whether each of the three best friends is of the same age, sex, race,

108
school, grade, and neighborhood as the respondent. The more friends who

are similar in these characteristics to the respondent, the more homophilic the

network. Each characteristic is treated separately because of the possibility

that it will be differentially related to drug use. A separate question asking

whether the respondent has a girlfriend or boyfriend is included to further

specify the question of the sex of the respondent’s friends.

In addition to the items measuring homophily in terms of sociodemographic

characteristics, homophily is also measured in terms of the drug-using status

of friends. To measure the drug-using status of the friendship network, a

four-item scale asks respondents how many of the kids that they hang around

with most often use alcohol, marijuana, crack, or other hard drugs. Although

information concerning the drug-using status of each named friend would

have been preferable, a pretest demonstrated that at these ages, respondents

are very reluctant to provide reports of the drug use of specific friends and

pushing them to do so could jeopardize the overall panel study. Hence, the

not unreasonable inference must be made that a respondent’s best friends

are among those that he or she is most likely to hang around with.

Network density is measured by calculating the number of friends within a

network who like one another divided by the total number of possible links.

Because it is possible that friend #1 may like friend #2, but friend #2 may

not like friend #1, the total number of possible links is six rather than three.

The intimacy of the friendship network is measured by asking how often the

respondent seeks six different types of support from each of the three friends.

The types of support include talking to friends about personal things, asking

for advice, borrowing money, talking about problems at home, talking about

problems with another friend, and trusting the friend. A summated scale across

all items and friends is used (Cronbach’s alpha=.83), and each item also is

analyzed separately.

Network multiplexity is the degree to which the respondent’s network overlaps

in different arenas of his or her life. The concept can be measured for both

conventional and deviant arenas. Network multiplexity in conventional

arenas is measured by two indices. The first comprises questions that ask

respondents how often they participate with each of their three best friends

in six different types of activities (sports outside of school, school sports, clubs

and special events, musical or singing groups, church or religious activities,

and other groups). These items are analyzed both as summated indices and

as separate activities.

Parents who participate in their children’s activities also constitute a type of

conventional network multiplexity. Therefore, a second measure of multiplexity

109
uses the same items as above but with parent or caretaker replacing the

friend’s name in the stem of the question.

Asking respondents about different arenas that are deviant in nature is more

difficult. To assess the multipiexity of friendship networks in deviant activities,

an index of risky activities is computed. This index comprises three items

asking how often the adolescent and each of the three friends get together

where no adults are present, drive around in a car with no special place to go,

and get together where someone is using or selling drugs.

The stability of the friendship network is measured by counting the number of

friends named in Wave 2 who were still identified by the respondent as being

best friends at Wave 3. This was done by matching not only the names of the

friends given in the two waves but also the demographic characteristics of

those friends.

The measures of alcohol and marijuana use are prevalence measures

indicating whether respondents used these substances during the pas?

year. Because the items ask about use in the past 6 months, responses to

Waves 3 and 4 are combined to obtain an annual estimate. Respondents

are categorized as alcohol users if they indicate that they used any of three

types of alcohol (beer, wine, or liquor) without their parents’ permission during

the past year. Of the total sample, 37.6 percent are categorized as alcohol

users. A single item asks respondents whether they had used marijuana.

By combining responses from Waves 3 and 4, 16.3 percent of the sample

are categorized as marijuana users.

RESULTS

Tables 2 and 3 present the results from difference-of-means tests comparing

alcohol and marijuana users with nonusers for the total sample and for males

and females separately. The results by race and ethnicity are presented in a

later section.

Total Sample and Gender Analysis

Homophily. For the total sample, the results regarding homophily for

alcohol and marijuana users are consistent. Users are more likely to have

friends who are of a different sex, attend a different school, and are in a

different grade than are nonusers, However, users’ friends are more likely

to be from the same neighborhood. It appears that the social networks of

users are more likely to comprise neighborhood friends who may or may

not be attending the same school. These findings highlight the importance

of the neighborhood context in understanding drug use.

110
Alcohol and marijuana users are also more likely to have a girlfriend or

boyfriend. Coupled with the finding regarding the gender composition of

their social networks, this indicates that users are more likely to be socially

active and to have begun to date. This is most evident for female marijuana

users. Wister and Avison (1982) suggest that males play a very important

role in initiating females into marijuana use, and the data reported here

support that contention,

Previous research shows that users are much more likely to associate with

friends who use alcohol or marijuana than are nonusers. It is evident that the

characteristic that best differentiates users from nonusers is the behavior of

their friends. However, unlike prior research, the findings here suggest that

users have social networks that are less homophilic than nonusers in terms

of gender, their grade in school, and the school they attend. On the other

hand, users are more likely to have friends who live in their neighborhood

than are nonusers.

Density. For the total sample, there is no significant difference in the density

of the networks of alcohol and marijuana users and nonusers. This finding is

consistent with previous research (Wister and Avison 1982) and may reflect

not differentiating the stage of substance use in the present analysis.

Intimacy. For both the overall scale and the separate items, users report being

more intimate with their friends than do nonusers. This pattern is evident for

both alcohol and marijuana and for males and females, although the differences

are greater for marijuana users than for alcohol users.

These findings may suggest that friendship networks among users are closer

than among nonusers. However, the specific items refer to the expressive

and instrumental support provided by friends, and users may need that type

of support more than nonusers and call on their friends to supply it. The

friendship networks of nonusers may be as willing to provide such support as

users’ networks, but nonusers may need such support less than users.

Multiplexity. The measures of multiplexity include not only the friendship

network but also the family network. Participation with friends or with parents

in conventional activities is assumed to have a constraining effect on drug use,

whereas participation with friends in “risky” contexts is likely to encourage use.

The findings regarding the participation of friends in conventional activities

are surprising. There are no significant differences between alcohol users

and nonusers or between marijuana users and nonusers in the means for the

overall measure and for each individual item. These results are contrary to

what was expected from a network perspective and what was found by

Krohn and colleagues (1988).

111
TABLE 2. Difference-of-means tests for alcohol use for total sample and by gender

Total (n=885) Male (n=641) Female (n=244)

Nonusers Users Nonusers Users Nonusers Users

Variable (n=552) (n=333) (n=405) (n=236) (n=147) (n=97)

Homophily

Friends’ age

Friends’ sex

Friends’ ethnicity

Friends’ school

Friends’ grade

Friends’ neighborhood

Special girlfriend/boyfriend

Peer drug use

Density of friendship network

Intimacy with friends

Talk about personal things

Ask for advice for decision

Borrow money

Talk about “home problems”

Talk about “friend problems”

Trust about anything told

Multiplexity

Friends’ participation

Sports outside of school

School sports

Clubs/special events

Musical/singing groups

Church/religious activities

.38 .37 .37 .36 .39 .38

.96 .91** -95 .91** .96 .92*

.83 .84 .84 .84 .82 .85

.59 .50** .51 .43** .65 .57

.63 .55** .56 .50* .69 .61*

.49 .57** .56 .59 .42 .54**

.34 .59** .31 .52** .38 .62**

4.68 6.34** 4.58 6.15** 4.80 6.48**

.90 .91 .90 .91 .91 .91

16.75 17.65** 15.89 16.60** 17.73 18.57**

2.98 3.15** 2.80 2.92 3.18 3.36*

2.93 3.08** 2.73 2.84 3.15 3.30

2.19 2.30 2.21 2.30 2.15 2.25

2.36 2.67** 2.17 2.34* 2.59 2.99**

2.90 2.96 2.64 2.72 3.18 3.18

3.39 3.49** 3.32 3.48** 3.48 3.49

5.07 5.06

2.83 2.81

2.39 2.14

2.46 2.64

1.76 1.56

3.51 3.31

Other groups 1.86 1.62

5.22 5.22 4.90 4.92

3.72 3.57 1.82 2.14

2.60 2.29 2.14 1.89

2.34 2.34 2.58 2.89

1.16 1.14 2.30 1.97

3.18 2.83 3.86 3.69

2.15 1.94 1.51 1.43
TABLE 2. (continued)

Parents’ participation 4.02 3.61* 4.19 3.97 3.82 3.28

Sports outside of school 1.67 1.55 1.84 1.71 1.46 1.43

School sports 1.57 1.47* 1.62 1.57 1.51 1.35

Clubs/special events 1.59 1.55 1.53 1.48 1.65 1.63

Musical/singing groups 1.48 1.32** 1.32 1.25 1.64 1.38*

Church/religious activities 2.34 2.02** 2.34 1.96** 2.34 2.07

Other groups 1.38 1.28 1.40 1.35 1.34 1.20

Risky time with friends 5.53 6.53** 5.70 6.88** 5.32 6.11 **

Stability of friendship network 1.52 1.34** 1.60 1.47 1.44 1.23

* p<.05; **p<.01 (two-tailed test)
TABLE 3. Difference-of-means tests for marijuana use for total sample and by gender

Total (n=885) Male (n=641) Female (n=244)

Nonusers Users Nonusers Users Nonusers Users

Variable (n=741) (n=144) (n=546) (n=95) (n=195) (n=49)

Homophily

Friends’ age

Friends’ sex

Friends’ ethnicity

Friends’ school

Friends’ grade

Friends’ neighborhood

Special girlfriend/boyfriend

Peer drug use

Density of friendship network

Intimacy with friends

Talk about personal things

Ask for advice for decision

Borrow money

Talk about “home problems”

Talk about “friend problems”

Trust about anything told

Multiplexity

Friends’ participation

Sports outside of school

School sports

Clubs/special events

Musical/singing groups

Church/religious activities

Other groups

.38

.96

.83

.57

.62

.50

.37

4.84

.35

.88**

.84

.47**

.52**

.61**

.71**

7.40**

.50

.56

.57

.36

4.78

.33 .39

.87** .96

.83 .83

.40* .64

.42** .68

.60 .44

.56** .39

7.32* 4.92

.91 .91 .90 .92

16.78 18.50** 15.97 17.19**

2.99 3.32** 2.80 3.09**

2.94 3.21** 2.74 2.96**

2.18 2.42** 2.24 2.27

2.38 2.92** 2.18 2.56**

2.88 3.14** 2.64 2.88**

3.41 3.49 3.37 3.43

5.64

2.77

2.35

2.54

1.66

3.44

1.81

5.20 5.22 5.22 4.85 5.15

3.06 3.71 3.40 1.76 2.64

2.07 2.51 2.34 2.11 1.79

2.48 2.36 2.26 2.70 2.69

1.82 1.18 .96 2.05 2.64

3.43 3.04 3.09 3.85 3.56

1.57 2.11 1.87 1.48 1.48

.37

.95

.84

.91

17.73 19.31**

3.20 3.45**

3.17 3.37**

2.11 2.50**

2.64 3.15**

3.15 3.31

3.47 3.52

.36

.90*

.84

.54

.61

.61**

.80**

7.47**

.90
TABLE 3. (continued)

Parents’ participation 3.96 3.47** 4.15 3.87 3.72 3.17

Sports outside of school 1.64 1.56 1.82 1.63 1.44 1.49

School sports 1.57 1.38** 1.62 1.52 1.49 1.29

Clubs/special events 1.59 1.50 1.52 1.47 1.67 1.52

Musical/singing groups 1.42 1.41 1.31 1.21 1.52 1.60

Church/religious activities 2.27 2.03* 2.24 1.97 2.28 2.06

Other groups 1.36 1.26 1.40 1.27 1.29 1.25

Risky time with friends 5.68 6.94** 5.86 7.75** 5.45 6.32**

Stability of friendship network 1.53 1.14** 1.58 1.38* 1.46 .95**

 *p<.05; **p<.01 (two-tailed test)
The overall measure of joint participation with parents is significant for

the total sample for both alcohol and marijuana use. Nonusers are more

likely to have parents who take an active role in their children’s activities.

Although not significant for males and females, the direction of differences

is as expected. Parental participation in school sports and in church or

religious activities serves best to differentiate users from nonusers. Children

whose parents are involved with them in such activities are less likely to use

alcohol and marijuana.

Adolescents also participate in unsupervised activities with their friends, which

would be expected to put them at greater risk for using alcohol and marijuana.

The findings confirm this expectation for both alcohol and marijuana use. Both

male and female users are more likely to participate in unsupervised activities

than are nonusers, although the differences are somewhat larger for the males.

Stability. Stability in the friendship network is measured by whether any of

the three friends named by respondents at Wave 2 is also named as a friend

at Wave 3. In spite of a relatively short interval between interviews (6 months),

a difference in the stability of friendship networks of users and nonusers is

observed. Both alcohol and marijuana users are more likely to have changed

the members of their friendship networks than are nonusers. This is particularly

apparent for marijuana users.

It is interesting to contrast these findings for stability with those for intimacy.

Whereas users are more likely to talk to their friends concerning personal

issues and problems than are nonusers, they are also more likely to change

those friends. The social networks of users may be less tightly knit (as

evidenced by the greater likelihood of change), and users may be more

likely to “open up” to their friends because of the problems they experience.

Or users may be more sociable individuals, which not only makes them more

likely to open up to their friends but also more likely to make new friends.

With the data available, it is not possible to determine which interpretation

is correct.

Another issue raised by the findings on stability is whether the change in

friends that is more likely among users is because users are moving from

nonusing networks to using networks. To examine this, the peer drug use

of those respondents who initiated use at Wave 3 was compared with the

peer drug use of those who had never used drugs. At Wave 2 (as well as

at Wave 3), there is a significant difference in peer alcohol and other drug

use between those respondents who initiated use at Wave 3 and those who

maintained abstinence. Hence, it appears that the greater likelihood of users

to change friends between Waves 2 and 3 is not because they are moving

from a nonusing network to a using network, but rather because they are

changing from one set of friends who use to another set of friends who use.

116
Summary. The picture of the social networks of alcohol and marijuana

users compared with those of nonusers suggests that these relationships

are complex. Friends of users are less likely to be of the same sex, in the

same school, or in the same grade as those of nonusers. On the other hand,

users are more likely to have friends who live in their neighborhood. Users

rely on their friends for more social support than nonusers but are also

more likely to have acquired a different set of friends over a 6-month period.

Jointly participating in conventional activities with their friendship network

does not differentiate users from nonusers; however, having parents who are

actively involved in those same activities does. Having a girlfriend or boyfriend,

participating with friends in “risky” activities, and having friends who use alcohol

and other drugs are the three most important variables in differentiating users

from nonusers.

Racial and Ethnic Differences

The results for the different racial and ethnic groups represented in our sample

are presented in tables 4 and 5. Although, in general, the separate analyses by

ethnicity reflect the results reported above, there are a few intriguing

differences.

Homophily. For African-Americans and Hispanics, results regarding the

similarity in sociodemographic characteristics of friendship networks are

similar to those just reported. The friendship networks of African-American

alcohol and marijuana users, compared with nonusers, are less likely to be

homophilic with regard to sex, school, and grade in school, but they are more

likely to be homophilic in terms of neighborhood. For Hispanics, the sex and

neighborhood variables are significantly different between users and nonusers,

and the trend in the results for the other variables is similar to that for AfricanAmericans. The one finding that differs for Hispanics is that alcohol users are

significantly less likely than nonusers to have friends from their own ethnic

group. This holds only for alcohol users and not for marijuana users.

None of the sociodemographic characteristics of friendship groups are

significantly different between white users and nonusers. These findings

cannot be attributed to the relatively low number of whites in the sample.

The means of these two groups are not substantially different.

For all three racial groups, users are more likely to have a girlfriend or boyfriend

and their friends are more likely to use drugs.

Density. The breakdown by racial/ethnic groups reveals some interesting

patterns with regard to the density of social networks. Hispanic alcohol users

have significantly less dense social networks than nonusers, and although not

significant, the same pattern is evident for Hispanic marijuana users. On the

117
TABLE 4. Difference-of-means tests for alcohol use by race/ethnicity

White (n=140) African-American (n=605) Hispanic (n=140)

Nonusers Users Nonusers Users Nonusers users

Variable (n=88) (n=52) (n=374) (n=231) (n=90) (n=50)

Homophily

Friends’ age

Friends’ sex

Friends’ ethnicity

Friends’ school

Friends’ grade

Friends’ neighborhood

Special girlfriend/boyfriend

Peer drug use

Density of friendship network

Intimacy with friends

Talk about personal things

Ask for advice for decision

Borrow money

Talk about “home problems

Talk about “friend problems”

Trust about anything told

Multiplexity

Friends’ participation

Sports outside of school

School sports

Clubs/special events

Musical/singing groups

Church/religious activities

Other groups

.32 .39 .39 .37 .41 .32

.93 .91 .96 .92** .99 .89*

.83 .88 .85 .88 .73 .61*

.50 .57 .62 .50** .57 .45

.59 .53 .64 .56** .63 .53

.49 .50 .51 .59* .42 .56*

.18 .46** .41 .62** .22 .60**

4.44 6.44** 4.86 6.29** 4.23 6.45**

.87 .89 .89 .93 .98 .87*

16.22 16.57

2.76 2.83

2.84 2.93

2.18 2.16

2.35 2.41

2.66 2.70

3.42 3.54

4.58 4.93 5.19 5.23 5.07 4.32

3.53 2.77 2.84 2.86 2.11 2.58

2.14 2.46 2.74 2.14* 1.30 1.74

2.76 3.74 2.52 2.44 1.99 2.20

.63 1.40 2.08 1.67 1.64 1.14

2.25 2.00 3.70 3.93 4.01 1.82**

1.15 1.51 2.30 1.77 .89 1.03

16.92

3.02

2.91

2.31

2.36

2.92

3.39

17.86** 16.63 17.99*

3.23** 3.05 3.13

3.12** 3.08 3.10

2.32 1.72 2.33**

2.72** 2.36 2.79*

3.00 3.04 3.06

3.46 3.37 3.58*
TABLE 4 (continued)

Parents’ participation

Sports outside of school

School sports

Clubs/special events

Musical/singing groups

Church/religious activities

Other Groups

Risky time with friends

3.84 3.73

2.00 1.67

1.51 1.60

1.66 1.80

1.18 1.24

1.85 1.50*

1.24 1.26

5.27 6.52**

Stability of friendship network 1.82

* p<.05; ** p<.01 (two-tailed test)

3.98

1.59

1.63

1.58

1.57

2.46

1,43

5.71

3.66 4.35 3.22**

1.54 1.65 1.43

1.50 1.40 1.16

1.53 1.55 1.35

1.38” 1.41 1.06**

2.24’ 2.26 1.59**

1.30 1.30 1.18

6.53** 5.11 6.54**

1.30** 1.39 1.36 1.78 1.32**
TABLE 5. Difference-of-means tests for marijuana use by race/ethnicity

White (n=140) African-Amercian (n=605) Hispanic (n=140)

Nonusers Users Nonusers Users Nonusers Users

Variable (n=119) (n=21) (n=422) (n=183) (n=105) (n=35)

Homophily

Friends’ age

Friends’ sex

Friends’ ethnicity

Friends’ school

Friends’ grade

Friends’ neighborhood

Special girlfriend/boyfriend

Peer drug use

Density of friendship network

Intimacy with friends

Talk about personal things

Ask for advice for decision

Sorrow money

Talk about “home problems”

Talk about “friend problems”

Trust about anything told

Multiplexity

Friends’ participation

Sports outside of school

School sports

Clubs/special events

Musical/singing groups

Church/religious activities

Other groups

.35 .35 .39 .35 .39 .32

.93 .88 .96 .89** .98 .82*

.86 .80 .86 .87 .70 .68

.52 .53 .59 .47** .56 .41

.59 .46 .63 .54** .62 .48

.48 .60 .53 .61* .44 .60

.26 .52* .43 .73** .27 .76**

4.91 7.27** 4.94 7.32** 4.39 8.05**

.87 .97** .90 .92 .97 .82

16.28 16.82 16.92 18.74** 16.77 18.74*

2.76 2.97 3.04 3.37** 3.02 3.40**

2.87 2.90 2.92 3.26** 3.06 3.25

2.17 2.18 2.27 2.50** 1.87 2.17

2.36 2.45 2.38 2.96** 2.40 3.09**

2.66 2.75 2.90 3.16** 2.99 3.38

3.46 3.58 3.40 3.49 3.43 3.45

4.81 4.03 5.15 5.45

3.29 2.92 2.76 3.21

2.31 1.94 2.61 2.15

3.16 2.99 2.52 2.38

.88 1.28 1.92 1.92

2.21 1.76 3.76 3.91

1.33 1.01 2.19 1.72

4.84 4.84

2.24 2.37

1.37 1.75

2.56 1.97

1.45 1.79

3.53 2.22

.88 1.26
TABLE 5. (continued)

Parents’ participation 3.90 3.11 3.93 3.56 4.12

Sports outside of school 1.91 1.65 1.58 1.54 1.58

School sports 1.56 1.49 1.62 1.42* 1.37

Clubs/special events 1.70 1.80 1.59 1.44 1.48

Musical/singing groups 1.20 1.23 1.50 1.50 1.34

Church/religious activities 1.73 1.64 2.44 2.17* 2.15

Other groups 1.28 1.05** 1.41 1.29 1.26

Risky time with friends 5.54 7.22** 5.81 6.86** 5.29

Stability of friendship network 1.68 1.18* 1.43 1.13** 1.73

3.31

1.58

1.08

1.54

1.08

1.58

1.30

7.14**

1.12**

*p<.05; ** p<.01 (two-tailed test)
other hand, white marijuana users have denser friendship networks than do

white nonusers. For African-Americans, there is no difference in density

between users and nonusers.

Intimacy. African-American and Hispanic alcohol and marijuana users have

more intimate friendship networks than nonusers. The differences are greater

for marijuana than they are for alcohol. Although there is a slight tendency for

white users to have more intimate social networks than white nonusers, the

differences for both alcohol and marijuana are not significant.

Multiplexity. The overall participation with friends in conventional activities

is not significant for any racial/ethnic group in both the alcohol and marijuana

analysis. Joint participation with friends in school sports has some constraining

effect on alcohol use for African-Americans, and joint participation with friends

in church activities is greater for Hispanic alcohol and marijuana nonusers

than it is for Hispanic users,

Hispanic alcohol users have lower rates of participation in joint activities with

their parents than nonusers, and the same tendency is observed for Hispanic

marijuana users and nonusers. Participation in church activities with parents

differentiates users of alcohol from nonusers for all three groups. It has the

same effect for marijuana users and nonusers, although the difference is

significant only for African-Americans.

Joint participation with friends in “risky” activities is greater for users of both

substances in all three groups. Youth who spend time with their friends in

unsupervised activities and where drugs are available have higher rates of

substance use than youth who do not engage in these activities with their

friends.

Stability. For all these groups, alcohol users and marijuana users have less

stable social networks. This difference is significant in all comparisons, except

that between African-American alcohol users and nonusers.

Summary. These results suggest that the social network characteristics of

users and nonusers differ somewhat by racial and ethnic group. Overall, the

social networks of white users and nonusers are less distinct than those of

African-Americans or Hispanics. There are no significant differences between

white users and nonusers in the sociodemographic characteristics of friends,

the intimacy of social networks, or the joint participation with friends or parents

in conventional activities. The friendship networks of white marijuana users are

more dense than those of white nonusers.

African-American and Hispanic alcohol and marijuana users are less likely to be

homophilic in terms of sex, school, and grade, but they are more likely to have

122
friends from the same neighborhood. Users from these two groups have more

intimate friendship networks than do nonusers. Hispanic alcohol users are less

likely to have dense social networks and to participate with their parents in joint

activities than are nonusers. For African-Americans, there are no significant

differences in density or overall participation with parents in joint activities

between users and nonusers of either substance.

Users of both alcohol and marijuana of all racial groups have less stable social

networks than do nonusers. They are also more likely to have a girlfriend or

boyfriend, to participate in risky activities with friends, and to have friends who

use alcohol and marijuana.

CONCLUSION

Prior research has clearly established that adolescents who have friends

who use drugs are also likely to use drugs. Although this finding is among the

strongest and most consistent in research on drug use, little is known about the

characteristics of the networks that constitute these relationships. Based on

data from the Rochester Youth Development Study, this chapter contributes

to the understanding of this topic by describing five central characteristics of

the social networks of drug users and nonusers: homophily, density, intimacy,

multiplexity, and stability.

Previous studies have found that the affective quality of relationships that

users have with friends is at least as close as that of nonusers. Had the

present study examined only the intimacy of the relationship of social networks,

its conclusion would have been similar to that of prior research. This research

found that users have more intimate or supportive relationships with their

friendship network than do nonusers. It also found that user networks are

generally as dense as nonuser networks. In addition, it found that although

relationships within user networks appear to be more intimate, they are also

less stable over time.

Interpreting the paradox of users having more intimate but less stable social

networks is difficult. The measure of intimacy included items that focused on

expressive and instrumental support that friends provide one another. The fact

that users have higher values on this measure may indicate that they need to

lean on friends more for this type of help than do nonusers. The need for users

to rely on friends for social support may also be a result of a more alienative

relationship with parents. Although parental social support was not examined in

the current analysis, parents of users were found to be less involved in the

social networks of their children. Hence, although the friendship networks

of users may be weaker as evidenced by their transitory nature, users may

need to call on their friends for more social support than nonusers,

123
On the other hand, the friendship networks of users are not less multiplex or

less dense than those of nonusers. Therefore, the finding regarding stability

may indicate that users are simply more sociable, putting them in a better

position to constantly make new friends, Once those new friendships are

formed, users are more likely to open up to those friends.

It is not possible with the current information to determine which of these

interpretations is valid. However, it is evident that the suggestion in prior

research that the friendship networks of alcohol and drug users are more

intimate than those of nonusers may be premature. With a more complete

description of characteristics of social networks, that explanation is called

into question.

The results do confirm that users of alcohol and marijuana are more likely

to have friends who also use. Moreover, these friends are more likely to

live in the same neighborhood than the friends of nonusers. This finding

underscores the importance of the neighborhood context in determining

use patterns and, coupled with the finding that the networks of users are

less likely to come from the same school, suggests that intervention strategies

should include neighborhood-based as well as school-based strategies.

A more difficult finding to deal with in terms of social policy is that users are

more likely to have a girlfriend or boyfriend. This result may reflect that the

use of alcohol and marijuana is part of the “normal” pattern of interaction

among adolescents who are more socially active. This pattern was especially

pronounced for females, which suggests that they are more prone to be

influenced by the behavior of their boyfriends. It is difficult to suggest a

strategy for dealing with this tendency. Perhaps programs that focus on

social skills and strategies of saying no are on the right track.

Racial and Ethnic Differences

The results from this study also indicate that the networks of users of different

ethnic or racial backgrounds vary to some extent. In particular, the network

structure of white users is not significantly different from that of nonusers.

This may suggest that the role alcohol and other drug use plays for the white

adolescent is different than the role it plays for African-Americans or Hispanics.

White adolescents may be able to better incorporate such behavior into the

routine activities of their lives than adolescents of other races, thereby resulting

in little change in the structures of their social networks.

There is also some indication that the structure of social networks among

Hispanic alcohol users varies on different dimensions than do the network

structures of white or African-American users. Hispanic alcohol users have

less dense friendship networks and are less likely to have friends from their

124
own ethnic group than nonusers. This is not the case for whites or AfricanAmericans. Moreover, Hispanic users are less likely than nonusers to

participate jointly with their parents in conventional activities.

The findings regarding Hispanics can be interpreted as being consistent with

prior research on the social networks of Hispanics, which suggested that the

family plays a more important role as a social support network for Hispanics

than it does for either whites or African-Americans (De La Rosa 1988). The

fact that Hispanic users in our study are less likely to do things with their

parents than are nonusers suggests that there has been some disruption in

the close family ties. Perhaps this disruption has been caused partially by the

younger generation being acculturated into mainstream society. The finding

that Hispanic alcohol users are more likely to have friends who are not of the

same ethnic status may be a manifestation of this acculturation process. The

differences in these dimensions are not large, and more research is required to

determine whether some of the implications hinted at by these results are valid.

It is evident that the meaning of the relationship between having friends who

use drugs and one’s own use of drugs is more complex than is apparent from

research that focuses only on the drug-using status of friends. By comparing

the network characteristics of users and nonusers, a number of questions have

been raised regarding the nature of friendships and their role in generating

substance use. Clearly, the current effort is but an initial step that has identified

avenues for further inquiry. However, it has demonstrated the importance of

both focusing on an array of network characteristics and examining differences

across racial and ethnic groups.

NOTES

1. Social learning theory is an exception (Akers 1985) because it states that

people learn from others through the processes of operant conditioning.

2. For more detailed information concerning the sampling strategy and

characteristics, see Farnworth and colleagues (1990).

REFERENCES

Akers, R.L. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. 2d ed. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth, 1985.

Ayers, M., and Clark, M. “Reciprocity and Junior High School Friendships.”

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological

Association, Atlanta, GA, 1985.

Becerra, R.M. The Mexican American family. In: Mindel, C.H.; Habenstein,

R.W.; and Wright, R., Jr., eds. Ethnic Families in America. New York:

Elsevier, 1988. pp. 141-159.

125
Booth, M.W.; Castro, F.G.; and Anglin, M.D. What do we know about Hispanic

substance abuse? A review of the literature. In: Glick, R., and Moore, J., eds.

Drugs in Hispanic Communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press, 1990. pp. 21-44.

Bott, E. Family and Social Networks. London: Tavistock, 1957.

Clark, M.L. Friendships and peer relationships of black adolescents. In: Jones,

R.L., ed. Black Adolescents. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press,

1989. pp. 175-205.

Conger, R. Social control and social learning models of delinquent behavior: A

synthesis. Criminology 14:17-40, 1976.

De La Rosa, M.R. Natural support systems of Hispanics: A key dimension for

their well-being. Health Soc Work 15:181-190, 1988.

De La Rosa, M.R.; Khalsa, J.H.; and Rouse, B.A. Hispanics and illicit drug use:

A review of recent findings. lnt J Addict 25:665-691, 1990.

Delgado, M., and Humm-Delgado, D. Natural support systems: Source of

strength in Hispanic communities. Soc Work 27:83-89, 1982.

Farnworth, M.; Thornberry, T.P.; Lizotte, A.J.; and Krohn, M.D. “Sampling

Design and Implementation.” Technical Report No. 1. Albany, NY: School of

Criminal Justice, The University at Albany, 1990.

Fischer, C.S. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.

Fischer, C.S.; Jackson, R.M.; Stueve, C.A.; Gerson, K.; Jones, L.M.; and

Baldassare, M. Networks and Places. New York: Free Press, 1977.

Friday, P.C., and Hage, J. Youth and crime and post industrial societies: An

integrated perspective. Criminology 14:347-368, 1976.

Gfoerer, J., and De La Rosa, M. Protective and risk factors associated with drug

use among Hispanic youth. J Addict Dis, in press.

Gilmore, M.R.; Hawkins, J.D.; Day, L.E.; and Catalano, R.F. Friendship and

deviance: New evidence on an old controversy. J Early Adolesc, in press.

Giordano, P.C.; Cernkovich, S.A.; and Pugh, M.D. Friendships and

delinquency. Am J Sociol 91:1170-1202, 1986.

Hallinan, M.T., and Teixeira, R.A. Opportunities and constraints: Black-white

differences in the formation of interracial friendships. Child Dev 58:1358-

1371, 1987.

Hawkins, J.D., and Fraser, M.W. Social networks of street drug users: A

comparison of two theories. Soc Work Res Abstr 85:3-12, 1985.

Kandel, D.B. Convergences in prospective longitudinal surveys of drug use in

normal populations. In: Kandel, D.B., ed. Longitudinal Research on Drug Use.

New York: Wiley, 1978a. pp. 1-40.

Kandel, D.B. Similarity in real life adolescent friendship pairs. J Pers Soc

Psychol 36:306-312, 1978b.

Kandel, D.B. On processes of peer influences in adolescent drug use: A

developmental perspective. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse 4:139-163, 1985.

126
Kandel, D.B., and Davies, M. Friendship networks, intimacy and illicit drug use

in young adulthood: A comparison of two competing theories. Criminology

29(3):441-470, 1991.

Kornhauser, R.S. Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic

Models. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Krohn, M.D. The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of

delinquent behavior. Soc Probl 33:601-613, 1986.

Krohn, M.D.; Massey, J.L.; and Zielinski, M. Role overlap, network multiplexity,

and adolescent deviant behavior. Soc Psychol Q 51:346-356, 1988.

Laumann, E.O. Bonds of Pluralism. New York: Wiley, 1973.

Lin, N.; Dean, A.; and Ensel, W. Social Support, Life Events and Depression.

New York: Academic Press, 1986.

Moreno, J.L. Contributions of sociometry to research methodology in sociology.

Am Social Rev 12:287-292, 1947.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Substance use and ethnicity: Differential

impact of peer and adult models. J Psychol 120:83-95, 1986.

Sánchez-Ayéndez, M. The Puerto Rican American family. In: Mindel, C.H.;

Habenstein, R.W.; and Wright, R., Jr., eds. Ethnic Families in America. New

York: Elsevier, 1988. pp. 173-195.

Selno, G.W., and Crano, W.D. Formal and informal group affiliations:

Implications for alcohol and drug use among adolescents. J Stud Alcohol

47:48-52, 1986.

Simmel, G. Der Streit and Die Kreuzung sozialer Kreise (Conflict and the Web

of Group Affiliations). Translated by K.H. Wolford and R.H. Bendix. New York:

Free Press, 1922.

Singleton, E.G. Substance use and black youth: Implications of cultural and

ethnic differences in adolescent alcohol, cigarette, and illicit drug use. In:

Jones, R.L., ed. Black Adolescents. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press, 1989. pp. 385-402.

Thornberry, T.P. “Empirical Support for Interactional Theory: A Review of the

Literature.” Working Paper #5, Rochester Youth Development Study. Albany,

NY: School of Criminal Justice, The University at Albany, 1990.

Wellman, B., and Leighton, B. Networks, neighborhoods and communities:

Approaches to the study of the community question. Urban Affairs Q 14:463-

490,1979.

Wister, A.V., and Avison, W.R. Friendly persuasion: A social network analysis

of sex differences in marijuana use. Int J Addict 17:523-541, 1982.

127
AUTHORS

Marvin D. Krohn, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Terence P. Thornberry, Ph.D.

Professor of Criminal Justice

Rochester Youth Development Study

State University of New York at Albany

135 Western Avenue

Albany, NY 12222

128
Examining Conceptual Models for

Understanding Drug Use Behavior

Among American Indian Youth

Jeff King and Julian F. Thayer

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol and other drug abuse is of most serious concern among American

Indian populations (Beauvais et al. 1989; Segal 1989; Young 1988). Recent

research has found that there is more substance abuse among American

Indians than most, if not all, other ethnic minority groups in the United States

(Beauvais et al. 1985, 1989; Office for Substance Abuse Prevention 1990).

Seventy-five percent of all American Indian deaths are related to alcohol (Young

1988), and 5 of 10 major causes of death among American Indians are directly

attributable to alcohol: automobile crashes, cirrhosis of the liver, alcohol

dependency, suicide, and homicide (Andre 1979; Jones-Saumty and Zeiner

1985).

Lifetime prevalence rates for alcohol use among American Indian adolescents

have been shown to average 80 percent or higher (Beauvais et al. 1989; King

et al., in press). Hence, the risks for American Indian adolescents for deviant

drinking behaviors are greater than those for many other ethnic populations

(May 1982).

American Indian youth begin using an array of substances at an earlier age

than their white counterparts (Cockerham et al. 1976; Okwumabua and

Duryea 1987; Young 1988). They are more likely to try marijuana and to

begin this experimentation at an earlier age (Office for Substance Abuse

Prevention 1990; Young 1988). Inhalant use is twice as high for young

American Indians than the national average. Toluene-based solvents

are among the first drugs used by American Indian youth and often precede

the first time alcohol is used (Beauvais et al. 1985). Substance abuse reaches

near epidemic proportions in American Indian boarding schools (Dinges and

Duong-Tran 1989). May (1982) noted that, in general, American Indian

129
boarding schools are characterized by a high concentration of high-risk or

problem youth. Dinges and Duong-Tran (1989) found that lifetime prevalence

rates for alcohol use in a boarding school population reached 93 percent,

and 53 percent of these students were considered to be at an at-risk level for

serious alcohol abuse. King and colleagues (in press) found that one of

five American Indian boarding school students used alcohol at least every

weekend and that one of four had experimented with inhalants. Noting that

approximately 20 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native student

populations attend boarding schools, reasons for these high rates of substance

abuse must be examined (U.S. Department of the Interior 1988).

Although high prevalence rates for alcohol and other drug use have been well

established among American Indian youth, explanations for these behaviors

have yet to be tested scientifically (Oetting and Beauvais 1990). Attempts to

identify and understand the factors contributing to these high rates of alcohol

and other drug abuse have considered various causes.

Life stress factors have been postulated to predict rates of alcohol and other

drug use among adolescents (Bruns and Geist 1984; Carman 1979; Labouvie

1986; Chassin et al. 1988). Stressful life events heighten during adolescent

development with social adjustment factors, separation, individuation, career

issues, and peer pressures becoming paramount, Hence, the theory has

developed that alcohol and other drug use may be an escape or a way of

buffering the effects of these stressors. Several studies have found strong

correlations between drug use and number of stressful life events (Bruns

and Geist 1984; Headlam et al. 1979; Newcomb and Harlow 1986). Labouvie

(1986) has hypothesized that life stress factors contribute to poor social

relations. Substance abuse becomes a way of coping with these difficulties.

Despite the widely recognized stress of life in American Indian communities

(Bechtold et al., in press), this aspect has just begun to be examined among

American Indian youth (King et al., in press).

Social support has been identified as a moderating factor that reduces the

impact of stressors that may contribute to substance use (Aneshensel and

Huba 1984; Segal et al. 1980). Research efforts have examined the relative

effects of family and friend support (Wills and Vaughan 1989; Zucker and

Gomberg 1986). Degree of family support appears to be inversely related to

rates of substance use (Chassin et al. 1988; Mann et al. 1987; Wills 1986; Wills

and Vaughan 1989). However, during adolescence, friend support becomes

increasingly more important than parental or family support (Zucker and Noll

1982). Friend support has been consistently linked to rates of substance use

(Jessor 1987; Smith et al. 1989; Swaim et al. 1989; Wills and Vaughan 1989).

Again, examination of the influence of social support among American Indian

adolescents has received very little attention (King et al., in press).

130
Psychological and emotional distress has also been studied in relation to

adolescent substance use (J.J. King and J.F. Thayer, unpublished data:

Russell and Mehrabian 1977; Watson and Clark 1984). Some studies have

found only minimal relationships between emotional and psychological distress

and substance use (Johnson and Matre 1978; Labouvie 1986; Oetting et al.

1988; Swaim et al. 1989), whereas others have found that substance abuse

serves as a buffer to or an escape from negative affect (Aneshensel and Huba

1983; Blane et al. 1968; Lex 1987; Watson and Clark 1984). Questions of this

nature are only now being asked about American Indian youth.

Researchers now agree that no one predictor, in isolation, can account for

the variability in the nature and pattern of substance use (Aneshensel and

Huba 1984; Stein et al. 1987; Swaim et al. 1989). The most promising models

for substance abuse consist of multiple contributing factors (Aneshensel and

Huba 1984; King et al., in press; Newcomb and Harlow 1986; Smith et al.

1989).

Aneshensel and Huba (1984) developed a multifactor model that examined the

effects of life stress, social support, illness, alcohol use, and depression. They

found that life stress significantly influenced levels of social support, depression,

alcohol use, and illness. They also found that social support mediated the

impact of life stress on these other factors.

Multifaceted models of this kind hold the most promise for examining the area

of substance abuse. The study discussed in this chapter examines two of the

more prominent theoretical approaches in this area: the life stress/social

support model as proposed by Aneshensel and Huba (1984) and the peer

cluster theory as postulated by Oetting and Beauvais (1986).

The life stress model proposes that the primary predictive factors for

substance abuse are life stressors and degree of social support. In this

particular framework, alcohol and other drug use is viewed as a coping

strategy that reduces the impact of life stress. Social support serves as a

mediating variable between life stress and substance use; that is, the greater

the social support, the less likely it is that one needs to use alcohol or other

drugs.

The peer cluster theory (Oetting and Beauvais 1986) hypothesizes that the

strongest predictive factor for substance use is peer influence. The group with

which the individual most closely associates determines where, when, and

how alcohol and other drugs are used. This cluster group also determines

the attitudes and beliefs about alcohol and other drugs. The peer cluster

theory does not ignore other psychosocial factors; rather, they are seen as

background variables that influence the adolescent’s choice of peer group.

These factors include social structure (e.g., family support), socialization

131
processes (e.g., religious identification, school success), attitudes and beliefs,

and psychological factors (e.g., self-confidence, alienation).

This study utilizes structural equation modeling (Jöreskog and Sörborn

1989) to test the relative value of these two theories. Data were collected

as part of a longitudinal biannual survey of American Indian high school

students. This survey was conducted by the National Center for American

Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research (NCAIANMHR). The

survey began at the request of the tribal administration because it wanted

to better understand how these students were doing academically, socially,

and psychologically and to what extent alcohol and other drugs were being

used. Although more than 20 percent of all American Indian children attend

boarding schools (U.S. Department of the Interior 1988), there are significant

differences among tribes and among American Indian boarding schools.

Therefore, other studies similar to this one must be conducted at other

American Indian boarding schools as well as among non-boarding school

American Indian children before a consensus can be formed regarding

substance abuse among this population. Because data analyses of this

survey are in the early stages, only cross-sectional analyses are available

at this time.

METHODS

Subjects

Subjects were recruited from a tribally administered boarding school in the

Western United States. Seventy-five percent of the students reside in the

campus dormitories throughout the school year. Most of the students belong

to five local tribes and come from nearby areas within the State. The sample

size was 177 students for the life stress analysis and 169 students for the peer

cluster analysis. Variation in sample size was due to the number of completed

measures within each analysis. The participant age range was from 12 to 19

years, with an average age of 16. Gender participation was approximately

equal.

Procedures

A self-report questionnaire was administered to the students during their

second-period classes. Participation was voluntary. Teachers explained the

nature and purpose of the study and administered the informed consent and

questionnaire to the students. NCAIANMHR staff members were onsite to

assist if necessary. Confidentiality was stressed, and compensation for

participants was provided through raffle prizes.

132
Measures

The student questionnaire comprises 11 areas of measurement: (1)

sociodemographic data; (2) educational attitudes; (3) cultural affiliation;

(4) health characteristics; (5) stressful life events specific to students of

this age, educational setting, and cultural background; (6) coping strategies:

(7) social support; (8) kind, frequency, attributions, and consequences of

substance use; (9) depression; (10) suicidal behavior; and (11) anxiety.

For the purposes of this study, the analyses were restricted to measures

related to the theoretical constructs within each model. The life stress model

utilized measures assessing alcohol and other drug use, depression, social

support, and stressful life events, The Major Life Events scale, recently

developed by Lewinsohn and colleagues in the Oregon Adolescent Depression

Project (J.A. Andrews P.M. Lewinsohn, A. Hops, and R.E. Roberts,

unpublished data), assesses the occurrence of 14 major life events within the

past 6 months among the adolescent, his or her family, and friends. The

Hassles scale is a 20-item measure of recent events also developed by

Lewinsohn and colleagues. It was modified to include 10 additional items

specific to the American Indian boarding school population and setting.

Additions to the scale included items concerning religious activities and beliefs

(e.g., having to stay at school when ceremonial activities are happening at

home), specific issues found in boarding schools (e.g., kitchen duty, distance

from family), and cultural issues (e.g., loneliness for others who speak the same

tribal language). Students were asked to report those events occurring within

the past 4 weeks and to rate each event (range: 0=not happen at all; 5=happen

almost every day). Perceived Friend Support and Perceived Family Support

are 20-item subscales of the Perceived Social Support Inventory (Procidano

and Heller 1983) that assess perceived level of support from family and/or

friends (e.g., “I rely on my friends for emotional support,” range: 0=always

false; 5=always true). Depression was assessed by the Inventory to Diagnose

Major Depression (IDD) (Zimmerman and Coryell 1986), a 22-item scale that

refers to depressive symptoms occurring within the past 2 weeks (e.g., 0=“I do

not feel sad or depressed”: 4=“l am so sad or unhappy that I can’t stand it”).

An alcohol and other drug questionnaire assessed frequency, quantity, first

use, self-identification as a user, and other items for alcohol and other drugs.

Drug items included those for marijuana, inhalants, and other drugs (i.e.,

hallucinogens, barbiturates, and amphetamines). Among the specific items

used in these analyses was alcohol use; three measures asked how often the

student is drinking (range: 0=never; 5=every day), in what amounts (range:

0=none; 4=until “high” or drunk), and self-identification as a drinker (range:

0=a nondrinker; 5=a very heavy drinker). Use of marijuana, inhalants, and

other drugs was assessed with two items for each drug category (frequency of

marijuana use, other drug use, and inhalant use): an item that asks how often a

133
student has ever tried a particular drug (range: 0=never; 4=every day) and a

self-identification as a user item (range: 0=a nonuser; 5=a very heavy user).

The peer cluster model employed the measures of social support, parental

expectations, academic goals, school adjustment, social support, peer drinking

group, and alcohol use. Peer group items for other drug use were not included

in the survey: thus, only the alcohol component was examined in this analysis.

Analytic Strategy

First, measurement models were developed for each construct. For the life

stress model, the construct of “life stress” comprised three subscales involving

both Hassles and Major Life Events items. Constructs of “family support” and

“friend support” each consisted of three subscales. (The “substance use”

constructs comprised the items mentioned earlier and will be discussed in

greater detail later.) The “depression” construct was derived from a single

indicator, the sum score of the IDD items.

For the peer cluster model, the two constructs for social support were “parental

support” and “friend support,” each of which comprised two subscales: positive

support and negative support, “Parental expectations” comprised a single item

score (range: 1=no expectations: 7=high expectations). “Academic goals”

consisted of responses to three related questions: “What are the chances that

you will complete this school year?“; “What are the chances you will receive a

high school diploma?” (range for these two items: 1=not at all likely; 5=highly

likely): and “My educational goal is to . . .” (range: 1=drop out; 5=receive

graduate training). “School adjustment” included responses to four items:

“How do you feel about going to school?“; “What is your grade in school right

now?“; “Compared with friends your age, how well do you do in school?”;

and “When did you last have counseling or any other mental health service?”

(range: 1=never; 5=within the last 6 months). “Peer alcohol associations”

were based on the response to the question, “Who do you drink with?” Three

peer-related items were selected: “friends my own age,” “older friends,” and

“alone.” The “alcohol use” construct was similar to the one used in the life

stress model with an additional item, “In the last month, how often did you get

drunk?” (range: 0=none; 4=10 or more times).

Structural equation modeling (Jöreskog and Sörborn 1989) was employed for

analyses of the full models containing these constructs (depicted in figures 1

and 2).

Based on the literature previously reviewed, several hypotheses were

developed as guides for the subsequent analyses. For the life stress model,

age and gender were considered to be independent or exogenous predictors

134
of each construct, Life stress was postulated to predict perceived family and/

or friend support and depression as well as levels of substance use. Both

friend support and family support were hypothesized to predict levels of

depression and substance use and to mediate the effects of stress on these

outcomes,

For the peer cluster model, parental expectations were hypothesized to predict

levels of friend and parental support, expected academic achievement, and

school adjustment, These in turn were hypothesized to predict peer alcohol

associations, and peer alcohol associations were hypothesized to predict level

of alcohol use.

FIGURE 1. Hypothesized life stress, social support, and substance abuse

model

NOTE: Appropriate error terms were estimated but for the sake of clarity were

not included in the figure.

135
FIGURE 2. Hypothesized peer cluster model

NOTE: Appropriate error terms were estimated but for the sake of clarity were

not included in the figure.

Because these two analyses are cross-sectional, prediction is statistically

derived based on the theoretical models, rather than derived from repeated

measures over time. Thus, the term “predict” will be italicized when discussed

in the results section.

RESULTS

Llfe Stress Model

A full structural equation model was then developed and tested. Initially, a

full model was derived such that age and gender were allowed to predict all

endogenous constructs; life stress predicted social support, depression,

and substance use; and social support predicted levels of depression and

substance use. Subsequently, the model was trimmed by fixing to zero those

paths that were not significantly different from zero. The final model is

presented in figure 3.

Structural equation modeling assesses the statistical fit of a fitted covariance

matrix using the hypothesized model to the original input matrix. In the case

of the life stress model, the adjusted goodness-of-fit index was .836, suggesting

136
FIGURE 3. American Indian boarding school students: life stress, social

support, and substance abuse model (trimmed path model)

NOTE: Correlated equation error (PSls) was allowed between depression and

substance use constructs. LISREL path coefficients presented are the

standardized solutions and standard errors, respectively.

*p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01

that the model provided an adequate fit for the data. An index greater than .90

suggests a good fit (Cole 1987). The structural analyses revealed that, among

the exogenous factors, age was positively related to both friend and family

support. That is, older students tended to perceive receiving support more than

younger students. Gender was not significantly related to any of the constructs.

As hypothesized, life stress was positively related to depression and to all

four drug use factors. Specifically, the greater the life stress, the more likely

one is to feel depressed and/or to use alcohol or other drugs. Life stress was

also negatively related to family support. Students experiencing greater life

stress perceived less support from their family. For the most part, social

support did not predict levels of depression or substance use. However,

137
perceiving greater degrees of support from family did predict lower levels of

alcohol use. It is important to note that, although the relationships between

these variables are statistically significant, they do not account for much of the

variance. This may be due in part to the low number of subjects in the study.

Peer Cluster Model

A full structural equation model was also developed and tested for the

peer cluster model. First, a full model was derived such that parental

expectations predicted levels of friend and parental support, expected

academic achievement, and school adjustment. Each of these factors

predicted type of peer alcohol associates, and peer alcohol associates

predicted alcohol use. Following this, the model was trimmed by fixing to

zero those paths that were not significantly different from zero. The final

model is presented in figure 4.

The adjusted goodness-of-fit index for this model was .808, suggesting

an adequate fit to the data. The structural analyses demonstrated that parental

expectations were positively related to levels of both friend and family support

and to school adjustment. Parental expectations did not predict the child’s

FIGURE 4. Peer cluster model (trimmed path model)

NOTE: LISREL path coefficients presented are the standardized solutions and

standard errors, respectively.

*p<.10; **p<.05; ***p<.01

138
personal academic goals, Most significant was level of family support.

Apparently, when parental expectations are high for their child, parents

also provide more support. Adolescents who have parents with higher

expectations for them also tend to have greater support from their peers

and tend to adjust to their school environment better.

Both friend support and school adjustment were positively related to choosing

same-age drinking partners. This finding may suggest that these youth are

choosing healthier partners, given that they are doing well in school and have

healthy support from friends and family.

Both same-age drinking partners and older drinking associates predicted

alcohol use. Because the older drinking cohort was not related to any of the

other factors, it might be suggested that this is a different type of alcohol use

and a different type of cohort group. However, this notion needs empirical

validation.

DISCUSSION

In conclusion, two promising theoretical models for predicting substance

abuse were examined. Both appeared to fit the data equally well, suggesting

that the constructs employed by both models are identifying important factors

involved in rates of alcohol and other drug use. Future analyses may involve

examining relationships among factors in both models and incorporating the

most significant factors into a more comprehensive model. For example,

determining the effects of life stress on family strength factors may reveal

important information on where or how family strength originates and maintains

itself.

The life stress and social support theory identified life stress as a significant

influence on levels of family support and drug use. That it did not predict

levels of alcohol use is surprising, and why it did not remains unclear.

Apparently, reasons for alcohol use differ from those for using other drugs.

Family support moderates rates of alcohol use and is also itself influenced

by life stress factors. Overall, life stress appears to be a major influence on

factors related to substance use.

The peer cluster theory also identified factors significant to substance use.

Family strength or, in the case of this analysis, parental expectations were

found to influence levels of friend support, family support, and school

adjustment. Adolescents who received greater friend support and had

better school adjustment chose same-age peers to drink with. These

drinking arrangements seem categorically different from those adolescents

who drink with older peers. Further analyses may reveal the specific

distinctions between these peer cluster groups.

139
Difficulties encountered in these analyses were threefold. First, not all the

constructs in both models were perfectly representative of the constructs of

the proposed models. For example, using parental expectations as the sole

indicator for family strength may be only a partial representation of that construct.

Better measures for each construct may improve the fit of the model as well as

heighten understanding of the predictive value of these factors, Also, additional

measures, such as acculturative status and traditionality, may add to the model’s

specificity.

Second, because of the cross-sectional nature of the data represented here,

conclusions about the ability of these factors to predict substance use over time

remain theoretical. The longitudinal study from which the present data were

drawn will be used in later analyses to further explore the causal nature of

these relationships.

Third, although statistically significant, each of these models accounts for only

a small portion of the total variance. It is important that patterns for alcohol

and other substance use are identified empirically, but it is equally important to

acknowledge that there are many other contributing factors for alcohol and other

drug use that are not accounted for with current methods. Longitudinal studies

as well as structural modeling techniques employed in substance abuse

research hold promise for increasing understanding in this critical area.

Structural equation modeling provides many advantages for data analysis;

most important, it offers the ability to test multiple predictors of substance use

simultaneously. To fully understand the multifaceted nature of substance use,

future research must encompass multiple factors in the design and analyses.

Furthermore, with structural equation modeling, longitudinal paths can be

derived to chart the stability of the dynamics among related factors over time.

Equally important, structural modeling allows for various theoretical models

of substance abuse to be examined. As seen from the results of this study,

the comparison of two promising models in the area of substance abuse has

directed future research to combine significant factors from both into a more

comprehensive approach. This pursuit may provide discrete, substantial

information that is sorely needed for determining intervention and policy for

the area of substance abuse among American Indian adolescents,

REFERENCES

Andre, J.M. The Epidemiology of Alcoholism Among American Indians and

Alaskan Natives. Albuquerque, NM: Indian Health Services, 1979.

Aneshensel, C.S., and Huba, G.J. Depression, alcohol use, and smoking

over one year: A four-wave longitudinal causal model. J Abnorm Psychol

92(3):134-150, 1983.

140
Aneshensel, C.S., and Huba, G.J. An integrative causal model of the

antecedents and consequences of depression over one year. Res Commun

Ment Health 4:35-72, 1984.

Beauvais, F.; Oetting, E.R.; and Edwards, R.W. Trends in the use of inhalants

among American Indian adolescents. White Cloud J 3:3-11, 1985.

Beauvais, F.; Oetting, E.R.; Wolf, W.; and Edwards, R. American Indian youth

and drugs 1976-1987: A continuing program. Am J Public Health 79(5):634-

636, 1989.

Bechtold, D.W.; Manson, S.M.; and Shore, J.H. Psychosocial consequences of

stress among Native American adolescents. In: Liberman, R., and Yager, J.,

eds. Stress in Psychiatry. New York: Plenum, in press.

Blane, H.T.; Hill, M.J.; and Brown, E. Alienation, self-esteem and attitudes

toward drinking in high-school students. Q J Stud Alcohol 29:350-354, 1968.

Bruns, C., and Geist, C.S. Stressful life events and drug use among

adolescents, J Human Stress 10:135-139, 1984.

Carman, R.S. Motivations for drug use and problematic outcomes among rural

junior high school students. Addict Behav 4:91-93, 1979.

Chassin, L.; Mann, L.M.; and Sher, K.J. Self-awareness theory, family history of

alcoholism, and adolescent alcohol involvement. J Abnorm Psychol

97(2):206-217, 1988.

Cockerham, W.C.; Forslund, M.A.; and Raboin, R.M. Drug use among white

and American Indian high school youth. Int J Addict 11:209-220, 1976.

Cole, D.A. Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research.

J Consult Clin Psychol 55(4):584-594, 1987.

Dinges, N.G., and Duong-Tran, Q. “Indian Adolescent Mental Health Screening

Project: Replication and Cross-Cultural Validation.” Final report to the Mental

Health Program. Portland Area Mental Health Service, 1989.

Headlam, H.K.; Goldsmith, J.; Hanenson, I.B.; and Raugh, J.L. Demographic

characteristics of adolescents with self-poisoning: A survey of 235 instances

in Cincinnati, Ohio. Clin Pediatr 18:147, 151, 154, 1979.

Jessor, R. Problem-behavior theory, psychosocial development, and adolescent

problem drinking. Br J Addict 82:331-342, 1987.

Johnson, L.V., and Matre, M. Anomie and alcohol use. Drinking patterns in

Mexican American and Anglo neighborhoods, J Stud Alcohol 39(5):894-902,

1978.

Jones-Saumty, D.J., and Zeiner, A.R. Sociocultural and psychological factors

related to alcoholism among American Indians and Caucasians, Jpn J

Alcohol Drug Depend 20(4):367-374, 1985.

Jöreskog, K.G., and Sörborn, D. LISREL7: LISREL7 User’s Reference Guide,

Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software Inc., 1989.

King, J.; Beals, J.; Manson, S.M.; and Trimble, J.E. A structural equation model

of factors related to substance abuse among American Indian adolescents.

In: Trimble, J.E.; Bolek, C.S.; and Niemcryk, S., eds. Ethnic and Multicultural

Drug Abuse: Perspectives on Current Research. Binghamton, NY: Haworth

Press, 1992.

141
Labouvie, E.W. Alcohol and marijuana use in relation to adolescent stress. Int J

Addict 21(3):333-345, 1986.

Lex, B.W. Review of alcohol problems in ethnic minority groups. J Consult Clin

Psychol 55(3):293-300, 1987.

Mann, L.M.; Chassin, L.; and Sher, K. Alcohol expectancies and the risk for

alcoholism. J Consult Clin Psychol 55(3):411-417, 1987.

May, P.A. Substance abuse and American Indians: Prevalence and

susceptibility. Int J Addict 17:1185-1209, 1982.

Newcomb, M.D., and Harlow, L.L. Life events and substance use among

adolescents: Mediating effects of perceived loss of control and

meaninglessness in life. J Personal Soc Psychol 51(3):564-577, 1986.

Oetting, E.; Beauvais, F.; and Edwards, R.W. Alcohol and Indian youth: Social

and psychological correlates and prevention. J Drug Iss 18:87-101, 1988.

Oetting, E.R., and Beauvais, F. Peer cluster theory: Drugs and the adolescent.

J Counsel Dev 65(1):17-30, 1986.

Oetting, E.R., and Beauvais, F. Adolescent drug use: Findings of national and

local surveys. J Consult Clin Psychol 8(4):385-394, 1990.

Office for Substance Abuse Prevention. Breaking New Ground for American

Indian and Alaska Native Youth: Program Summaries. OSAP Technical

Report 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, U.S. Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental

Health Administration, 1990.

Okwumabua, J.O., and Duryea, E.J. Age of onset, periods of risk, and patterns

of progression in drug use among American Indian high school students. Int

J Addict 22(12):1269-1276, 1987.

Procidano, M.E., and Heller, K. Measures of perceived social support from

friends and from family: Three validation studies. Am J Commun Psychol

11:1-24, 1983.

Russell, J.A., and Mehrabian, A. Environmental effects on drug use. Environ

Psychol Nonverbal Behav 2:109-123, 1977.

Segal, B. Drug-Taking Behavior Among School-Aged Youth: The Alaska

Experience and Comparisons With Lower-48 States. Binghamton, NY:

Haworth Press, 1989.

Segal, B.; Huba, G.J.; and Singer, J.L. Drugs, Daydreaming, and Personality:

A Study of College Youth. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980.

Smith, M.B.; Canter, W.A.; and Robin, A.L. A path model of an Adolescent

Drinking Model derived from Problem Behavior Theory. J Stud Alcohol

50(2):128-142, 1989.

Stein, J.A.; Newcomb, M.D.; and Bentler, P.M. An 8-year study of multiple

influences on drug use and drug use consequences. J Personal Soc Psychol

53(6):1094-1105, 1987.

Swaim, R.C.; Oetting, E.R.; Edwards, R.W.; and Beauvais, F. Links from

emotional distress to adolescent drug use: A path model. J Consult Clin

Psychol 57(2):227-231, 1989.

142
U.S. Department of the Interior. Report on BIA Education: Excellence in Indian

Education Through Effective Schools Process. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1988.

Watson, D., and Clark, L.A. Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience

aversive emotional states. Psychol Bull 96:465-490, 1984.

Wills, T.A. Stress and coping in adolescents: Relationship to substance use in

urban school samples. Health Psychol 5:503-530, 1986.

Wills, T.A., and Vaughan, R. Social support and substance use in early

adolescence. J Behav Med 12(4):321-339, 1989.

Young, T.J. Substance use and abuse among Native Americans, Clin Psychol

Rev 8:125-138, 1988.

Zimmerman, M., and Coryell, W. The Inventory to Diagnose Major Depression

(IDD): A self-report scale to diagnose major depressive disorder. J Consult

Clin Psychol 35(1):55-59, 1986.

Zucker, R.A., and Gomberg, E.S.L. Etiology of alcoholism reconsidered: The

case for a biopsychosocial process, Am Psychol 41:783-793, 1986.

Zucker, R.A., and Noll, R.B. Precursors and developmental influences on

drinking and alcoholism: Etiology from a longitudinal perspective. In: AIcohol

Consumption and Related Problems. Alcohol and Health Monograph No. 1.

Rockville, MD: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1982. pp.

289-327.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The preparation of this chapter was partially supported by National Institute of

Mental Health grants MH-42473-05 and MH-00833-01, National Institute on

Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant AA-07180-05, and National Institute on

Drug Abuse grant DA-06076-01,

AUTHORS

Jeff King, Ph.D.

Denver Indian Health and Family Services

1739 Vine Street

Denver. CO 80206

Julian F. Thayer, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Psychology

Pennsylvania State University

517 Bruce Moore Building

University Park, PA 16802

143
Acculturation Strain Theory: Its

Application in Explaining Drug Use

Behavior Among Cuban and Other

Hispanic Youth

William A. Vega, Rick Zimmerman, Andres Gil,

George J. Warheit, and Eleni Apospori

INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses central issues regarding the conceptualization and

measurement of culture change and their relationships to drug use among

Hispanic adolescents. This is an important area of research because the

Hispanic population of the United States is increasing rapidly and much

remains to be learned that could assist with the development of efficacious

interventions. The field of culture change and drug use among Hispanic

adolescents has been the focus of recent acculturation studies (Szapocznik et

al. 1977, 1978a, 1978b, 1979a, 1979b; Szapocznik and Truss 1978). These

studies, which were based primarily on clinical observations, found that culture

change was more accelerated for Cuban male adolescents than for either

female adolescents or their parents, often resulting in intergenerational

conflicts about behavioral expectations. When this occurred, deviant behavior

and drug use increased despite parental efforts to regain control over their

children. Simply stated, this model postulates that “gaps” in cultural orientation

between male adolescents and their parents will likely produce family conflicts

leading to drug use in the younger generation.

This is a provocative finding with multiple ramifications. Although this

explanation is plausible and empirically verifiable, it remains to be

demonstrated under what conditions acculturation gaps or any other

acculturation factors will lead to a drug use outcome. Because it is likely

that many more children who also experience intergenerational acculturation

gaps do not exhibit deviant behavior or become drug users, it is important to

refine one’s thinking for predicting which adolescents are at greatest risk.

A more comprehensive theory must be developed, one that includes

explanatory factors in addition to cultural orientation if it is to be determined

whether intergenerational acculturation gaps have a primary effect on

144
adolescent drug use or whether other factors are mediating this relationship.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the conceptual and empirical bases for

addressing this issue, thereby elaborating and expanding acculturative stress

theory.

CULTURE-CHANGE AND LIFE-CHANGE RESEARCH

Paradoxically, there has never been a formal connection between lifechange and culture-change research. The life-change literature, primarily

embedded in what has come to be known as stress-process research, has

focused on traumatic and persistent stressors to explain negative health

outcomes (Hough 1985). In recent years, this research has proliferated in

social psychiatry and immune-response clinical epidemiology (Lazarus 1966;

Goldberger and Breznitz 1982; Lazarus and Folkman 1984). This research

has included the investigation of gender roles, unemployment, marital

discord, the absence of social support, poverty, and a host of other life

stressors to determine if they singly or cumulatively serve as etiologic

factors in the development of mental or physical disorders. However,

culture change usually has not been incorporated in this research as an

important life-change stressor (Vega et al. 1985). Nonetheless, life-change/

stress-process investigators have developed sophisticated theoretical and

empirical models for understanding how transactions between person and

environment can lead to deleterious outcomes for selected classes of

individuals (e.g., see Pearlin and Schooler 1978 or Pearlin et al. 1981).

Research on culture change historically has been dominated by

anthropologists and sociologists. Early studies have focused either on

(1) the impact of culture change on individuals living within traditional

societies, such as through introduction of new technology, or (2) the social

adaptation of migrants and immigrants in new environments. The research

on immigrants has produced important social-psychological insights about

how individuals deal with culture change and about the potential for

disorganizing effects on personal functioning. Indeed, American sociology

benefited mightily from studies of immigrants. The Chicago School in the

1920s and 1930s derived much of its conceptualization of deviance theory

from observations of immigrants and migrants (Park et al. 1925; Burgess

1926; Thrasher 1927; Wirth 1928). Theories about social control, differential

association, and social marginality were all influenced by observing immigrant

populations.

There are important parallels between the culture-change and stressprocess literatures (Fabrega 1969; Favazza 1980). Both deal with the social

psychological adaptation of individuals faced with challenging environmental

demands. Researchers interested in culture change, however, have tended to

145
prefer explaining individual responses to cultural adaptation by emphasizing

the social processes associated with socialization and/or by addressing the

formulation of subcultures, their persistence, and their development into

enduring enclaves. The work of Stonequist (1937) was an important intellectual

precursor in this regard, and his conceptualization of culture change ties directly

to reference group theory, as well as to contemporary models of acculturation

(Padilla 1980; Keefe and Padilla 1987). For example, Stonequist (1937)

observed that ethnic individuals faced with the problem of adapting to a

dominant culture could either identify fully with the subculture of origin, accept

a new cultural identity as majority group member, or become a “marginal man”

with broad knowledge of both cultures but without total allegiance (or reference

group identification) in either. Stonequist, along with other early scholars,

concluded that the process of cultural assimilation could either be personally

liberating or lead to alienation and isolation.

Mead (1949) distinguished between the problem of cultural adaptation faced by

first- and second-generation immigrants. She reasoned that second-generation

individuals (e.g., children of immigrants) would be more prone toward personal

disorganization than their parents precisely because they were more likely to

face the problem of inconsistent socialization in the context of conflicting culture

expectations. First-generation immigrants were more firmly attached to nationof-origin cultural values, beliefs, and behaviors despite exposure to different

cultural information and lifestyles. Again, these observations converge with

notions about environmental demands and personal responses, which are the

basis of stress-process research.

The wide social science literature on culture change exhibits several major

weaknesses that limit its value for explicating more fully the social and personal

consequences of acculturation and acculturative stressors. First, the processes

of culture and social adjustment are defined only very broadly, making it difficult

to empirically operationalize tests of specific hypotheses. Second, temporal

relationships are not well understood. Do acculturation stressors continue to

occur throughout life? What are the critical life course junctures in culture

change for personal development? Third, do all culture changes have

negative consequences for those who experience them? If not, what are

the characteristics of individuals who are more likely to be adversely affected

(Kuo 1976; Vega et al. 1987)?

Stress-process theory may be useful for clarifying some of these enigmas

because the interplay of stressors and the personal responses to stressors

can be specified and tested. Szapocznik and colleagues suggest that

intergenerational gaps in acculturation produce adolescent drug use, which

is an empirically verifiable postulation. However, this explanation of

intergenerational conflicts, based primarily on clinical observations, fails to

specify a process that renders some individuals vulnerable to drug use whereas

146
others, perhaps even most others, remain drug-free. Indeed, it could be argued

that child-parent conflicts are universal and that culture change is merely an

additive factor. Within this mode of explanation, it may be more important to

focus on why some Hispanic families are more prone than others toward severe

conflicts, even when both face the same burdens of culture change. Factors

such as marital discord, family income, perceived discrimination, and language

problems could be implicated (Vega 1990). And to what extent do personal

characteristics of adolescents predispose them toward intergenerational

conflicts? The use of stress-process models may facilitate disentangling a

series of these interlocked questions, especially if the theory is transactional,

thereby permitting a verification of suspected causal linkages over time.

SYNTHESIZING CULTURE CHANGE AND STRESS THEORY

One of the central premises of stress theory is that the effects of stressors

are nonspecific (Aneshensel et al. 1991). That is, exposure to stressors

increases vulnerability in a generalized way. Therefore, these explanatory

models of stress effects are not problem or disorder specific. In the context

of explaining Hispanic adolescent drug use, a model that takes into account

multiple stressful exposures related to culture change may predict discrete

or simultaneous outcomes such as drug use, behavior problems, or

psychopathology. Another premise of stress theory is that stressors are

only causal when personal resources are inadequate to mediate stressors.

In short, demands must exceed resources to effect a negative outcome

(Warheit 1979).

A model such as that presented in figure 1 allows for the testing of competing

hypotheses about acculturation stressors. It is also compatible with theories

current in deviance research, such as the self-derogation model of Kaplan and

colleagues (1986, 1987). Moreover, and most important, it is a parsimonious

approach to the study of adolescent drug abuse, a research area noted for

clusters of theory and research that are not systematically integrated. As noted

by other investigators (Bry et al. 1982), comprehensive explanatory frameworks

are needed for integration of competing theories. Logically, this should include

testing submodels of acculturative strain in the context of other stress model

factors that may influence their effects.

Note that in figure 1, cultural orientation is postulated as an exogenous

independent variable. Cultural orientation is defined as cultural behaviors and

is conceptualized as a continuum from monocultural Hispanic to monocultural

non-Hispanic white, with the midpoint being biculturalism. Despite obvious

conceptual limitations inherent in a unidimensional approach, this is the logic

employed in most widely used measures of acculturation. However, it is

important to recognize that the model depicted in figure 1 distinguishes cultural

147
FIGURE 1. Integrative framework of Hispanic adolescent drug use

orientation from acculturative stressors and cultural protective factors.

Acculturative stressors include intergenerational gaps in cultural orientation,

language problems, perceived discrimination toward self or significant others,

perceived cultural incompatibilities, and commitment and/or lack of commitment

to culturally prescribed protective values/behaviors such as familism and

cultural pride. An implicit assumption of the model is that acculturative

stressors are interactive and as such are related to the other stressors

found in the domains of family, school, and peer functioning. Table 1

presents a glossary of variable definitions that correspond to figure 1.

This model also assumes that, even in the presence of acculturative

stressors, illicit drug use will not occur if mediating factors are present.

For example, if personal attitudes about illicit drug use are negative, family

functioning is adequate, and positive self-esteem and internal controls are

present in the adolescent, these should operate conjointly to mitigate the

impact of acculturative and other stressors. This model does not constitute

a basis for an integrated theory of acculturative stress and drug use among

Hispanic adolescents in its current form. Rather, it is a logical step toward

formulating such a theory because it permits the operationalization of

theoretical constructs that can be tested empirically and, as a consequence,

determine the salience of acculturative stressors as causal factors in the onset

of drug use and drug-related problems. It is also a highly synthetic approach

because it provides a basis for incorporating important theoretical components

of social control, subcultural deviance, self-derogation, social learning, and

other social psychological theories as well.

148
TABLE 1. Sample variables for the integrative framework

Variables Operational Definitions

Background factors

Personal variables

History of immigration

Cultural orientation,

ethnic identity

Stressors

Family risk factors

School risk factors

Network/peer risk factors

Acculturative stressors

Mediators

Personality traits

Attitudes about deviance/drugs

Protective factors

Social support

History of health, learning, emotional, and

behavioral problems

Residential mobility

Length of residence in the United States

Context of exit from country of origin

Languageuse

Family cultural orientation

Personal values and practices

Familism

Family socioeconomic status

Parental drug use

Sibling drug use

Low family pride

Divorce/separation of parents

Broken home

School attendance

School performance

Teacher derogation

School behavior

Perception of peer approval for drug use

Perception of deviant peer behavior

Family acculturation conflicts

Ethnic loyalty

Language-related conflicts

Intergenerational gaps

Perceptions of discrimination

Risk taking

Attention deficit problems

Withdrawal/antisocial

Attitudes about deviant acts

Self-esteem

Family cohesion and adaptability

Family pride

Parental social support

Social support from friends

149
OPERATlONALlZATlON OF ACCULTURATION AND ACCULTURATIVE

STRESS

Although acculturation measures are usually designed to measure cultural

orientation, they are frequently used as an indirect measure of stress

vulnerability. For example, hypothetically, if a second-generation Hispanic

has a non-Hispanic white cultural orientation, as assessed by an acculturation

scale, this person is presumed to be at increased risk for drug use or mental

health problems because he or she is exposed to more culture-based conflicts

and behavioral expectations favoring experimentation with drugs. This

approach is exemplified by Burnam and colleagues (1987), who report that

high-acculturation Hispanic individuals, in this case Mexican-Americans,

were more likely to have a history of DSM-III psychiatric disorders, including

substance abuse problems, at some time in their lives. It is important to note,

however, that these findings are limited for the purposes of this chapter in

that no direct assessment of acculturative stressors was employed.

It is the authors’ premise that conceptual clarity requires distinguishing cultural

orientation from acculturative stressors. Furthermore, acculturative stressors

and cultural protective factors need to be carefully defined and delineated.

Although there are numerous scales for assessing acculturation level, there

are almost none available for identifying the acculturative stressors or cultural

protective factors that may be related to adolescent drug use and other forms

of deviant behavior. Furthermore, there is a need to develop acculturation

(e.g., cultural orientation) and acculturative stress measures that are efficient

for survey research and suitable for use with adolescents belonging to diverse

Hispanic ethnic groups. Most scales now in use were developed for use in

only one Hispanic ethnic group (e.g., Cubans, Mexican-Americans).

DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES

This chapter reports the development of several scales intended to measure

cultural orientation and acculturative stressors. These measures were

developed for use in a large longitudinal study of adolescent drug use. The

study is explicitly designed to identify interethnic and intraethnic differences in

prevalence, stages, and risk factors for drug use, as well as to test competing

social psychological theories of adolescent drug abuse, including acculturative

strain. The eligible cohort for the baseline survey included all entry-level

middle-school boys, as well as a subsample of girls, in the greater Miami,

FL, area. In fall 1990 there were approximately 10,838 eligible boys within

48 schools who received consent forms, More than one-half of these students

are of Hispanic descent. After using active consent procedures, 8,592 consent

forms were returned. The Hispanic students returned 81.9 percent of their

consent forms, and the overall return rate was 79.4 percent. After adjusting

150
for missing information and for deletion of some students from the sample for

administrative reasons, questionnaires were returned by approximately 6,700

male students. Data on a subsample of approximately 700 female students

also were included.

In addition to the data from self-administered student questionnaires, collateral

information was secured from 3,025 parents. The parents were randomly

selected and interviewed by telephone. The overall response rate for the

parent interviews was 87 percent. The data from the student and parent

samples were further augmented by teacher ratings, thereby providing three

discrete observations, at the same time, for each adolescent in the special

subsample. The objective of using collateral informants was to attain a more

comprehensive understanding of the students’ functioning and social

adaptation, other than just his or her own opinion of themselves. Inasmuch

as this is a longitudinal study, the same students will be reinterviewed once a

year for 3 years during middle or junior high school. For students selected at

baseline for collateral informant ratings, the authors will continue to secure

data annually from both parents and teachers.

There was a need to develop scales for use with the Hispanic adolescents to

test the model depicted in figure 1. This scale development work proceeded in

several stages. The pertinent literature was reviewed and acculturation scales

assessing cultural orientation were identified (Padilla 1980; Cuellar et al. 1980;

Szapocznik et al. 1978a; Montgomery and Orozco 1984; Marin et al. 1987). A

similar process was used to identify acculturative strain and cultural protective

factors scales. Much less was available for assessing strains and protective

factors. We used the familism scale developed for use with Puerto Ricans in

New York by Rodriguez and colleagues (Rodriguez and Weisburd 1991). The

acculturative strain scales were original. However, we received guidance from

the work of Cervantes and colleagues (1990).

The final result was a compendium of scales with overlapping content. This list

of measures was refined through pilot-testing using 251 boys and girls of mixed

Hispanic heritage enrolled in the sixth and seventh grades. The acculturation,

acculturative strain, and protective factors scales were factor analyzed using

principal component analysis with varimax rotation. The items were grouped

both by content area and according to original scale configuration. Primarily,

content grouping was used for factor analyses because this technique is more

consistent with the theoretical aims of the study. Factors with eigenvalues of

1.0 or higher were retained as meaningful, and variables with loadings of .50

or higher were retained as indicators.

Because an important goal of this research is to determine what acculturationrelated factors are related to deviance and drug use, preliminary validity studies

were conducted (for details see Vega et al., in press). Other comparisons

151
were made to determine whether the scales were sensitive to nativity, years

in country, and language version of the questionnaire. These analyses

assisted in selecting items/scales for use in the baseline questionnaire.

The acculturation (cultural orientation) scale of seven items that resulted from

this pilot work was also used in the parent interview schedule. This permitted

direct computation of acculturation gaps between parents and children.

However, because these measures were developed using students of mixed

Hispanic heritage, it was not clear whether the performance of the scales,

in terms of internal consistency, factor loadings, and validity tests, would be

similar for Cubans as well as for other Hispanics. The other Hispanic students

constitute a larger proportion of the sampling universe than do the Cuban

students.

The results reported in this chapter compare Cuban and other Hispanic

subsamples on factor analyses results and validity studies using baseline

data. Approximately 4,238 Hispanic students participated in the baseline

survey, and of these, 1,745 were Cuban. The remaining 2,493 were of

other Latin American ancestries. The Cuban boys had longer residence in

the United States and were more likely to be born in this country. Overall,

the Cuban boys were also of higher socioeconomic background than the

other Hispanic boys. Nonetheless, there is a representative distribution

across the SES range within both groups. The other Hispanic group is

composed primarily of boys whose family origins are in Caribbean basin

countries, especially in the Central American region. The largest subgroup

is from Nicaragua. Significant numbers of Colombians, Dominicans, Puerto

Ricans, Venezuelans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans are also present. Many

of the Central Americans are recent refugees and speak only Spanish.

To ensure the highest quality data, several versions of the baseline

questionnaires were developed to accommodate diverse reading levels and

language preferences (Zimmerman et al. 1991). Inasmuch as the pretests

revealed that many Central American boys could not read well in any language,

all students enrolled in special English for Speakers of Other Languages

classes were administered questionnaires in group sessions with a proctor

reading all questions and responses. Students who understood English but

had marginal reading ability were provided a self-administered questionnaire.

However, these students were given two consecutive 50-minute class periods

to complete their responses. All other students completed their questionnaires

in one 50-minute classroom period.

PERFORMANCE OF SCALES-FACTOR ANALYSES

Appendix A lists the acculturation and acculturative strain scales and scale

items for both Cubans and other Hispanics. The item composition of each

scale, as well as the alphas for each, are remarkably similar for both groups.

152
There is only one point of dissimilarity, which occurs in the Language Behavior

Scale. The item “How much do you enjoy English-language magazines?”

appears as part of this factor only for other Hispanics. Appendix B presents

a revised version of this scale, which contains identical items for both groups,

but with a higher alpha coefficient, indicating improved internal consistency of

items. This was accomplished by substituting the item “What language do you

prefer to speak?” in the scale. The authors recommend this second version as

the prime measure of acculturation (cultural orientation) among Hispanic

adolescents.

A second noteworthy point is the unsatisfactory alphas for the cultural values

scale, which occurred for both Cubans and other Hispanics. This lower alpha

may be a function of having situated these two items in different sections of the

questionnaire, something that was not done in the pilot development studies.

As a result, these items are not appropriate to use as a scale, and their value as

individual indicators of protective cultural effects should be carefully assessed.

Because of the lower alpha, this scale was omitted from the analyses.

VALIDATION COMPARISONS-CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

Table 2 presents comparisons for construct validity. A series of t-tests

and Pearsonian correlations were conducted to determine the relationships

between the acculturation/acculturative strain scales and three dependent

variables: language version (language of questionnaire), Hispanic born

(foreign vs. U.S. nativity), and length of residence in the United States.

Appendix C provides a summary of the direction used to score each scale.

For example, a higher score on the language scale indicates a preference

for using Spanish in various settings. In turn, this is associated with using a

Spanish-language questionnaire and foreign nativity and negatively related

to length of residence in the United States.

As seen in table 2, the Language Behavior, Family Cultural Orientation,

Language-Related Conflict, and Familism scales have consistent and

statistically significant relationships with the three validating variables.

This pattern holds for both Cuban and other Hispanics. The final two scales

present interesting potential insights. The Family Acculturation Conflict scale

was significant only for foreign-born Cubans and for Cubans with less time

residing in the United States. This may be a Cuban culture-specific pattern of

cultural adjustment. However, much more detailed analysis must be performed

before any definitive interpretation is possible.

The last scale, Ethnic Awareness, was not considered, a priori, to be associated

with the validating variables but was included for purposes of exploring linkages

between acculturation/nativity and perceived discrimination due to ethnicity. It

is quite interesting to note that there are no significant relationships between

153
TABLE 2. Validation comparisons for acculturation scales

Scales

Language Behavior

Other Hispanics Cuban Hispanics

Length Length

Language Foreign Residence Language Foreign Residence

Version Born in U.S. Version Born in U.S.

S>E*** H>US *** -.597 ** S>E *** H>US *** -.467 **

Family Cultural

Orientation

S>E *** H>US *** -.378 ** S>E *** H>US *** -.272 **

Language-Related S>E *** H>US *** -.448 ** S>E *** H>US *** -.415 **

Conflict

Familism S>E *** H>US *** -.310 ** S>E *** H>US *** -.203 **

Family Acculturation

Conflict

NS NS NS NS H>US *** -.057 **

Ethnic Awareness NS NS NS NS NS NS

NOTE: *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001; t-test used with dichotomous variable; Pearson correlation used with

continuous variable

KEY: S>E=Adolescents taking the Spanish version of questionnaire scored higher on the scales than those

taking the English version. H>US=Adolescents born in a Hispanic country scored higher on scales than

those born in the United States. NS=not significant.
scores on this scale and the three validating variables. This suggests that

perceptions of prejudice are similar among both low- and high-acculturation

Cuban boys and for other Hispanic boys as well.

CRITERION VALIDITY COMPARISONS

Table 3 compares the scales to four criterion variables. The moderate

and serious deviance scales were derived from the work of Kaplan and

colleagues (1986). (These scales, their constituent items, and the alpha

coefficients for both Hispanic subsamples can be found in appendix D.)

Lifetime alcohol use was measured in the baseline questionnaire as a

continuous variable. The drug use variable is a compound continuous variable

that identifies any illicit drug. For the Language Behavior scale, preferring to

use Spanish was negatively related to both moderate deviance and lifetime

alcohol use for other Hispanics only. Because language preference has been

found to be a powerful predictor of acculturation, it is somewhat surprising

to find no statistically significant relationships between language preference

and deviance and/or substance use among Cuban boys. Family Cultural

Orientation was found not to be significantly related to deviance or substance

use for Cuban boys. These findings suggest that family cultural orientation

does not have a direct effect on substance use among Cuban boys.

Some of the most impressive findings from these analyses are the consistent

significant relationships between the various scales and the criterion variables

for both Cuban and other Hispanic boys. The four acculturative strain and

protective factor scales are: Language-Related Conflict, Familism, Family

Acculturation Conflict, and Ethnic Awareness. Language-related conflict is

significantly correlated with serious deviance in both groups: with drug use

among Cubans and alcohol use among other Hispanics. A high degree of

familism was found to be negatively correlated with deviance and substance

use in both groups. Family acculturation conflict, which combines family and

extra-family conflicts based on cultural strains, was significantly correlated with

deviance and substance use in both groups. Finally, ethnic awareness, which

taps perceptions of prejudice, was also consistently correlated with deviance

and substance use in both subsamples. Curiously, however, the family

acculturation conflict and ethnic awareness scale scores were not significantly

correlated with lifetime alcohol use for other Hispanic boys only. This finding

deserves special scrutiny in future analyses.

Overall, the scales have similar performance characteristics for both Cuban

and other Hispanic subsamples. They also have consistent properties as

determined by the construct and criterion validation studies. As noted above,

some interesting discrepancies have been found that are worthy of closer

examination. From the findings presented, however, there appears to be

at least face validity to the assertion that both acculturative strains and

155
TABLE 3. Correlations between acculturation scales and criterion variables

Scales

Other Hispanics Cuban Hispanics

Lifetime Lifetime

Moderate Serious Alcohol Drug Moderate Serious Alcohol Drug

Deviance Deviance Use Use Deviance Deviance Use Use

Language Behavior -.071 ** -.021 -.055 * .001 -.037 .015 -.022 -.002

Family Cultural

Orientation

-.107 ** -.091 ** .011 -.015 -.002 .010 -.044 -.013

Language-Related .002 .090 ** -.078 ** .008 .074 ** .183** -.020 .182**

Conflict

Familism -.096 ** -.033 -.161 ** -.056 * -.064 * .005 -.156 ** -.032

Family Acculturation .146** .164** .007 .091 ** .170 ** .208 ** .079 ** .149 **

Conflict

Ethnic Awareness .160 ** .183** .017 .080 ** .165 ** .203 ** .126** .067 *

 *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.0001
protective factors have important relationships with substance use among

adolescent boys from multiple Hispanic ethnic groups. In the very near future,

the confirmatory analysis with Hispanic girls will be completed to determine

whether these findings are duplicated. As mentioned in the preceding section,

which describes the development work on the scales, both boys and girls in

equal numbers were used to create the scales in pilot tests. Therefore, it is not

anticipated that these scales will perform any differently across gender groups.

DISCUSSION OF IMPLICATIONS

The development of a parsimonious theory requires significant exploratory

analyses. Scale development has been an important aspect of these initial

research efforts. Now, using an integrative framework, such as the one

illustrated in figure 1, the structure of the data will be carefully analyzed.

This will make it possible to clarify conjectures about suspected associations

and to provide a more precise explanation of the relationships among cultural

orientation, acculturative stress, and drug use. However, this is a complex

task because the acculturation process is dynamic, and the study population is

highly diverse. That is, any large-scale survey approach will intersect the lives

of many subclasses of individuals (and families) with distinctive sociocultural

characteristics, thereby representing many levels of cultural adjustment (Vega

et al. 1983). The acculturation process is, after all, a multidimensional one.

Furthermore, as noted by Rogler and colleagues (1991) the salience of culture

can be understood as consisting of both endogenous (i.e., cognitive structure)

and exogenous (i.e., gender roles) forces situated in a cohort-specific historical

experience. Careful theory development and testing are required for identifying

culturally meaningful categories for comparison. It is also imperative to avoid

confounding social class and cultural factors as they relate to drug use. For

example, one desirable outcome would be to create typologies of individuals

and families that are meaningful for description, prediction, and intervention.

The identification of cultural stressors, especially those related to drug use,

is an important starting point for this research. The lifestyles of Hispanic

adolescents need more scrutiny to uncover areas of tension that could have

a cultural basis. All adolescents are subjected to new social expectations.

They are learning new social roles and experiencing maturational changes.

Experiences, including cultural ones, that may be stressful at one point in

adolescence may be forgotten a few years later. Therefore, the “window”

of impact on the lives of developing adolescents may be very narrow. For

example, the consequences of acculturative strain for drug use may peak in

early adolescence or, perhaps, only at some later point. Future analyses will

determine whether acculturative stressors tend to be experienced in clusters

or at a specific time during adolescence and whether strain effects on drug

use interact with other risk factors.

157
Protective factors are also little understood. It is not clear whether there are

particular values or cultural practices that somehow indemnify individuals with

greater resistance to drug use. Neither is it clear how these putative protective

factors operate in concert. It is possible that certain values or practices that are

believed to be disproportionately concentrated in Hispanic ethnic groups, such

as familism, may have protective effects. However, there is no consensus on

what these values and practices are or how best to measure them. From a

stress-process perspective, these cultural protective factors may operate in

the same way as social support (Aneshensel and Stone 1982). That is, the

absence of protective factors may have a direct effect on drug use, and the

presence of protective factors may have a buffering or interaction effect on

cultural stressors by reducing their impact on drug use. Therefore, even in the

presence of intergenerational gaps in acculturation, there may be mediating

effects on drug use due to familism or family pride or other protective factors.

Culture change and drug use are processes rather than static qualities of

individuals or groups, although often they are thought about and measured

as if they were inert. This poses many conceptual problems when individuals

possess a spectrum of cultural traits reflecting unequal levels of change in

cultural knowledge, behaviors, and beliefs. For example, what are the

implications for acculturation theory when a discrepancy is discovered

between cultural competencies and cultural preferences? If adolescents

are competent within Hispanic culture, but strongly prefer non-Hispanic white

culture, how does this affect the acculturation or acculturative strain process?

What are the implications for explanatory models if acculturation is measured

unidimensionally using linear scaling, when acculturation is believed to be a

multidimensional process? What is the essential subset of characteristics for

designating someone as monocultural or bicultural, and in what ways are these

terms meaningful? Obviously, there are many more questions than can be

answered with the current level of understanding, but it is important to be

aware of the inherent complexity and challenges for theory development

and hypothesis testing.

These types of issues arise frequently. For example, there are adolescents

who have immigrated to the United States as small children and have grown up

speaking Spanish at home. English was not learned until they reached school

age. Although they retain operational knowledge of Spanish and of their culture

of origin, they may prefer to speak English and to be interested primarily in

activities that are not usually considered Hispanic.

McCarthy and Valdez reported in 1984 (cited in Vernez and Ronfeldt 1991)

that 90 percent of second-generation Mexican-Americans have a working

knowledge of English, whereas only 40 percent of those in the first generation

have this knowledge. This differential portends rapid changes in cultural

preferences, with the second generation much more likely to favor “American”

158
cultural practices. At what point does one stop being considered “actively”

Hispanic? Are individuals Hispanic even if they no longer perceive themselves

to be Hispanic? There are important differences in using ethnic identifiers for

cataloging people (as in the U.S. Census) and developing definitions useful in

developing theories about culture change, strain, and their relationships to drug

use. It is important to keep these differences in perspective when developing

explanatory theories. The authors believe that the way adolescents think about

themselves and how they interpret their experiences are better predictors of the

use or nonuse of drugs than are arbitrary definitions of ethnicity whose primary

purposes are centered around demographic enumerations.

Acculturative strain and other life stressors are usually assessed through selfreport. Therefore, these reports are products of subjective assessments. In a

multitude of ways, mood and personal power can influence perception. As a

result, the same event may be interpreted quite differently by two individuals.

Therefore, it is not the nature of the event but the interpretation given to that

event that provides meaning. If a teacher tells a boy that his limited English

skills are the reason for a poor grade in a social studies class, he may or may

not interpret this as a culturally related strain or a discriminatory act. It may

be that individuals with fewer personal or family resources will be more likely

to “perceive” greater amounts of culturally based strain because they have

less power for managing their environment. This may be more likely to

occur when there is a high degree of self-consciousness about minority group

status. Parenthetically, adolescents with low self-esteem may be more likely

to attribute their dissatisfaction in interpersonal relations to individual cultural

preferences or ethnic characteristics. In this instance, one can ask, is selfesteem conditioned by cultural experiences, or vice versa? Given the wellknown relationships between self-esteem and drug use, these are important

areas for theory development and further empirical investigation.

Because there are many types of drugs and patterns of experimentation or

abuse patterns, it may be that acculturative strain theory is more useful for

depicting only certain typologies of substance abuse. It is premature to

conclude what these might be. However, it is most likely that high-frequency

experimentation and/or habituation to illicit drug use during early adolescence

cannot be predicted from acculturative stress theory alone because these

behaviors occur in the context of other key risk factors, such as family problems

and personal behavior problems at home or school. However, if these

interactive processes can be identified within the context of adolescent

developmental stages, knowledge of the connection between acculturation

and susceptibility to drug use will be greatly increased.

This overview of issues pertaining to the development of a coherent

acculturation strain theory is necessarily brief and superficial. Nonetheless,

it is apparent that researchers are dealing with a profound enigma that has

159
important ramifications for theory and measurement. Intriguing combinations

of forces are at work, and salient relationships will be established only through

extended observations and carefully posed questions. In the opinion of the

authors, a model such as the one displayed in figure 1 is useful for the

exploratory stages of hypotheses testing and for the recasting of theoretical

assumptions. However, our long-term objective is to move toward a more

comprehensive theoretical formulation of acculturative strain effects and their

relationships to drug use and to provide a much more pragmatic schema for

carefully targeted empirical studies and intervention trials.

REFERENCES

Aneshensel, C.S.; Rutter, C.M.; and Lachenbruch, P.A. Social structure, stress,

and mental health: Competing conceptual and analytic models. Am Soc Rev

56:166-178, 1991.

Aneshensel, C.S., and Stone, J. Stress and depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry

39:1392-1396, 1982.

Bry, B.H.; McKeon, P.; and Pandina, P.A. Extent of drug use as a function of a

number of risk factors. J Abnorm Psychol 91:273-279, 1982.

Burgess, E.W., ed. The Urban Community. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1926.

Burnam, A.R.; Hough, R.L.; Karno, M.; Escobar, J.; and Telles, C. Acculturation

and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican Americans

in Los Angeles. J Health Soc Behav 28:89-102, 1987.

Cervantes, R.; Padilla, A.; and Salgado de Snyder, N. Reliability and validity of

the Hispanic Stress Inventory. Hispanic J Behav Sci 12:76-82, 1990.

Cuellar, I.; Harris, L.C.; and Jasso, R. An acculturation scale for Mexican

American normal and clinical populations. Hispanic J Behav Sci 2:199-217,

1980.

Fabrega, H. Social psychiatric aspects of acculturation and migration. A general

statement. Compr Psychiatry 10:314-329, 1969.

Favazza, A.R. Culture change and mental health. J Operational Psychiatry

11:101-119, 1980.

Goldberger, L., and Breznitz, S., eds. Handbook of Stress. New York: Free

Press, 1982.

Hough, R. Life events and stress in Mexican American culture. In: Vega, W.,

and Miranda, M., eds. Stress and Hispanic Mental Health. DHHS Pub. No.

(ADM)85-1410. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, 1985. pp.

110-146.

Kaplan, H.; Johnson, R.; and Bailey, C. Self-rejection and the explanation of

deviance: Refinement and elaboration of a latent structure. Soc Psychol Q

49:110-128, 1986.

Kaplan, H.; Johnson, R.; and Bailey, C. Deviant peer and deviant behavior:

Further elaboration of a model. Soc Psychol Q 50:277-284, 1987.

160
Keefe, S.E., and Padilla, A.M. Chicano Ethnicity. Albuquerque, NM: University

of New Mexico Press, 1987.

Kuo, W. Theories on migration and mental health: An empirical testing on

Chinese-Americans. Soc Sci Med 10:297-306, 1976.

Lazarus, R.S. Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1966.

Lazarus, R.S., and Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York:

Springer-Verlag, 1984.

Marin, G.; Sabogal, F.; Marin, B.V.; Otero-Sabogal, R.; and Perez-Stable, E.J.

Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic J Behav

Sci 9:183-205, 1987.

McCarthy, K.F., and Valdez, R.B. “Current and Future Effects of Mexican

Immigration in California.” Unpublished 1984 manuscript cited in Vernez G.,

and Ronfeldt, D. The current situation in Mexican immigration, Science

251:1189-1193, 1991.

Mead, M. Social Structure. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.

Montgomery, G.T., and Orozco, S. Validation of a measure of acculturation for

Mexican Americans. Hispanic J Behav Sci 6:53-63, 1984.

Padilla, A.M., ed. Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980.

Park, R.E.; Burgess, E.W.; and McKenzie, RD. The City. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1925.

Pearlin, L.I.; Lieberman, M.A.; Menaghan, E.G.; and Mullan, J.T. The stress

process. J Health Soc Behav 22:337-356, 1981.

Pearlin, L.I., and Schooler, C. The structure of coping. J Health Soc Behav

19:2-21, 1978.

Rodriguez, O., and Weisburd, D. The integrated social control model and

ethnicity: The case of Puerto Rican delinquency. Crim Just Behav 18:464-

479, 1991.

Rogler, L.H.; Cortes, D.E.; and Malgady, R.G. Acculturation and mental health

status among Hispanics. Am Psychol 46(6):585-597, 1991.

Stonequist, E.V. The Marginal Man: A Study in Personality and Culture Conflict.

New York: Scribner, 1937.

Szapocznik, J.; Daruna, P.; Scopetta, M.; and Aranalde, M. The characteristics

of Cuban immigrant inhalant abusers. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 4:377-389,

1977.

Szapocznik, J.; Ladner, R.; and Scopetta, M. Youth drug abuse and subjective

distress in a Hispanic population. In: Beschner, G.M., and Friedman, A.S.,

eds. Youth Drug Abuse: Problems, Issues, and Treatment. Lexington, MA:

Heath, 1979a.

Szapocznik, J.; Scopetta, M.; and King, 0. Theory and practice in matching

treatment to the special characteristics and problems of Cuban immigrants.

J Community Psychol 6:112-122, 1978b .

Szapocznik, J.; Scopetta, M.; Kurtines, W.; and Arnalde, M. Theory and

measurement of acculturation. lnteramerican J Psychol 12:113-130, 1978a.

161
Szapocznik, J.; Scopetta, M.; and Tillman, W. What changes, what stays the

same and what affects acculturative change in Cuban immigrant families. In:

Szapocznik, J., and Herrera, M., eds. Cuban Americans: Acculturation,

Adjustment, and the Family Miami, FL: Universal Press, 1979b.

Szapocznik, J., and Truss, C. Intergeneration sources of conflict in Cuban

mothers. In: Montiel, M., ed. Hispanic Families. Washington, DC: Coalition

of Spanish Speaking Mental Health Organizations, 1978.

Thrasher, M. The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1927.

Vega, W. Hispanic families in the 1980’s: A decade of research. J Marriage

Family 52:1015-1024, 1990.

Vega, W.; Hough, R.; and Miranda, M. Modeling cross cultural research in

Hispanic mental health. In: Vega, W., and Miranda, M., eds. Stress and

Hispanic Mental Health. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)85-1410. Rockville, MD:

National Institute of Mental Health, 1985. pp. 1-29.

Vega, W.A.; Hough, R.; and Romero, A. Family life patterns among Mexican

Americans. In: Powell, G.; Yamamoto, J.; Romero, A.; and Morales, A., eds.

The Psychosocial Development of Minority Children. New York: BrunerMazel, 1983.

Vega, W.A.; Kolody, B.; and Valle, J.R. Migration and mental health: An

empirical test of depression risk factors among Mexican women. Int

Migration Rev 21:512-530, 1987.

Vega, W.A.; Zimmerman, R.S.; Warheit, G.J.; Jackson, D.J.; Gil, A.; and SokolKatz, J. The role of cultural factors in mental health problems of Hispanic

adolescents. In: Telles, C., and Karno, M., eds. The Future of Hispanic

Mental Health Research. Los Angeles: Neuropsychiatric Institute, University

of California, Los Angeles, in press.

Warheit, G.J. Life events, coping, stress, and depressive symptomatology. Am

J Psychiatry 136:502-507, 1979.

Wirth, L. The Ghetto. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928.

Zimmerman, R.S.; Vega, W.A.; Warheit, G.J.; Gil, A.; Sokol-Katz, J.; and

Jackson, D.J. “The Impact of Reading Ability and Questionnaire

Administration Conditions on Data Quality for a Survey of Middle School

Students.” Unpublished manuscript, University of Miami, 1991.

AUTHORS

William A. Vega, Ph.D.

Professor

University of California

School of Public Health

504 Warren Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720

162
Rick Zimmerman, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Andres Gil, Ph.D.

Research Scientist

George J. Warheit, Ph.D.

Professor

Eleni Apospori, Ph.D.

Assistant Research Professor

Department of Sociology

University of Miami

Coral Gables, FL 33124

APPENDIX A. Acculturation scale items and alphas for Cubans and other

Hispanics

Language behavior in youth (Cubans, alpha=.780; other Hispanics,

alpha=.792)

What language do you speak at school?

What language do you speak with friends?

What language are the magazines you read?

In general, in what language are the movies and television and radio

programs you like to listen to the most?

What kind of music do you listen to?

How much do you enjoy English-language magazines? (This question

applies only to other Hispanics.)

Family cultural orientation (Cubans, alpha=.772; other Hispanics,

alpha=.790)

How American or Latin are your mother’s customs?

How American or Latin are your father’s customs?

How American or Latin are your customs?

Language-related conflict (Cubans, alpha=.583; other Hispanics, alpha=.628)

How often has it been hard for you to get along with others because you

don’t speak English well?

How often has it been hard to get good grades because of problems

understanding English?

163
Familism (Cubans, alpha=.617; other Hispanics, alpha=.663)

If someone has the chance to help a person get a job, is it always better to

choose a relative rather than a friend?

When somebody has serious problems, only relatives can help.

Agree Disagree

When Iooking for a job, a person should find work near his parents, even if

that means he loses a good job somewhere else.

Agree Disagree

Family acculturation conflict/ethnic loyalty (Cubans, alpha=.628; other

Hispanics, alpha=.601)

How often have you had problems with your family because you prefer

American customs?

How often do you get upset at your parents because they don’t know

American ways?

How often do you feel that you would rather be more American if you had a

choice?

How often do you feel uncomfortable having to choose between non-Latin

and Latin ways of doing things?

Ethnic awareness (Cubans, alpha=.564; other Hispanics, alpha=.589)

How often do people dislike you because you are Latin?

How often are you treated unfairly at school because you are Latin?

How often have you seen friends treated badly because they are Latin?

Cultural values (Cubans, alpha=.249; other Hispanics, alpha=.299)

How important do you think it is to respect your parents’ wishes even if you

disagree with them?

How important do you think it is to avoid doing anything that could embarrass

your family?

APPENDIX B. Final language behavior scale used in the analyses

Language behavlor in youth (Cuban Hispanics, n=1,609, alpha=.791; other

Hispanics, n=2,133, alpha=.829

What language do you prefer to speak?

What language do you speak at school?

What language do you speak with friends?

What language are the magazines you read?

In general, in what language are the movies and television and

radio programs you like to listen to the most?

What kind of music do you listen to?

164
APPENDIX C. Key to scoring of acculturation scales

For all the acculturation items in the questionnaire, high values indicate either

adherence to Hispanic values or greater acculturation-related conflicts. To

elicit appropriate responses, some questions were recoded. The rest of the

questions were left as shown in the questionnaire because they are already

coded to indicate acculturation conflicts with high values.

Key to Acculturation Scales

Language behavior in youth: The higher score indicates greater

preference for Spanish and higher use of Spanish in various settings.

Family cultural orientation: The higher score indicates Hispanic customs.

Language-related conflict: The higher score indicates more conflicts

caused by lack of knowledge of English language.

Familism: The higher score indicates a greater degree of importance or

adherence to the family.

Family acculturation conflict/ethnic loyalty: The higher score indicates

greater family conflict because the adolescent prefers American customs or

because the parents’ customs are not Americanized.

Ethnic awareness: The higher score means that the respondent feels that

he and his friends are victimized because they are Hispanic.

Key to Other Variables

Language version: The higher value indicates that the questionnaire was

taken in Spanish (English=1, Spanish=2).

Hispanic born: The higher value indicates that the respondent was born in

a Hispanic country (born in the United States=0, foreign born=1).

APPENDIX D. Measures of deviance

Moderately prevalent deviance (Cubans, alpha=.618; other Hispanics,

alpha=.597)

Within the last month did you:

Take between $2 and $50

Carry a weapon

Start a fist fight

Take things from someone else’s desk or locker at school

165
Serious deviance (Cubans, alpha=.804; other Hispanics, alpha=.783)

Within the last month did you:

Take part in gang fights

Use force to get money or valuables from another person

Break into and enter a home, store, or other building

Damage or destroy property on purpose that did not belong to you

Take a car for a ride without the owner’s knowledge

Take something worth more than $50

Beat up someone without cause

166
Validity of Self-Reports in StudentBased Studies on Minority

Populations: Issues and Concerns

John M. Wallace, Jr., and Jerald G. Bachman

OVERVIEW

In recent years there has been a massive increase in research on drug use

among American youth. During this period, the proportion of American youth

who are from racial/ethnic minority groups has also grown substantially. (It is

estimated that by the year 2000, 20 percent of the Nation’s youth population will

be African-American and 18 percent will be Hispanic [Dryfoos 1990, p. 16]).

Despite the increase in research on drug use among youth and the growth of

the minority youth population, research on drug use among minority youth is still

quite limited.

Nevertheless, several recent studies have examined racial/ethnic differences

in adolescent drug use. The findings from this research indicate that, on

average, the prevalence of drug use is highest among American Indian

youth, somewhat lower among white and Hispanic youth, and lowest among

African-American and Asian-American youth (Austin 1988; Austin and Gilbert

1989; Austin et al. 1989; Bachman et al. 1990a, 1991; Kandel et al. 1976;

National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990; Prendergast et al. 1989; Wallace

1991; Welte and Barnes 1987). In light of most minority groups’ disadvantaged

socioeconomic status, their relatively high dropout rates, and research that

shows adults from minority groups disproportionately experience the negative

consequences of drug abuse, these findings are somewhat contrary to

expectations. Accordingly, the reliability and validity of these findings are

of particular concern.

The present study uses large, nationally representative samples of high

school seniors to investigate the racial/ethnic differences in adolescent drug

use. This chapter first presents the self-reported patterns of drug use among

white, African-American, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican and other Latino

American (Puerto Rican/Latino), Asian-American, and American Indian youth.

Then data are presented relevant to the reliability of these findings. Next,

167
drug-related attitudes and perceptions are compared among the racial/ethnic

groups. It is expected that racial/ethnic differences in drug-related attitudes

and perceptions will largely parallel racial/ethnic differences in self-reports of

drug use. The authors argue that such correspondence should be taken, to a

considerable extent, as evidence of validity. Finally, the chapter discusses the

extent to which racial/ethnic groups are differentially represented in national

school-based student samples and considers the extent to which these and

other issues limit the usefulness of student surveys to study racial/ethnic

differences in drug use among minority youth.

MONITORING THE FUTURE

The data presented here are drawn from the Monitoring the Future Project,

also known as the National Senior Survey. The study is one of two ongoing

national studies, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),

designed to provide estimates of drug use among American youth. The study

has been conducted annually by the University of Michigan’s Survey Research

Center since 1975. The design and procedures are discussed briefly below;

for greater detail see Bachman and Johnston (1978) and Bachman and

colleagues (1987).

The study uses a three-stage sampling procedure that yields samples

representative of high school seniors in the 48 contiguous states. Stage 1

of the sampling procedure is the selection of specific geographic areas; stage

2 is the selection of schools within each geographic area: and stage 3 is the

selection of students within each selected school. Each year the sample

includes roughly 17,000 students from approximately 135 schools. The study

uses self-administered, machine-readable questionnaires. The response rates

average about 83 percent. The primary reason that students are missed is that

they are absent the day the questionnaires are administered.

To increase the number of questions that can be asked, five (six in 1989)

different questionnaire forms are administered each year. Although the drug

use measures are located on all five forms, most of the measures examined

here to investigate the validity of self-reported drug use are located on only

one form, thus reducing the number of cases by four-fifths. Another problem

that reduces the number of cases is that most of the minority groups in the

sample are small proportions of the Nation’s total population. Accordingly,

the number of minority high school seniors who respond to the questions on

a single form in any one year is quite small. To address this problem of small

samples, data are combined from 1980 through 1989. In light of earlier

research, which has found sizable gender differences in drug use within the

various racial/ethnic groups, data are presented separately for males and

females.

168
RACIAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN DRUG USE: SELF-REPORTED

PREVALENCE

Table 1 presents 30-day and annual rates of marijuana and cocaine use,

daily and half-pack rates of cigarette use, and 30-day and heavy alcohol

use (five or more drinks in a single sitting in the past 2 weeks) rates for white,

African-American, Mexican-American, Puerto Rican/Latino, Asian-American,

and American Indian seniors for the years 1980-89 combined.

Table 1 indicates that marijuana use among males and females is highest for

American Indian seniors, followed by white and Mexican-American seniors,

African-American and Puerto Rican/Latino seniors, and finally Asian-American

seniors. Generally, cocaine use is most prevalent among American Indian

seniors, and Mexican-American and Puerto Rican/Latino males, followed by

white males. Prevalences among African-American males and the other

groups are appreciably lower. Use of the licit drugs-cigarettes and alcohol—

also shows sizable racial/ethnic differences in self-reported use. Cigarette use

is highest among American Indian seniors, somewhat lower among white

seniors, at intermediate levels among the two Hispanic groups, and lowest

among African-American and Asian-American seniors. Alcohol use shows a

pattern fairly similar to that of cigarette use, with prevalence particularly high

among white and American Indian seniors and low among African-American

and Asian-American seniors. In summary, table 1 shows sizable racial/ethnic

differences in drug use among American high school seniors.

RACIAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN DRUG USE: ARE THEY RELIABLE?

Are these sizable racial/ethnic differences in self-reported drug use reliable?

Within the scientific community, when different studies arrive at similar

conclusions, a particular finding is generally regarded as reliable. Recent

research and reviews of the literature on racial/ethnic differences in drug use

(e.g., Austin 1988; Austin and Gilbert 1989; Austin et al. 1989; Bachman et al.

1991; Kandel et al. 1976; Welte and Barnes 1987; Oetting and Beauvais 1990;

Prendergast et al. 1989; National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990; Wallace and

Bachman 1991) report findings that are largely consistent with those mentioned

above.

As further evidence of the reliability of these findings, this chapter presents

data from Monitoring the Future that show the racial/ethnic differences in selfreported patterns of drug use over time. Figure 1 indicates that, generally, there

have been large declines in the levels of drug use among American youth

over the past decade and a half. The figure also makes it clear that the large

declines in drug use have occurred across groups and that the patterns of

racial/ethnic differences have existed over time.

169
TABLE 1. Racia/ethnic differences in self-reported high school senior drug use by sex (1980-89): percentages for

males and females

*N reported is minimum n across drugs.
FIGURE 1. Trends in use of four drugs, 1976-89, by sex and race

KEY: N=Native American; W=white; M=Mexican-American; P=Puerto Rican/

Latino; B=African-American; A=Asian-American

SOURCE: Bachman, J.G.; Wallace, J.M., Jr.; O’Malley, P.M.; Johnston, L.D.;

Kurth, C.L.; and Neighbors, H.W. Racial/ethnic differences in

smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among American high school

seniors 1976-1989. Am J Public Health 81(3):372-377, 1991,

Copyright 1991 by American Public Health Association

(Washington, DC).

171
Because the patterns of racial/ethnic differences in drug use replicate across

studies and over time, it can be concluded with some confidence that the

findings of racial/ethnic differences in drug use are reliable. Nevertheless,

the question remains: Are these highly replicable (and thus reliable) findings

also valid?

RACIAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN DRUG USE: ARE THEY VALID?

There is a growing literature on the validity of self-reported drug use measures

(e.g., Johnston et al. 1984; Johnston and O’Malley 1985; Malvin and Moskowitz

1983; O’Malley et al. 1983; Smart and Jarvis 1981), but little of this research

focuses on the validity of these measures among minority populations. In

one of the few studies to examine racial/ethnic differences in the validity of

young people’s self-reported drug use, Mensch and Kandel (1988) reported

that African-American and Hispanic youth are more likely than white youth to

underreport their use of marijuana. The data examined by Mensch and Kandel

were drawn from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), which is

conducted in respondents’ homes and employs drug use measures that are

given and responded to verbally. Having to respond verbally to such sensitive

material as drug use may have caused some of the young people to be

concerned about the confidentiality of their responses, In the absence of

more objective criteria (e.g., blood samples, urinalysis), the present study

uses several subjective attitude and perception measures to examine the

internal validity of racial/ethnic differences in high school seniors’ self-reported

drug use. Internal validity, as used here, refers simply to having attitudes,

beliefs, and perceptions about drugs that are logically consistent with selfreported patterns of use. To investigate the validity of the self-reports of

drug use, racial/ethnic differences in seniors’ responses to five drug-related

perceptions and attitudes are examined. The measures ask about (1) the risk

level that students perceive is associated with using a particular drug (perceived

risk), (2) students’ disapproval of someone (18 or older) using a particular drug

(disapproval), (3) students’ perception of their friends’ disapproval of them (the

students) using a particular drug (friends’ disapproval), (4) the number of their

friends who students perceive use drugs (friends’ use), and (5) the extent to

which students are around people who use drugs (exposure).

It seems reasonable to expect that students who use drugs least would

perceive greater risk in the use of drugs, express greater disapproval in drug

use, perceive greater disapproval of their using drugs by their friends, perceive

that fewer of their friends use drugs, and report less exposure to people who

are using drugs. In line with these expectations and parallel with self-reported

patterns of use, it is also expected that perceived risk, disapproval, and peer

disapproval will be highest among African-American and Asian-American

seniors, at intermediate levels among Hispanic seniors, and lowest among

white and American Indian seniors. Conversely, it is expected that friends’

172
use and exposure will generally be lowest among African-American and

Asian-American seniors, at intermediate levels among Hispanic seniors,

and highest among white and American Indian seniors. Some discussion

and qualifications on these expectations are outlined below.

There are several reasons for expecting some relationship between racial/

ethnic subgroup differences in self-reported drug use and subgroup differences

in various perceptions and attitudes related to drug use. First, individual-level

analyses show that these perceptions and attitudes correlate with drug use;

in other words, students who use a particular drug are more likely than others,

for example, to have friends who use that drug, to be relatively nondisapproving

of the use of that drug, and to perceive relatively limited risk in the use of

that drug. Several causal interpretations of these relationships are possible.

For present purposes it is not necessary to resolve the attitude-behavior

controversy, but detailed analyses of secular trends in marijuana and cocaine

use strongly indicate that the shifts in attitudes about these drugs contribute to

the declines in use, rather than the reverse (Bachman et al. 1988, 1990a).

The causal interpretation is more difficult in the case of friends’ drug use.

On the one hand, association with drug users may contribute to use; on the

other hand, an inclination toward drug use may lead one to associate with other

users. In any case, the most basic reason for expecting subgroup differences

in perceptions and attitudes about drugs is a simple general proposition: Such

factors are correlated with drug use, so if the subgroups differ in their use of

drugs, then (other things being equal) they should also differ in these correlated

perceptions and attitudes,

However, there are some limitations to this general proposition, and these vary

to some extent from one kind of perception or attitude to another. Thus, it will

be useful to consider each of the attitude/perception dimensions in turn and to

examine why racial/ethnic differences are expected in each.

Perceived Risks of Using Particular Drugs

It seems reasonable to suppose that students who see the use of a drug as

risky will be less likely to use it. The survey data relying on self-reports

confirm this expectation. If there are subgroup differences in background

and experience that lead to different levels of drug use, it seems likely that

many of these would operate via different perceptions of risk.

Disapproval of Using Particular Drugs

The argument here is similar to that for perceived risks. Individuals who

disapprove of certain types of drug use (by people 18 years of age and older)

are less likely to engage in such use (Bachman et al. 1988, 1990a). Whatever

social forces may operate to generate subgroup differences in drug use are

173
likely to produce parallel (perhaps causally prior) differences in disapproval.

Of course, the extent to which there are any general subgroup differences in

a willingness to endorse a “live-and-let-live” attitude toward drug use by adults

in general could produce differences (or nondifferences) that would not parallel

the differences in use.

Perceptions of Whether Friends Would Disapprove of Respondents’

Use of Drugs

Individuals, especially young people, shape their behavior to some extent

according to their perceptions of how significant others would react. In general,

high school seniors’ perceptions of how their friends would react to their use

of a particular drug are correlated with their own (self-reported) use of the

drug. This correlation likely reflects some degree of conforming to friends’

expectations (as perceived), as well as the factors of friendship selection

discussed above. Given this general correlation between individual behaviors

and perceptions of friends’ attitudes, it seems reasonable to conclude that,

if the racial/ethnic differences in self-reports reflect genuine subgroup

differences in actual use, there should be corresponding subgroup differences

in perceptions of friends’ approval/disapproval. Several possible complications

and qualifications (noted below) to this line of reasoning exist. In addition, any

subgroup differences in willingness to express disapproval could further

complicate the comparison.

Perceptions of Frlends’ Use of Drugs

It was noted above that associating with those who use a drug may increase

an individual’s likelihood of using that drug and also that those who already

use a drug (or desire to do so) may seek out the company of other users. In

addition, any community differences in factors disposing toward use of a drug

are likely to contribute to the correlation between individual use and friends’

use. All these causal processes should operate to produce similar subgroup

differences in friends’ use and in the individual’s use of drugs; therefore, to the

extent that such parallels in subgroup differences do appear between reports of

friends’ use and self-reports of use, this may be treated as additional evidence

supporting the validity of the subgroup differences in drug use.

There are some complications and qualifications in the line of reasoning noted

in the paragraph above. Friendship groups are only partly matched in terms

of race/ethnicity; moreover, simply because of differences in numbers and

availability, African-American and other minority youth are more likely to have

friends of other races than are whites. Similarly, minority youth are much

more likely than whites to attend schools in which their own racial group is not

in the majority. Finally, to the extent that friendship groups extend outside

classmates and include those who have dropped out, those groups with higher

174
dropout rates (especially Hispanics and American Indians) are more likely to

have dropouts within their circle of friends-and dropouts are more likely to

use drugs than are high school seniors (National Center for Education Statistics

1989). All these factors support expectation that subgroup differences in

reported use of drugs by friends may not be as large as the subgroup

differences in seniors’ self-reports of drug use.

Exposure to “Other People” Using Drugs

Whereas some respondents were asked about their friends’ use of drugs,

other respondents were asked (using a different questionnaire) how often they

were around people who were taking various drugs to get high or for “kicks.”

This would include friends but not be limited to them. Thus, the logic spelled

out above with respect to friends should apply here as well. To the extent that

seniors in some subgroups are likely to live in neighborhoods where drug use

is more likely to be publicly displayed, such factors might reduce the parallel

between “exposure” and self-reported use when compared across subgroups.

On the other hand, to the extent that students are engaged in the use of a

particular drug as a group activity, it would be expected that those young

people who use drugs the most would also most often report being exposed

to other drug users.

How Parallels Mlght Be Affected by Deliberate Underreporting

If some individuals are unwilling to report their own use of a drug, they also

may be unwilling to report friends’ use-but that seems less likely. Similarly,

those who underreport their own use might also exaggerate their disapproval

and perceptions of risk, just for the sake of consistency—but that seems still

less likely. So if the racial/ethnic differences in self-reported drug use reflect

differential willingness to report rather than actual differences in use, then

one might expect to find that the subgroups differ much less in reports about

friends’ use and in (reported) attitudes and perceptions, At the extreme, if no

subgroup differences were found in the perceptions and attitudes about drug

use, then the subgroup differences in self-reports of use would be suspicious.

On the other hand, noted above are some of the ways in which other subgroup

differences-differences in perceived friends’ use, for example-might

reasonably be less pronounced than actual subgroup differences in drug use.

FINDINGS

Perceived Risk

Table 2 presents the data on perceived risk. More specifically, the table

reports the percentage of males and females in each of the racial/ethnic groups

175
TABLE 2. Racial/ethnic differences in perceived risk of selected drugs among high school seniors (1980-89):

percentages for males and females
TABLE 2. (continued)

Take 1 or 2 drinks nearly

every day

Male

Female

Take 4 or 5 drinks nearly

every day

Male

Female

Have 5+ drinks once

or twice in a weekend

Male

Female

17.9 28.7 22.8 30.9 27.3 16.5

26.8 32.4 32.4 36.1 36.3 33.7

59.9 69.9 62.7 69.3 41.3

75.2 78.1 71.1 76.7

68.8

80.5 62.9

30.1 51.4 40.6 44.5 43.2 34.3

43.4 62.5 54.0 53.6 56.2 47.0

*N reported is minimum n across drugs.
who say that people are at “great risk” of harming themselves if they use the

drug in question at a specified level (i.e., once or twice, occasionally, regularly).

To what extent do the data fit the stated expectations? The data on perceived

risk for marijuana closely parallel the data on self-reported use. Those groups

that have the highest rates of use—American Indian and white high school

seniors-are generally least likely to report “great risk” with use. Perceived risk

associated with regular marijuana use is particularly high among Puerto Rican/

Latino and Asian-American seniors. Consistent with expectations, use among

these two groups is low.

Relatively low proportions of American Indian and white seniors perceive great

risk in experimental cocaine use. Although most groups of seniors perceive

great risk with regular cocaine use, perceived risk is particularly high among the

low-use groups—Asian-American and African-American seniors. Based on

their relatively high prevalences of cocaine use, one might expect lower

perceived risk of use than that reported among Mexican-American and Puerto

Rican/Latino males.

The proportion of seniors who perceived great risk associated with heavy

cigarette use is relatively low among American Indian males and relatively high

among African-American and Asian-American females, but among the other

groups the proportions of youth perceiving great risk are quite similar. Perhaps

a measure of less intense use would have shown more variation across the

various racial/ethnic groups.

Perceived risks of alcohol use also roughly parallel the patterns of self-reported

use. African-American, Puerto Rican/Latino, and Asian-American seniors

report distinctly lower alcohol prevalence rates than the other groups, and they

also are more likely to perceive great risk with alcohol use across levels of use.

Also consistent with patterns of self-reported use is the finding of much higher

perceived risk among females relative to males.

Disapproval

Table 3 presents the data for seniors’ disapproval of the use of particular drugs

(by people 18 years or older). Figure 2 compares seniors’ self-reported use of

marijuana, cocaine, cigarettes, and alcohol and the percentage of them who

“don’t disapprove” of the use of the drug in question at the specified level.

With the possible exception of cocaine, the data on disapproval are largely

consistent with racial/ethnic differences in self-reported use; among those

groups who do not disapprove, use is relatively high (and vice versa). For

example, American Indian, white, and (to a lesser extent) Mexican-American

178
seniors report relatively high marijuana use prevalence rates and relatively

high rates of not disapproving occasional marijuana use (figure 2).

The findings for cocaine are not as consistent as those for some of the other

drugs. For example, although the percentage of American Indian seniors who

do not disapprove of experimental cocaine use is relatively high, their selfreported use (at least among males) is comparable to that among most other

groups. On the other hand, the percentage who do not disapprove among

Mexican-American and Puerto Rican/Latino males is similar to that for other

males, even though their self-reported use is relatively high. Findings for the

licit drugs—cigarettes and alcohol—largely fit with expectations. Specifically,

American Indian seniors, followed by white seniors, are most likely to smoke

and are most likely to report that they do not disapprove of smoking. Similarly,

relative to the other groups, African-American, Puerto Rican/Latino, and AsianAmerican seniors report low levels of heavy drinking and low levels of “not

disapproving” heavy drinking (figure 2).

Friends’ Disapproval

Given the importance of friends during adolescence, it is expected that friends’

attitudes and behaviors (real or perceived) will relate strongly to adolescent

behavior. The extent to which this expectation is confirmed varies by drug.

For marijuana, subgroup differences in perception of friends’ disapproval match

fairly closely the subgroup differences in self-reported use (figure 3 and table 4).

Figure 3 compares seniors’ self-reported use with the percentage who said that

their friends would not disapprove of them using the particular drug.

Perceived disapproval by friends of cocaine use is relatively high across groups,

particularly for regular use (table 4). Puerto Rican/Latino seniors are most likely

to perceive that their friends would not disapprove of their experimenting with

cocaine. Consistent with this finding, among Puerto Rican/Latino seniors

(particularly males) cocaine use is high. Although self-reported cocaine use is

also relatively high among Mexican-American males, the proportion who say

that their friends would not disapprove of their using cocaine is fairly low.

Although the proportions of seniors who report that their friends do not

disapprove of their daily cigarette use are roughly comparable across groups,

consistent with expectation, the group with the highest prevalence of cigarette

use-American Indians-also report the highest percentage of friends who do

not disapprove of cigarette use.

The findings for friends’ disapproval of alcohol use fairly closely match the

findings for self-reported use; white, Mexican-American, and American Indian

seniors report the highest levels of friends who do not disapprove and the

highest prevalences of use. Not surprisingly, smaller proportions of females

179
TABLE 3. Racial/ethnic differences in reported disapproval of selected drugs among high school seniors (1980-89):

percentages for males and females
TABLE 3. (continued)

Taking 1 or 2 drinks nearly every day 61.8 76.9 74.1 80.4 75.2 61.3

Female 77.1 88.1 84.2 85.9 89.1 73.6

Taking 4 or 5 drinks nearly every day 87.2 99.8 86.5 95.4 91.3 74.4

Female 95.7 95.7 94.3 98.6 96.8 88.3

Having 5+ drinks once or twice

in a weekend

Male 47.9 73.2 58.2 72.9 75.8 40.6

Female 63.9 86.8 72.2 87.1 87.5 60.4

* N repotted is minimum n across drugs.
182
FIGURE 2. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported drug use and

disapproval of selected drugs among high school seniors

(1980-89)

KEY: WM=white males; BM=African-American males; MM=Mexican-American

males; PM=Puerto Rican/Latino males; AM=Asian-American males;

AIM=American Indian males; WF=white females; BF=African-American

females; MF=Mexican-American females; PF=Puerto Rican/Latino

females; AF=Asian-American females; AlF=American Indian females

than males in each racial/ethnic group report that their friends would not

disapprove of their alcohol use.

Friends’ Use

Do those groups that report high levels of drug use also report high levels

of drug use by their friends? Generally, the answer is yes. The data are

presented in figure 4 and table 5. The data indicate that Asian-American

seniors were most likely to say that none of their friends use marijuana and

least likely to say that all of their friends use marijuana. Perhaps the most

interesting finding for marijuana use is that the proportions of African-American

seniors who indicate that most or all of their friends smoke marijuana do not

substantially differ from the proportions for other groups who report higher

levels of use. The proportions of African-American seniors who say that most

or all of their friends smoke marijuana are similar to the proportions of Native

American seniors who do so.

183
184
FIGURE 3. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported drug use and friends’

disapproval of selected drugs among high school seniors (1980.

89)

KEY: WM=white males; BM=African-American males; MM=Mexican-American

males; PM=Puerto Rican/Latino males; AM=Asian-American males;

AIM=American Indian males: WF=white females; BF=African-American

females; MF=Mexican-American females: PF=Puerto Rican/Latino

females: AF=Asian-American females; AlF=American Indian females

The findings for cocaine use among friends are fairly consistent with the

findings for self-reported cocaine use; Mexican-American and Puerto Rican/

Latino males and American Indian females are least likely to report that none

of their friends use cocaine and are most likely to report that most or all of their

friends use cocaine. On the other hand, relatively high proportions of AfricanAmerican and Asian-American seniors report that none of their friends use

cocaine, and relatively low proportions of them report that all their friends use

cocaine.

The percentages of seniors who indicate that none of their friends smoke

cigarettes are also roughly in line with self-reported patterns of use; the

percentages are highest among Asian-American and African-American seniors

and lowest among white and American Indian seniors. Although low

percentages of Asian-American seniors and high percentages of American

Indian seniors report that most or all of their friends smoke cigarettes

(consistent with self-reported use), the other groups are fairly similar in their

responses to this question (in spite of some substantial differences in selfreported use).

185
TABLE 4. Racial/ethnic differences in friends disapproval of selected drugs among high school seniors (1980-89):

percentages for males and females
TABLE 4. (continued)

Taking 1 or 2 drinks nearly every day

Male 63.9 72.6 64.0 71 .0 76.7 64.2

Female 80.3 83.6 82.4 81.6 85.0 73.8

Taking 4 or 5 drinks nearly every day

Male 81.4 81.3 80.3 81.7 86.5 77.2

Female 92.9 91.5 89.7 90.9 89.6 83.8

Having 5+ drinks once or twice

in a weekend

Male

Female

40.7 52.7 62.6 69.2 46.9

55.8 81.5 70.6 71.2 73.8 58.5

*N reported is minimum n across drugs except for cocaine, which was added to the questionnaire in 1986. Thus, the cocaine n’s are

approximately 40 percent to total.
188
FIGURE 4. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported drug use and friends’

use of selected drugs among high school seniors (1980-89)

KEY: WM=white males; BM=African-American males; MM=Mexican-American

males: PM=Puerto Rican/Latino males; AM=Asian-American males:

AIM=American Indian males; WF=white females; BF=African-American

females; MF=Mexican-American females; PF=Puerto Rican/Latino

females: AF=Asian-American females: AIF=American Indian females

There are two alcohol measures concerning friends’ use: One asks seniors

for the proportion of their friends who drink, and the other asks them for the

proportion of friends who get drunk. Racial/ethnic differences on both

measures are similar. Considering their relatively high prevalences of alcohol

use, the findings for American Indian seniors are somewhat surprising.

Generally, relative to white seniors, American Indian seniors are more likely

to say that none of their friends drink and less likely to say that all their friends

drink. With regard to getting drunk (figure 4), the data indicate that those

seniors who report the highest prevalences of heavy drinking-whites, MexicanAmericans, and American Indians—are also most likely to report that most or

all of their friends get drunk.

Exposure

In light of the above findings on friends’ use, one also would expect sizable

racial/ethnic differences in exposure to environments in which various drugs

are used. Figure 5 and table 6 present data that address this hypothesis.

Consistent with patterns of self-reported use, American Indian seniors, followed

by white seniors and Mexican-American males, report the greatest exposure to

marijuana users,

189
TABLE 5. Racial/ethnic differences in friends’ use of selected drugs among high school seniors (1980-89):

percentages for males and females

*N reported is minimum n across drugs.
The patterns of exposure to persons using cocaine fit fairly well with the selfreported data on use. Nevertheless, compared with their self-reported use,

both Asian-American and African-American seniors report relatively high rates

of exposure to people using cocaine.

The findings for alcohol use also approximate the self-reports. However,

sizable proportions of American Indian seniors report that they have not been

around someone using alcohol in the past 12 months. Consistent with their

high rates of self-reported use, white seniors are least likely to say that they

have not been around someone using alcohol. Racial/ethnic differences in

reports of being around someone using alcohol closely parallel the racial/ethnic

differences in heavy drinking (figure 5).

In summary, although there are exceptions, an examination of various drugrelated attitudes and perceptions tends to confirm the patterns of racial/ethnic

differences in self-reported drug use. In general, the attitudes examined here

support the findings that drug use is highest among American Indian and white

seniors, at intermediate levels among Mexican-American and Puerto Rican/

Latino seniors, and lowest among African-American and Asian-American

seniors.

Further evidence for the validity of these findings comes from earlier research in

which the impact of family background factors on racial/ethnic differences in

drug use was examined (see Bachman et al. 19906; Wallace and Bachman

1991). It was found that being socioeconomically disadvantaged (e.g., singleparent family, parent(s) with low educational attainment, living in a large city)

was related positively to cigarette and cocaine use. Accordingly, controlling for

background factors had a significant impact on racial/ethnic differences in the

use of these two drugs. More specifically, if African-American seniors were as

likely as white seniors, for example, to live with both parents or to have highly

educated parents, their drug use might be even lower than reported. Similarly,

controlling for background helped to account for the high levels of cocaine use

among Puerto Rican/Latino and Mexican-American males and the high levels of

cigarette use by American Indian seniors,

ISSUES IN ASSESSING THE USEFULNESS OF MONITORING THE FUTURE

(AND OTHER STUDENT SURVEYS) FOR DETERMINING RACIAL/ETHNIC

DIFFERENCES IN SELF-REPORTED DRUG USE

This chapter uses data from Monitoring the Future to examine racial/ethnic

differences in the self-reported drug use among high school seniors. However,

because the Monitoring the Future Project was not specifically designed to

study racial/ethnic differences, several issues must be considered when

interpreting the findings and assessing the overall usefulness of the data for

understanding racial/ethnic differences in drug use. These issues include the

191
192
FIGURE 5. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported drug use and reported

exposure to selected drugs among high school seniors (1980-89)

KEY: WM=white males; BM=African-American males; MM=Mexican-American

males; PM=Puerto Rican/Latino males; AM=Asian-American males;

AIM=American Indian males; WF=white females; BF=African-American

females; MF=Mexican-American females; PF=Puerto Rican/Latino

females; AF=Asian-American females: AIF=American Indian females

representativeness of Monitoring the Future data and missing and/or

inconsistent responses to questions regarding drug use.

DIFFERENTIAL REPRESENTATION1

Dropouts

Although the empirical findings presented above are not definitive, they lend

considerable support to the conclusion that racial/ethnic differences in drug use

reported here and in other studies are both reliable and valid. Nevertheless,

the use of student surveys to draw conclusions about the general population

of minority youth is still potentially problematic. Because high school dropout

rates vary substantially among racial/ethnic groups, population coverage may

differentially limit the extent to which findings from student surveys can be

generalized for different groups. More specifically, if dropout rates within certain

racial/ethnic minority groups are disproportionately high, the group differences

in drug use found in the Monitoring the Future samples and other studies that

use student samples might simply reflect that student samples include only

“good” minority youth.

The Monitoring the Future target population comprises “traditional” high school

seniors-those who are still attending day school in April of their senior year.

The samples do not include dropouts, absentees, students who refuse to

participate in the survey, and those who are working toward a diploma outside

a high school setting (e.g., general equivalency diploma programs). If these

factors affect the same proportion of the class/age cohort for each racial/ethnic

subgroup, then the Monitoring the Future sample represents similar segments

of each subgroup. However, to the extent that these factors affect differing

proportions of each subgroup, differential representation exists. Thus, for

example, to the extent that high school dropout rates are higher for a minority

group, smaller segments of that minority population would be represented in

these samples of seniors, and comparisons of levels of drug use between

races could lead to artifactual conclusions if they were generalized to the whole

age band rather than just to seniors.

193
TABLE 6. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported exposure to selected drugs among high school seniors

(1980-89): percentages for males and females

*N reported is minimum n across drugs.
Census data characterizing American young people in the approximate age

range of those in this sample indicate that, compared with whites, somewhat

lower proportions of African-Americans and much lower proportions of

Hispanics remain in school through the end of the 12th grade. Data from the

High School and Beyond longitudinal study of the 1980 sophomore cohort (i.e.,

senior class of 1982) yielded dropout rate estimates of 15 percent for white

students, 22 percent for African-American students, 28 percent for Hispanic

students, 8 percent for Asian-American students, and 35 percent for American

Indian students (National Center for Educational Statistics 1989, p, 26).2

 Based

on this information and more recent census data, it can be concluded that

smaller segments of the African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian

populations relative to white populations are represented by these samples of

high school seniors (see Bachman et al. 1990b).

It is known that the level of drug use is generally higher among dropouts

(Bachman et al. 1978; Johnston 1973; Mensch and Kandel 1988) and that

minority youth are, in general, more likely than white youth to drop out. Given

this information, to what extent is it possible that the racial/ethnic differences in

drug use reported above are the result primarily of racial/ethnic differences in

dropout rates? In other words, how different would the findings be if they were

based on the total cohort of 17- to 18-year-olds rather than just high school

seniors? In general, including dropouts would tend to raise the observed

prevalence rates for all drugs and all subgroups; however, the impact

presumably would be greatest in subgroups with the highest dropout rates.

In terms of drug use, one would expect that subgroups whose rates of both

dropping out and using drugs exceed those of white seniors (i.e., American

Indians) would also report even higher levels of drug use; for those groups

whose dropout rates exceed those of white seniors and whose drug use was

less than white seniors (i.e., African-American and Hispanic seniors), it would

be expected that including the entire age cohort in the sample would probably

yield somewhat smaller minority/white differences in drug use than those found

in samples of seniors. Among those youth who report lower than average

dropout rates and lower than average drug use (i.e., Asian-Americans), it would

be expected that the disparity between their drug use and that of white youth

might be even larger than reported. Also, recent household surveys, which do

not omit dropouts, find African-American/white and Hispanic/white differences in

youth drug use that are roughly comparable to those reported here (National

Institute on Drug Abuse 1990).

Beyond the issue of dropouts, the Monitoring the Future samples appear to

underrepresent those African-American males who, according to census

figures, are in high school at the 12th grade. This lack of correspondence

with census figures could be due to several reasons, including the following:

(1) The operational definition of high school seniors used in these samples

differs from the census definition of individuals in the fourth year of high school:

195
(2) other cases are lost due to routine absenteeism, deliberately avoiding the

class session scheduled for the survey, attending but refusing to participate,

or failing to respond to the racial identification item in the questionnaire: and

(3) missing data and/or internally inconsistent responses on other key items

(i.e., self-reports of drug use) can further reduce obtained samples for drug use

comparisons. Bachman and colleagues (1990b) carried out several detailed

analyses to examine each of these possibilities. The findings are briefly

discussed below.

Differences in Operational Definitions

The Census figures are based on persons described as being enrolled in

school; the closest comparison groups available are those enrollees considered

to be in the fourth year of high school as of October 1 (the Census Current

Population Survey is conducted shortly after that date). The Monitoring the

Future Project administers questionnaires to seniors in “regular” daytime high

school programs (not night school or special classes preparing for high school

equivalency exams, etc.) in the spring (mostly March and April). Thus, there

are two important differences: (1) The census definition is likely to be more

inclusive of students not in regular high school programs, and (2) each year

some of those who are 12th graders at the start of October drop out of school

before March. One can conclude that a major reason why these samples show

racial compositions different from those in census reports on 12th graders is

that the two data sources define somewhat different populations and survey

them at distinctly different points during the senior year. Nevertheless, the

census data are still useful for making some approximate checks on the

samples described in this chapter.

Lost Cases Due to Other Reasons

In addition to underrepresentation in the sample, several factors may lead to

loss of cases for purposes of minority group analyses, including absenteeism,

deliberately avoiding the class session scheduled for the survey, attending but

refusing to participate, or failing to respond to the racial identification item (or

the sex identification item) in the questionnaire. Extensive analyses have been

done on several of these issues (see Bachman et al. 1990b). The findings are

summarized below.

First, the overall rates of absenteeism are not very different among the various

racial/ethnic groups. Second, because upweighting for routine absenteeism is

sufficient to account for most of the differences between the obtained classroom

samples and the class enrollment data supplied by teachers, the proportions

of students who deliberately avoid the class session in which the questionnaire

is scheduled to be administered probably is quite small. Third, refusals to

participate in the survey are rare—only about 1 percent, based on estimates by

196
the Survey Research Center staff members who administer the questionnaires

in the schools. There is no direct evidence that refusals are disproportionately

high among minority seniors.

Another way in which minority youth might be underrepresented in the sample

is if they disproportionately fail to provide the data necessary to classify them

into one of the subgroups. Two to three percent of survey respondents do

not answer any of the demographic questions. Of the 97 to 98 percent who

do answer the demographic questions, about 1 percent decline to identify

themselves as male or female. A slightly smaller number fail to answer the

racial/ethnic identification item; however, 2 to 3 percent of those answering

choose the “other” response. There is no way to determine whether minority

youth, particularly African-American males, are disproportionately opposed

to providing this sort of self-identification. However, if they are, this could

contribute to their underrepresentation in the sample.

Missing Data/Inconsistent Responses

Among all individuals who participate in the survey and provide the

demographic data necessary for classification into subgroups, a small

proportion fail to answer some or all of the drug use items. Earlier analyses

of Monitoring the Future data (based on the senior classes of 1984 through

1987) revealed racial/ethnic differences in rates of missing data and

inconsistent responses.

Missing data and inconsistent responses are typically highest among AfricanAmerican and American Indian seniors (Bachman et al. 1990b). However,

these differences do not parallel racial/ethnic differences in self-reported

drug use. For example, American Indian seniors have relatively high rates

of missing data and/or inconsistent responses (6.6 percent for marijuana) as

well as high self-reported drug use, whereas African-American seniors have

equally high rates of missing data and/or inconsistent responses (6.8 percent

for marijuana) but much lower rates of self-reported drug use. White and AsianAmerican seniors are fairly similar in having low rates of missing data and/or

inconsistent responses (2.3 and 3.1 percent, respectively, for marijuana), but

their rates of drug use are distinctly different.

As noted earlier, African-American seniors, particularly males, are more likely

than white seniors to be age 18 or older at the beginning of their senior year.

The missing data rates for 18-year-olds in the Monitoring the Future sample

are roughly double those for 16- and 17-year-olds. It is likely that many of the

18-year-olds have been held back a grade in school, and their distinctly higher

rates of missing data suggest the possibility that a few with reading difficulties

may have had trouble with the whole questionnaire, including the self-report

drug use items, and thus answered inconsistently or not at all. It is also likely

197
that at least some individuals simply refused to answer the drug use items

because they did not want to reveal that information, perhaps prompted by this

comment in the questionnaire immediately preceding the marijuana items: ‘We

hope that you can answer all questions: but if you find one which you feel you

cannot answer honestly, we would prefer that you leave it blank.” Presumably

that instruction would cover all instances of unwillingness to respond.

Furthermore, it might prompt an occasional nonresponse by an otherwise willing

respondent who was unsure about numbers of uses and, equating honesty with

accuracy, decided it was better to leave the item blank. Whatever the mix of

causes, missing or inconsistent data on the drug use items slightly reduce the

samples; because the losses differ across subgroups, they contribute to

differential underrepresentation.

CONCLUSION

Although we remain cautious about reporting and interpreting racial differences

in survey responses, especially when such differences are relatively small, the

authors believe that the generally large racial/ethnic subgroup differences in

self-reported drug use reported herein are, on the whole, valid and thus cannot

be dismissed as due to differences in willingness to report honestly.

NOTES

1. This section is adapted from Bachman and colleagues (1990b ).

2. Overall dropout rates for this cohort were actually higher than the High

School and Beyond estimates due to several factors; in particular, the initial

survey omitted most students who dropped out before the end of the 10th

grade.

REFERENCES

Austin, G.A. Substance abuse among minority youth: Native Americans. Prev

Res Update 2:1-25, 1988.

Austin, G.A., and Gilbert, M.J. Substance abuse among Latino youth. Prev Res

Update 3:1-26, 1989.

Austin, G.A.; Prendergast, M.L.; and Lee, H. Substance abuse among Asian

American youth. Prev Res Update 5:1-26, 1989.

Bachman, J.G., and Johnston, L.D. The Monitoring the Future Project: Design

and Procedures. Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No. 1. Ann Arbor,

Ml: Institute for Social Research, 1978.

Bachman, J.G.; Johnston, L.D.; and O’Malley, P.M. Monitoring the Future:

Questionnaire Responses from the Nation’s High School Seniors. Ann Arbor,

Ml: Institute for Social Research, 1987.

198
Bachman, J.G.; Johnston, L.D.; and O’Malley, P.M. Explaining the recent

decline in cocaine use among young adults: Further evidence that perceived

risks and disapproval lead to reduced drug use. J Health Soc Behav 31:173-

184, 1990a.

Bachman, J.G.; Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Humphrey, R.H. Explaining

the recent decline in marijuana use: Differentiating the effects of perceived

risks, disapproval, and general lifestyle factors. J Health Soc Behav 29:92-

112,1988.

Bachman, J.G.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Johnston, J. Youth in Transition, Vol VI:

Adolescence to Adulthood-Change and Stability in the Lives of Young Men.

Ann Arbor, Ml: Institute for Social Research, 1978.

Bachman, J.G.; Wallace, J.M., Jr.; Kurth, C.L.; Johnston, L.D.; and O’Malley,

P.M. Drug Use Among Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian

American High School Seniors (1976-1989): Prevalence, Trends, and

Correlates. Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper No. 30. Ann Arbor, MI;

Institute for Social Research, 1990b.

Bachman, J.G.; Wallace, J.M., Jr.; O’Malley, P.M.; Johnston, L.D.; Kurth, C.L.;

and Neighbors, H.W. Racial/ethnic differences in smoking, drinking, and illicit

drug use among American high school seniors 1976-1989. Am J Public

Health 81(3):372-377, 1991.

Dryfoos, J.G. Adolescents at Risk. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Johnston, L.D. Drugs and American Youth. Ann Arbor, Ml: Institute for Social

Research, 1973.

Johnston L.D., and O’Malley, P.M. issues of validity and population coverage in

student surveys of drug use. In: Rouse B.A.; Kozel, N.J.; Richards, L.G., eds.

Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current Challenges in

Validity. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 57. DHHS

Pub. No. (ADM)88-1402. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., 1985. pp. 31-54.

Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Bachman, J.G. Drugs and American High

School Students: 1975-1983. National Institute on Drug Abuse. DHHS Pub.

No. (ADM)85-1374. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off,,

1984.

Kandel, D.B.; Single, E.; and Kessler, R.C. The epidemiology of drug use

among New York State high school students: Distribution, trends, and

change in rates of use. Am J Public Health 66:43-53, 1976.

Malvin, J.H., and Moskowitz, J.M. Anonymous versus identifiable self-reports of

adolescent drug attitudes, intentions, and use. Public Opin Q 47:557-566,

1983.

Mensch, B.S., and Kandel, D.B. Underreporting of substance use in a national

longitudinal youth cohort. Public Opin Q 52:100-124, 1988.

National Center for Education Statistics. Dropout Rates in the United States:

7988. Analysis Report. September 1989. U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: Supt. of

Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1989.

199
National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Household Study on Drug Abuse:

Main Findings. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. DHHS Pub.

No. (ADM)90-1682. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., US. Govt. Print. Off.,

1990.

Oetting, E.R., and Beauvais, F. Adolescent drug use: Findings of national and

local surveys. J Consult Clin Psychol 58(4):385-394, 1990.

O’Malley, P.M.; Bachman, J.G.; and Johnston, L.D. Reliability and consistency

in self-reports of drug use. Int J Addict 18:805-824, 1983.

Prendergast, M.L.; Austin, G.A.; Maton, K.I.; and Baker, R. Substance abuse

among black youth. Prev Res Update 4:1-27, 1989.

Smart, R.G., and Jarvis, G.K. Do self-report studies of drug use really give

dependable results? Can J Criminal 23:83-92, 1981.

Wallace, J.M., Jr. “Black-White Differences in Adolescents’ Cigarette, Alcohol,

and Marijuana Use.” Ph.D. dissertation, Ann Arbor, Ml: University of

Michigan, 1991.

Wallace, J.M., Jr., and Bachman, J.G. Explaining racial/ethnic differences in

adolescent drug use: The impact of background and lifestyle. Soc Prob

38(3):333, 357, 1991.

Welte, J.W., and Barnes, G.M. Alcohol use among adolescent minority groups.

J Stud Alcohol 48:329-336, 1987.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This chapter was prepared with support from National Institute on Drug Abuse

grant DA-01211 and a Ford Dissertation Fellowship (JMW).

AUTHORS

John M. Wallace, Jr., Ph.D.

National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow

3343 Institute for Social Research

Jerald G. Bachman, Ph.D.

Research Scientist

2030 Institute for Social Research

426 Thompson Street

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1248

200
Interviewing Minority Youth About

Drug Use: Telephone vs. In-Person

Surveys

Leonard LoSciuto, William S. Aquilino, and Frederick C. Licari

INTRODUCTION

The drug use survey among representative samples of households is a

well-established, if by no means error-free, method for estimating incidence

and prevalence of drug use for regions and for the United States as a whole.

Traditionally, these surveys are face-to-face interview studies in which trained

interviewers approach households selected by probability sampling techniques,

screen the household for eligible respondents, and conduct interviews with

randomly selected eligibles. Very often the interviews contain critical portions

that are self-administered in order to augment perceptions of anonymity

and confidentiality. For these portions, the interviewer’s role is to hand the

respondent a self-administered questionnaire (SAQ), give instructions on

how to fill it out, and remain available for help, if needed.

Although this procedure has worked reasonably well over the years, there

are two essential problems that have encouraged the search for other

survey methods.1

 First, the information from SAQs is not always very reliable,

especially when the literacy level in the sample is low. Improperly skipped

questions and logical inconsistencies are more prevalent than in studies

where all questions are interviewer administered. Second, the price of the

interviews is relatively high because the SAQ is only part of a face-to-face

interview situation with all the costs therein,

These considerations have encouraged exploration of other survey methods,

and the search has intensified in recent years. Mail surveys are routinely

rejected because of typically low response rates, and mass-administered

questionnaires are subject to large clustering effects (i.e., sampling errors)

and/or biases.

201
However, telephone interviewing has increased in popularity largely because

of cost savings, efficiency, and increasing availability of computer-assisted

methods to speed data collection and processing. Compared with face-to-face

interviews, telephone surveys are cheaper, have shorter field periods, and

lend themselves to closer monitoring of field operations and interviewer

performance, thus enhancing quality control during data collection. In addition,

random digit dialing (RDD) ensures that unlisted telephone households are fully

represented in the sample, although nontelephone households are, of course,

still excluded.

Aquilino and LoSciuto (1990) reported the results of telephone vs. face-to-face

interviewing in independent household probability samples of New Jersey. The

results showed clear interview mode differences for the adult population. There

were some pronounced advantages for the face-to-face interview compared

with telephone interviewing, both in the representativeness of the sample

responding and in the amount of drug use that the sample reported.

The purpose of this chapter is to recast and reexamine the data from the

New Jersey samples, focusing on interview mode differences among minority

youth. Specifically and operationally, the major research question becomes:

Does mode of interview differentially affect responses of 18- to 25year-old

African-Americans and Hispanics compared with older African-Americans and

Hispanics and compared with same-age and older white respondents?

For the groups described above, the authors attempt to answer three questions:

1. What differences in sample demographic characteristics are produced

by a switch from multistage area probability sampling to RDD methods

(the Waksberg procedure [Waksberg 1978])?

2. What differences in screening and interview response rates occur for

face-to-face vs. telephone interviewing?

3. What differences in drug use self-reports result from face-to-face vs.

telephone interviewing?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The following literature review addresses each of the questions above.

In reviewing the literature, the authors found nothing specifically about interview

mode differences among minority youth on levels of substance abuse. indeed,

the literature has little to say about mode effects on interview self-reports of any

sort. The few studies that deal with the topics do not specify results by age or

ethnicity, nor are they from large representative samples.

202
Somewhat more numerous are studies that concern mode differences on

response rates and sample characteristics, including age and ethnicity.

Differences in Response Rates

Response rates can be expected to vary between telephone and face-to-face

interview modes. The extent of differences depends to some degree on the

formula for response rate computation. Dillman (1978), for example, reported

an average response rate of more than 90 percent for telephone surveys

conducted in Washington State. These rates excluded the chronically

unanswered telephone numbers from the denominator, thus substantially

overestimating telephone response rates. By including all unanswered

telephone numbers in the denominator of the response rate equation, Groves

and Kahn (1979) obtained an overall RDD response rate of 59 percent in their

national survey, compared with 75 percent in the personal interview. Exclusion

of the unanswered numbers raised the telephone rate to 70 percent. The

decision to include or exclude sampled numbers with a final designation of

“rings, no answer” affects the reported response rates substantially.

Telephone surveys tend to have higher breakoff rates (Groves and Kahn 1979)

and higher refusal rates (Jordan et al. 1980) than personal surveys. Screening

refusals may be highly affected by the need to collect household composition

data to determine eligibility and respondent selection. Because screening is

conducted early in the call, before interviewer rapport can be developed, the

more screening information needed, the higher the refusal rate is likely to be

(Hauck and Cox 1974).

Of most relevance to the present chapter is that nonresponse has been found

in a few studies to vary by race and ethnicity. African-Americans tend to

be disproportionately inaccessible in telephone surveys (Weaver et al.

1975). Furthermore, there is some evidence that this is especially true for

younger, lower income, and male African-American respondents. Freeman

and colleagues (1982) reported that telephone nonresponse occurred

disproportionately among minorities, the less affluent, the less educated,

and older respondents.

O’Neil (1979) found that the effects of refusals and noncontacted households

on telephone nonresponse bias are in opposite directions. Refusers tend to

be older, less educated, and less affluent than cooperative respondents.

Eligible respondents who tend to fall in the noncontacted, or “rings, no answer,”

category tend to be younger and more highly educated and have higher

incomes. The relative proportion of refusals and noncontacted households,

to some extent, determines the magnitude and direction of RDD nonresponse

bias. In general, the survey literature suggests that both the screening and

interview response rates are lower in the telephone than in the face-to-face

survey.

203
Differences in Sample Characteristics

Survey literature is clear in suggesting that RDD sampling produces a

different demographic profile of respondents than does multistage area

probability sampling. The sampling frame for RDD excludes households

without telephones, which account for 5 to 10 percent of households in the

United States (Groves and Kahn 1979; Klecka and Tuchfarber 1978). The

demographic correlates of nontelephone status make this a potentially

serious bias for drug use surveys. Respondents from nontelephone

households are more likely than those with telephones to be nonwhite, of

lower income and education, and never married, divorced, or separated

(Tull and Albaum 1977). Freeman and colleagues (1982) reported that RDD’s

exclusion of nontelephone households underrepresented low-income, rural,

nonfarm areas; nonwhites; single heads of households; persons younger than

35; divorcees: and renters. Groves and Kahn (1979) found that income was

the strongest correlate of nontelephone status in their sample; a full 20 percent

of families with incomes below $4,000 in 1974 were without telephone services.

Klecka and Tuchfarber (1978) compared RDD and face-to-face samples in a

Cincinnati survey of crime victimization. The RDD sample captured fewer poor

households and had a significantly higher education level than the personal

survey. This literature suggests that, compared with the area probability sample

in the personal survey, the RDD sample has significantly higher income and

educational attainment and proportionately fewer nonwhite, divorced, and

separated respondents.

Differences in Drug Use Estimates

Drug use surveys are subject to response set bias, most notably socially desirable

responding in the face of threatening survey items. Use of illicit drugs, such as

marijuana and cocaine, and heavy vs. social drinking are assumed to be socially

undesirable behaviors for the majority of respondents. Thus, to the extent that

social desirability affects responses and respondents feel threatened by such

interview questions, one would expect underreporting of drug use to be the

largest threat to the validity of drug use surveys, The more socially unacceptable

the substance, the greater the underreporting should be (Mensch and Kandel

1988). A central question of the authors’ research effort was: Will a switch from

face-to-face to telephone survey modes affect the validity of population estimates

of drug use (i.e., result in lower estimates of drug use)? A recent study by

Mensch and Kandel (1988) demonstrated the susceptibility of drug use reports

to socially desirable responding. Underreporting of lifetime marijuana use in

the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY) was related to familiarity with

the interviewer (who may have conducted up to three interviews with the same

respondent). Panel members reinterviewed by the same person were more

likely than those with different interviewers to deny marijuana and cocaine use

on subsequent interviews, even after admitting use at the initial interview.

204
Familiarity with the interviewer increased respondents’ propensity toward

socially desirable responding.

There has been relatively little research on willingness to report highly

threatening or undesirable behaviors in telephone vs. face-to-face interviews.

Several researchers have expressed skepticism about the ability of telephone

surveys to secure honest reporting of sensitive or illicit behavior (Johnston and

O’Malley 1985; Sudman 1976; Freeman et al. 1982). Groves (1979) found that

respondents expressed greater uneasiness about discussing sensitive topics

on the telephone than in face-to-face interviewing. Telephone interviewing may

elicit higher refusal rates for sensitive questions than in-person interviewing

(Groves and Kahn 1979).

In all data collection modes, response effects are thought to be larger for

threatening than for nonthreatening items (Sudman and Bradburn 1974);

sexual behavior, drinking and drug use, crime, money, and serious illness are

likely to be experienced as threatening topics. Sudman and Bradburn (1974)

maintained that the higher the threat, the more influential the interview milieu on

respondents. There is reason to suspect, then, that the more threatening the

topic, the more the mode of interview affects the tendency of respondents

toward socially desirable responding.

Unfortunately, one of the best methods for reducing response set effects

due to social desirability, the use of SAQs in the context of a personal interview

(Sudman and Bradburn 1974), has been ignored in studies comparing interview

modes. With SAQs interviewers read instructions, and possibly the questions,

but do not see respondents’ answers. The National Household Survey on Drug

Abuse (NHSDA) and the in-person New Jersey drug survey reported here used

self-administered answer sheets to maximize respondents’ privacy in reporting

drug use in the personal interview. Mode differences for sensitive questions

would seem to be more likely when face-to-face surveys incorporating SAQs

are compared with standard telephone surveys.

Studies comparing personal and telephone surveys for response set bias

have produced mixed results (Orwin and Boruch 1982). The validity of

telephone results has been demonstrated mostly with relatively nonthreatening

topics. Hochstim (1967) reported that the proportion of women who admitted

ever having an alcoholic drink was higher by telephone than in person.

Physicians’ self-reported rates of reading medical journals (considered socially

desirable) was higher in personal than in telephone interviews (Colombotos

1969). Rogers (1976) found telephone respondents less likely than face-toface respondents to overreport voting. Wiseman (1972) reported that Catholics’

attitudes toward abortion and birth control evidenced more socially desirable

responding in both telephone and personal interviews than by mail. Siemiatycki

205
(1979) and Herzog and colleagues (1983) reported no interview mode

differences to socially desirable responding in health-related surveys.

Although many of these studies support the validity of telephone interviewing,

their results, based on relatively less threatening topics such as reading

professional journals or general health issues, may not be generalizable to

highly threatening surveys concerned with illicit or embarrassing behaviors.

Two comparisons involving more threatening surveys showed telephone

mode more susceptible than the personal mode to social desirability.

Respondents (who were randomly assigned to interview mode) were

more likely to report psychiatric symptoms and depression in face-to-face

interviews than by telephone (Henson et al. 1978); face-to-face respondents

also had significantly lower social desirability scores on the Crowne-Marlows

scales than telephone respondents. Herman (1977), in a mixed-mode survey

of employees’ voting for unionization, found telephone respondents less

willing than those personally interviewed to reveal sensitive information

such as unlawful campaign practices and how they intended to vote.

To summarize, the literature shows nothing about interview mode difference

on minority youth. Furthermore, direct comparisons of survey modes,

even among the general interview population, have provided only equivocal

evidence concerning the ability of telephone vs. personal surveys to elicit

accurate reports of socially undesirable behavior. However, most comparisons

of interview modes have relied on items of relatively mild threat compared

with drug use surveys. The survey literature suggests that characteristics

of the interview situation become increasingly important in affecting responses

as survey items become more threatening. To the extent that questions

concerning heavy drinking, marijuana use, and cocaine use are highly

threatening, telephone interviews can be expected to be more susceptible

to social desirability bias than face-to-face interviews that rely on selfadministered answer sheets for the most threatening questions. Furthermore,

minority youth should be particularly subject to such biasing effects. Thus,

telephone surveys might be expected to yield lower estimates of drug use

than the in-person surveys, and the degree of underreporting should vary

with the sensitivity of the question. Telephone estimates of heavy drinking,

recent marijuana use, and recent cocaine use should be more susceptible

to underreporting than estimates of social drinking or tobacco use.

STUDY DESIGN

The objective of State and national drug surveys is to estimate the incidence,

prevalence, and correlates of the use and abuse of alcohol and other drugs

in a representative sample of the household population. The NHSDA, for

example, is conducted biannually to monitor national trends in drug use.

Recently, several State governments have undertaken surveys to chart

206
statewide drug use trends and to use as a resource for allocating drug abuse

prevention funds, One such survey, conducted in 1986-87 for the State of

New Jersey, provided the face-to-face interview data for this study.

Design of the Face-to-Face Survey

Questionnaire Design. The New Jersey face-to-face survey used the

identical survey instruments developed for the 1985 NHSDA and replicated

the data collection procedures of the NHSDA exactly. Drug categories

included tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine (crack was added to the State

survey), opiates, hallucinogens, and the nonmedical use of prescription drugs.

Additional questions included health and behavioral consequences of drug

use and demographic characteristics of the respondent. The personal interview

lasted 45 to 60 minutes, on the average.

Anonymity. For all but tobacco, answers to drug use questions were recorded

by the respondent on a self-administered answer sheet; interviewers read

the instructions at the start of each drug sequence and, at the respondent’s

request, read the questions aloud while the respondent completed the

answer sheet. Answer sheets were sealed in an envelope in the respondent’s

presence on completion of the interview. No names were recorded on the

questionnaires or answer sheets.

Field Procedures. Advance letters were sent to selected households in

the sample. The letter explained the purpose of the survey, confidentiality

procedures, and the voluntary nature of participation. All screening and

interviewing were done in person. When definite refusals were obtained,

at least one refusal conversion attempt was made, with reassignment to

another interviewer where possible. The field period extended from June

1986 through January 1987.

Sampling. A multistage area probability sample of New Jersey’s civilian,

noninstitutionalized household population ages 18 to 34 years was developed.

In the first stage of selection, primary sampling units (PSUs) consisted of block

groups and enumeration districts. PSUs were sorted first by county for implicit

stratification by geography and urbanicity, then within county for racial/ethnic

stratification. Five strata were delineated according to 1980 census counts:

(1) heavy Hispanic areas (40 percent or more), (2) light Hispanic areas (15 to

39 percent), (3) heavy African-American areas (40 percent or more), (4) light

African-American areas (10 to 39 percent), and (5) predominantly white areas.

PSUs were drawn systematically with probabilities proportional to size using

an interval equal to the ratio of the State’s total population in 1980.

In the second stage, listing areas (LAs) were formed by consulting 1980 blocklevel census counts and maps and joining adjacent blocks (where necessary)

207
to form minimum size units of 150. Individual LAs were then drawn within each

selected PSU with probabilities again proportional to 1980 census counts. The

third stage of selection involved enumeration of residential dwelling units within

LAs. Within each LA, about 55 to 60 household addresses were subsampled

independently, yielding a total sample of 4,571 residential addresses.

Design of the Telephone Survey

The overriding concern in designing the telephone survey was comparability to

the in-person survey. Thus, it was paramount that the telephone survey attempt

to (1) achieve high screening and interview response rates, (2) minimize item

nonresponse, (3) preserve question content and meaning, and (4) guarantee

confidentiality to respondents,

To maximize response rates, the authors decided to conduct a telephone

survey averaging no more than 25 minutes. It was clear that only a subset

of the in-person interview sequences could be used, because administering

the entire NHSDA questionnaire over the telephone would have required well

over an hour. The authors decided to ask the complete sequence of items

about a smaller number of drugs: tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine

(including crack). These drugs were selected because they are relatively

prevalent in the population, they have potential for abuse, they represent

both legal and illegal substances, and they form a continuum from relatively

nonthreatening (smoking, social drinking) to threatening (heavy drinking,

marijuana use, cocaine use) questions.

Questionnaire Development and Pretesting. This phase of the research

involved reformatting, where necessary, the drug use and demographic items

for telephone administration. A first difficulty concerned the precoded response

categories from the in-person interview. Items asking frequency of drug use

presented respondents with up to eight response categories, far too many

for a single item on the telephone. These items were broken into a series of

subitems that recreated the original precoded scale. In doing this, the wording

of the stem question and all original response categories were preserved in the

telephone instrument.

Branching Sequences. In the face-to-face survey, respondents answered

all questions within a drug sequence, regardless of whether they had ever

used the drug or how recently they used it. Thus, respondents were asked

how often they had used marijuana in the last 30 days, even if previously

they indicated no use of marijuana in their life. This was done to prevent

respondents from denying drug use merely to shorten interview time. This

structure was impossible to administer over the telephone. Pretests clearly

indicated that redundancy in item sequences was unacceptable to respondents

and generated high degrees of irritation (and interview breakoffs). For the

208
telephone interview to succeed, then, it was essential that branching patterns

be introduced in the telephone drug sequences.

Sampling. The Waksberg procedure (Waksberg 1978) of RDD was employed

for telephone sampling to maximize the proportion of residential households

contacted during screening, thus reducing survey costs and field period length.

The goal was the completion of at least 2,000 interviews with respondents 18

to 65 years old. However, this chapter emphasizes the results for only the 18-

to 25-year-old portion of the sample, with particular attention paid to ethnic

comparisons within that age group.

Sampling proceeded in five stages: (1) The telephone company’s database

was used to identify all working exchanges in all area codes in New Jersey.

(2) A random four-digit number was then attached to the 1,052 working

exchanges, so that one complete telephone number was randomly selected

from each of the exchanges. Following the Waksberg procedure, all numbers

were called to determine whether they were residential, nonresidential, or

nonworking numbers. Up to 10 calls were made to reach a final designation

for each selected number. (3) A PSU was added to the sample for each

residential number identified; the area code and first five digits of the number

formed the basis of one PSU (e.g., 201-334-56**). The 1,052 working

exchanges furnished 411 PSUs. (4) A bank of 100 numbers was generated

for each PSU by assigning the final two digits to the selected number (00 to

99), then randomly ordering the numbers within each bank. (5) At screening,

numbers were called in the order generated until 10 residential numbers were

identified. A final disposition on each number was obtained before selecting a

new number; hence, numbers were not substituted. After the 10th residence in

a bank was identified, no other numbers in that bank were called.

Approximately 55 percent of all numbers called during screening were

residential numbers.

Screening. All residential households with at least one member age 18 to

65 were eligible for the telephone sample. Interviewers secured a listing of

respondents and chose one randomly by selection tables. Informants were

told the interview was on health-related issues; selected respondents were

told it concerned tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use.

RESULTS

Response Rates

The RDD procedures resulted in a sample of 6,932 telephone numbers, and

the screening completion rate among them was calculated at 71.5 percent. Of

the 18- to 25-year-olds selected during the screening process for interviewing,

209
82.1 percent yielded usable interviews. The total completion rate therefore was

71.5 percent x 82.1 percent, or 58.7 percent.

The face-to-face sample consisted of 4,571 residential addresses. A screening

rate of 90.5 percent was achieved. Of the 18- to 25-year-olds selected for

interviewing during the screening process, 79.5 percent yielded interviews.

Thus, the total in-person completion rate for the 18- to 25-year-olds was 90.5

percent x 79.5 percent, or 71.9 percent. It should be noted, then, that the

overall response rate difference (58.7 percent for telephone vs. 71.9 percent for

in-person) is substantial and is entirely due to the superiority in this instance

of in-person screening. The interview response rate difference is neither

practically nor statistically significant.

This pattern is much the same as reported in Aquilino and LoSciuto (1990)

for the older respondents in the sample. Screening rates for households with

18- to 25-year-old respondents are about the same as for households without

them. Also, interview completion rates among the 18- to 25-year-olds are just

as high as for older respondents. After eligible minority youth were identified

in the screening process, it was possible to interview about 80 percent of them,

whether the telephone or in-person approach was used.

Interview Mode and Demographics

Previous studies have shown some differences in the characteristics of the

samples developed through RDD and in-person surveys. One source of these

differences is RDD’s exclusion of nontelephone households. In table 1, the

characteristics of nontelephone households are illustrated for the present study

data.

Age and sex do not seem to be factors in telephone ownership among those

under 35. However, it is clear that African-Americans and Hispanics are much

less likely than whites to have telephones. Also, education, work status, and

income-all indicators of socioeconomic status (SES)—are strongly and

positively related to telephone ownership.

To estimate the impact of RDD’s exclusion of nontelephone households,

the demographic profiles were calculated before and after dropping the

nontelephone households from the face-to-face sample (both the personal

and telephone interviews asked for the number of telephone lines in the

household). A major finding is that dropping the nontelephone households

reduced somewhat but did not eliminate the upward SES bias associated

with RDD sampling. Although more than 13 percent of African-American

210
TABLE 1. Characteristics of nontelephone households (in-person sample)

(percentage distributions)

Characteristics

Percent of

Nontelephone

Households Chi-Squarea

Race/ethnicity 69.97*

African-American 1 3

White 2

Hispanic 1 7

Age

18 to 21

22 to 25

26 to 29

30 to 34

5

5

6

4

2.09 ns

Sex

Male

Female

2.52 ns

4

6

Education

Less than high school

High school graduate

Some college

College graduate

62.41*

20

4

3

2

Work situation

Employed full time

Employed part time

Unemployed

Other (not in labor force)

21.18*

4

2

16

7

Student status

Full-time student

Part-time student

Nonstudent

3.69 ns

4

1

6

Income

Under $7,000

$7,000 to $14,999

$15,000 to $29,999

$30,000 or more

8

6

2

2

15.93**

aContingency table chi-square test of statistcal independence (presence of telephone x

demographic characteristic)

*p<.001; **p<.01; ns=not significant

211
respondents were dropped from the in-person sample, the demographic

distributions were very similar to the full sample comparison. For Hispanics,

17 percent of the cases were dropped; but again, the SES bias was not

greatly affected. For whites, so few households (1.7 percent) were without

telephone service that dropping them left the demographic profiles unaltered.

In summary, then, the exclusion of nontelephone households appears to

exacerbate, but not cause, the upward SES bias for African-Americans

and Hispanics in the RDD sample.

Table 2 shows the characteristics of the telephone and in-person samples

of youth, excluding nontelephone households, and shows substantial

differences by interview mode for African-American youth and somewhat

smaller differences for whites. The sample sizes for Hispanics are very

small and can be regarded only as suggestive.

The profiles for young African-Americans are significantly different,

depending on interview mode, for marital status, work situation, and

income. A significantly greater proportion of young African-Americans who

responded to the telephone survey were married (18 percent) compared with

those responding to the personal survey (6 percent). Similarly, significantly

more telephone responders were employed full time (64 percent) than were

in-person responders (43 percent). Also, fewer of the young African-American

telephone respondents had incomes under $7,000 (27 percent) compared with

in-person respondents (60 percent).

The telephone survey was also more likely than the in-person survey to result

in interviews with full-time students and generally more educated respondents,

although these findings were not statistically significant.

Also important, although not a statistically significant finding for minority

youth, is the gender distribution differences by interview mode. The in-person

survey resulted in more young male interviews for all three ethnic groups.

For example, only 26 percent of the telephone interviews of young AfricanAmericans were with males, compared with 37 percent in the in-person survey.

The corresponding figures for Hispanics are 41 percent (telephone) and

50 percent (in-person).

To the extent that young females tend more often to be married, employed full

time, etc., than their male counterparts, this could have a substantial effect on

the demographic distributions just examined.

212
TABLE 2. Sample characteristics by race and interview mode for 18- to 25-

year-olds with nontelephone households excluded from in-person

sample

Characteristics

African-American White Hispanic

Telephone Personal Telephone Personal Telephone Personal

(n=39) (n=63) (n=250) (n=318) (n=27) (n=34)

Age

16 to 19 26 25 22 26 33 29

26 to 21 23 29 23 25 22 21

22 to 23 26 21 26 27 22 24

24 to 25 21 25 29 22 22 27

Sex

Male

Female

26 37 43 53* 41 50

74 63 57 47 59 50

Marital status

Married

Widowed

Divorced/separated

Cohabiting

Never married

16 6* 18

3 2 -

- 2 3

5 3 4

74 87 74

11* 22

- -

2 7

2 4

65 67

21

-

3

-

77

Education

Less than high school

High school graduate

Some college

College graduate

13 16 9 9 15

41 54 36 39 59

33 25 33 32 15

13 3 20 20 11

15

40

35

9

Work situation

Ernployed full time

Employed part time

Unemployed

Other (not in labor force)

64 43** 66 69 48 65

23 11 18 14 19 21

5 16 4 6 - 3

6 30 12 12 33 12

Student status

Full-time student

Part-time student

Nonstudent

26 14 22 26 37 23

8 5 12 11 11 6

67 61 66 61 52 71

Income

Under $7,000

$7,000 to $14,999

$15,000 to $29,999

$30,000 or more

27 60* 29 38** 41 49

32 16 24 31 33 21

32 19 40 26 19 27

8 3 7 5 7 3

*p<.05; **p<.01 for contingency table chi-square test of statistical independence (sample

characteristic x mode of interview)

213
Mode Differences in Self-Reported Drug Use

Four substances of high use/prevalence were chosen for these analyses:

tobacco (cigarette smoking), alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine. In analyzing

drug data, responses from both surveys were pooled into one data set, with

mode of interview added to the pooled data set as a categorical variable.

Demographic characteristics were entered as control variables in the analyses.

Race-of-interviewer effects were also explored but were found to be unrelated

to the interview mode and respondent-race effects described below.

Comparisons of drug use estimates are reported for African-American and

white respondents only. The telephone survey obtained too few interviews

with Hispanics in the 18- to 25-year-old age range to allow for adequate

demographic controls and tests for interactions in the multiple classification

analyses. The results described below are based on telephone interviews with

39 African-Americans and 250 whites and personal interviews with 63 AfricanAmericans and 318 whites.

Dependent Variables. The original intent in selecting dependent variables was

to include, for each drug category, measures of lifetime prevalence, recent use

(within the past 12 months), and current use (within the past 30 days). This was

done for marijuana and cocaine only. For tobacco, lifetime prevalence (having

tried a cigarette even once) seemed fairly trivial and was replaced with the

proportion who had smoked five packs or more in their lives. For alcohol, both

the lifetime and “last year” prevalence had to be dropped because of lack of

variance; 96 percent of white youths, for example, had used alcohol at least

once in their lifetimes.

In addition to prevalence and incidence estimates, variables were selected

to show the amount of drug use, both current (e.g., the number of cigarettes

smoked per day; the number of days a person had a drink, smoked marijuana,

or used cocaine over the last 30 days) and lifetime (total number of times

respondents used marijuana or cocaine in their lives). Variables were selected

to furnish a representative picture of lifetime and current usage of the four drugs

selected for the study.

Data Analyses. To control for sample coverage, respondents from

nontelephone households were dropped from the personal survey.

Analyses are based on weighted drug use estimates. Case weights reflected

adjustments for household selection probabilities (including number of

telephone lines for the telephone sample), for differential nonresponse, and

for census profiles of New Jersey’s age, race, and sex composition. Analysis of

unweighted data yielded no important differences from the weighted results

reported below.

214
Multiple classification analysis was used to estimate net differences by

interview mode and by race and the significance of the mode and race effects.

Sample demographic characteristics were entered as control variables in the

models. The net differences reported in table 3 (telephone minus personal

mode estimates) control for sex, age, employment status, income, education,

student status, and marital status. It should be noted that the term ‘“mode

effects” in this study refers (for all drugs but tobacco) to the comparison of

telephone with a self-administered format in the personal mode. The results

are not generalizable to personal surveys with interviewer-administered drug

sequences.

Tobacco. Mode effects by race of respondents are presented in table 3.

Cigarette smoking is the least sensitive or threatening survey topic of the

four substances and, following Sudman and Bradburn (1974), should have

been the least susceptible to interview mode effects. This prediction is borne

out by the data. There were no significant mode effects for African-Americans

or whites on the five measures of smoking. Overall, then, the results suggest

that telephone estimates of smoking, when corrected for demographic

characteristics of the sample, are comparable to face-to-face estimates

for both African-American and white populations.

Alcohol. Questions concerning recent drinking and heavy drinking are more

sensitive than smoking, given the negative social reactions to drunkenness

and alcoholism. These questions should be more reactive to interview mode

effects. Consistent with this prediction, there were more substantial mode

effects for alcohol use, after controlling for demographic characteristics of the

samples. For African-American youths, the telephone survey yielded lower

estimates for all five drinking measures. The results are particularly striking

for African-Americans’ drinking over the 30 days prior to the interview. The

telephone interview estimates for the number of drinking days (1.3 days) and

total drinks for the month (2.9 drinks) were significantly lower than in the

personal interview (4.6 days and 19 drinks, respectively).

For whites, the results were less dramatic. The differences between the

two modes with regard to alcohol use were fewer, smaller, and inconsistent

compared with those for African-American youths.

Marijuana. The race by mode interaction is most evident in reports of

marijuana use. For African-American youths, the marijuana results were

very much the same as for alcohol. The telephone survey furnished

consistently lower estimates of African-Americans’ marijuana use than the

face-to-face survey. Lifetime use was significantly lower as reported in the

telephone survey (49 percent) compared with the in-person survey (71 percent).

The number of current users was more than three times greater in the personal

215
TABLE 3. Weighted drug use estimates by race and interview mode for 18- to 25-year-old respondents

*Net differences (telephone-personal) controlling for sex, age, employment, income, education, student status, and marital status.

Nontelephone households excluded from the personal survey.

*p<.05; **p<.01
interview than the telephone interviews, and the number of lifetime users was

about 45 percent higher in the in-person survey. For African-American youths,

the telephone mode also furnished lower estimates of both the days and the

amount of marijuana use over the last 30 days.

For white youths, the remarkable feature of these data is the extent of similarity

between the two modes. The net differences between modes were zero or

near zero in all six measures of marijuana use. For the State of New Jersey,

then, there would be no change in marijuana use estimates for white youths

associated with a shift from face-to-face to telephone interviewing. The

prediction of greater social desirability effects for the telephone vs. personal

interviewing was supported only by the data for young African-Americans, but

not for young whites.

Cocaine. The direction of mode effects for cocaine was similar to that found

for alcohol and marijuana among African-American youths, although mode

effects were not significant. The telephone survey provided lower estimates

than the face-to-face survey of young African-Americans’ lifetime and current

cocaine use. The lone significant main effect was for whites: The number

admitting cocaine use more than 10 times in their life was higher in the

telephone survey (17 to 11 percent). No other mode differences for whites

are apparent. Overall, then, the telephone mode produced generally, but not

significantly, lower cocaine use estimates for African-Americans and similar

or higher estimates for whites.

DISCUSSION

Looking down the column of results in table 3, a justifiable conclusion for

whites is that the telephone survey yielded results comparable with face-toface estimates across all drug groups. Where telephone estimates for whites

were significantly lower-for the current use of alcohol and drunkenness-the

percentage differences between modes were small. The RDD sample

also reproduced the demographic profile for whites found in the personal

mode. The dearth of mode effects for whites is especially noteworthy given t

he larger sample sizes for them and therefore relatively high power to detect

differences.

The conclusions for African-Americans are very different. The telephone survey

introduced a significantly higher SES profile for African-Americans. Additionally,

even after controlling for SES and other demographic characteristics, the

telephone survey resulted in substantially lower estimates of African-American

youths’ current alcohol consumption and marijuana use, compared with faceto-face results. The telephone interviews also suggested more and larger racial

differences in drug use than the personal survey. By telephone, drug use by

African-Americans was less than that by whites in all categories. The in-person

217
survey suggested slightly greater use of tobacco and alcohol by whites and

few consistent differences between African-American and white youth in

marijuana and cocaine use: neither provides a fully accurate description of

African-American youth drug use or demographic characteristics. There were

considerably fewer African-Americans than whites in the surveys, especially

in the telephone mode.

Mode Effects by Drug Category

Large differences between telephone and personal survey estimates were

not found for tobacco use, the least threatening of the four drug groups, This

is consistent with the mode comparison literature on health surveys and other

less threatening topics (Herzog et al. 1983; Herzog and Rodgers 1988; Groves

et al. 1987). Mode effects (for African-Americans) were somewhat more

evident as the sensitivity of the questions increased, with the strongest

differences for recent and heavy drinking and marijuana use. Contrary to

expectation, however, the findings were not as clear for cocaine as for the

other three drug groups.

Although the telephone survey furnished consistently lower cocaine use

estimates for young African-Americans than did the personal survey, the

mode differences were not significant. This was somewhat surprising because

questions on cocaine should be at least as sensitive as questions on marijuana

use. Mensch and Kandel (1988), for example, found significant underreporting

of both marijuana and cocaine use in their study of social desirability effects

on NLSY drug estimates. The mode differentials for African-American youths’

cocaine use in the present study may have reached significance if the sample

sizes had been larger (as in the NLSY). Studies with larger samples of

respondents and with additional drug categories may be needed to sort out

the differences in interview mode effects among various drugs.

Origin of the Interview Mode and Race Effects

Why would young African-Americans display more sensitivity to mode of

interview effects than young whites? It is not possible to answer this question

definitively with data from this study or through recourse to the survey literature.

We do know, however, that minorities in general appear more prone than

whites toward socially desirable responding in sensitive surveys, regardless

of interview characteristics. Mensch and Kandel (1988) reported that AfricanAmericans and Hispanics were twice as likely as whites in the NLSY to

underreport drug use and that, in national drug use surveys, estimates

of African-Americans’ illicit drug use are consistently lower than estimates

for whites, African-Americans also appear less likely than whites to report

their own criminal behaviors in surveys (Hindelang et al. 1981; Huizinga and

Elliott 1984). It is possible that minorities are more suspicious than whites of

218
surveys of illicit behavior and may have less confidence than whites in

guarantees of confidentiality. In turn, heightened suspicions may foster

increased reactivity to variations in survey methodology among AfricanAmericans (or other minorities), especially in surveys of illicit or socially

sanctioned behavior.

Although this study cannot pinpoint the exact causes of the interview mode

effects, a few tenable conclusions can be drawn. The notion that sample

characteristics alone account for the mode effects is not supported by the

data. The authors have focused on two sources of bias: RDD’s exclusion

of nontelephone households and differences in demographic profiles because

of nonresponse. Exclusion of nontelephone households from the face-to-face

sample and controls for respondent demographic characteristics did not

reduce the interview mode and respondent race effects for alcohol, marijuana,

or cocaine use. Although respondent characteristics differ in RDD and

personal modes, they do not fully account for mode differences in self-reported

drug use. Interviewer effects also appeared unrelated to the mode differences.

Controlling for interviewer race did not alter the pattern of mode effects for

either African-Americans or whites.

Apart from sampling issues and nonresponse, the authors suspect that

characteristics of the interview situation itself play a role in altering responses

to sensitive or threatening survey items. Mode differences in provision of

privacy and anonymity are central issues in surveys concerning illegal or

socially sanctioned behavior. The self-administered answer sheets for drug

use reporting in the personal mode, where interviewers read the questions

but do not see the answers, may provide a greater degree of anonymity to

respondents than the telephone interview, where the unseen interviewer

hears the report directly. Although randomized response techniques have

been developed for telephone surveys (Orwin and Boruch 1982), it would be

very difficult to use these to ensure greater privacy in drug surveys. To branch

to tihe appropriate followup question, the telephone interviewer must know the

answer to the filter question (e.g., followup questions concerning recent

mairijuana use can be asked only if lifetime use of marijuana is admitted

andl recorded by the interviewer).

Another aspect of questionnaire design that may be involved in the mode

effects is redundancy. In the face-to-face interview, respondents recorded an

answer to each question on the self-administered answer sheet, regardless

of their history of using that particular drug. Persons who indicated that they

never used marijuana, for example, were not branched out of the marijuana

sequence at that point but were asked to respond to each marijuana use

question. In addition to standardizing the sequence of questions for all

respondents, this technique gave respondents more time to reconsider their

answers or to admit using a drug after having initially denied it. The high

219
degree of redundancy involved in this method is impossible in a telephone

interview. Pretesting made it abundantly clear that, to avoid an extraordinarily

high breakoff rate, telephone respondents needed to be branched out of

inappropriate question sequences.

A related perspective on the data is that the face-to-face interview with its

self-administered format may offer some particular advantages in cueing

respondents on questions for which answers are especially remote or difficult

to remember. For example, some questions call for respondents to remember

actual numbers (e.g., number of drinking days, number of total drinks, number

of days of marijuana use, number of joints). These may be inherently more

difficult and subject to underreporting bias, especially if they refer to no

regular, but reasonably frequent, behaviors. For example, cigarette use

tends to be regular and therefore not difficult to remember, so one might

predict no differences among modes. Cocaine use, although a sensitive

topic, may also be easy to remember because it is a relatively infrequent and

noteworthy event. Alcohol and marijuana, especially when used sporadically

but with some frequency, may be most subject to memory failure. We can only

speculate based on our field experience that the face-to-face situation provides

more comfort and time to the young respondents in their efforts to retrieve the

information requested.

Changes in question format for telephone administration (two-step and

bracketing procedures) are most likely not related to the mode and race

differences. Significant effects were obtained for revised items as well as

for items with identical formats in both survey modes. Items with identical

formats that yielded significant mode and race effects included number of

drinking days, total drinks, and number of days with five or more drinks; lifetime

marijuana and cocaine use; number of days of marijuana use; and number of

marijuana joints smoked.

Applicability to Other Surveys

In surveys concerned with sensitive or embarrassing topics, such as sexual

behavior, sexually transmitted diseases, drugs, or criminal behavior, the

sample characteristics associated with RDD vs. area probability sampling may

be correlated with the behavior the survey is trying to estimate. It is imperative

in sensitive surveys to correct for the nontelephone household exclusion and

for the higher SES profile produced by RDD sampling. In addition, the authors’

findings suggest that responses to sensitive questions may vary by mode of

interview and that mode of interview effects may be especially pronounced

for minority youth. The results of surveys whose purpose is to estimate

racial and ethnic group differences in sensitive or illegal behavior may vary

substantially by interview mode. If underreporting of illicit or embarrassing

behavior is the biggest threat to validity, researchers interested in sensitive

220
andl threatening topics should not assume that all survey modes will furnish

equivalent estimates. It is suggested that not only social desirability but also

factors associated with memory may contribute to differential mode effects.

NOTE

1. There are, of course, many other general problem areas concerning survey

methodology as a whole, no matter how well the survey is conducted.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse grant DA-04280.

The personal interview data were collected by the New Jersey Household

Survey on Drug Abuse, funded by the Department of Public Health, State of

New Jersey.

REFERENCES

Aquilino, W.S., and LoSciuto, L. Interview mode effects in drug use surveys.

Public Opinion Q 54:362-394, 1990.

Colombotos, J. Personal versus telephone interviews: Effect on responses.

Public Health Rep 84:773-782, 1969.

Dillman, D.A. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New

York: Wiley, 1978.

Freeman, H.; Kiecolt, K.; Nicholls, W.; and Shanks, J.M. Telephone sampling

bias in surveying disability. Public Opinion Q 46:392-407, 1982.

Groves, R.M. Actors and questions in telephone and personal interview

surveys. Public Opinion Q 43:190-205, 1979.

Groves, R.M., and Kahn, R.L. Surveys by Telephone: A National Comparison

With Personal Interviews. New York: Academic Press, 1979.

Groves, R.M.; Miller, P.V.; and Cannell, C.F. Differences between the telephone

and personal interview data. In: Thornberry, O., ed. An Experimental

Comparison of Telephone and Personal Health Interview Surveys. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 2, No. 106.

DHHS Pub. No. (PHS)87-1386 Washington, DC: U.S. Public Health Service,

1987.

Hauck, M., and Cox, M. Locating a sample by random digit dialing. Public

Opinion Q 38:253-260, 1974.

Henson, R.; Cannell, C.F.; and Roth, A. Effects of interview mode on reporting

of moods, symptoms, and need for social approval. J Soc Psychol 105:123-

129, 1978.

Herman, J.B. Mixed-mode data collection: Telephone and personal

interviewing. J Appl Psychol 62:399-404, 1977.

221
Herzog, A.R., and Rodgers, W.L. Interviewing older adults: Mode comparison

using data from a face-to-face survey and a telephone resurvey. Public

Opinion Q 52:84-99, 1988.

Herzog, A.R.; Rodgers, W.L.; and Kulka, R.A. Interviewing older adults: A

comparison of telephone and face-to-face modalities. Public Opinion Q

47:405-418, 1983.

Hindelang, M.J.; Hirschi, T.; and Weis, J.G. Measuring Delinquency. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

Hochstim, J.R. A critical comparison of three strategies of collecting data from

households. J Am Stat Assoc 62:976-989, 1967.

Huizinga, D., and Elliott, D.S. Self-Reported Measures of Delinquency and

Crime: Methodological issues and Comparative Findings. Boulder, CO:

Behavioral Research Institute, 1984.

Johnston, L., and O’Malley, P. Issues of validity and population coverage in

student surveys of drug use. In: Rouse, B.A.; Kozel, N.J.; and Richards, L.G.,

eds. Self-Report Methods of Estimating Drug Use: Meeting Current

Challenges to Validity. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research

Monograph 57. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)88-1402. Washington, DC: Supt. of

Docs., US. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. pp. 31-54.

Jordan, L.; Marcus, A.; and Reeder, L. Response styles in telephone and

household interviewing: A field experiment. Public Opinion Q 44:210-222,

1980.

Klecka, W.R., and Tuchfarber, A.J. Random digit dialing: A comparison to

personal surveys. Public Opinion Q 42:105-114, 1978.

Mensch, B.S., and Kandel, D.B. Underreporting substance use in a national

longitudinal youth cohort: Individual and interviewer effects. Public Opinion Q

52:100-124, 1988.

O’Neil, M. Estimating the nonresponse bias due to refusals in telephone

surveys. Public Opinion Q 43:218-232, 1979.

Orwin, R.G., and Boruch, R.F. RRT meets RDD: Statistical strategies for

assuring response privacy in telephone surveys. Public Opinion Q 46:560-

571, 1982.

Rogers, T.F. Interviews by telephone and in person: Quality of responses and

field performance. Public Opinion Q 40:51-65, 1976.

Siemiatycki, J. A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies

for household health surveys. Am J Public Health 69:238-244, 1979.

Sudman, S. Sample surveys. Annu Rev Social 2:107-120, 1976.

Sudman, S., and Bradburn, N. Response Effects in Surveys: A Review and

Synthesis. Chicago: Aldine, 1974.

Tull, D.S., and Albaum, G. Bias in random digit dialed surveys. Public Opinion Q

41:389-395, 1977.

Waksberg, J. Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J Am Stat Assoc

73:40-46, 1978.

Weaver, C.; Holmes, S.; and Glenn, N. Some characteristics of inaccessible

respondents in a telephone survey. J Appl Psychol 60:260-262, 1975.

222
Wiselman, F. Methodological bias in public opinion surveys. Public Opinion Q

36:105-108, 1972.

AUTHORS

Leonard LoSciuto, Ph.D.

Director

Frederick C. Licari, M.A., MS.

Assistant Study Director

Institute for Survey Research

Temple University

1601 North Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19152

William S. Aquilino, Ph.D.

Associate Scientist

Center for Demography and Ecology

University of Wisconsin

4412 Social Science Building

1180 Observation Drive

Madison, WI 53706

223
Hispanic Dropouts and Drug Use:

A Review of the Literature and

Methodological Considerations

Ernest L. Chavez

INTRODUCTION

Because of this Nation’s history of compulsory education for children, those

individuals who drop out of school have long been a concern and an area of

interest for researchers (Natriello et al. 1990). However, during the 1960s

when the general trend of dropping out was decreasing, the number of articles,

books, and chapters related to the dropout issue also decreased. In the 1980s

the dropout issue again became of interest to researchers, primarily because

of increasing awareness of the exceptionally high dropout rates among innercity and Hispanic youth (Dryfoos 1990).

This chapter discusses the difficulties of conducting research with dropout

populations and makes various recommendations. The chapter draws on

the existing research literature on dropouts and on lessons learned from the

author’s experience in the field.

THE DROPOUT RATE

There are several methodological issues that should be considered when

conducting research with school dropouts, one of which is the computation

of the dropout rate. There are three different methods of computation. The

event dropout rate measures the number of students dropping out in any given

year. This rate can be misleading because it calculates only the number of

students leaving a given school district and may not take into account students

who enroll in other districts or students who leave school, return, and then leave

again. The status dropout rate attempts through major surveys to evaluate the

proportion of individuals in a given age grouping who have completed school

or are enrolled in school at one time. The status rate always appears higher

than the event rate because of its increased sensitivity to the cumulative annual

event rate. The third method for considering dropouts is the cohort rate, which

is obtained by following a single group or cohort of students across time and

evaluating their school completion rates.

224
A recent General Accounting Office (1992) report summarizes the national

statistics on these three methods for considering dropout rates. The event

rate is presented through the National Center for Educational Statistics 1989

report (Kaufman and Frase 1990), which uses data from the Current Population

Survey (CPS), an annual nationally representative sample of households.

The general event dropout rate according to CPS has been declining since

1978. However, the rate for Hispanics has been erratic and is higher than the

rates reported for African-Americans and whites. Frorn 1987 through 1989

the reported rate for Hispanics was 7.9 percent. Overall, the event rate for

Hispanics is double the rate reported for white non-Hispanics. Given that

this survey is a national probability sample, the number of Hispanics in the

total sample is small and does not allow for differences within the various

Hispanic groups (i.e., Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Central and South American

subgroups). Furthermore, some studies have reported that dropout rates for

Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Mexican-American youth are different and that

combining these numbers into one generic group, Hispanic, may result in

spurious findings (U.S. Census Bureau 1990; American Council on Education

1991). The event rate is the most frequently used method for assessing the

dropout problem within the school districts and is susceptible to several

difficulties, For example, the students who are counted in this rate must have

enrolled during the semester in which the count is taken; thus, those students

who never appear for the next year could well be missed. For a more thorough

discussion of these computation methods as well as the status dropout rate, the

General Accounting Office (1986) has produced an excellent resource.

Researchers in the field should be careful to consider which of these

various measures is being considered and should state within their research

their definition for dropouts. Chavez and Swaim (unpublished data) have had

experience showing that dropouts are not all the same: that is, the individual

who does not show up for the 10th grade may have different reasons for

dropping out than the high school senior who has just found out that he or she

has more requirements for graduation and must attend summer school. In a

rural sample (Chavez and Swaim, unpublished data), during a 1-year period,

two-thirds of the male Mexican-American senior population being studied

dropped out of school. The major reason cited by these rural dropouts for

leaving school was that they had become aware of requirements that would

have necessitated attendance at summer school, and they were unwilling to

attend. These students would have been defined as dropouts given the event

rate definition, but those students who do not attend school during the junior

high to high school transition year would not be considered in the event rate.

These students are arguably different from the senior dropouts, and if there

was not a clear articulation of the subject population of dropouts being

surveyed, the findings could likely be generalized beyond the sample.

225
Differences in drug use and other problem behaviors are likely related to

these developmental differences, and generalizing or combining data from

these groups may not be appropriate.

Because some researchers do generalize from small samples that may be

heterogeneous in their composition, the computation of effect size should be

an important feature of research articles in this area, along with specificity

regarding sample demographics.

SAMPLE SPECIFICITY

Dropout research should also delineate both the type of dropout being

considered and the time that the survey or interview takes place. Although

certain generalizations regarding dropouts can be made regardless of their

ethnicity or race, there are also significant differences among dropouts. For

example, studies indicate that Hispanic dropouts are less likely than others

to return to school. Kolstad and Owings (1986) report that African-American

and Hispanic dropouts in their study were less likely to return and complete

high school and that only 30 percent of Hispanics and 33 percent of AfricanAmericans had returned to school compared with 41 percent of white dropouts.

Kolstad and Kaufman’s (1989) study reported that only 39 percent of Hispanics

had returned to school or enrolled in general equivalency diploma classes

compared with 51 percent for African-Americans and 54 percent for whites.

A larger percentage of Hispanic male dropouts are likely to hold full- or part-time

jobs, and Hispanic males who are enrolled in school work more hours than any

other group of high school students (Miller et al. 1988). Because of their higher

employability level among males under age 20, Hispanics have higher reported

incomes than either African-Americans or whites within this same age group.

However, when one considers 20-to 24-year-old males, the income levels

for Hispanics and African-Americans drop below those reported for white

non-Hispanics (Miller et al. 1988). The data suggest that Hispanic dropouts,

although employed, are in low-paying jobs and that, accordingly, their income

level is below that of white non-Hispanics and similar to the income reported

for African-Americans,

The period after dropping out at which the individual is surveyed or

interviewed is also an important issue. For example, Mensch and Kandel

(1986) obtained substance use rates from adults 19 through 27 years of

age who had dropped out of school and had been out of school for some time.

Chavez and colleagues (1989) reported substance use data on dropouts with

an average age of 16 who were surveyed within the same semester in which

they dropped out of school. Therefore, even though the reported results

were similar, in that both studies report higher lifetime prevalence of drug use

among dropouts, the differences in age and life circumstances may indicate

different predictors or underlying mechanisms for drug use.

226
HISPANIC AS A LABEL

The use of the generic term “Hispanic” creates serious methodological

concerns given the heterogeneity of this population and the fact that many

research assumptions are based on small “Hispanic” samples. The various

subgroups that make up the Hispanic population in the United States are

different in their demographic makeup as well as in the specific social problems

faced by each group. There are also certain value system differences among

the various Hispanic groups. The earliest Cuban immigrants came from the

educated and middle classes and had a history of entrepreneurship. The

Mexican immigrants since 1949 frequently have been agricultural workers

and come from rural settings in northern Mexico. Cuban-Americans are both

the oldest and the most affluent of the major Hispanic groups and report a very

low school dropout rate. It has been estimated that by the year 2000, MexicanAmericans, who make up 58 percent of the Hispanic population, will account for

the rnajority of those individuals under the age of 30 living in the southwestern

United States (Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education 1987).

The median age for Mexican-Americans is 23, compared with 32 for white

non-Hispanics, and this subgroup has a higher birth rate than either whites

or African-Americans, which, along with dramatic increases in migration from

Mexico, makes this one of the fastest growing ethnic subgroups in the United

States. The 1990 census indicates that the Mexican-American family average

income ($26,682) is more than $20,000 below the average income for nonHispanics ($49,479).

One important methodological issue that researchers must address is the

heterogeneity of the Hispanic population in the United States. As has been

shown, the various Hispanic subgroups are demographically and to some

extent culturally different, and these differences are likely to account for

differences in substance use among these groups. Generalizing from one

group to another is probably inappropriate.

DROPOUTS AND DRUG USE

Collecting data from school dropouts presents several issues, some of which

have already been discussed. In addition to the problems inherent in gathering

data on drug use—such as low response rates for individual drugs,

underreporting of drug use, and reliability and validity issues—the nature

of the population of dropouts being studied complicates this research.

The relationship between dropping out of school and the use and abuse of

drugs has been documented by several authors (Winburn and Hays 1974;

Annis and Watson 1975; Kandel 1975, 1978; Elliot et al. 1985; Mensch and

Kandel 1986). Recently, Fagan and Pabon (1990) published an excellent

research article and literature review of the relationship between drug use,

227
delinquency, and dropping out. The sample in this study comprised 2,467

subjects: 993 males in school, 1,076 females in school, 255 male dropouts,

and 143 female dropouts. Twenty percent of the sample was Hispanic, most

probably Puerto Rican, and more than 70 percent of the sample was AfricanAmerican. Fagan and Pabon (1990) concluded that “there seems to be a

spurious relationship between substance use, delinquent involvement, and

school dropout.” For Hispanic dropouts, of whom there were only 52 males and

28 females, they concluded that “weak family bonds, social isolation, and

negative peer influences are especially significant factors in school dropout.”

They also assumed that delinquency and substance use may be symptomatic

of other problems that contribute to dropping out. This study is an example

of a research project with a limited sample of Hispanic dropouts that attempts

to make rather broad generalizations regarding this group. One unanswered

question is, Which group of Hispanics was surveyed? If the 28 Hispanic

female dropouts include both Puerto Rican and other Hispanics, this further

compromises the possible generalizations. The researchers did not cite effect

size and seemed to attempt to construct models from these small samples.

The literature investigating the relationship between dropping out of school

and substance use among Mexican-American youth is quite limited but is

more extensive than the literature on Cubans, Puerto Ricans, or Central

Americans. Bruno and Doscher (1979) studied a sample of 78 MexicanAmerican and white non-Hispanic potential dropouts and found that 67 percent

reported marijuana use at a rate of once a week or more. This was the only

study on Mexican-American school dropouts and drug use published prior to

1989. Thus, the author and colleagues’ research was intended to fill this data

gap. This Mexican American Drug Use and Dropout study began in 1987 with

funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). High school students

and dropouts from three different school districts in the southwestern United

States were recruited to participate in this study. Contracts were developed

with each of the districts, and school district personnel were hired to conduct

interviews and administer questionnaires. This technique allowed access to

all school district records for each subject. After a student drops out, the

interviewer initiates a series of contacts with that dropout as well as two

yoked control subjects, The dropout is contacted and asked to participate

in the project; if the individual is under the age of 18, parental permission is

also obtained. Subjects are paid for their participation, When the dropout

subject agrees to participate, two other subjects are recruited. These two

yoked control subjects are matched in two ways with the dropout: The first

control subject is considered to be at educational risk, in that he or she is

matched as closely as possible to the dropout’s grade point average (GPA).

The control subject is also matched for ethnicity, age, and gender. The

second group of control subjects is not matched by GPA, but all other criteria

are matched.

228
Therefore, the steps that should be considered by researchers interested in

conducting research with dropouts are to (1) establish a relationship with the

school system, (2) develop a working definition of a dropout, (3) develop the

specific procedures for gathering data with attention to whether heterogeneity

or homogeneity of the dropout sample is required in the study, and (4) establish

specificity of the sample, including whether control group subjects are required.

FINDINGS

Results of the first year of full data collection were published in 1989 (Chavez

et al. 1989). Dropouts had the highest rates of drug use, followed by

educationally at-risk students; in-school control group subjects were the

lowest in self-repotted drug use. Dropouts reported a high incidence of

being both victims and perpetrators of crime. However, there were gender

differences among dropouts, as well as gender and ethnic interactions. An

article in preparation (Chavez and Swaim, unpublished data) summarizes 3 full

years of data collection and involves 948 subjects: 245 Mexican-American

(MA:) male dropouts, 93 white non-Hispanic (WnH) male dropouts, 140 MA

female dropouts, 85 WnH female dropouts, and relatively equal numbers of

subjects in each of the two yoked control groups.

Results indicate that male dropouts, regardless of ethnicity, report the highest

use of substances in the last month. More than 70 percent of both MA and

WnH male dropouts report using alcohol in the last month, with more than half

reporting intoxication during the last month. Male dropouts also report the

highest use rate of marijuana in the last month (MA=47.8 percent, WnH=43.5

percent). Cocaine and hallucinogen use are also significantly higher for male

dropouts. Female dropouts also report significantly higher use rates for alcohol

in the last month (MA=54 percent, WnH=64.7 percent), with 27.2 percent of the

MA female dropouts reporting intoxication in the last month, compared with 38.8

percent of the WnH female dropouts. Use of cocaine, marijuana, “downers,”

and hallucinogens was also significantly higher for female MA dropouts

compared with their two yoked control groups. WnH female dropouts selfreported highest use in the last month for marijuana and hallucinogens. Both

groups were significantly high in reported nitrite use. Both male dropouts and

educationally at-risk subjects of both ethnicities report: high rates of perpetration

of violence. As can be seen from these data, dropouts and at-risk subjects

appear somewhat different from one another. Thus, generalizing from data

such as those presented by Bruno and Doscher (1979) to include dropouts

would be somewhat inappropriate because educationally at-risk students,

although they have high drug use rates, evidence lower drug use rates

compared with dropouts.

229
Chavez and colleagues (1989) found that dropouts in both ethnic groups

reported high rates of victimization, Females evidence a different profile, in

that MA female dropouts are significantly higher in self-reported use of knives,

guns, and clubs, and WnH female dropouts report high rates of victimization,

METHODOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES

One of the most serious general methodological problems encountered by this

research project is presented by Wehlage and Rutter (1986), who argue that

enormous resources are being spent defining the characteristics of dropouts

while avoiding unresolved institutional issues within school systems. To quote

the authors, “If the research on dropouts continues to focus on the relatively

fixed attributes of students, the effect of such research may well be to give

schools an excuse for their lack of success with the dropout.” Fine (1986)

argues that schools do little to change the existing social inequities and may

even reproduce or exacerbate existing social problems. She argues that

having a high school degree is not equally beneficial to all groups, but rather,

“Women’s return on education has been estimated at 40 percent of men’s,

and blacks’ approximately 63 percent of whites.”

Thus, researchers have to ask themselves the moral question of whether

research is serving to maintain stereotypes and, in effect, blame the victim

for discriminatory or inequitable practices within social systems. Scientists

often believe that they are above morality, that is, that results are truth and

do not have a morality. But everything has a moral value. If every effort is

not made to have research information placed within a larger social context,

it may be used to maintain the status quo. Dropping out of school is not always

a socially deviant behavior: an individual may be escaping a negative and

discriminatory environment. As Wehlage and Rutter (1986) report from the

High School and Beyond data, dropout self-esteem improves once dropouts

leave school. Why? What are the circumstances under which someone chooses

to leave school? What of the issue of pushouts? Anecdotally, field staff

members have encountered circumstances in which individuals have been told

that they should drop out to avoid being suspended. One student was told that if

he were suspended, it would “hurt” his record and he should just quit school.

The student took the advice and dropped out. Many teachers of at-risk students

report that they and their school systems are being overburdened. This causes

some teachers to wish that those students who cause them the most difficulty

would leave the system. Researchers must be sensitive to how data may be

used and make every effort to have the data assist in social change.

The educational process is a joint effort between the individual student, his

or her parents, and the school system. The failure within this system of any

given individual is a complex problem that requires complex interpretations.

A longitudinal study of Mexican-American dropouts would help to answer

some of the issues presented.

230
Additionally, the author and colleagues are encountering two major problems

with the matching procedures. One of the districts in which we are collecting

data is rural, and in the senior class of 1988 there were only eight MexicanAmerican males when classes began in the fall. By the spring only three

Mexican-American males remained in school; thus, we are unable to recruit

either at-risk controls or in-school students to match the dropout sample. The

second problem encountered involves matching educationally at-risk control

subjects to the dropouts’ GPA. Many of the dropouts have GPAs of 0 or .5,

and it is very difficult to find anyone who remains in school with a similar GPA.

Chavez and colleagues (1989) reported that educationally at-risk subjects had

higher GPAs than the controls, although they were lower than the “not at-risk”

controls. Some of the at-risk students included in data gathered in years 1 and

2 of the project are now dropouts, which validates their having been selected

as at-risk controls. Yet these yoked subjects are not as similar on baseline data

as originally hoped. Matching of students should be considered in some detail

by any researchers considering this method.

Maintaining strong relationships with the school districts involved in the

project is a necessity. Having research personnel who have been involved

with the district has assisted the author and coworkers with entry to junior and

senior high schools. Individuals entering the system from the outside would find

substantial difficulties. Even with this relationship with the three districts, we

frequently encounter difficulties with individual principals who may choose not to

allow access to certain records. There are times, even with letters of support

from district administrators, that individual schools feel that allowing access to

their records jeopardizes them in some way. In these cases it is important for

field staff to maintain frequent contact with these schools, dispelling rumors and

solidifying relationships. Of course, this seriously interferes with field time

spent in gathering data, but it is a necessity.

CONCLUSION

Dropouts use drugs more than either educationally at-risk students or those

students who remain in school. However, they most: probably progress to

drugs differently, and some are very likely to change their drug-taking behavior

over time. Researchers must continue to evaluate this issue, but prospective

longitudinal studies are needed. Researchers should also specify their

populations of study. They must be very clear, if they are working with a

Hispanic sample, on what group they are collecting data. Dropping out of

school is hurting minorities in this country, and very little is known about

how to change dropouts’ drug-taking behavior, given that most prevention

programs are school based. This group of students is probably not following

the longitudinal trends of seniors, and although they may discontinue drug

use after leaving school, the social and economic costs of drug taking remain.

231
Researchers need to make clear that this group is not being attended to and

bring data on these dropouts to the attention of public policymakers.

Researchers could easily be a part of the problem if they are not careful

in their interpretations. It is important not to overgeneralize from samples,

and sufficient sample size must be maintained to ensure both statistical and

social power.

The issues of dropping out of school and drug use present several

methodological problems to researchers. These problems are exacerbated

by interest in and collection of data from Hispanic-Americans. Researchers

who are interested in these two topics must consider the various issues

presented in this chapter when developing their research paradigms.

In “The Outline of History, Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind,” H.G.

Wells (1922) said, “Human history becomes more and more a race between

education and catastrophe.” The loss of half a population or subgroup to

undereducation cannot be sustained by this country over time, and for

Mexican-Americans and Puerto Ricans the catastrophe is now. The

relationship between dropping out and drug use must be further elaborated

on with large enough samples to allow for modeling and generalization.

REFERENCES

American Council on Education. Minorities in Higher Education: Ninth Annual

Report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 1991.

Annis, H.M., and Watson, C. Drug use and school dropout: A longitudinal study.

Canadian Counsellor 9:155-162, 1975.

Bruno, J., and Doscher, L. Patterns of drug use among Mexican-American

potential dropouts. J Drug Educ 9:1-10, 1979.

Chavez, E.L.; Edwards, R.; and Oetting, E. Mexican-American and white

American school dropouts’ drug use, health status, and involvement in

violence. Public Health Rep 104(6):595-604, 1989.

Dryfoos, J.G. Adolescents at Risk. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Elliot, D.; Huizinga, D.; and Ageton, S. Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.

Fagan, J., and Pabon, E. Delinquency and school dropout. Youth Soc

20(3):305-354, 1990.

Fine, M. Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public school. In: Natriello,

G., ed. School Dropouts: Patterns and Practices. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1986.

General Accounting Office. School Dropouts: The Extent and Nature of the

Problem. HRD85-105BR. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 1986.

General Accounting Office. Teenage Drug Use. 8241016. Washington, DC:

General Accounting Office, 1992.

232
Kandel, D. Reaching the hard to reach: Illicit drug use among high school

absentees. Addict Dis 4:465-480, 1975.

Kandel, D.B. Convergences in prospective longitudinal surveys of drug use in

normal populations. In: Kandel, D.B., ed. Longitudinal Research on Drug

Use. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing, 1978. pp. 1-38.

Kaufman, P., and Frase, R. Dropout Rates in the United States: 1989.

Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics, 1990.

Kolstad, A., and Kaufman, P. “Dropouts Who Complete High School With a

Diploma or GED.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco, CA, May 1989.

Kolstad, A.J., and Owings J.A. High School Dropouts Who Change Their Minds

About School. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Research and

Improvement for Statistics, Longitudinal Studies Branch, 1986.

Mensch, B.S., and Kandel, D.B. Dropping out of high school and drug

involvement. Soc Educ 61:95-113, 1986.

Miller, S.M.; Nicolau, S.; Orr, M.T.; Valdivies, O.R.; and Walker, G. Too Late to

Patch: Reconsidering Second-Chance Opportunities for Hispanic and Other

Dropouts. Washington, DC: The Hispanic Policy Development Project, 1988.

Natriello, G.; McDill, E.L.; and Pellas, D.M. Schooling Disadvantaged Children:

Racing Against Catastrophe. New York: Columbia University, 1990.

U.S. Census Bureau. Hispanic Americans. March 1990.

Wehlage, G.G., and Rutter, R.A. Dropping out: How much do schools contribute

to the problem? In: Natriello, G., ed. School Dropouts: Patterns and

Practices. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.

Wells, H.G. The Outline of History, Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind.

New York: MacMillan, 1922.

Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education. From Minority to Majority.

Boulder, CO: WICHE Publications, 1987.

Winburn, G.M., and Hays, J.R. Dropouts: A study of drug use. J Drug Educ

4:249-254, 1974.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The work described in this chapter was supported in part by NIDA grant

DA-04777-05.

AUTHOR

Ernest L. Chavez, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Psychology

Colorado State University

Fort Collins, CO 80523

233
Getting Into the Gang: Methodological

Issues in Studying Ethnic Gangs

Karen A. Joe

INTRODUCTION

The study of gangs has a long but rather uneven and curious history.

The tradition begins in the roaring 1920s with Frederick Thrasher’s

classic study (1927), “The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago.”

His principal concern was to understand the development and processes

of gangs; this social phenomenon was increasingly visible in transitional

areas of the city, where large numbers of recent European immigrant

groups were settling. His work was informed by the University of Chicago’s

theoretical framework of social ecology and methodological tradition of

ethnography. Researchers still regard Thrasher’s 7 years of fieldwork

as the most ambitious and comprehensive to date. It entailed extensive

observations; interviews with gang members, local residents and merchants,

and public officials in Chicago; and analyses of census and juvenile court

documents.

A few descriptive studies of ethnic gangs followed Thrasher’s pioneering work

and were best represented by Whyte’s (1943) piece on neighborhood groups

of young Italian men in Boston. Jackson (1989) notes that these studies were

primarily concerned with process questions and continued to rely on such

ethnographic methods as personal and/or participant observation and

interviews.

From the 1950s to early 1970s a new generation of sociologists emerged

who were principally interested in the etiology of gangs. During this period,

they developed numerous theoretical concepts and issues that led to endless

academic debates over such theoretical matters as “focal concerns” (Miller

1958), “reaction formation” (Cohen 1955), “criminal, conflict and retreatist

gangs” (Cloward and Ohlin 1960), and “near groups” (Yablonsky 1959). Some

of these theoretical ideas were put to the “empirical test” through interviews

with gang members and personal observations (e.g., Short and Strodtbeck

1965). But many observers noted that this period of gang research was far

too heavy on theory and far too slim on empirical work (Klein 1971; Hagedorn

1988; Spergel 1984).

234
Gang research was essentially put to rest for the next decade as researchers

shifted their focus to other areas such as evaluations of diversion programs,

general studies of delinquency behavior, and advancements in methodology.

However, sociology and criminology recently have witnessed a resurgence

of interest in understanding youth gangs. Many current studies have been

concerned less with questions about social processes and causality and more

with crime control (Klein and Maxson 1989; Fagan 1989). This focus stems in

large part from public policy concerns over the gang problem that has assaulted

America’s metropolitan centers and that has spilled over into smaller cities and

towns (Hagedorn 1988). In recent years, the issue has not simply been the

presence or spread of youth gangs but their connection with violence and

drugs.

This particular focus has been accompanied by different methodological

considerations and techniques as well as different funding sources. Many

of these efforts have relied primarily on official data sources such as official

arrest and homicide statistics (Maxson et al. 1985; Klein et al. 1986, 1991;

Curry and Spergel 1988), discussions with law enforcement and public officials

(Reuter 1989), and inmate interviews derived from convenience sampling

strategies (Skolnick et al. 1989). One ongoing study employs a combination

of these techniques and includes interviews with gang members, law

enforcement and school officials, social service personnel, and community

members: observations of police operations; review of gang-related arrests;

and surveys with administrators of the juvenile court, the police, and the

schools (Huff 1989).

But official data sources are complicated by numerous political, organizational,

and individual biases (e.g., campaign promises, arrest quotas, racism). In

addition, other discrepancies make these data difficult to interpret and

generalize, including the high degree of variability in blow cities define and

respond to gang-related crimes (Klein and Maxson 1989; Spergel 1989).

Other recent efforts to study gangs have adopted a different approach. Several

researchers are trying to revive the use of ethnographic methods to understand

today’s ethnic gangs (Hagedorn 1988; Vigil 1988; Jankowski 1991).

AN ETHNIC-SPECIFIC FOCUS

Thrasher (1927) suggested, more than 60 years ago, l:hat ethnicity is an

important dimension in gang dynamics, especially during ecological

succession when one ethnic group and its gang succeed over another,

resulting in fights between different ethnic gangs. Thrasher’s understanding

of the connection between ethnicity and gangs was tied to the European

immigration and African-American migration experiences,

235
Ethnicity continues to be an important aspect of gangs, but as Hagedorn (1988)

notes, the ethnicity of gangs has changed since Thrasher’s time. It no longer

involves European immigrants but, rather, minority youngsters. For the past

several decades, gangs have largely involved African-American, Hispanic,

and Asian adolescents (Miller 1975). Furthermore, the relationship between

ethnicity and gang conflict is more complicated today than in the 1920s. Gang

members are often engaged in fights with rival gangs of their own ethnicity.

African-American gangs are fighting other African-American gangs. Hispanic

gangs are battling with other Hispanic gangs (Moore et al. 1983). Asian gangs

are contending with other Asian gangs.

Despite this, an ethnic-specific focus has not been central to theoretical and

methodological developments in gang research until very recently. Most

researchers of the 1950s and 1960s were principally concerned with theory

building, and when data were used to test hypotheses, issues of ethnicity and

race were often downplayed or ignored. For example, Cohen’s (1955) analysis

of gangs disregards race and instead focuses exclusively on class (Hagedorn

1988). Unfortunately, ethnic-specific research on youth gangs has been

sporadic and limited.

This chapter addresses this research gap and has several interrelated

purposes. First, it provides a brief overview of the current state of research

on ethnic gangs, looking at the nature of these studies, the primary methods

used, and the reasons for the sporadic development of an ethnic-specific

focus. Second, it examines how researchers can begin studying ethnic gangs.

This latter section focuses on the methodological procedures—specific tasks,

general problems, ethnic-specific concerns, and strategies to overcome

problems and barriers—of an ongoing ethnographic study of ethnic gangs in

San Francisco, CA. Discussion of ethnic-specific issues focuses particularly

on Asian gangs, but comparisons are made with African-American and Hispanic

youth groups to illustrate the unique methodological issues involved in studying

different ethnic groups.

CURRENT RESEARCH ON ETHNIC GANGS

Recent efforts to study Hispanic gangs and their communities have started to fill

the research gap and underscore the importance of adopting an ethnic-specific

and culturally sensitive approach to studying ethnic youth gangs. Moore and

colleagues’ (1978) research on Chicano gangs in Los Angeles is perhaps the

leader in this development. Their landmark study is based on a well-balanced

research collaboration with Chicano gang members and provides an indepth

look at the institutionalization of gangs in Los Angeles barrios and the nature

of Chicano gang subculture (i.e., age-graded cliques, allegiance to the barrio,

emphasis on particular Mexican customs and norms such as the importance

of kinship). Anthropologist Vigil (1988) followed Moore’s lead, conducting

236
extensive fieldwork in the barrios of East Los Angeles and offering a new

perspective on Chicano gangs. This perspective focuses on multiple

marginality, which “encompasses the consequences of barrio life, low

socioeconomic status, street socialization and enculturation, and problematic

development of a self identity. [And] these gang features arise in a web of

ecological, socioeconomic, cultural and psychological factors” (Vigil 1988,

p. 9).

Horowitz (1982, 1987) and Horowitz and Schwartz (1974) explore issues

such as honor and violence and community tolerance in relation to Chicano

youth gangs in Chicago. These studies are based on 3 years of participant

observation and a 7-year followup of the youngsters. Zatz (1985, 1987)

provides a different perspective on Hispanic youth gangs by examining

official reactions and responses to gang members in Phoenix, AZ.

By comparison, there are only a few studies on African-American gangs in

places such as Chicago and Philadelphia, and most of these were carried

out during a politically tumultuous time when delinquency prevention programs

were devised as a cure-all for poverty and crime (e.g., Short and Strodtbeck

1965; Krisberg 1974). The political and economic climate of this period was

especially unique. These studies were typically based on interviews with

gang members who participated in various crime prevention programs, youth

workers, and politically astute community activists. Personal observations

supplemented some of these studies. Despite the merits of these studies,

they generally cannot provide insight into the complexities of today’s AfricanAmerican youth gangs, their neighborhoods, or contemporary social policy.

However, Taylor’s (1989) recent study provides a foundation for studying

inner-city African-American gangs. He adopts a community strategy similar

to that found in the growing number of Hispanic gang studies and attempts

to understand African-American gangs in relation to economic, political, and

institutional changes in Detroit neighborhoods. Taylor’s investigative team

relies on a combination of methodologies, including an initial 6-month

“surveillance” period, extensive contact and discussions with community

members (e.g., nongang youth, residents, merchants, recreation workers,

teachers), and group and individual interviews with gang members.

Comparative research on African-American and Hispanic gangs is slowly

emerging and can generally be grouped into two categories. One set of

studies relies largely on official data sources and offers the advantage of

viewing the gang issue in an institutional framework (Skolnick et al. 1989;

Klein et al. 1986, 1991; Maxson et al. 1985; Curry and Spergel 1988). But

many of these efforts are principally concerned with developing and testing

sociological concepts and hypotheses. Moreover, they offer little in the way

of understanding the gang phenomenon from the perspective of those who

237
are closest to the experience itself or of clarifying how public policy would

effectively address the needs of these young people and the communities

they live in.1

In comparison, this is precisely the research agenda of the second set of

recent comparative studies. Hagedorn’s (1988) study of African-American

and Hispanic gangs is based on interviews with gang leaders from a

snowball sampling strategy, an investigation of official responses to the

gang problem, and an analysis of the impact of economic segmentation

and social dislocation on Milwaukee’s neighborhoods. At one level, this

combination of methodological strategies provides policymakers and

researchers with an understanding of the variable nature of gang formation

and organization and of the individual member’s experience. At another level,

it reveals how gangs are interconnected with community dynamics and social

transformations. Jankowski (1991) addresses similar concerns in his ambitious

10-year ethnographic study of African-American, Puerto Rican, Chicano,

Dominican, Central American, Jamaican, and Irish gangs in New York,

Boston, and Los Angeles.

Asian gangs are the most understudied of the ethnic groups. For reasons

discussed in the following sections, researchers have found both the Asian

community and Asian gangs difficult to access (Jankowski 1991; Chin et al.

1990). A few studies have followed the development of Chinese youth gangs

in San Francisco and Vancouver (Takagi and Platt 1978; Joe and Robinson

1980; Joe 1981). Two other endeavors focus on Asian gangs in New York,

with Sung (1977, 1987) providing life histories of Chinese gang members and

Chin (1990) trying to establish a connection between Chinese secret societies,

tongs, and New York Chinatown’s street gangs. The difficulties associated

with accessing Asian gangs and their communities have led to the use of

different methodological strategies from those found in other ethnic gang

studies. Unlike those who have made studies on Hispanic and AfricanAmerican gangs, these researchers have not relied on personal and participant

observations as a method for studying Asian gangs. The principal strategy of

Asian gang studies has involved interviews with community activists, youth

workers, the police, and small samples of gang members and reviews of public

documents and news articles.2

Why So Little Research on Ethnic Gangs?

How can the overall sporadic development in research on different ethnic

gangs be explained? Hagedorn (1988, 1990) identifies several reasons for the

general dilemmas of gang research (i.e., lack of theory, lack of empirical work,

overemphasis on crime), which the author would argue also helps explain why

sociologists have generally avoided an ethnic-specific focus in studying youth

gangs. Hagedorn (1988, p. 27) argues:

238
One reason is that the vast majority of sociologists and

researchers are white, and gangs today are overwhelmingly

minority. The history of the lack of minority participation in

research is a long one (Moore 1973; Takagi 1981). While

there are serious ethical and epistemological questions

involved, the fact is that sociologists in the 1980’s have not

considered minority gangs to be subjects of particular

scientific interest. For white sociologists, ‘benign neglect’

may be tempered with the difficulties of access.

In the case of Asian gangs, the lack of scientific interest is also connected

to common stereotypes of Asian-Americans being a well-disciplined and

hard-working model minority. This typification is problematic in several

ways. First, such gross generalizations are extended to diverse peoples

with different ethnic origins, unique histories and immigration experiences,

and distinct cultural traditions. The term “Asian” itself is quite complex; it

includes approximately 34 distinct ethnic groups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese,

Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and Korean, to name only a few. Second,

such popular conceptions have resulted in the myth that Asian-Americans have

few problems with juvenile delinquency, crime, alcohol, other drugs, poverty,

or housing and that, consequently, there are few social ills in their communities.

Paradoxically, there is little evidence to support or counter these stereotypes,

due in part to the insularity and isolation of Asian communities but, more

importantly, to the inadequate documentation by government and community

agencies (i.e., mental health departments, law enforcement agencies, the

criminal justice system, social service agencies, housing authorities). Many

public agencies, even those located in geographical regions with large Asian

ethnic populations, do not include “Asian” as an ethnic category. Asians are

typically lumped into the category “other.” As a result, researchers have either

not paid particularly close attention to this diverse population or not been able

to obtain relevant data.

The lack of minority participation in gang studies noted by Hagedorn may be

also attributed to what he calls the “withholding tendency” (Hagedorn 1988,

p. 27). In other words, minority scholars may steer clear of this type of

research because they are concerned that their findings on street life will

not dispel but, rather, will fuel and worsen existing racist generalizations.

Although this is a distinct possibility, there is a more basic problem underlying

this potential tendency: There are simply too few minority researchers in this

field. Although a discussion of the reasons for this is beyond the scope of this

chapter, the lack of minorities in the research field is at least partially caused

by the expense and time commitment required for academic and professional

training and by the fact that, even if minorities do get the necessary training, it

is difficult to break into a discipline with an entrenched hierarchy. Others have

239
underscored the critical importance of minority participation (e.g., Taylor 1989).

Jankowski (1991) pointed out that, although he targeted Asian and Samoan

gangs as a major part of his sample, he was unsuccessful in gaining access

to these groups.

One final point merits consideration. Thrasher’s classic work demonstrated

that ethnography was particularly fruitful for studying youth gangs, but this

methodological strategy was not fashionable during the 1970s and even into

the 1980s. This was due partly to funding sources and emphasis on gangs

as a crime problem as well as advancements in quantitative techniques

(Hagedorn 1988). A strictly quantitative approach offers numerous advantages

ranging from easy sampling strategies to swift data collection, yet the resulting

data are often unreliable and biased. These data also cannot reveal what is

distinctive about the “world” of different ethnic groups. But with the increase

of the human immunodeficiency virus among injecting drug users, ethnographic

approaches for studying life in inner cities have become important tools for

researchers and policymakers, starting in the mid-1980s and continuing into

the 1990s. Nevertheless, several methodological issues complicate the study

of ethnic gangs.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN STUDYING ETHNIC GANGS

The following sections first identify these methodological issues and discuss

their implications for research. Then, ways are offered to resolve potential

study problems by drawing on experiences from a current 3-year research

project on San Francisco’s ethnic gangs, the Homeboy Study. This research

project’s primary objective is to acquire a better understanding of the

organization and activities of ethnic gangs and is particularly concerned

with exploring the relationship between gang involvement, crack sales, and

violence. Recent studies (Klein and Maxson 1989; Skolnick et al. 1989)

have examined this connection using indirect approaches such as police

identification files, arrest data, and institutional population samples.

In contrast, this study adopts a more direct strategy, which combines the use

of traditional ethnographic and social survey methodologies, The interview

schedule is both qualitative and quantitative in nature and focuses on issues

related to the group’s history, organization, and activities as well as personal

demographics, alcohol and other drug use, individual history and current

involvement with the group, and prior contact with the judicial system. Because

of the length of time required for the interview, each respondent receives a

$50 honorarium. The sampling framework is based on a snowball sampling

strategy, and referral sources are paid a locator fee for their assistance in

making contacts for interviews. To obtain a representative sample from each

ethnic gang, 10 members from each group have been targeted, with half the

members younger than 20 years of age and the remainder 20 years of age

240
and older. As investigators for this project began the research process, several

interrelated methodological issues were especially relevant:

Defining the issue

Identifying and gaining access to this “hard-to-reach” population

Dealing with the general methodological concerns in studying gangs

Addressing ethnic-specific issues in studying gangs

Interviewing gang members and validating their responses

What Are We Studylng? Defining Gangs

Thrasher (1927) conceptualized gangs in terms of “interstitial groups” that

initially emerged spontaneously but became more fully integrated through

conflict. Since then, sociologists have spent decades trying to define the

concept and have yet to agree on a general working definition. As Fagan

notes, “The distinctions between youth groups and gangs have varied over the

years, as have the distinctions between gang crimes and nongang delinquent

acts” (Fagan 1989, p. 638). These variations are caused partly by differences

in researchers’ theoretical interests and orientation. Changes in the definition

of gangs also reflect larger political concerns and public policy shifts (Klein and

Maxson 1989). These variations underscore the importance of establishing a

working definition, even if it is broadly or loosely conceived. How one defines

the concept has a bearing on the research and discovery process.

So how shall the researcher define the concept? Does one define it from the

perspective of the youngsters of the group? Does one define it according to

the views of the police and community members? Or does one incorporate the

views of all three groups, as Klein (1969, p. 1427) has done. According to him,

a gang is:

any denotable adolescent group of youngsters who (a) are

generally perceived as a distinct aggregation by others in

their neighborhood, (b) recognize themselves as a

denotable group (almost invariably with a group name), and

(c) have been involved in a sufficient number of delinquent

incidents to call forth a consistent negative response from

neighborhood residents and/or enforcement agencies,

Although this definition seems well balanced, it presents problems. For

example, given this definition, how does a researcher select potential

respondents? Although the police or community members may perceive

a certain group of adolescents as a gang, the youngsters of the group may

not view themselves in the same way. In the Homeboy Study, one well-known

youth worker in the Asian community referred the members of a small “gang.”

When the project researchers began interviewing individual members,

241
questions pertaining to the name of the gang or group were met with genuine

puzzlement. These youngsters adamantly stated that they were not a gang

but “just a group of guys who hung out together.” They did not have a name

for their group. A few of them further indicated that they had been previously

arrested and, during this official contact, learned that the police had listed them

as members of “x” gang. A Latino fieldworker has found that many Hispanic

youngsters proudly identify themselves as “homeboys”—individuals who grew

up in the barrio or neighborhood—but may acquiesce to the term “gang”

member because of the large number of homeboy groups and regional and

prison affiliations.3

 Some African-American adolescents indicate that they

adopted terms such as “posse” and “mob” from the media.

Definitions such as Klein’s impose other restrictions on the research process.

For example, according to Klein, delinquency is a necessary condition of the

gang. But Jackson notes that “most of the gang member’s time is spent in

nondelinquent pursuits, as researchers who have hung around for months

waiting for ‘something to happen’ have discovered” (Jackson 1989, p. 314).

The author and colleagues’ observations of and interviews with San Francisco

ethnic gang members are consistent with Jackson’s findings; these groups are

not necessarily involved in crime and delinquency.

It became clear from these experiences that a flexible working definition

was essential. The author and colleagues have not imposed a rigid academic

definition but have been willing to explore self-definitions and have avoided both

the common assumption of participation in delinquent activities as well as the

imposition of official and community labels.

Getting Into the Gang—Identifying and Gaining Access

How does a researcher get into and begin understanding the world of these

youngsters? Some gang researchers who have conducted interviews and

observed these groups provide few details on their research procedures

and the problems they encountered (Joe and Robinson 1980; Horowitz and

Schwartz 1974). Did they simply start hanging out on a street corner and

wait for group members to grant them recognition?

Recent gang researchers who are working in the ethnographic tradition

have found the process more complex than this and have supplied detailed

accounts of their strategies for accessing their target population (Moore

et al. 1978; Hagedorn 1988; Taylor 1989; Jankowski 1991). Although their

experiences in the field are instructive for studying particular ethnic youth

groups, how can their approaches be incorporated into a comparative

framework? Researchers interested in studying ethnic gangs are likely to

find that identifying and gaining access to this target population are formidable

tasks and involve numerous methodological problems.

242
General Problems in Studylng Ethnic Gangs. At the national and State levels,

there are neither precise figures of the number of gangs nor of the number of

gang members. This unknown universe makes it virtually impossible to develop

a straightforward probability sampling strategy. Sampling is further complicated

by variations in the longevity of the group, instability of individual membership,

and changes in leadership and group rules (Fagan 1989).

Furthermore, gangs may or may not have high social visibility, adding to the

difficulties of locating a study sample (Biernacki and Waldorf 1981). A group’s

visibility is dependent on several factors, including the utilization of a hangout or

turf (and whether it is publicly accessible), nature of the group’s activities, police

surveillance, and community tolerance.

Researchers are likely to encounter other problems even after they have

targeted a potential sample. The most critical one is to gain access to the

group’s world and to obtain the youths’ point of view. Gang members are often

suspicious, believing that the researcher is a law enforcement official. Moore and

colleagues point out that “pintos” (i.e., convicts or ex-convicts) perceive “scholarly

informants” in terms very similar to the “police informant” (Moore et al. 1978,

p. 4). In addition, past exploitative experiences in prison with researchers may

foster distrust (Moore et al. 1978). Taylor’s (1989) experience in making initial

contact with his target population supports this view. Members of the AfricanAmerican corporate gang under study were initially hostile, rejecting his

investigative team’s inquiries and suspecting the team members might be

law enforcement agents. But as Taylor (1989) notes, part of this suspicion

was connected to the team’s field observations of drug sales in the area.

In addition, younger gang members and immigrant adolescents may not

understand the concept of research nor why someone is interested in talking

with them. In these instances, interviewers should clearly explain the purpose of

the study to alleviate anxieties about confidentiality. The “book approach”—“we

want your story”—may be useful in this setting.

Researchers must also consider the respondents’ openness and veracity.

Is the member telling the researcher whatever he or she wants to hear? Is the

member minimizing or being vague about his or her or the group’s activities

or exaggerating his or her or the group’s activities to brag?

Ethnic-Specific Issues. In addition to these general methodological problems,

there are several ethnic-specific issues that researchers must consider in

studying ethnic gangs and their communities. The most pressing issue for

researchers is the overall reluctance of ethnic communities to talk about the

issues. In designing an appropriate research strategy for these populations, it is

necessary to understand the political, social, and cultural reasons why different

ethnic communities maintain silence. At the political level, ethnic communities

243
are likely to be distrustful of the intent and motives of outsiders. Furthermore,

past promises of information sharing on completion of a research effort may

never have materialized, leaving community members embittered about their

honesty with outsiders.

At a more specific level, Taylor (1989) identified the “omerta” or “silence for

self-preservation” as a principal factor inhibiting discussion of the issues among

street people in Detroit’s African-American neighborhoods. Other community

members such as neighbors, gang member peers, and merchants were more

forthcoming than street people after anonymity was guaranteed.

Moore and colleagues (1978) found that Los Angeles barrio residents were

more likely to talk about community problems with pinto interviewers than

with nonpinto interviewers. This finding was attributed to the pintos’ past

participation in the community and their openness in hearing about the issues.

In comparison, nonpinto interviewers might have projected an image that

appeared uncomfortable to the respondent (Moore et al. 1978, p. 202).

The code of silence among Asian-American community members and gangs

is related to several factors. First, Asians have had a historical mistrust of

outsiders and officials, Newcomers from Southeast Asia are especially fearful

of authority figures, having fled from a coercive environment. Consequently,

crime and delinquency have frequently gone unreported to the police (Chin et

al. 1990; Joe 1981).

At the same time, cultural traditions stress that community or family problems

should not be shared with outsiders but dealt with internally. This means

“sticking together and taking care of one’s own problems.” Help from the

outside brings only misunderstandings, unwanted attention, shame, and

disgrace. As a result, Asian communities tend to take on an insular quality.

The local political machinery handles community and, sometimes, family

problems. Personal problems are likely to be handled by family members.

To illustrate how a family problem is sometimes handled, consider a parent

whose child is arrested several times for various delinquent acts. Some

parents send their child back to their homeland or to another State to stay

with relatives. This is done to straighten the youngster out and to avoid

bringing further disgrace on the family (Joe 1991).

In some cases, individuals or family members may approach known staff

members of community-based agencies. But as Loo’s (1991) recent community

survey of San Francisco Chinatown residents indicates, personal problems

are most typically addressed through self-help or support from relatives and

friends. Moreover, the author’s discussions with staff members at these

agencies indicate that, overall, Asian-Americans are generally difficult to

engage and are prone to deny the existence of such problems as alcohol and

244
other drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, family conflict, cultural shock, and

feelings of isolation. For an Asian-American to admit one of these problems

means to admit personal and family failure.

Cornmunity members are likely to keep quiet about gang activity for other

reasons as well. Given the extreme population density of Chinatown combined

with the social insularity of the community, residents fear for their personal and

family’s safety.4

 In addition, local merchants also fear that public disclosure

reflects poorly on the community and, ultimately, is bad for business. Some

local businesses are involved in both legitimate and illegal enterprises (e.g.,

gambling operations) and undoubtedly do not want to draw attention to their

activities.

Similar to the African-American gangs in Taylor’s (1989) study, Asian gang

members are also closemouthed, believing that revelations to outsiders

are acts of betrayal to the group. But some Chinese gangs are connected

with criminally influenced tongs, which provides even more incentive for young

gang members to keep silent.

The general characteristics of Asian gangs also make it difficult for researchers

to penetrate this population. In comparison with other ethnic gangs, Asian

groups tend to have very low social visibility. For Asian gangs in San

Francisco, territorial issues are associated with the extortion of certain

community businesses (Toy 1991). Defending one’s turf and hanging out in

the neighborhood are not central concerns for Asian gang members5

 They

also do not typically identify themselves with any special clothing. Moreover,

some Asian groups, such as the Vietnamese youth gangs, are noted for their

tremendous physical mobility (Vigil and Yun 1990; Chin and Furillo 1991).

Finally, immigration status and language capabilities can make it difficult for

researchers to access members of both the Asian and Hispanic communities.

Resolving These Issues. Given these methodological issues, where does

one start? How does one gain entrance into these ethnic communities?

Some ethnic gang studies have taken a community-based collaborative

approach whereby the research team includes homeboys and academicians

(Moore et al. 1978; Vigil 1988; Hagedorn 1988). Working jointly, the

researchers try to completely immerse themselves in the youth gang’s

subculture and its neighborhoods. This allows them to establish rapport

with gang members and community residents and alleviate suspicion and

fear. Although this approach is well suited for studying small numbers of

ethnic gangs and their communities, it could potentially become problematic

for studying larger numbers of gangs (e.g., heightening existing opposition

between gangs, experiencing budgeting and time constraints of a research

grant).

245
The Homeboy Study is concerned with capturing the point of view of a diversity

of ethnic gangs; this includes comparisons within as well as across ethnicity.

Because this study is broad based and comparative, the methodology differs

from other recent ethnic gang studies. Unlike studies of Moore and coworkers

(1978), Vigil (1988), and Hagedorn (1988), it did not have the extent of prior

contact with the ethnic communities under study. These studies emerged out

of existing community-based research or social service programs and

consequently were well situated in specific ethnic neighborhoods.

In comparison, the principal investigator of this study had worked previously

in San Francisco’s Hispanic community in conjunction with a drug prevention

program and, through his ethnographic research, had developed contacts

with several gangs in this area. But because the parameters of all the major

ethnic gangs in San Francisco were unknown, the author and colleagues first

contacted the police gang and narcotic units and obtained information on the

known groups in the city—gang name, ethnic composition, territory, number of

members. This identification process served as a starting point for the project’s

fieldwork. To ensure the validity of interviews and the safety of the staff, we

have not relied on interview referrals from law enforcement or juvenile justice

authorities.

Fieldworkers and interviewers are a critical part of any research process.

They represent the project in the community and in many ways help legitimize

it. Taylor pointed out that race was a significant consideration in recruiting his

research team to study in the African-American community because nonAfrican-Americans were perceived as unwelcome outsiders (Taylor 1989,

p. 31). But as his study and others (Moore et al. 1978; Hagedorn 1988) have

shown, the research team not only should be able to identify ethnically and

culturally with the gang members, but also should be well connected with the

various communities.

As described earlier, there are few minority researchers in this field of study,

and this became clear in the attempt to locate trained ethnic fieldworkers.

Given the difficulties with finding this type of staff, it was decided to recruit

persons who had extensive knowledge and experience in the various ethnic

communities but were not necessarily trained in qualitative methods. Although

they had diverse backgrounds, all were well connected in the African-American,

Hispanic, and Asian communities. For example, two of our Latino fieldworkers

knew and were well known in the Hispanic community. Both had extensive

contacts with social service agencies and had been street outreach workers

for a community health project. The African-American fieldworkers and

interviewers also had invaluable contacts. One had several personal contacts,

having formerly lived in a housing project dominated by a well-known gang.

He also had previous research experience interviewing crack users in the

African-American community for another research project. Another African246
American interviewer had developed extensive professional contacts, having

worked for many years in several housing projects and community agencies.

Both Asian staff members grew up in Chinatown, worked with a large Asian

youth drug prevention project, and previously interviewed Chinese gang

members.

Once fieldworkers and interviewers were located, intensive training sessions

were conducted on the study’s goals, location strategies, interviewing

techniques, data instruments, confidentiality issues, coding and editing

procedures, and validity concerns. Practice sessions were also conducted.

Gender does not appear to affect the quality of interaction with gang members,

although the project’s African-American female interviewer indicates that

older African-American gang members are receptive to talking with her

because “she has that grandmother image that these youngsters greatly

respect.”

“Street smarts,” including knowledge of street jargon, helps legitimize the

interviewer’s status and also facilitates communication and interaction with

the respondent. One of the study’s fieldworkers describes the importance of

“being aware”:

Man, you have to know what’s going on with the guys that

you are interviewing. The interviewer needs to be able to

pick up on those issues. You have to constantly watch their

behavior. I was interviewing a guy who kept telling me,

“No, man, I’m not doing no drugs,” and his partner in the

other room kept hollering, every 20 minutes, “Hey, narcs

are cruisin’ outside.”

The ability to converse in Spanish has been important for interviewing Latino

gangs whose members included recent immigrants. One interviewer has

been able to quickly adapt to the respondents’ language preferences. Thus far,

interviews with Chinese and Vietnamese adolescents have been conducted in

English. Their preference for speaking English is not surprising: youth workers

of community-based agencies in the Asian-American community indicate that

many immigrant youngsters prefer to speak English at all times, even when

their native tongue predominates at home. The reasons for their preference

are unclear but may be related to identity and assimilation concerns.6

Once turf areas had been identified and the research team had been

trained, the research team was interested in getting a better sense of what

was happening on the streets. We wanted to establish and, in some cases,

verify the existence of certain gangs and also to obtain firsthand information

on the nature of group and individual activities, especially drug sales.

247
Consequently, the principal investigator initiated the observational process, and

the fieldworkers conducted systematic observations of turf areas in the AfricanAmerican and Latino communities. These two communities were relatively selfcontained, and boundaries were well defined.

The fieldworkers have continued to observe different groups and their

activities in these areas, even while members are interviewed for the social

survey component of the study. Moreover, the project has developed ongoing

relationships with three Latino gangs. Our fieldworkers’ ability to engage

these groups was very likely related to their ties in the neighborhoods and

housing projects and to the consistent contacts made with community agencies.

The initial observational process was similar to Taylor’s (1989) “surveillance

approach.” But as he cautions, once his investigative team verified the

existence of and acquired information on the group, its first attempts to

engage gang members were rejected. His team eventually was able to

break the omerta when the gang was thrown into confusion from a Federal

investigation (Taylor 1989, p. 37).

By contrast, the Asian-American community was scattered in various sections

of the city, and there were initially neither public turfs identified for Asian gangs

nor public areas used in drug transactions.7

 Key informants indicated that

drug sales often occurred in residences and through pickup-and-delivery

systems. Consequently, field observations for this population were not

conducted during the early stages of the project. As the study progressed,

observations of public areas were begun when one of the Chinese fieldworkers

learned from key informants of a location where many youngsters congregate

and sometimes get recruited into a gang as well as a few bars where drugs

are sold. Overall, Asian gangs and drug sales have been less publicly visible

in the community compared with other ethnic neigborhoods, which has limited

the ability to conduct field observations of these groups.

Once the fieldworkers started the observational process, the primary focus

turned to identifying effective location strategies so that interviews with

individual gang members could begin. Several location strategies were

identified: (1) staff members’ personal contacts, (2) community agencies’

referrals, and (3) other locators’ contacts (i.e., individuals who are not

necessarily homeboys but are well connected to the community). And from

these three sources, we anticipated a fourth (and, in our view, very important)

location strategy involving the development of chain referrals by homeboys

themselves (i.e., other homeboys refer their peers).

Shortly after the interviewers started accessing the groups and interviewing

individual gang members, it became clear that each ethnic community had

different location strategies. In the African-American community, the research

team members were able to initiate interviews from their personal contacts.

248
This pattern quickly shifted, and other gang members began referring their

peers. The interviewer in this community has found that 15- to 16-year-old

teenagers are sometimes skeptical of the interview, even when their peers

refer them or when the interviewer knows them personally. When this

skepticism occurs, the interviewer adopts the book approach and reassures

them of the confidentiality of the study. Overall, gang member referrals

remain the dominant location source in this community. Hagedorn was also

able to establish a chain referral system among the “top dogs” of Milwaukee’s

African-American and Hispanic gangs and had responded similarly to gang

leaders’ skepticism, stating a preference for using street names or initials of

other group participants rather than real names (Hagedorn 1988, pp. 32-33).

In contrast, community-based agencies provided the starting point for groups

in the Latino and Asian communities. In the former community, one of the

Latino interviewers personally knew some homeboys and was able to initiate

interviews in this way, but the research team members relied mainly on their

personal and professional contacts with two community agencies. At one of

the organizations, the principal contact was a homegirl who provided invaluable

contacts and referrals. With regard to the two agencies, each provides services

principally to one specific group of homeboys; these two homeboy groups are

rivals. One of the Latino interviewers has been sensitive to the opposition of

the two groups and has tried to interview a certain number of members from

each group. This helps avoid offending both the members and the groups.

These safety precautions must be underscored; the intsrviewer indicates that,

“our community is so small that word gets around fast. People talk. A particular

group may have a common friend with the enemy.”

As the Latino homeboys became familiar with the study and our interviewer,

they were increasingly willing to refer other homeboys. Also, homeboy referrals

were facilitated in the Latino community by tapping into the opinion leader who

carries a great deal of weight in the group.

Although the team’s approach in the Latino neighborhood can be characterized

as a community-based strategy, it differs from Moore and colleagues’ (1978)

research, which developed out of a preexisting collaborative advocacy effort

between pintos and academicians. In their study, many of the project staff

members were gang members who had extensive ties in the three barrios

under study.

In general, the Asian community has been more difficult to access than the

African-American and Latino communities. The project’s Asian research team

initiated interviews with the assistance of their personal contacts at two youthserving agencies in the Vietnamese and Chinese communities. The principal

contact at the Vietnamese community center has numerous personal contacts,

having formerly been a gang member. Although the study has several contacts

249
at the Chinese community agency, one has been especially invaluable in

legitimizing our interviewers. This referral source works extensively with

members of all ages and from several different Chinese and Vietnamese

groups and, most important, is well respected by them. A personal connection

is important for targeting this population, or as our referral source puts it,

“you know Asian kids, they don’t trust you at all if they don’t know you.”

These community agency contacts have been the principal referral sources

for accessing Asian gangs. An independent locator has also been a vital

connection for making contact with several Asian groups, and interviewers

have pursued their personal contacts as well. It has been especially difficult

to obtain referrals from other Asian gang members.

Although community agencies can provide a useful starting point for gaining

access to ethnic gangs, referrals from this source should be closely monitored

to reduce the potential for bias. Researchers should have a thorough

understanding of the agency’s history in the community, philosophical

orientation, program activities, and clients served. Some agencies tend to

focus their efforts on younger members, finding that older adolescents and

young adults are more difficult to engage. Similarly, agencies sometimes

concentrate on less serious cases: in these instances, the probability of

intervention is greater than with “hard-core” cases. Some community agencies

deal only with certain kinds of cases (e.g., school referrals) or, as discussed

above, only one specific group of gang members.

Although paid locators can facilitate access to the target population,

researchers must be aware of and guard against potential problems.

For example, in this study, some locators were trying to “get a cut” from

the monies paid to the interviewees they referred. In a few cases, interviewers

quickly surmised during the interview that the paid locator had coached the

respondent on what to say. Finally, a locator may try to monopolize the

position of being a referral source. We encountered one locator who was

unemployed and who wanted to be the sole referral source for certain groups

in his neighborhood. He instructed the study’s interviewer not to ask the

interviewee for referrals nor to reveal that he was receiving a locator fee. If

he had been allowed to maintain such a position, he would have prevented

the development of other referral chains.

Some interviews are initiated by fortuitous events (Biernacki and Waldorf

1981). For example, our interviewers were sometimes walking in the

neighborhoods with someone who knew and spotted potential respondents.

In the Asian community, the interviewer is able to pursue these interviews

on the spot. But the Latino community encompasses a small area where

“everyone knows what’s up.” Our staff person refuses to conduct on-the-spot

interviews and prefers “appointments only” because he wants to make it clear

250
to the various homeboy groups that he is not involved in their disputes. Taylor’s

(1989) “break” provides another illustration of how researchers penetrate

sensitive populations.

The Homeboy Study also has found that interviews with former gang members

are especially instructive and offer a social historical context for understanding

gangs in ethnic communities. Unlike some younger members, former members

can provide details and insight into the history of particular groups, the reasons

for prior and existing intergroup and intragroup conflict, and transformations

of both the groups and the neighborhood.

Hitting the Streets: Interviewing Homeboys and Validating Their

Responses

Once researchers locate and access a target population, another set of issues

must be addressed. First, finding a suitable place to conduct the interview is

no small matter. Originally, the project planned to have a place to do the

interviews, but this proposition raised numerous liability and safety concerns

(e.g., members from two opposing gangs accidentally meet with each

other). Consequently, several community agencies were contacted and

paid for providing space to do the interviews. When we selected the

community agencies, we were especially sensitive to the local dynamics.

The research team also has used other sites, depending on the circumstances

of the individual interview.

Because the Latino community is small and the two primary referring

community agencies work with rival groups, project interviewers have located

a community center that is considered by the gang members and residents as

neutral territory. This “safe place” is the primary location for interviews with

Latino homeboys. Taylor (1989) relied on several sites located in various parts

of Detroit to conduct group and individual interviews with two “corporate” gangs

and four “scavenger” groups.

When the project’s contacts at the Asian community agencies refer a gang

member, the research team usually conducts the interview at the center. In

a few instances, however, the gang member feels uncomfortable in a social

service environment and wants to avoid meeting at the agency. The

interviewers work with the youth to find an alternative site. Interviews with

Asian gang members also have been carried out in such settings as the

member’s residence, a peer’s home, a car, the beach, a park, and coffee

shops.

Our African-American interviewers have relied on several interviewing sites,

including a neutral community center, gang members’ residences: laundromats,

and cars.

251
A second logistical issue concerns scheduling interviews, specifically with

Asian gang members. Our experience with these youth has been particularly

instructive. Asian cultural traditions strongly emphasize group identity, and in

this study, the members of certain groups wanted be interviewed together.

However, group interviews were not appropriate given our research interests

as well as possible methodological problems associated with this approach.

Instead, we scheduled their interviews back to back so that they could come

together but be interviewed separately. They were willing to wait for each

other even if it meant sitting around for several hours.

Another consideration in conducting interviews with ethnic gang members

involves the data collection instruments. Researchers should adjust the

interview schedule to reflect each ethnic group’s and individual’s language

capabilities, their cultural terminology, their ethnic experience, and their

generational status. For example, in this study, one Latino interviewer has

translated the data collection instruments into Spanish for interviews with

many of the Latino homeboy respondents. Minor adjustments in terminology

can also be effective for establishing rapport with the respondent during the

interview process. For example, the same Latino interviewer cites the use

of several such terms: “maton” for PCP, “chiva” for heroin, and “leyno” for

marijuana joint. Our Asian interviewers refer to “dai-lo,” which is a term Chinese

gang members use when referring to the leader. The interview schedule for

Asian gang members has been expanded to explore the relationship between

the youth groups and the tongs and gang involvement in such activities as

gambling and extortion.

During the interview process, fieldworkers and interviewers should be aware

of local dynamics for both research and safety reasons. As in the case of the

Latino interviewer described above, a researcher must make it clear through

words and actions that he or she is neutral. Researchers should also know

what is going on with the different gangs as well as in the community. When

the “heat’s on” and groups are “gang banging,” interviews with opposing

homeboy groups should not be scheduled. The staff may also have to take

steps to avoid being put in a bad situation. For example, when a fieldworker or

interviewer is walking with a homeboy and they encounter “the enemy,” the

worker leaves the scene immediately.

Finally, fieldworkers and interviewers should be concerned about the validity

of gang members’ responses. Moore and coworkers (1978) tried to alleviate

this potential validity problem with a community needs-oriented approach,

collaborating with barrio members. In comparison, our orientation is based on

a combination of community contacts and a book approach. Undoubtedly,

there will be instances in which an individual will try to create stories to obtain

the financial honorarium, or members of the group will try to get their story

together prior to individual interviews. Project staff members have tried to

252
sensitize interviewers to the possibility of lying, especially regarding drug sales,

and have questioned them regularly about the validity of the homeboys’

answers,

As did Taylor (1989), our African-American interviewer finds that younger

respondents tend to exaggerate and brag about their activities. However,

she also contends that older members tend to minimize or downplay their

activities. In either case, these members are frequently tested on the spot

with “reality checks.” As this interviewer states, “I check out their answers

with them. I test them. I don’t let them get by. They just want to see if you

are going to believe them.” Another method for validating answers on the

spot involves rephrasing and repeating questions during the interview.

The truthfulness of respondents can sometimes be checked through staff

discussions and observations, Staff members have sometimes conducted

interviews with gang members who are known personally by another staff

member. This study’s fieldworkers have found a few instances in which the

respondents’ answers to questions regarding certain activities were inconsistent

with their field observations.

The validity of gang member responses sometimes becomes clear after

several interviews with a group are completed. For example, after doing a

number of interviews with two gangs, we reviewed all the completed interviews

and questioned their reports about drug sales. No one admitted to selling.

We continued to interview members of the two groups, and eventually some

respondents reported sales by the groups. Later, the field observer also was

able to observe drug sales by people he had interviewed and other gang

members. We also made contact with some homegirls of the two groups,

and they reported drug sales by both groups.

CONCLUSION

This discussion underscores the importance of an ethnic-specific focus

in studying gangs and describes some of the major tasks, issues, and methods

for accomplishing this. An ethnic-specific focus in studying gangs is critical for

several reasons. First, although ethnic-specific research on gangs

is sparse, existing studies suggest that there are major differences in the

development, activities, and organization of varying ethnic gangs. Jackson

has recently recommended a comparative approach: “Research should look

at the variation in gangs and gang behavior across ethnic lines, since there is

some evidence of important differences between Asian, Black, Hispanic and

white gangs” (Jackson 1989, p, 323). Second, these differences are important

to understand from a policy standpoint. The experiences and concerns of each

ethnic community and its members are diverse: a culturally appropriate

approach is essential for effective policy and program planning.

253
NOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Although Skolnick and coworkers’ (1989) study is based on 39 interviews

with gang members and in some respects provides the “gang perspective,”

their results must be interpreted cautiously because their sample was

drawn from self-selected young males who were incarcerated in juvenile

and adult correctional facilities and who were first approached by prison

authorities. Moreover, Skolnick and colleagues interviewed the

respondents in these correctional facilities. Several potential biases are

associated with this methodological strategy, including official designations

vs. self-designations of gang affiliation, coercive vs. voluntary participation,

and respondents’ veracity given present circumstances (i.e., incarceration).

Vigil and Yun’s (1990) study of southern California Vietnamese gangs

includes 17 interviews with youngsters who were incarcerated for gangrelated offenses.

Homeboy affiliation in California is first tied to region (e.g., north/south) and

then to city. These regional affiliations are carried over into the correctional

setting. See Moore and colleagues (1978) for the connection between

pinto (i.e., convict or ex-convict) and barrio.

Chin and colleagues (1990) also describe some of the problems of

accessing the Asian community, but they were able to gain entry into

extortion activities in New York’s Chinatown through interviews with victims.

In comparison with gangs of today, San Francisco’s Chinese gangs of

the late 1960s and into the 1970s had a higher visibility. These gangs

had relatively well-defined turfs and hung out in public areas (Morici and

Flanders 1979). However, this pattern changed after the infamous Golden

Dragon Massacre in 1977 and the subsequent formation of the Asian Gang

Task Force.

While conducting an evaluation of a drug prevention program in San

Francisco’s Asian community, the author attended a community forum

organized by Vietnamese youth for their parents. The major issues

discussed between the youngsters and their parents centered on cultural

conflict within the context of a generation gap. During the forum, the

youngsters talked in English about their concerns and issues, whereas

parents and other elders responded in Vietnamese.

Although Chinatown is one of the most densely populated areas in San

Francisco and is the central business district for Chinese and Southeast

Asians, it represents only one of the many areas in which they reside.

254
Moreover, many commercial enterprises have emerged in other areas of

the city where large numbers of Asian-Americans live.

REFERENCES

Biernacki, P., and Waldorf, D. Snowball sampling. Sociol Meth Res 10:14 -163,

1981.

Chin, K. Chinese Subculture and Criminality: Nontraditional Crime Groups in

America. New York: Greenwood Press, 1990.

Chin, K.; Fagan, J.; and Kelly, R. “Studying Extortion in New York City’s

Chinatown: A Discussion of Methodological Issues.” Unpublished

manuscript, 1990.

Chin, S., and Furillo, A. Viet gangs a growing threat in US. San Francisco

Examiner, April 28, 1991. pp. A1, A10.

Cloward, R., and Ohlin, L. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of

Dielinquent Gangs. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960.

Cohen, A. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. Glencoe, IL: Free Press,

1955.

Curry, D., and Spergel, I. Gang homicide, delinquency, and community.

Criminology 26:381-405, 1988.

Fagan, J. The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among urban

gangs. Criminology 27:663-669, 1989.

Hagedorn, J. People and Folks: Gangs, Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt

City. Chicago: Lakeview Press, 1988.

Hagedorn, J. Back in the field again: Gang research in the nineties. In: Huff, R.,

ed. Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990. pp. 240-259.

Horowitz, R. Adult delinquent gangs in a Chicano community. Urban Life 11:3-

26, 1982.

Horowitz, R. Community tolerance of gang violence. Soc Prob 34:437-450,

1987.

Horowitz, R., and Schwartz, G. Honor, normative ambiguity and gang violence.

Am Social Rev 39:238-251, 1974.

Huff, C.R. Youth gangs and public policy. Crime Delinq 35:524-537, 1989.

Jackson, P. Theories and findings about youth gangs. Crim Just Abstr

21(2):312-329, 1989.

Jankowski, M.S. Islands in the Street. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press, 1991.

Joe, D., and Robinson, N. Chinatown’s immigrant gangs. Criminology 18:337-

345, 1980.

Joe, K. “Kai-Doi’s: Gang Violence in Chinatown.” Paper presented at the Annual

Conference of Rho Chapter of California Alpha Kappa Delta. University of

California, Los Angeles, CA, May 9, 1981.

Joe, K. “California’s Runaway Scene.” Paper presented at the California

Association for Criminal Justice Research, Sacramento, CA, April 4-5, 1991.

255
Klein, M. Violence in American juvenile gangs. In: Mulvihill, D., and Tumin, M.,

eds. Crimes of Violence. Vol. 13. National Commission on the Causes and

Prevention of Violence. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., US. Govt. Print.

Off., 1969. pp. 1427-1460.

Klein, M. Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,

1971.

Klein, M.; Gordon, M.; and Maxson, C. The impact of police investigations on

police reported rates of gang and nongang homicides. Criminology 24:489-

512, 1986.

Klein, M., and Maxson, C. Street gang violence. In: Wolfgang, M., and Weiner,

N., eds. Violent Crime, Violent Criminals. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989. pp.

198-234.

Klein, M.; Maxson, C.; and Cunningham, L. Crack, street gangs and violence.

Criminology 29:623-650, 1991.

Krisberg, B. Gang youth hustling: The psychology of survival. Iss Criminol

9:115-129,1974.

Loo, C. Chinatown: Most Time, Hard Time. New York: Praeger, 1991.

Maxson, C.; Gordon, M.; and Klein, M. Differences between gang and nongang

homicides. Criminology 23:209-222, 1985.

Miller, W. Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. J Soc

Iss 14:5-19, 1958.

Miller, W. “Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in

Major American Cities.” Report to the National Institute for Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

1975.

Moore, J. Social constraints on sociological knowledge: Academics and

research concerning minorities. Soc Prob 21:65-76, 1973.

Moore, J.; Garcia, R.; Garcia, C.; Cerda, L.; and Valencia, F. Homeboys:

Gangs, Drugs, and Prison in the Barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press, 1978.

Moore, J.; Vigil, D.; and Garcia, R. Residence and territoriality in Chicano

gangs. Soc Prob 31:182-194, 1983.

Morici, J., and Flanders, D. Chinatown youth gangs-past, present and future.

California Youth Authority Q 32:19-24, 1979.

Reuter, P. “Youth Gangs and Drug Distribution: A Preliminary Enquiry.” Paper

prepared for the US. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

1989.

Short, J., and Strodtbeck, F. Group Process and Gang Delinquency. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1965.

Skolnick, J.; Correl, T.; Navarro, E.; and Rabb, R. The Social Structure of Street

Drug Dealing. Sacramento, CA: Office of the Attorney General, State of

California, 1989.

Spergel, I. Violent gangs in Chicago: In search of social policy. Soc Service Rev

58:199-226, 1984.

256
Spergel, I. Youth gangs: Continuity and change. In: Morris, N., and Tonry, M.,

eds. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research. Vol. 12. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1989. pp. 171-275.

Sung, B. Gangs in New York’s Chinatown. New York: Center for Migration

Studies, 1977.

Sung, B. The Adjustment Experience of Chinese Immigrant Children in New

York City. New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1987.

Takagi, P. Race, crime, and social policy: A minority perspective. Crime Delinq

27:48-63, 1981.

Takagi, P., and Platt, T. Behind the gilded ghetto: An analysis of race, class and

crime in Chinatown. Crime Soc Justice 9:2-25, 1978.

Taylor, C. Dangerous Society. East Lansing, Ml: Michigan State University,

1989.

Thrasher, F. The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1927.

Toy, C. “Chinese Gangs in San Francisco.” Unpublished manuscript, 1991.

Vigil, J. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern California. Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press, 1988.

Vigil, J., and Yun, S.C. Vietnamese youth gangs in Southern California. In: Huff,

R., ed. Gangs in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990. pp, 146-152.

Whyte, W. Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943.

Yablonsky, L. The delinquent gang as a near group. Soc Prob 7:108-117, 1959.

Zatz, M. Los Cholos: Legal processing of Chicano gang members, Soc Prob

33:13-30, 1985.

Zatz, M. Chicano youth gangs and crime: The creation of moral panic. Contemp

Crises 11:129-158, 1987.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research for this chapter was made possible by National Institute on Drug

Abuse (NIDA) grant DA-06487. Dan Waldorf, David Lauderback, Sherry

Michalske, Helen Mason, Tomas Morales, Calvin Toy, and Mario De La Rosa

made helpful comments.

AUTHOR

Karen A. Joe, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Department of Sociology

University of Hawaii at Manoa

247 Porteus Hall

2424 Maile Way

Honolulu, HI 96822

257
Identifying, Gaining Access To, and

Collecting Data On African-American

Drug Addicts

Leon E. Pettlway

INTRODUCTION

The desire to reduce the supply of and the demand for illicit drugs has resulted

in legislative actions at the Federal, State, and local levels that impose criminal

penalties on suppliers and users of drugs. Correspondingly, these efforts have

also created treatment strategies for users and have established education and

prevention programs for would-be users. Research efforts, on the other hand,

have sought to determine how to develop and implement better treatment,

education, and prevention strategies in both the drug-using and general

populations.

To that end, researchers have surveyed drug users in different types of settings

(e.g., treatment and prison environments) as well as drug users who were not in

those settings. To a large extent, these investigations have assessed the role

of racial and ethnic variables on the effectiveness of treatment, although many

of them did not consider the lifestyle context of the addict (Hunt and Odoroff

1962; Valillant 1966; Dale and Dale 1973; liyama et al. 1976; Joe et al. 1977;

Creative Socio-Medics 1977; Reed 1978; Edwards 1978-79; Linn and Shane

1979; Cohen et al. 1980; Craig 1980a, 1980b; Penk et al. 1980). Other surveys

have investigated active drug users who were not in treatment in community

settings and have conducted interviews with adolescents and senior high

school students (Paton and Kandel 1978; Dembo et al. 1979, 1980). These

studies have centered on the social and psychological correlates of drug use.

However, only a few studies have used ethnographic and participant

observation methods to examine various types of drug use and drug users

in their natural settings (Lindesmith 1947; Becker 1953; Finestone 1957;

Preble and Casey 1969; Hanson et al. 1985; Johnson et al. 1985; Goldstein

1985; lnciardi 1991; lnciardi et al. 1991; Waldorf et al. 1991).

These ethnographic studies provided a model and framework that were used

by the Urban Lifestyles Project (ULP) so that contacts could be made with drug

258
users and non-drug users in several neighborhoods in the Philadelphia

metropolitan area. This chapter discusses several methodological issues

associated with identifying, gaining access to, and collecting data on AfricanAmerican drug users. Usually, when such issues are discussed, researchers

report standard methodological concerns such as establishing the ethnographic

field station, locating the sample, utilizing one or several outreach strategies,

collecting the data, or discussing the necessary attributes required by the

individuals engaged in the collection of data. These issues have appeared to

be more relevant, whereas the more tangential issues of stress management,

safety, administration of personnel, learning street language, and understanding

the institutional bureaucracy with which the researcher is affiliated have

received little attention in the scholarly literature. These issues, along with

the more traditional ones, are discussed here.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES OF THE URBAN LIFESTYLE PROJECT

lndepth interviews from the project’s field site assessed the impact of drug

use and spatial and environmental factors on decisions to execute burglary,

robbery, theft, prostitution, drug dealing, and shoplifting on two groups of

offenders with differing involvements with drugs. More specifically, the

research aimed to determine (1) the effectiveness of environmental factors

on the crime-commission patterns of addicts and (2) whether these factors

continue to be effective during periods of low drug availability and/or need.

If obstacles prevent addicts from carrying out their crimes, the research asks

whether addicts will commit other crimes at different locations. There are two

secondary objectives. The first is to ascertain the influence of drug use and

sociodemographic characteristics on the development of daily activity patterns

and to determine whether these patterns give rise to different interactions that

provide the opportunities for crime in urban areas. The second objective is to

determine the influence of environmental factors on the execution and location

of crime in light of the supposed conditioning effects of crime partnership

participation. Particular attention is given to gender differences in the utilization

of space as well as the gender-specific roles that addicts play in crime groups.

The research illuminates several issues not previously considered in extant

drug/crime literature: Does drug use force addicts to disregard environmental

crime prevention signals and accept greater risk to complete their crimes, or

does drug use force addicts (in the face of environmental factors) to shift

to different crime sites and/or crime types (crime displacement) that have

lower environmental risks? Does drug use, along with sociodemographic

characteristics, influence the distribution of crime by influencing patterns of

activity, space utilization, and crime site selection? To what extent do the

drug-using patterns of men and women influence crime group participation,

and do these crime group affiliations result in different crime patterns?1

259
FIELD SITE

Even with Philadelphia’s historic and colorful past, the city has not escaped the

ravages of urban decline, crime, drugs, and poverty. Philadelphia’s role as a

regional population center continued to erode in the 1980s as more and more

city residents moved to the suburbs. Preliminary results from the 1990 Census

of Population and Housing showed 1.54 million residents in Philadelphia, a

9-percent decline from 1980 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1990). This decline

resulted in a reduction of the city’s tax base, which in turn compounded the

mounting fiscal problems faced by a city with a projected budget deficit of $2.3

billion for fiscal year 1991, Unprecedented narcotics trafficking and abuse and

the related problem of soaring crime rates are among the most serious problems

confronting the city. Hardcore drug addiction and blatant street sales show no

signs of easing. At the same time, crime rates continue to rise. The city set a

record last year for murders, robberies, aggravated assaults, and other violent

crimes. Police reports indicate that narcotics were involved in 50 to 70 percent of

all crimes. Since 1986, when crack cocaine abuse first spread through the city,

the number of violent and property crimes has risen 32.4 percent. In every police

district, the volume of crime is higher today than 5 years ago. Violence against

police is increasing. Since October 1989 five Philadelphia officers have been

killed; none were killed in 1987 or 1988. Philadelphia leads the Nation’s major

cities in the proportion of drug use by those under arrest. A report issued by the

U.S. Department of Justice revealed that 81 percent of males and 78 percent

of females arrested during the first quarter of 1990 tested positive for drugs,

most often cocaine (Philadelphia Inquirer 1991). Cocaine-related deaths in

Philadelphia rose for the fifth straight year in 1989, the latest year for which

statistics are available, to 321 from 279 in 1988. The mother of one in every six

newborns used cocaine during pregnancy. At the hospital of the University of

Pennsylvania, 20 percent of the women admitted in labor during 1 month tested

positive for cocaine use. Drug-related arrests rose 55 percent between 1985 and

1989 (Philadelphia Inquirer 1991) .

Within this atmosphere of increased awareness of drugs, crime, and violence,

ULP established its field site in south Philadelphia. As in other projects that had

established field monitoring stations, locating an area where the residents were

unconcerned about project presence and identifying an area that was centrally

located to a large drug-using population were overriding concerns.

The ULP site was located within blocks of the Martin Luther King housing

complex, consisting of four highrise public housing buildings. One building

has such a notorious and violent reputation that it is referred to as “Saigon.”

One long-term female resident of Saigon, who participated in a life history

interview, described the conditions there and in the housing complex in

general by saying [transcribed account of audiotaped life history interview

(a series of four hyphens indicates deletion of unsuitable language)]:

260
Filthy. I mean the hallways are filthy. There’s trash all over

the steps-dirty Pampers, dirty feminine stuff [sanitary

napkins] all over the place. You know, we got 15 stories, right.

The incinerator is backed up from the first floor to the. . . . , you

can’t even put no trash in it. That’s how backed up the trash

is.

Smells like - - - - and - - - - in the hallway. Now, like say. . . if

you wanna hit [of crack], right. Say like, if I’m contemplating

the thought of getting a hit, right. My body goes the same as

any other addict. You get that thing [take a hit of crack], you

gotta - - - - ! It gots to come out! You might be just standing in

the hall. You can’t go in nobody house. It has to come out!

You release right there, you know. You ain’t gonna’ hold it,

It started getting bad like, okay, this is ‘90, I can say ‘80.

When . . . crack started. . . . We didn’t have drugs like

that then [when she was 10 years old]. You had to venture

out for drugs. Stuff like that. You ain’t had pushers on every

corner. Pushers everywhere you look. Mothers pushing,

grandmothers pushing. . . . It’s just everybody selling cocaine.

So, it’s worse. Worse. Brothers cussing . . . you cussing your

mother out. Beating your mother up if she don’t give you

money to get your hit and all that - - - - . You disrespecting

your mom. All kind of - - - - . It never was like that. Never

was like that. You still had a sense of, you know, you do

respect your mother. You would dare not talk back to mother,

right. That was a no-no. Naw, - - - - ! A little boy . . . my

girlfriend, her son “Get the - - - - outta my face.” He sells

drugs. He’s 15. It was a shock to me. Much as I seen and

been through, - - - - . . . still got the nerve to shock me.

[Residents shoot off their balconies] just to see if they guns

working. That’s part of everyday life. We used to duck.

We don’t duck no - - - - more. Business as usual! Don’t

even move unless you see a body being dragged around or

somethin’, and then you only move to see who got shot. “Is

this my son?” “Is that my nephew?” or somethin’ like that.

You just sit there. Even old Miss B. just sits there. She don’t

even duck no more.

. . . when grow up in the projects, man, you gotta stay away

from boys raping you. You got to duck gun shots and

somebody getting stabbed, and then the drugs is there at you.

And it was just a living . . . it was a survival for your life every

261
- - - - day you woke up. Every day you woke up. Every day

you woke up something was going on, something was

happening. Like . . . you was always going to somebody’s

funeral. It’s just living hell.

Many of the project’s research respondents resided in the Martin Luther King

housing complex, and its location relative to the field site influenced the lives

of staff members in terms of parking their cars, their personal safety in the

immediate vicinity of the field site, and their general safety within the field site.

In terms of the research, this location was critical in gaining access to the drugusing African-American population. Large numbers of drug users and criminals

lived in the nearby housing projects. The field site was located one block from

one of two subway lines and was very accessible to Center City, Philadelphia’s

central business district. Therefore, it was possible to interview research

respondents from many different Philadelphia neighborhoods and other

parts of the Philadelphia metropolitan area.

Because there was some appreciation that the community might be concerned

with the presence of the project and because the community played no role in

granting permission to establish the field station in the community, respondents

were required to follow certain guidelines of behavior. Respondents were not

permitted to loiter outside the field site and were requested to leave the field site

in an orderly manner. In spite of the desire of most addicts to continue “taking

care of business,” there was never an incident in which it was necessary to

confront a respondent concerning his or her behavior outside or inside the

field site.

The field site consisted of four separate offices in a recently remodeled

building that was leased by Horizon House, one of the larger drug treatment

organizations located in the city. Given the description of other field locations

used by past researchers, 1211 Bainbridge Street was luxurious with its

reception area, freshly painted walls, carpeted floors, functioning bathrooms,

and air-conditioning and heating system—all of which were located within the

confines of another organization that tried to meet the needs of the drug-using

population. The location within this complex also helped to ease the fears of

neighborhood residents about the way the research project might contribute

to increasing drug use or crime in their area. The location also provided

research staff members with additional safety because they were not operating

in isolation or seclusion. The close proximity of the field site to a treatment

facility did not bias the selection of the research sample given the particular

services provided at this site. From this location, Horizon House staff members

were responsible for locating temporary housing for homeless respondents

and coordinated community outreach in other high drug-use areas of the city;

262
the facility also offered services to dually diagnosed patients who resided

onsite. Therefore, for many drug users who used this facility, these services

provided temporary relief from their homelessness and offered a respite from

their addiction. The project’s research objectives were made clear to the

staff members of Horizon House, and when they believed they had an eligible

research respondent, both the case manager and the project’s field coordinator

discussed whether the respondent was eligible for inclusion in the research

project.

IDENTIFYING AND GAINING ACCESS TO RESEARCH RESPONDENTS

The task for any researcher is to transform a funded research proposal into

a reality. The proposal serves as a guide that steers the project and keeps

the researcher on course; however, the research landscape is fraught with

unanticipated obstacles and is continually being redefined. Consequently,

field research is not composed of a set of neat procedures, but represents

a social process between the researcher and the research respondent

(Hammond 1964; Shipman 1976; Bell and Newby 1977; Bell and Encel

1978; Shaffir et al. 1980; Roberts 1981; Burgess 1984). The nonparticipant

observer role and the participant observer role have been discussed as

they relate to drug abuse (Power 1989). It is this social process between the

researcher and the respondents as well as the unexpected situations that occur

that require the researcher’s creativity, patience, and perseverance. The first

stage in the process requires making initial contact with the study population.

For ULP, finding the initial pool of research respondents was simple, because

the field site was located where there were many crack houses and drug users.

However, maintaining the flow of respondents required considerably more

effort. “Snowball sampling” (sampling using referrals) has been one way to

handle the sampling problem when the target population is small and widely

scattered. This strategy involves locating the initial members of the target

population who then are asked to identify other members of the drug or

criminal subculture who are then interviewed (Welch 1975). Biernacki and

Waldorf (1981) have discussed the problems encountered using the method

in a study of former opiate users. At the Philadelphia field site, ULP’s

outreach workers proved to be an important link between the drug

subculture and the field site.

Field Outreach Workers

The project employed outreach workers who were recovering addicts; by virtue

of their prior associations with drugs and other drug users, these workers were

able to recruit drug users into the project. It was important that the outreach

workers have a substantial period of sobriety before their employment and

adequate social support networks to reduce the possibility that they would

resume their drug use.

263
A successful outreach worker must be able to interact with members of the

drug subculture and members of the “legitimate” world. In that regard, the

outreach worker must have the “right” image in terms of speech and dress

and also be streetwise and streetsmart, with a well-established reputation

in the neighborhood in which he or she works. By allowing the outreach

worker to discuss his or her knowledge of the reputations and histories of

various neighborhoods, the recruitment effort can be aided by utilizing the

life experiences of a streetsmart outreach worker. It is also possible to

review old associations that were established when the individual was an

active user of drugs. These associations may reveal an “old head” in the

community who might be used as a source to identify younger drug users.

One advantage of using outreach workers as recruiters is to increase the

likelihood that research respondents will meet the eligibility requirements of

the study. If the researcher trains the outreach workers sufficiently, they will

understand the dangers associated with contaminating the research effort

with individuals who do not meet the eligibility requirements. Therefore, it is

imperative that these issues be discussed frequently with the outreach workers

throughout the life of the project and that the outreach workers understand

their important role as the project’s gatekeepers. Typically, gatekeepers are

individuals in organizations who have the power to grant or withhold access

to people or situations for the purpose of the research. Unlike the usual

situation in social science research in which the researcher gains access

to an organization (Bogdan and Taylor 1975), in drug research, it frequently

is necessary for the research project to have its own gatekeeper. The

gatekeeper must have the ability to reject individuals who do not meet the

project’s research requirements and defuse situations that have the potential

of becoming volatile when rejected respondents protest. The gatekeeper

must also be streetwise, have the ability to look beyond what is being said

to determine what is true, and have the ability to develop probes to reveal

whether an individual is an acceptable respondent. The gatekeeper must be

aware of certain cues, both verbal and physical, that might suggest any serious

behavioral abnormalities that could place other staff members in jeopardy.

Therefore, the gatekeeper’s role involves not only safeguarding the integrity

of the sample but also reducing the likelihood that injury might occur in the

field site.

It is also true that a good outreach worker will train both an experienced

and a novice researcher in the current ways of a constantly changing urban

landscape. However, the required attributes and traits that make for successful

outreach workers sometimes seem antithetical. Using individuals who are in

recovery brings with it a set of issues that few members of the academic

community have had the opportunity to consider because many come from

middle-class or working-class families with middle-class aspirations. Therefore,

some researchers may bring to the field a set of cultural expectations and

264
values that are different from those of the individuals who may assist them

with their research efforts and different from those of the individuals whom

they interview to gain an understanding of the various aspects of the lives of

drug users.

Some researchers may expect that those who labor with them will care about

their work with the same enthusiasm as the research staff, that they will grow to

appreciate the value of the research and the special talents they possess, that

they can be trusted, that they will arrive at work on time, that they will not

constantly be driven by a desire to “get over” (take aclvantage, accomplish aims

with little or no effort) or display other “dope fiend moves,” and that they will

go where they are supposed to go and put in a good day’s work. These may

be the expectations and hopes of the researcher, but the continual struggle is

the development of shifting strategies that are devised to change individual

coworkers into a team of individuals who care about each other. When a

human bond is established among staff members, a bond with a purpose,

all members care for and respect each other and consequently will value the

mission that they all share. The process is not immediate, and the manner

in which the bond is created is difficult. The task and the struggle are to take

the disparate characteristics of a recovering outreach worker and an interviewer

and recognize those traits that assist the project in its mission and, at the

same time, discourage the negative personality traits that are divisive and

counterproductive to the research effort. This is not taught in graduate school;

perhaps the only roadmap is derived from the lessons of living life.

Consequently, for ULP, it became important to establish a system of controls

to monitor the activities of the outreach worker and the interviewer. The

experience in the field quickly made it apparent that it was necessary to

adopt strategies and structures with clearly defined and consistent rules and

expectations of behavior. The academic’s role as a university professor is

based on autonomy and independence. Expecting that these sets of conditions

can be transplanted to the field is a critical mistake that will jeopardize the

researcher’s control over the individuals he or she supervises and endangers

the quality of the data obtained from the research respondents. It is a good

idea for the researcher to leave behind the university and its set of unfolding

social processes and acquire a mindset that prepares him or her for the

concrete jungle littered with crack vials, dirty needles, and unwashed flesh.

Research Participants as Informants

There are many parts of the subculture that recovering outreach workers

are reluctant to enter. Irrespective of the length of sobriety, many recovering

addicts are hesitant to go into social situations that will place them in direct

contact with active drug addicts. The recovering heroin addict is reticent

about entering a shooting gallery to witness needles being inserted in arms

265
and blood being drawn to be mixed with the heroin that will bring about a “nod.”

The recovering crack addict is disinclined to venture into a hit house or crack

house to be a silent observer of crack rocks filling a straight shooter or a pipe

and the cloudy smoke of crack accumulating in a pipe. These images endanger

sobriety, and environments that active users frequent may be off-limits for many

recovering addicts. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to use active addicts

as referral sources than to use recovering outreach workers.

Active users have access to parts of the subculture that are not accessible to

staff members. The field site was always a place where research respondents

would hang out or those who had finished all phases of the research would

return to visit staff members. After relationships were established with many

of these individuals, it was possible to recruit some of them to enter these

settings specifically to recruit research respondents for the project. One

important obstacle to the use of research respondents as informants or

referral sources is that it is difficult to find those who can be trusted. The

researcher must always remember that these are addicts and that much

of their existence has been devoted to developing the art of manipulation

and being whatever is required of them, when the need arises, to “get over.”

Consequently, using these individuals is charged with the possibility that just

to obtain the small fee they receive for each referral, these informants will refer

potential respondents who may not be eligible.

The pool of potential research respondents also can be increased by

distributing flyers in targeted neighborhoods and using the classified

section in neighborhood newspapers to announce the need for research

respondents. In terms of flyers, the central question is where to direct the

outreach effort. It is important to be familiar with the ebb and flow of addicts,

the location of shooting galleries and crack houses, and other locations

where addicts and criminals are known to congregate. Moreover, the

outreach effort cannot be restricted to daylight hours, but outreach workers

should be comfortable with the night scene, particularly if male and female

prostitutes are target subjects,

An additional concern is the timing or initiation of the outreach effort.

Distributing flyers at a time when interviewing slots are filled for a week or

two might result in flooding the field site with respondents and scheduling

interviews too far in the future. Given the chaotic lives of these respondents,

it is sometimes difficult for them to keep appointments that are made too

far in advance. The ideal strategy is to interview respondents as soon as

possible. Any delay results in the individual simply not returning to the field

site to be interviewed. Placing newspaper advertisements announcing the

need for research respondents was less successful.

266
The field site’s location should not necessarily be viewed as permanent;

researchers must be receptive to the idea of reestablishing the field site in

some other neighborhood if the number of referrals begins to diminish in one

location. Also, depending on whether the staff and the researcher believe

that staff members can operate with little supervision, using several satellite

interviewing sites also may aid in data collection.

Eligibility Requirements and Maintaining Sample Integrity

As any researcher who has worked with this population can attest, money

and acquiring money to maintain drug use are recurring concerns. Therefore,

any opportunity to get money that does not involve the dangers of crime is

compelling. Research projects that offer payment to respondents in exchange

for information are easy targets for a wide variety of scams. In a project such

as ULP, where the research sample is stratified by age, it becomes important

to safeguard sample eligibility requirements. No matter what measures are

undertaken to protect these requirements, they are learned fast by respondents,

who quickly will become the required age. Age is a difficult requirement to

validate, and given respondents’ concerns associated with confidentiality,

it is not always possible to request identification. Moreover, members of

the drug and criminal subcultures have almost immediate access to sources

that could furnish fraudulent identification. To some extent, observant field

workers can identify individuals who make false claims, and the interview

instrument can be devised to identify others by distributing age-related

questions through the interview to verify age. This strategy proved to be

invaluable in maintaining the reliability of the age variable in the research

project.

COLLECTING DATA

Merton (1947) stated that “informants will not hesitate to make certain private

views known to a disinterested outside observer—views which would not be

expressed were it thought they would get back to management; the outsider

has “stranger value.” The idea and the value of the outsider are recognized

in social science literature (Merton 1972). Neutrality is central, and the belief

that it is the research respondent who has the information or who is the expert

is critical to the research effort. The researcher is merely a medium through

which the respondent’s experience and knowledge can be woven and conveyed

to others. This notion of outsideness appears to stimulate more uninhibited

responses from respondents and allows objectivity to be maintained. However,

although the researcher must realize the importance of the role in the abstract,

in reality some identification with the research respondent is also important.

This was revealed vividly early in the field.

267
On one occasion, some potential research respondents arrived at the field site

to make inquiries as to whether they were eligible to participate in the research

project. Because they were waiting for their “boss” (the author) to arrive to

make decisions as to which respondents would be selected, to take only the

better candidates, the staff members instructed the research candidates to wait.

When I arrived, I walked into the reception area, and one of the staff members

said, “There he is,” and I noticed a reaction of surprise on the faces of these 12

to 15 African-American men and women as they sat around the reception area.

They were surprised that I am also African-American. Later, when I interviewed

one woman who had been in the room that morning, she told me how proud

she was when she looked up and saw me, an African-American man, entering

the room. To be sure, I was an outsider, but I was also one of them, and

because I was, I also belonged to them. A sense of trust developed between

us, and I was affectionately called “Doc.”

Respondents would ask, “Why are you doing this?,” and they were never

given the simple explanation derived from the project’s purpose. Rather, it

was important to communicate the social value of the research and their value

as individuals, that is, people who led lives that few Americans were given the

opportunity to witness.

As a native of North Carolina, I was a novice to the “mean streets” of

Philadelphia, even though I have spent the past 10 years in the Germantown

section of the city. Some respondents assumed that it was their responsibility

to teach me the ways of the streets. It is important to observe and nurture

with the understanding that, if too much rapport develops, acceptance grows

to a point where certain penetrating lines of inquiry might have to be dropped.

However, the novice researcher can use this status to his or her advantage

and uncover information by simply asking questions. These are questions

that come from not assuming to know the responses because the novice is

too “green” to know what the possible range of responses is in the first place.

In some ways, this is a great advantage if used properly and applies to field

staff members as well as researchers. A researcher who is not trained in the

ways of the streets can use more seasoned staff members as tutors. When the

ULP field site closed, one of the outreach workers remarked that he thought I

had grown up in a cave. He said, “Where did this man come from? I thought

you grew up in a - - - - [expletive deleted] cave or something. But you asked

questions, lots of questions, and learned quick.”

To workers in the field, it became clear that research respondents, just as

others engaged in any social interaction, value honesty. This is particularly

true of streetsmart drug users who have learned all the social cues associated

with surviving the streets (Anderson 1990). It is not enough to inform

respondents of the nature of the research. The researcher must communicate

the value of the research and the importance of the respondent’s role in the

268
research. At the same time, the researcher must be willing to demonstrate

genuine concern for the respondent and his or her life and remember that the

respondent is still a part of the human family even though the respondent

communicates accounts that deeply trouble the researcher’s own sense of

humanity, integrity, and justice. Even when a respondent is interviewed in a

small room and the respondent’s smell is so acute that the researcher almost

retches from the odor of unwashed clothes and flesh and it takes 2 hours for

the smell to dissipate, the researcher cannot allow that situation to prejudice

his or her perception or treatment of the respondent. Moreover, it is important

to communicate to other members of the staff the importance of respecting the

human condition. This is particularly true of some members of the recovering

community who have forgotten or cannot remember what it was like when they

were at their very worst in their own addiction.

Of critical importance for the outreach worker and other staff members is to

befriend individual contacts made on the street or in the field site. The field

site must take on the character of a safe place, a haven away from the streets,

a place where one can talk without being judged or punished. Whyte (1955),

Anderson (1990), and Liebow (1967) all have indicated the importance of

befriending an individual or a group of individuals who provide invaluable

support to the research effort.

Above all, research respondents must believe the promise of strict

confidentiality. The assurance of strict confidentiality should be stressed

at the initial contact with the respondent in addition to several times during

the interview. This helps to relax the respondent, and once rapport is

established, most respondents love to discuss the details of their lives.

Members of the middle class have at their disposal any number of outlets

if they are disturbed or troubled. For the most part, having access to mental

health practitioners is a luxury of middle-class and wealthier members

of American society, and few poor people have the good fortune to have

a neutral individual to listen and not judge them. Therefore, there is a

tremendous need for members of drug and criminal subcultures to discuss

and reflect on the meaning of their lives with someone who will spend the

time to listen. Many of the project’s lower-class participants found the

interviewing process cathartic, and it became somewhat clear that the

multiple contacts with some of the research respondents had a therapeutic

effect. Many ULP respondents asked for referrals to treatment programs

when their cycle of interviews was completed, or many of them returned to

the field site weeks after completing all their interviews to inform the staff that

they had just finished a treatment program. When they were asked why they

had entered treatment, they replied that the interviewing process had made

thern think about what they were doing. Somehow, the six interviews that

were conducted with these respondents—interviews that required a respondent

to recount his or her week—focused the respondents’ attention on their lives

269
to such a degree that they decided to make some changes. The objective

was not necessarily to steer the research respondent to treatment, but the

rapport that was established with project members caused some respondents

to reassess their lives.

Interviewers

The interviewers play a critical role in data collection, The impact of the age

and racial attributes of the research/interviewing staff has been reviewed in the

literature. Phenomenological social scientists, minority social scientists, and

racial and ethnic minority leaders have criticized the use of the social survey as

a data gathering device. This criticism has necessitated the use of innovative

ways of conducting surveys. One strategy has been for senior researchers to

form collegial relationships with young African-American and Chicano urban

residents who work as interviewers (Myers 1977). The effect of the sex of

the interviewer on data collection has also been observed in connection with

sensitive questions. Darrow and colleagues (1986) demonstrated that, at least

for patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and homosexual men,

the sex of the interviewer and the place of interview had little influence on the

answers obtained. However, Warren and Rasmussen (1977) demonstrated

that the gender and attractiveness of the researcher can be important in

obtaining access to data.

ULP used several different kinds of individuals, with differing personalities and

life experiences, as interviewers in Philadelphia. Some female respondents

who engaged in prostitution as a money-making activity were less likely to feel

comfortable discussing their sexual exploits with male interviewers. Some

male interviewers found it very difficult to discuss the sexual exploits of drag

queen street hustlers, and in some instances, some of the street hustlers were

more comfortable with female interviewers. Some male interviewers also felt

uncomfortable when a gay male street hustler made what one interviewer

perceived to be sexual advances. Therefore, gender and sexual orientation

were complicated issues that were worked out between interviewers and

respondents and required the careful observation of the senior researcher.

As for race, the project employed both African-American and majority

members as interviewers, Few African-American respondents had difficulty

being interviewed by majority members, but there were instances when a

respondent requested to be interviewed by an African-American. However,

race did not appear to be an important concern. What appeared to be of

greater importance was the overall character and climate of the field site.

For example, many of the respondents who were interviewed lived or grew

up in the same neighborhoods as some of the interviewers. They knew the

same people and discussed people they knew in common. Therefore, even

when a stranger or new respondent was sitting in the reception area, the

270
stranger overheard these conversations and, consequently, became more

relaxed and reassured that the field site and staff members were not the

extension of some law enforcement agency. Therefore, the interviewer was

better able to establish rapport with research respondents given their commonly

shared acquaintances.

On one occasion, a respondent told a male interviewer that she had stolen rent

money from her girlfriend’s mother’s house. When another interviewer, one

who knew the girlfriend and her mother read this account, she believed the

account to be fictitious. When the respondent returned to the field site, she

was confronted, and the female interviewer was able to uncover the “real”

story associated with the respondent’s criminal activity, an elaborate scam

that involved taking orders for clothes from residents of the housing complex

and paying for these clothes using phony checks.

There are many reasons for respondents to fabricate and to omit important

details. A good interviewer is able to separate, to some extent, fiction from

truth as well as obtain details that are difficult for the respondent to discuss.

For example, one respondent discussed, with great difficulty, his mother’s

addiction [transcribed account of audiotaped life history interview]:

The furniture was gone. The electric was off; we had

candlelight. Eventually the water was cut off, because of the

checks she wrote, and they wouldn’t accept anymore. Her

pride is just too-too, you know. I wasn’t gonna let her stay

there by herself. We started washing in alcohol [in order to

take baths], you know. She said that’s good for you anyway,

washing in alcohol. She always had some kind of saying for

doing what she was doing.

I could see the hurt in her. I could see the hurt, the

humiliation, the, uh. Like I said, she was always a strong,

independent person, and this crisis deteriorated her at that

time, and I can feel and see it, you know. Being part of her,

you know, more than my brothers and sisters, because of the

relationship we have, the tightness, I would try to do things, or

she’ll say something or make a statement and I would agree

with her only to make her feel better about it, you know. But

uh, I wouldn’t let her know how hurt I was about that situation.

. . . Yeah, yeah. And that was embarrassing. That the

neighborhood starting, you know, the house that I use to be

proud and keep the door open, I didn’t do that anymore. So,

all these things that was hurting me, I kept it in. I had nobody

to talk to about it anyway. I didn’t want to talk to anyone about

271
it. I didn’t want her to know how I feel ‘cause I know she

always felt . . . she already felt bad, and, you know, everything

else, you know.

. . . The embarrassment. Wondering if other kids go through

that—Are there any kids my age going through that type of

situation with their parents. Uh, making excuses, you know,

okay, like when [friends came over]. I had stopped my

company from coming over. Once in a while when one of

them did come over, and if something wasn’t normal or

something was gone, I use to make excuses for it or

something like that. Before, I use to let ‘em come in and we

sit and play records, but after that, we either sit on the steps

or we’d go out in the park, or to the playground or something.

Another respondent relived his brother’s murder when the respondent was

12 years of age and his brother was 14. He said [transcribed account of

audiotaped life history interview]:

He had got her pregnant [his brother’s girlfriend], and like she

tried to milk him. Well, on a slang tip, that’s like try to juice my

brother for money, because she getting ready to have a baby.

My brother gave her $250 to get an abortion. She said she

ain’t want it. So he kicked her in the stomach so she lost the

baby.

She told her family and her family told like other partners

of their group and what not, you know. OK, so they came

down to party. This was.. . up Germantown, So anyway,

everybody seen them at the party. OK. We saw ‘em, you

know. I was a young buck, but then still I was still part of the

gang. Because that’s my family, like everybody in my family,

like from like 13 on up to 17 was in the gang. So more or less

I was in there. Because if my family fighting, I’m gonna fight

too. OK, so, when I saw my brother fighting, I got in it. So the

dude he pulled out a gun and shot my brother twice in the

head, and my brother fell.

I saw him bleeding out the head. He had two holes. He had

one like over top his ear and he had one on his ear, not like

through the hole in your ear but like on this piece like here

[indicating the lobe of the ear].

272
These accounts provide some indication of the human tragedy that many of the

respondents conveyed to the ULP staff. These accounts and other traits of the

respondents increased the amount of emotional stress experienced by field

staff members.

Stress and Field Research

Few people have the opportunity to glimpse the subcultural world of drug

users and criminals. What many people know about these issues is what

scholars have disclosed about crime and deviance or from reading the print

media or watching television. It became clear to field staff members that

poverty, decay, despair, and hopelessness were experienced each day in

the lives of these respondents in ways that many other Americans know little

about. It is difficult to hear young African-American males state that they are

criminals and will end up in jail because society expects African-American

males to be incarcerated. It is equally difficult to listen to stories recounting the

physically and sexually abusive situations from which many of the respondents

escaped. It is difficult to see pregnant women on crack and to experience their

own self-hatred for what they are doing to themselves and to their unborn

children. It is hard to look into the eyes of countless African-American faces

that seem to be without any hope of a better life and to realize that, for many,

their common experience is all they expect life to be—hopelessness. It is

difficult to listen to the story of a young gay drag queen who had his throat

slit and face slashed and was left on the street to die. It is difficult to hear

from many respondents who learn that they are infected with the human

immunodeficiency virus and that they have no means of finding a place to

live during their illness. These situations happen constantly and can affect

a researcher’s morale. It can seriously demoralize the staff and lead to staff

burnout. But an even more serious stress factor involves issues of personal

safety.

It is difficult to wake up each morning and be afraid to go to work. The fear

of being robbed was caused, at least in part, by the fact that, at each of the

cycle interviews, respondents were paid $15. The rationale for paying

research respondents in cash was debated at length. After considering

confidentiality and human subject concerns, it was felt that the best way

to ensure that these concerns were not violated was to pay respondents

in cash. Devising the procedures for distributing and controlling the flow

of money at the field site was relatively uncomplicated. The psychological

hardship was greater than the logistical concerns associated with the

disbursement of money. Although only a small amount of cash was taken

to the field site each day, respondents were aware that some cash was kept

there. Therefore, there was always the possibility of robbery.

273
Safety issues were discussed at staff meetings, and safety precautions were

well documented in the project’s field manual. However, no matter how often

these issues were discussed, it was difficult to ensure that individuals would

take safety precautions seriously. The worst fears of the staff were realized in

April 1991 when the project’s field coordinator was attacked at the field site, and

a pair of gold pierced earrings were snatched from her ears. After having both

earlobes sutured, she took several weeks to feel safe in the field site, and the

incident further heightened each staff member’s own sense of vulnerability.

There is also the stress associated with the enormous amount of work

that a project of this size requires. The long hours and the unexpected

problems that are outside the researcher’s control also contribute to stress.

Supervising the field staff and university staff members who support the

project is extremely demanding, with all the inherent stressors associated

with overseeing a large staff, with each member having his or her own gifts

and problems. For each researcher, certain situations are more stressful

than others, but all researchers must find their own strategy to devise ways

to reduce the stress that limits their ability to interact effectively with staff

members as well as with research respondents.

Bureaucracies

It is also difficult to establish a field and project office staff of approximately

20 employees within a large university bureaucracy. It is important for

researchers to thoroughly understand their home institution before submitting

a grant proposal. Researchers must know the length of time required to hire

staff members, given the university’s internal requirements associated with

obtaining authorization for the establishment and classification of university

positions, advertising and conducting interviews with prospective candidates,

and receiving final approval from the university’s affirmative action office before

any position can be filled. Moreover, it is important to understand university

personnel policies and procedures that relate to the conditions under which

employees can be terminated. In some instances, the process of termination

can be lengthy and costly and may interfere with the operation of the research

project. It is important to know how many sick, vacation, and other leave days

the institution grants to employees and to assess the impact that these benefits

may have on the overall research effort. The University of Delaware, for

example, provides all professional and staff employees with 18 paid sick

days, 22 paid vacation days, and 18 paid holidays. These kinds of issues

must be considered very early in the development of the research design.

The researcher must understand the bureaucratic landscape of the larger

institution of which he or she is a part and understand the structure well to

get things done in a timely fashion and receive the resources necessary to

facilitate the research project.

274
CONCLUSION

The “field” will change a researcher. Researchers who think they will control

the field experience soon learn that the field has more control over the ways in

which it reshapes the researcher and the lives of staff persons. There are many

lessons to be learned from staff members and research respondents, and many

beliefs that are held as sacrosanct will be tested and revised in light of the

human experiences with poor and needy people.

The sad truth is that drug users are easy to recruit, given the extent of drug

use and poverty in American society. The most difficult part of the process

involves preparing a research design that reflects the realities of the field,

creating a budget that adequately reflects the staffing needs of the project,

and locating good and reliable staff members who have both the knowledge

of the streets and the necessary work ethic to support the research effort.

In light of all experiences encountered in the field, staffing considerations and

the administration of the staff are perhaps the most difficult issues to control.

NOTE

1. Several important theoretical notions are associated with this research.

The context of life structures (regular patterns of domestic, occupational,

(and recreational activities) (Faupel and Klockars 1987) suggests that, as

the addict’s routines of drug buying, selling, and using occur, patterns of

(crime participation evolve. For example, addicts have been shown to use

(drugs so that adverse symptoms of addiction do not interfere with crime

participation. Thus, in the course of their daily activities, addicts assess

the opportunities for crime in locations they routinely visit. Outside of drug/

crime research, investigators suggest that an individual’s sociodemographic

characteristics and environmental characteristics are “somehow” related to

movement in space (Chapin 1974). Both determinants have been viewed

as constraints, with personal characteristics representing the “demand” side

of the equation and the spatial environment the “supply” side (e.g., Burnett

and Hanson 1979; Chapin 1974).

In the geographical literature, the concept of activity spaces parallels

activity patterns and can be characterized as destinations and the

routes between regularly used locations. Most activities take place

in the family, neighborhood, or economic space and vary according to

individual sociodemographic characteristics (Chapin and Brail 1969).

Criminal residence patterns and crime locations have been linked

(Shaw and McKay 1969; Morris 1958), and property crime patterns

have been shown to match the offender’s activity space (Morris 1958;

Reppetto 1974; Rengert 1975; Pettiway 1982).

275
Geographers have also discussed the importance of situational cues and

target selection. The environment and targets within it emit situational

cues about their physical, spatial, cultural, legal, and psychological

character (e.g., police patrols, unprotected or unguarded property,

vulnerable victims, poorly secured structures). These cues may also

be perceived as factors that increase or decrease an offender’s risk of

apprehension (Brantingham and Brantingham 1984; Letkemann 1973;

Reppetto 1974). This research assumes that criminals use cues to locate

targets. It also assumes that cues or cue sequences form templates the

offender uses to compare potential targets, that congruence between

templates and targets leads to rejection or acceptance of a potential

target, and that perceptual similarities and patterns are conditioned

to some extent by sociodemographic characteristics and length of

residence (Lynch 1960; Downs and Stea 1973).

The additional geographical notion of spatial behavior refers to how addicts

negotiate urban areas and why they go where they go to commit crime.

Research on nonaddict populations relates crime to the constraining effects

of distance separating offenders and targets (i.e., interactions decrease as

distance increases). In nonaddict populations, search behavior seems to

start from home and first cover “known” areas close to places of residence.

Crime occurs close to home (Baldwin and Bottoms 1976; Capone and

Nichols 1976; Pettiway 1982), with crimes against the person occurring

“closer” to the offender’s home than property crimes (Baldwin and Bottoms

1976). In addition to other home-centered travel, addicts must also travel

to areas related to their addiction (i.e., for copping, selling drugs). What

is not known is whether the addict’s movement in the city conforms to

that of nonaddict offender populations or whether drug use conditions the

movement and distance that addicts travel to commit crimes. The

preceding discussions point to a need to investigate the decisions that

opiate and cocaine users, as opposed to non-drug users, make in

committing crime by considering the life structure and environmental

constraints that influence their space utilizations that give rise to distinct

crime patterns.

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. Street Wise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community,

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.

Baldwin, J., and Bottoms, A.E. The Urban Criminal. London: Tavistock, 1976.

Becker, H.S. Becoming a marijuana user. Am J Sociol 59:235-242, 1953.

Bell, C., and Encel, S., eds. Inside the Whale. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1978.

Bell, C., and Newby, H., eds. Doing Sociological Research. London: Allen &

Unwin, 1977.

276
Biernacki, P., and Waldorf, D. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of

chain referral sampling. Soc Methods Res 10(2):141-163, 1981.

Bogdan, R., and Taylor, S.J. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods.

New York: Wiley, 1975.

Brantingham, P.M., and Brantingham, P.L. Patterns in Crime. New York:

Macmillan, 1984.

Burgess, R.G. Autobiographical accounts and research experience. In:

Burgess, R., ed. The Research Process in Educational Settings,: Ten Case

Studies. London: Falmer Press, 1984. pp. 251-270.

Burnett, P., and Hanson, S. Mathematical paradigm for movement as complex

human behavior. Transportation Res Record 723:11-24, 1979.

Capone, D., and Nichols, W.J. Urban structure and criminal mobility. Am Behav

Scientist 20:199-213, 1976.

Chapin, F.S. Human Activity Patterns in the City. New York: Wiley, 1974.

Chapin, F.S., and Brail, R.K. Human activity systems. Environ Behav 1:107-

130, 1969.

Cohen, G.H.; Gary, R.E.; Evans, A.; and Wilchinsky, M. Treatment of heroin

addicts: Is the client-therapist relationship important? Int J Addict 15(2):207-

214, 1980.

Craig, R.J. Characteristics of inner-city heroin addicts applying for treatment in

a Veterans’ Administration hospital drug program (Chicago). Int J Addict

15(2):409-418, 1980a.

Craig, R.J. Effectiveness of low dose methadone maintenance for the treatment

of inner-city heroin addicts. Int J Addict 15(5):701-710, 1980b.

Creative Socio-Medics. “Drug Treatment Outcome Among Minorities.” Report

prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, 1977.

Dale, R., and Dale, F.-R. The use of methadone in a representative group of

heroin addicts. Int J Addict 8(2):293-308, 1973.

Darrow, W.W.; Jaffe, H.W.; Thomas, P.A.; Haverkos, H.W.; Rogers, M.F.;

Guinan, M.E.; Auerbach, D.M.; Spira, T.J.; and Curran, J.W. Sex of

interviewer, place of interview, and responses of homosexual men to

sensitive questions. Arch Sex Behav 15(1):79-88, 1986.

Dembo, R.; Burgos, W.; Des Jarlais, D.D.; and Schmmeidler, J. Ethnicity and

drug use among urban junior high school youths. Int J Addict 14(4):557-568,

1979.

Dembo, R.; Schmeidler, J.; and Burgos, W. Life-style and drug involvement

arnong youths in an inner-city junior high school. Int J Addict 15(2):171-188,

1980.

Downs, R., and Stea, D. Images and Environment, Chicago: Aldine, 1973.

Edwards, E.D. Arrest and conviction histories before, during and after

participation in a substance abuse treatment program. Drug Forum

7(3,4):259-264, 1978-79.

Faupel, C.E., and Klockars, C.B. Drug-crime connections. Soc Probl 34(1):54-

66, 1987.

277
Finestone, H. Cats, kicks, and color. Soc Prob 5(1):3-13, 1957.

Goldstein, P.J. The drug/violence nexus: A tripartite conceptual framework.

J Drug Issues 15:493-506, 1985.

Hammond, P. Sociologists at Work. New York: Basic Books, 1964.

Hanson, B.; Beschner, G.; Walter, J.; and Bovelle, E. Life With Heroin: Voices

From the Inner City. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1985.

Hunt, G.H., and Odoroff, M.E. Follow-up study of narcotic drug addicts after

hospitalization. Public Health Rep 77(1):41-54, 1962.

liyama, P.; Nishi, S.M.; and Johnson, B.D. Drug Use and Abuse Among U.S.

Minorities: An Annotated Bibliography. New York: Praeger, 1976.

Inciardi, J.A. Crack-cocaine in Miami. In: Schober, S., and Schade, C., eds. The

Epidemiology of Cocaine Use and Abuse. National Institute on Drug Abuse

Research Monograph 110. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-1787. Washington, DC:

Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991. pp. 263-274.

Inciardi, J.A.; Pottieger, A.E.; Forney, M.A.; Chitwood, D.D.; and McBride, D.C.

Prostitution, IV drug use, and sex-for-crack exchanges among serious

delinquents: Risk for HIV infection. Criminology 29(2):221-235, 1991.

Joe, G.W.; Singh, B.K.; Finklea, D.; Hudeburg, R.; and Sells, S.B. Community

Factors, Racial Composition of Treatment Programs and Outcomes. Services

Research Report. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1977.

Johnson, B.D.; Goldstein, P.J.; Preble, E.; Schmeidler, J.; Lipton, D.S.; Spunt,

B.; and Miller, T. Taking Care of Business. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,

1985.

Letkemann, P. Crime as Work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973.

Liebow, E. Tally’s Corner: A Study of Negro Street Corner Men. Boston: Little,

Brown, 1967.

Lindesmith, A. Opiate Addiction. Evanston, IL: Principia Press, 1947.

Linn, M.W., and Shane, R. Cultural factors and attrition in drug abuse treatment.

Int J Addict 14(2):259-280, 1979.

Lynch, K. Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1960.

Merton, R. Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge. Am

J Sociol 78(1):9-47, 1972.

Merton, R.K. Selected problems of field work in a planned community. Am Soc

Rev 12:304-312, 1947.

Morris, T. The Criminal Area. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958.

Myers, V. Survey methods for minority populations. J Soc Issues 33(4):11-19,

1977.

Paton, SM., and Kandel, D.K.B. Psychological factors and adolescent illicit

drug use: Ethnicity and sex differences. Adolescence 13(50):187-200, 1978.

Penk, W.E.; Robinowitz, R.; Woodward, W.A.; and Hess, J.L. MMPI factor scale

differences among heroin addicts differing in race and admission states. Int J

Addict 15(3):329-337, 1980.

Pettiway, L.E. Mobility of robbery and burglary offenders. Urban Affairs Q

18(2):255-270, 1982.

Philadelphia Inquirer. May 12, 1991.

278
Power, R. Participant observation and its place in the study of illicit drug abuse.

Br J Addict 84(1):43-52, 1989.

Preble, E., and Casey, J. Taking care of business: The heroin user’s life on the

streets. Int J Addict 4(1):1-24, 1969.

Reed, T. Outcome research on treatment and on the drug abuser: An

exploration. Int J Addict 13(1):149-171, 1978.

Rengert, G.F. “Journey to Crime.” Paper presented at the Association of

American Geographers annual meeting, Milwaukee, WI, 1975.

Reppetto, T.A. Residential Crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1974.

Roberts, H., ed. Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,

1981.

Shaffir, W.B.; Stebbins, R.A.; and Turowetz, A., eds. Field Work Experience:

Qualitative Approaches to Social Research. New York: St. Martin’s Press,

1980.

Shaw, C.R., and McKay, H. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Rev. ed.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Shipman, M., ed. The Organization and Impact of Social Research. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of

Population and Housing. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., US. Govt. Print.

Off., 1990.

Valillant, G.E. A twelve-year follow-up of New York narcotic addicts. Arch Gen

Psychiatry 15:599-608, 1966.

Waldorf, D.; Reinarman, C.; and Murphy, S. Cocaine Changes: The Experience

of Using and Quitting. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991,

Warren, C.A.B., and Rasmussen, P.K. Sex and gender in field research. Urban

Life 6(3):349-369, 1977.

Welch, S. Sampling by referral in a dispersed population. Public Opinion Q

39(2):237-245, 1975.

Whyte, W. Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955.

AUTHOR

Leon E. Pettiway, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Division of Criminal Justice

University of Delaware

Newark, DE 19716

279
Surveying and Tracking Urban

Elementary School Children’s Use

of Abusable Substances

Patricia J. Bush, Mary Ann D’Elio, Charlotte D. Peoples, and

Heather M. Schell

INTRODUCTION

Prospective survey research, whose goals are to produce incidence rates and

test causal models, is always problematic. The researcher must meet demands

for accurate tracking, accurate data collection, protection of confidentiality, and

acquiring and maintaining access to the target population. These demands

must be met efficiently under time and budget constraints. When the subjects

are many and young, the data sensitive, and the behaviors of interest relatively

rare, as is onset of abusable substance use in elementary school children,

special consideration to methods of data collection and management will

always be required. Additional problems in collecting data from inner-city

children arise from the fact that they tend to have poor reading skills and

high rates of absenteeism, mobility, school dropout, and retention in grade.

For the longitudinal drug study described here, the authors and colleagues

first surveyed almost all the fourth grade students and about 20 percent

of the fifth grade students in 111 District of Columbia public schools in

1988-89. About 86 percent of the students self-identified themselves as

African-American, 4 percent as white, 4 percent as Hispanic, 1 percent as

Asian, and 5 percent as unknown or other. These 6,000 students were

resurveyed through 1991-92 and tracked into junior high school. The purpose

of this chapter is to describe the methods used to collect data and track the

students who remained in the Washington, DC, public school system during

this period.

BACKGROUND

Urban students have been the subjects of drug surveys, but these studies

have been limited to adolescents and youth. We are aware of no other effort

to survey and track a grade cohort of urban, predominantly African-American

280
students as young as those in this study. Our methods necessarily are

designed to address two problem areas: those associated with collecting

data from young students and those associated with collecting data from

urban students.

Limitations in reading ability, poor reading comprehension, and insufficient

class time devoted to the survey are known to affect the quality and quantity

of data collected. Josephson and Rosen (1978) reported that more than half

of 2,000 urban high school students failed to complete a 75-item survey

designed for students with “average” reading ability and an average class time

for administration of 45 minutes. Students of the same age can vary widely in

reading abilities. Zimmerman and colleagues (1991) assessed the joint effects

of the reading ability of urban, minority students in grades six through eight and

conditions of data collection on the quality of the data. The investigators

concluded that additional time for self-administration (i.e., two class periods

on consecutive days rather than one class on one day) improved data quality

but not as much as an administration format in which questions and answer

choices were read to the students. Errors also were found associated with

questionnaire format; skip patterns and branching increased error rates among

students with poor reading skills.

Although the potential for bias caused by loss to followup can be examined by

comparing baseline data for those retained with those lost, the bias attributable

to uncollected and unusable baseline data cannot be estimated. An obvious

partial solution is to set the reading level of questionnaires lower than average,

but this strategy is constrained when the students are in elementary school and

have both a limited reading ability and a short attention span. Here a tradeoff

must be made between the amount of data that can be collected and the data’s

quality and completeness, Fewer data are better than poor, incomplete data.

Absenteeism accounts for a great deal of subject loss and varies widely

among schools, In their study in 18 urban high schools, Josephson and Rosen

(1978) found absenteeism varying from 5 to 50 percent. If a panel study calls

for repeated interviews over several years, the percentage of students with all

interviews may be far less than the percentage with the first and the last

interview. Repeated school visits to “pick up” absentees is expensive and

so diisruptive to the school that it is often not feasible.

Absenteeism in the context of a survey means that students, expected to be

in the classroom during the survey time, are not there. When a student is

not in a class, the absence may be caused by illness, truancy, detention,

suspension, expulsion, special class or activity, or transfer to another school.

Less well recognized is the effect that tardiness has on the quantity and quality

of the data when the survey must be administered in the homeroom or first

period of the day. If the student has transferred, depending on the survey

281
schedule, it is possible that the student will be “found” at another school. It is

also possible that students who transfer will be resurveyed; if there are enough

of them, these second surveys may be used to evaluate test-retest reliability

before they are discarded.

The need for tracking occurs in experimental research more frequently than in

survey research but presents similar problems. In both types of studies, it is

essential that populations tracked over time are representative to reduce

threats to internal and external validity of the results (Cook and Campbell

1979). A seemingly modest attrition rate of 10 percent annually compounds

into a loss of 41 percent after 5 years. The results are likely to be biased if

retained subjects are unrepresentative, a possibility bearing increased risk if

the behavior studied is confounded with loss to followup, which is a definite

concern in studies of abusable substance use. An additional threat is having

too few subjects to perform appropriate statistical analyses,

Attrition threats are well recognized, although there is little guidance on how

much attrition is too much. Hansen and colleagues (1990) performed a

metaanalysis of the attrition of 85 school-based abusable substance research

cohorts followed longitudinally for up to 3 years. Attrition rates were directly

related to the time from baseline to followup; the average retained at 1 year

was 73.4 percent ±13.0 SD and at 3 years was 67.5 percent ±19.7 SD. The

researchers suggested that studies with attrition rates below the standard

deviation of the mean should be viewed with skepticism and that researchers

should “more explicitly address processes that may account for subject

retention and attrition.”

Josephson and Rosen (1978) reviewed retention rates in studies of drug

use in junior high school, high school, and college students and compared

characteristics of students lost to followup with those retained. In the six

studies reviewed, retention rates varied from 44 to 87 percent, with intervals

ranging from 6 months to 8 years. The length of the interval from the baseline

interview to reinterview did not explain the differences in the percentages of

subjects retained (e.g., the lowest percentage was associated with a 2-year

interval, whereas the highest was associated with a 2-1/2-year interval).

Seventy-two percent of subjects were retained in the study with the 8-year

followup. The researchers reported that highest retention rates were associated

with subject characteristics that least characterize urban schoolchildren (i.e.,

white, upper-middle class, attending schools in small cities). Retention rates

also tended to be increased when the subjects’ names were used for matching

rather than a code created by the subject, when subjects were interviewed

individually, and when samples were small.

282
Josephson and Rosen (1978) found that differences between those retained

and those lost to followup were accounted for by age, attitudes toward school,

behavior in school, attitudes toward drugs, and use of drugs, Biglan and

coworkers (1987) reported that students who smoked and who were at greatest

risk of smoking at baseline were most likely to be lost to followup. In Bailey and

Hubbard’s (1990) study of marijuana onset in secondary school, which was

limited to students reporting no marijuana use at baseline, students retained

were less likely than those lost to followup to report having friends who used

alcohol and marijuana. If reported use of drugs is greater at baseline among

subjects lost to followup, results from students retained in a panel cannot be

generalized to the whole school population.

Some studies of abusable substance use involving children have followed

them for long periods. For example, Block and coworkers (1988) enrolled

130 children at age 3 and reinterviewed 105 (80.8 percent) of these at age

14. Similarly, Baumrind (1985) began with 134 children ages 4 to 5 years and

5 years later reinterviewed 104 (77.6 percent) at ages 9 to 10. At this point she

increased her sample to 164 children and reinterviewed 136 (82.9 percent) at

age 14. Ten years later, Kellam and colleagues (1980) were able to locate and

reinterview 939 (75 percent) of the mothers surveyed when their children were

attending first grade; 18.5 percent of the mothers were lost, and 5.9 percent

refused. Of the mothers interviewed at followup, 705 (75 percent) of their

children were located and interviewed as well. Of these studies, only the last

followed a complete grade cohort of young children from schools in a poor,

African-American, urban neighborhood.

In this case, poor retention rates, 59.4 percent after 2 years and 20.3 percent

after 5 years in a District of Columbia health education evaluation project

beginning in grades four through six in nine elementary schools (Bush et al.

1989a, 1989b), led us to try to explain the reasons and to use different

strategies in our current longitudinal survey research. The primary lesson

learned was that students (and teachers) are mobile and that supposed feeder

school networks (i.e., several elementary schools feeding into one middle or

junior high school) are undependable. For the same number of students at

baseline, it is far better for retention to have more schools and only one grade

than to have fewer schools and several grades, even though it requires a

great deal more administrative effort to deal with more schools.

Although increased attention is being given to methods to reduce attrition in

school-based studies, especially intervention studies (Pirie et al. 1989), much

less guidance is available on methods of data collection and on methods of

acquiring and maintaining access. The circumstances under which schools

permit surveys to be given, even in the same system and sometimes in the

same school, can vary considerably. An additional problem to consider is

that school principals, classroom teachers, and students must be convinced

283
that the data collected are confidential. Sometimes, principals and teachers

want assurance that the researchers will not exploit the students by providing

the results to the local newspaper, thereby making the students “look bad.”

Research in schools in general can be a touchy issue. Principals and teachers

often express opinions that “students are guinea pigs,” “the researchers get all

the money and publications and the students get nothing back,” and “the time

spent on research should be spent on learning.”

Although each problem area must be addressed and will vary with the individual

research project, each should be addressed in a coherent, integrated plan with

as much written guidance as possible. The following section describes the

methods the research team uses to access, maintain, retain, track, and collect

data from young, urban students.

SURVEY METHODS

This study’s survey methods are designed to give the schools and subjects

confidence that the researchers are efficient yet sensitive to their concerns.

Perhaps most important is that the data collection team is small, highly trained,

stable, and ethnically diverse. Currently, of 14 field researchers, 6 are AfricanAmerican and 3 are Hispanic. Also important is that the methods used are

consistent from one year to the next, that a “school is always right” demeanor is

fostered, and that the survey is not viewed as exploitational but as appropriate

for the students, providing useful information and adequate safeguards to

protect the students‘ confidentiality.

Presurvey Procedures

Undergraduate students participating in Georgetown University’s work study

program are recruited at the beginning of the school year for the field research

team; the average student remains on the team for 3 academic years. Field

researchers receive 24 hours of in-house training, which includes cultural

sensitivity, and are observed for 16 hours in the field. Quality-control spot

checks are made biweekly.

Several methods are used to acquire and maintain access to this school

population. It is essential to obtain the blessing of the school administration

and a letter from the superintendent that supports the study and asks schools

to cooperate. The research team also meets with personnel responsible for

school-based research and program evaluation to inform them about the study,

to answer questions and concerns they may have, and to offer to incorporate

questions they may want answered into the surveys. For example, teachers are

surveyed annually about substance abuse prevention activities and programs in

their schools, and the results are provided to central school administration

personnel.

284
Because school principals have the final say over research in their schools,

several things are done to maintain cooperation. A health miniscreening,

consisting of blood pressure and cholesterol readings, is provided to school

personnel on request during the school year. As an additional service, school

system identification (ID) numbers for resurveyed students are provided to the

schools who have missing ID numbers. An annual report from the school

survey is provided to school administration personnel and the participating

school principals. This report, one version for each of the eight school zones,

compares the results for students in each school zone with the overall results

and shows the results for each year. Also, a personalized letter of thanks is

mailed after each school visit to the principal, contact person, and teachers.

No Iater than 2 weeks prior to a proposed survey date, the principal, who

has already received letters introducing the survey and giving the school

administration’s permission, is telephoned to arrange a date and time for

surveying. During this call the principal is asked to designate a contact person

to prepare class lists of names with their school system seven-digit ID numbers.

A contact sheet is filled out for each school with the names of the teachers,

the date and time of the visit, and the contact person’s name. This sheet is

given to the staff member responsible for coordinating class list pickup. In

some instances, principals request in-person meetings prior to scheduling.

Once a school is scheduled, letters are sent to the teachers explaining the

project and giving them a date and time for the visit to their classroom. The

designated contact person is called to make arrangements for picking up the

class lists; this task is completed no later than a week before the school is

scheduled to be surveyed. During this telephone call, the teachers’ names

and the grades they teach are confirmed, and the contact person is reminded

that the class lists should have student ID numbers.

A schooI visit is made to pick up the class lists and teachers’ names and

classroom numbers as well as to leave copies of the passive consent letters

for the students to take home. The principals (4.3 percent in the first year) who

insist on positive consent cosign the letters and take responsibility for requiring

their students to return the forms. The project coordinator has discretion to use

student incentives (e.g., inexpensive gifts) to reward return of positive consent

letters. All consent letters include the name of the school and the date of the

survey. After the class lists are picked up, each is logged, and each class is

assigned a four-digit school and class code that also identifies the grade. Next,

a school visit log is completed containing each teacher’s name, grade, room

number, class number, and time and date of the survey, and a copy is given to

each field interviewer.

285
After the school visit log is completed, the survey log is filled out using the

information from the school visit sheet. The survey log contains the school

number, teacher’s name, class number, and spaces to fill in the dates when

the survey is completed.

Each class list is typed, double spaced, and alphabetized. A two-digit number

is assigned to each child’s name, starting with 01, The four-digit school code is

typed at the top center of the page with a space between the school number

and the class number. One copy of each typed list is paperclipped to the

original lists picked up from the school and given to the data manager for

computer entry.

A manila envelope is prepared for each child. A label is affixed to the upper

right corner of the envelopes containing the school and class code and two

underlined empty spaces (e.g., 101 1_ _). The envelope is stuffed with a copy

of the numbered list of children in that class (e.g., 01-40), a survey answer

sheet, and a sociometric questionnaire.

The envelopes are placed in the transport boxes (one for each interviewer)

along with a box of sharpened pencils, a box of incentives (e.g., inexpensive

key chains, toy erasers, decorated pencils—depending on the age of the

students), envelopes to be left for absentees, and a folder containing extra

copies of everything.

Classroom Survey Procedures

After reporting to the school administrative office, the interviewers (usually

two) proceed to their assigned classroom, introduce themselves to the teacher,

and inform the teacher about how the survey will be conducted. Teachers

may be told that during the summer the school principal will receive a summary

report comparing the school ward survey results with the combined total survey

results. It is important to use tact in preventing teachers from acting on their

natural inclination to participate in the survey by answering questions, directing

answers, or looking at answers. At the same time, the interviewer may need

the teacher as an ally for the occasional disciplinary problem.

The seriousness and confidential nature of the survey are stressed. The

students are provided assurances that the researchers are not interested in

their names; that no teacher, parent, or school official will ever see their

responses to either the survey or the questionnaire; and that their names

will never be used in connection with their responses. If this is not the first

survey, students who remember participating “last year” are asked to raise

their hands. They are then asked whether anyone found out their answers.

When these students respond “no,” it reassures those who are participating

286
for the first time. Students then are told they can skip any question they do not

want to answer and that it is better to skip a question than not tell the truth.

If possible, students are spread out in desks around the classroom, and each is

given a stuffed manila envelope and, if in grade six or higher, a questionnaire

booklet. Students are asked to remove the class list but nothing else until

further notice.

The students are told to find their names on the class list and to write their

corresponding numbers on the two blank spaces on the label on the manila

envelope. Then roll is taken and reasons for absences are noted on the class

list by the interviewer. Students are asked to strike out the names of students

who have transferred on their class lists.

Next, the students are asked to take out their sociometric questionnaires and

to complete them using the numbers (not names) on the class list. The class

is led through a previously completed hypothetical example. To increase

confidentiality, four versions of this 16-item instrument are used at each

administration; these versions are created by rotating the bottom four items to

the top for three iterations. An additional item asks the students to find their

three best friends on the class list and to fill in the three indicated spaces.

After this explanation, students are directed to return the class lists and

sociometric questionnaires to their envelopes and to take out their survey

answer sheets.

The interviewer points out that the survey answer sheets do not contain

the questions or identifiers. The sheets consist simply of a list of question

numbers with the appropriate number of small circles for each answer; the

circles are labeled from A to E. Students are asked to fill in the circles for the

corresponding answers that are true for them. They are reminded that it is

not a test, that there are no “right” or “wrong” answers, and that the interviewers

just want to know what students think and do and how they feel. Students

are asked to raise their hands if they have any questions, to cover their answer

sheets with their manila envelopes as they move along, and not to share their

answers. The interviewers are trained to answer questions in a way that

increases understanding but in no way indicates what the answer should be.

Surveys may be removed from students who continue to talk or do not take the

survey seriously; a student continuing to disrupt the class may be sent to the

principal’s off ice.

For fourth and fifth grades, an illustrated slide show of questions is used to

administer the survey with each question and each possible answer read aloud

by the interviewer. For sixth grade and up, the questionnaire book permits selfadministration but has no skip patterns, branching, or “checkerboard” formats.

287
A questionnaire booklet in Spanish is available for Spanish-speaking students.

For mixed classes below the sixth grade, a Spanish-speaking interviewer reads

each question in Spanish after it is read in English from the slides; the Spanishspeaking students follow along in their booklets.

After survey completion, each student places his or her answer sheet in the

envelope and completes the sociometric questionnaire. As they finish, each

student brings the envelope to the interviewer who checks to see that the

external label is coded correctly and directs the student to tear up the class

list and put it in the wastebasket. The student then places the sealed envelope

containing the survey answer sheet and sociometric questionnaire through the

slot in the transport box and receives a small gift.

For each student absent from the class, a manila envelope containing only

a drug survey questionnaire, an answer sheet, a gift, and a preaddressed

stamped envelope is left with the teacher. The manila envelope has the

student’s name on it, but the survey answer sheet contains only the student’s

project ID number. The teacher is requested to ask absent students to

complete the survey and mail the answer sheets to us; the manila envelope

and questionnaire are discarded by the teacher.

Postsurvey Procedures

The school data arrive in sets of envelopes divided by school and class,

with the class list on top of each set as an attendance list and record of the

interviewer’s special comments (e.g., “refused”). The envelopes are ordered

by number and compared with the class lists. Discrepancies are rationalized

by the researcher who surveyed the class (e.g., an “absent” student may have

come in late and completed a survey).

If the class list is correct but not completely correlated with the stack of

envelopes, it is assumed that a student wrote the wrong number on his or

her envelope. If two students used the same number, it is sometimes possible

to determine which is correct by gender reference or by examining the “best

friends” networks. If it is not possible to distinguish between two subjects,

special code numbers (i.e., 98, 99) are assigned.

Data cleaning is the next step. Cleaning means deletion of impossible answers,

multiple answers when only one is permitted, and obvious patterns indicating

the subject was not reading the question; these patterns are usually simple runs

of numbers in order. Cleaning protocols with examples are used to guide this

activity. After cleaning, the surveys are entered into a database, verified, and

delivered to the data manager.

288
Locked File. The master computerized file contains the students’ names,

the school system seven-digit ID numbers, and each year’s study ID number

indicating the school, class, and student position in that class; it also contains

a number indicating the student’s presence or reason for absence. This file

cannot be used on a network or mainframe; it is restricted to one personal

computer and accessed by a secret password by the data manager. The

principal investigator also keeps the locked file password under lock and key.

At the end of each year, the locked file is temporarily linked with the survey data

to match the subjects longitudinally and to remove any repeat surveys. All data

analyses are performed on files containing only project ID numbers that change

for each student each year and would require knowledge of the system and

access to class lists for identification of an individual.

The locked file was originally planned to circumvent the problems of tracking

with students’ names (e.g., confidentiality, duplicate names) by using the

seven-digit ID number assigned to each child by school system to link the

yearly study ID numbers. At the beginning of the second year, it became

apparent that consistent school-assigned ID numbers were difficult to obtain;

there was considerable variation from year to year even within the same

school. Frequently, the same number would be assigned to several children

in the same or different years, and the same children were often assigned

completely different numbers; 10-percent variation of school-assigned ID

numbers within a class is common, and rates as high as 30 percent have

been noted. To increase the accuracy of the tracking system, a decision

was made to include the students’ names in the locked file.

The locked file is organized by school. When the class lists are given to

the data manager, she first searches for the children among those surveyed

in the school the previous year. Any students left unmatched are tracked by

school ID from the pool of unmatched students from previous years, and the

remaining children are added to the file as new students. The school ID

numbers recorded in the locked file are then compared with the new list of

numbers supplied by the school. Any inconsistencies are noted and later

checked through a telephone call to the school’s office. School ID numbers

are also obtained for students who have just transferred into the school.

The school ID numbers are most important when the students move from

elementary to junior high school because they can then no longer be tracked

on the basis of the school attended in the previous year.

The names of the new students added to the file are periodically checked for

matching names in previous years. The ID numbers for the matching names

are compared and are frequently found to vary by only one or two digits; these

students are considered positive matches and a note is made to verify the

school-assigned number. Matching names are also found for students for

whom a school ID number was unavailable one year or whose school ID

289
numbers are completely dissimilar. These will be matched only if no student

with a similar name can be found. Many students who are possible matches

remain unlinked in the locked file to avoid compromising the validity of the

longitudinal analysis.

Because of the transient nature of the student population, students are

occasionally surveyed twice within the same year at different schools. These

duplicates are picked up through the locked file, and the second survey is

discarded unless the first survey was incomplete.

Attendance records are also kept in the locked file. Attendance reported on

the class list, indicating whether the child completed the survey and the reason

for noncompletion, is transferred to the locked file. The categories for not

completing the survey are divided into “absent,” “refused,” “transferred,”

“misbehavior/suspended” (also applied to children sent to the principal’s office),

“special ed.,” and “unable,” which refers to a language barrier or a legitimate

absence for a special activity. A complementary set of codes indicates whether

surveys for any of these absences have been mailed back; the locked file is

updated as the surveys are returned by mail.

Absenteeism and Retention Rates. In the third year of the study, both sixth

and seventh grades were surveyed; the following data refer to this third year

to demonstrate differences between elementary and junior high school. For

sixth grade, 86.0 percent of the students on the class lists were present and

surveyed; the rate for seventh grade was 73.0 percent. Absent from school

were 7.8 percent of sixth graders and 19.5 percent of seventh graders.

Attending special activities or special education classes were 3.4 percent of

sixth graders and 5.6 percent of seventh graders; less than 1.0 percent of

either grade was suspended from school temporarily; 1.4 percent of sixth

graders and 0.4 percent of seventh graders refused; 1.3 percent of sixth

graders and 0.9 percent of seventh graders were reported transferred. Of

students who were not present to take the survey but who had not transferred

or refused, 24.6 percent of sixth graders and 13.9 percent of seventh graders

mailed completed surveys. Thus, the final percentages of students surveyed

of those who had not transferred were 90.2 percent of sixth graders and

77.3 percent of seventh graders.

Of the students surveyed in the first year when they were in fourth grade,

72.6 percent were resurveyed in the second year when they were in fifth

grade; an additional 9.6 percent were tracked but not surveyed on the second

occasion for a total of 82.2 percent. In the third year, in sixth grade, 64.8

percent of those surveyed in the first year were resurveyed, with an additional

7.4 percent tracked but not surveyed in the third year for a total of 72.2 percent.

290
Survey Questions

Behaviors assessed are (1) abusable substances use, including cigarettes,

alcohol (beer, wine, liquor, wine cooler), marijuana, and cocaine/crack; and

(2) health-promoting behaviors, including eating properly, exercising, and going

to bed before 10 p.m. on school nights (lannotti and Rush 1992). Age of first

use and ongoing use are determined for each abusable substance. Healthpromoting behaviors are assessed in absolute terms. (“Which things do you

usually do?”)

To increase validity of responses, questions relating to substance use are

posed in a way that assumes the child has used the substance (e.g., “How

old were you when you first . . .?”), with the option “Never have” following the

choices for age of first use.

Intentions to use abusable substances are assessed in a similar manner

(e.g., “When do you think you will smoke cigarettes?“). Perceived friends’

and family use are assessed for each of the four substances. Each child

also indicates his or her degree of concern about a best friend’s use of each

abusable substance and perceived social pressure from friends to use these

substances. To assess other potential environmental influences and potential

normative expectations for abusable substance use, children are asked whether

they have ever witnessed the sale of drugs and, if so, whether it was by a family

friend or family member; whether they have been asked to help someone sell

drugs and, if so, whether they did help someone sell drugs; and for each

substance, whether it has ever been offered to them.

DISCUSSION

Except for the inclusion of African-Americans in the field data collection team,

instruments and survey administration methods were not developed because

this student population was predominantly African-American, but because it was

young and urban and would, therefore, have limited reading skills. Methods

relating to population access, maintenance, and tracking were developed to

allay the concerns of school administrators and teachers who are predominantly

African-American and to deal with an urban population that tends to be mobile

and to have high rates of absenteeism.

As these students moved into junior high school, it became apparent that

some of the methods, developed primarily because the students were young,

should be continued. Other drug surveys have been performed among urban

junior high or high school students (Brook, this volume; Johnston et al. 1991;

Josephson and Rosen 1978; Kaplan et al. 1984; Newcomb and Bentler 1988).

Concerns have been raised about the effects of underreporting, school

dropout, and absenteeism (Oetting and Beauvais 1990). Various methods

291
have been applied to detect reporting inconsistencies, but as noted by

Zimmerman and colleagues (1991), few have raised concerns about the effects

of instrument design and administration. Low-literacy students are more likely

to be inconsistent, to fail to complete surveys, and to have trouble following

directions. Of additional concern is Zimmerman and coworkers’ finding that

low-literacy students are less likely to indicate they reported honestly. If low

literacy is associated with the outcome variables of interest, systematic

bias is introduced that is related to the complexity of the instrument, time for

administration, and administration style. It is uncertain whether Zimmerman

and colleagues’ finding relative to honesty is an attribute of low-literacy students

or only appears to be so because the questions, placed at the end of the

survey, are unread or misunderstood. In view of the fact that many urban

students leave school as functional illiterates, it seems only prudent to design

school surveys with this in mind. Thus, a survey designed for the reading

limitations of young students may also be appropriate for older urban students.

No hard and fast rules or inflexible protocols can address all the problems

in any school survey research. Paramount for quality is an excellent field

coordinator who understands and is committed to the project, who has

extremely good interpersonal skills, who is flexible while maintaining the

integrity of data collection, and who is compulsive in recordkeeping.

Longitudinal school-based research tends to be unforgiving. Not getting it

right the first time, angering a principal, mixing up a survey date, getting lost

on the way to the school, putting the wrong name on a letter, or almost any

seemingly small thing can mean loss of access and data. Conversely, an

experienced team that is efficient and administers surveys in a way that is

visibly competent and sensitive to the students’ abilities while maintaining

confidentiality builds a relationship of trust that opens the school doors the

following year and possibly for subsequent studies.

In summary, our methods fall into two categories, those primarily addressing

the quality of the data and those primarily addressing the quantity of the data.

Those primarily addressing quality are:

The data collection team is small, well trained, stable, and ethnically diverse.

A slide-show format with questions and response choices read aloud to

the students is used below sixth grade.

The maximum reading level is fourth grade.

Questions about use of abusable substances are asked at least two different

ways.

292
Yes/no responses to use questions are avoided in favor of a format that

assumes use with “never used” as the last choice.

Branching, skip patterns, or “checkerboards” are not used in the instrument.

Questionnaires in Spanish and Spanish-speaking interviewers are available

when needed.

Surveys are administered in individual classrooms rather than in large

groups.

Subjects are told not to answer a question rather than lie.

Interviewers are carefully trained to answer questions without suggesting

answers.

No subject identifiers are used on answer sheets.

Subjects tear up and discard classroom name lists.

Subjects place their answer sheets in individual manila envelopes and

observe their removal from the classroom in closed boxes.

All classroom activities are completed in less than 50 minutes.

Students and teachers are advised about the purpose of the survey and

guarantee of confidentiality.

Consistency in methods is maintained as much as possible from year to

year.

Written protocols exist for all steps.

Data are hand cleaned, entered into computers, and verified by in-house

personnel on an ongoing basis.

Methods primarily addressing the quantity of the data are:

Students are given a small gift on completion.

Data are linked on an ongoing basis through names, a school system sevendigit code, and classroom codes in computer-locked files.

Stamped envelopes with questionnaires and gifts are left for absentees,

293
Annual cumulative reports are provided to principals.

School staff members are provided health miniscreenings on request.

Missing school ID codes for resurveyed students are provided as a service

to the schools.

In cooperation with the school system administration, teachers are surveyed

annually, and a report is prepared.

Results are not released to the press.

In view of the importance of subject retention in longitudinal research,

especially longitudinal drug research, it is surprising that research reports

do not give greater prominence to retention rates and tracking methods.

A mini-MEDLINE search of longitudinal studies reported in the American

Journal of Public Health since 1986 revealed that none considered the

retention rate important enough to include in the abstract.

However, it is increasingly common to see some analyses of baseline

data comparing subjects retained with those who were lost to followup,

with some discussion of the potential biasing effects and inferential limitations.

Also, some guidance is available to help researchers build in methods that will

assist subject location for followup (Pirie et al. 1989). However, the subject

information recommended (e.g., full names of both parents or guardians, child’s

birthdate, Social Security numbers of parents and child, names of contact

persons, future moving plans, and school transfers) is next to impossible to

obtain and maintain for large, urban, school-based studies.

Much more research is needed on methods of data collection from young and/

or low-literacy subjects. There is little guidance on how many questions can

reasonably be asked at what ages; how, where, and by whom they should be

asked; how to take children’s cognitive developmental levels into account; how

to know when to discard part or all of a survey; what to do when a student

denies having performed a behavior admitted to in a prior survey year (a

situation we refer to as “offset”); and how to distinguish between unintentional

errors, errors due to fatigue, and frank dissembling. Biochemical markers are

expensive, invasive, and unsuitable for establishing prevalence rates for

infrequent, experimental drug use. For the sake of comparability, as more

drug survey research is performed in elementary school-age children, there

is a need for some standard questions and methods.

We encourage methods that will increase comparability of data obtained from

preadolescent children. We recommend that networks be established of

researchers who are willing to serve as resources for investigators planning

294
children’s survey research. An additional recommendation is that funding

agencies and study sections be made aware of the limitations of surveying

young children, low-literacy children, and children for whom English is a

second language. It should be recognized that surveying and tracking methods

for young or low-literacy urban students cannot simply be adopted from surveys

of older or more literate populations but require special techniques and support.

REFERENCES

Bailey, S.L., and Hubbard, R.L. Developmental variation in the context of

marijuana initiation among adolescents. J Health Soc Behav 31:58-70, 1990.

Baumrind, D. Familial antecedents of adolescent drug use: A developmental

perspective. In: Jones, C.L., and Battjes, R.J., eds, Etiology of Drug Abuse:

Implications for Prevention. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research

Monograph 56. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)87-1335. Washington, DC: Supt. of

Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. pp. 13-44.

Biglan, A.; Severson, H.; Ary, D.; Failer, C.; Gallison, C.; Thompson, R.;

Glasgow, R.; and Lichtenstein, E. Do smoking prevention programs really

work? Attrition and the internal and external validity of an evaluation of

a refusal skills training program. J Behav Med 10(2):159-171, 1987.

Block, J.; Block, J.H.; and Keyes, S. Longitudinally foretelling drug usage in

adolescence: Early childhood personality and environmental precursors.

Child Dev 59:336-355, 1988.

Bush, P.J.; Zuckerman, A.E.; Taggart, V.S.; Theiss, P.K.; Peleg, E.O.; and

Smith, S.A. Cardiovascular risk factor prevention in black schoolchildren: The

“Know Your Body” evaluation project. Health Educ Q 16(2):215-227, 1989a.

Bush, P.J.; Zuckerman, A.E.; Theiss, P.K.; Taggart, V.S.; Horowitz, C.;

Sheridan, M.J.; and Walter, H.J. Cardiovascular risk factor prevention in

black schoolchildren: Two-year results of the “Know Your Body” program.

Am J Epidemiol 129(3):466-482, 1989b.

Cook, T.D., and Campbell, D.T. Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis

Issues for Field Settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. pp. 37-94.

Hansen, W.B.; Tobler, N.S.; and Graham, J.W. Attrition in substance abuse

prevention research: A meta-analysis of 85 longitudinally followed cohorts.

Eval Res 14:677-685, 1990.

lannotti, R.J., and Bush, P.J. Perceived vs. actual friends’ use of alcohol,

cigarettes, marijuana, and cocaine: Which has the most influence? J Youth

Adolesc 21:1833-847, 1992.

Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Bachman, J.G. Drug Use Among American

High School Seniors, College Students, and Young Adults, 1975-1990. Vol. I.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-1813.

Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991.

Josephson, E., and Rosen, M.A. Panel loss in a high school drug study. In:

Kandel, D.B., ed. Longitudinal Research on Drug Use. New York: Wiley,

1978. pp. 115-133.

295
Kaplan, H.B.; Martin, S.S.; and Robbins, C. Pathways to adolescent drug use:

Self-derogation, peer influence, weakening of social controls, and early

substance use. J Health Soc Behav 25:270-289, 1984.

Kellam, S.G.; Ensminger, M.E.; and Simon, M.B. Mental health in first grade

and teenage drug, alcohol, and cigarette use. Drug Alcohol Depend 5:273-

304, 1980.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Consequences of Teenage Drug Use:

Impact on the Lives of Young Adults. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1988.

Oetting, E.R., and Beauvais, F. Adolescent drug use: Findings of national and

local surveys. J Consult Clin Psychol 58:385-394, 1990.

Pirie, P.L.; Thomson, S.J.; Mann, S.L.; Peterson, A.V.; Murray, D.M.; Flay, B.R.;

and Best, J.A. Tracking and attrition in longitudinal school-based smoking

prevention research. Prev Med 18:249-256, 1989.

Zimmerman, R.S.; Vega, W.A.; Warheit, G.J.; Gil, A.G.; Sokol-Katz, J.;

and Jackson, D.J. “The Impact of Reading Ability and Questionnaire

Administration Conditions on Data Quality for a Survey of Middle School

Students.” Unpublished manuscript. University of Miami Department of

Sociology, 1991.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation of this chapter was supported by National Institute on Drug Abuse

grant DA-04497. The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the

Washington, DC, school administration, principals, teachers, and students and

our team of data collectors, data cleaners, and data entry clerks, especially

Mary Charlotte Shamwell and Curtis Powell. Drs. Ronald J. lannotti (coprincipal investigator) and Mario De La Rosa made helpful suggestions.

AUTHORS

Patricia J. Bush, Ph.D.

Professor and Director

Mary Ann D’Elio, M.S.

Project Coordinator

Charlotte D. Peoples, B.A.

Assistant Project Coordinator

Heather M. Schell, M.A.

Data Manager

296
Division of Children’s Health Promotion

Department of Community and Family Medicine

Georgetown University School of Medicine

415 Kober Cogan Building

Washington, DC 20007

297
School and Community Politics:

Issues, Concerns, and Implications

When Conducting Research in AfricanAmerican Communities

Julius Debro and Darlene J. Conley

INTRODUCTION

Political issues, such as the kind of research to conduct as well as where and

how to conduct that research, have always been major issues regarding research

in African-American communities and at major African-American institutions. In

the past, research has been conducted in African-American communities and at

African-American schools without much public controversy or protest, but since

the Tuskegee experiment, in which 400 African-American males were denied

treatment for syphilis for more than four decades in a governmental experiment,

conducting research in such communities has become more closely scrutinized

and supervised by communities (Jones 1981).

In particular, African-American scholars and communities have become more

sophisticated and organized in their efforts to monitor research targeting AfricanAmerican populations and issues and are now requiring accountability from

researchers, regardless of race and ethnic background. Various actions have

come from this vigilance that are redefining the standard ways in which research

(e.g., field operations) is practiced. For example, some communities are now

requiring researchers to include community people as part of the research team

(Willie 1983). Other communities are requiring that the director of the project

describe what benefits will ensue to the community from the research. Still

others are requiring that the research project be approved by a community

oversight group or neighborhood planning unit before the researcher is allowed

to conduct his or her research within the community.

This chapter discusses the politics of and barriers to conducting research in

African-American communities. Its major focus concerns African-American urban

communities—frequent sites for research projects on social problems. The

authors’ experiences with such communities will be used as illustrative examples

298
of problems that can arise in community-based research and strategies to

resolve them.

RACE AND RESEARCH

In a perfect world, the race of the researcher should not play a role in collecting

data. However, in the real world it does influence the type of information that the

researcher obtains and how that research is interpreted. Many community people

are concerned not only about the race of the interviewers but also about the race

and political orientation of the persons who design the questionnaires and

interpret the data. African-American communities traditionally have been utilized

for much of the urban research in this country (Drake and Cayton 1944; Myrdal

1974; Liebow 1967; Rainwater 1970; Currie 1991; Wilson 1987; Moynihan 1965).

This focus on urban communities has intensified in the past two decades as cities

have become increasingly more African-American, Hispanic, and Asian (Schaefer

1990, p. 258; Pinderhughes 1992). Although the research in some cases has

been beneficial, researchers generally have not gone back to communities with

results: thus, communities have become skeptical about researchers working in

these communities (Rebach 1991).

In addition, a significant proportion of research on African-Americans has been

conducted by predominantly white researcher teams who in some cases

misinterpreted the underlying problems and conditions that do and do not exist

in African-American communities (Rebach 1991; Headley 1990). This is not to

imply that research conducted by white researchers has not made significant

contributions to the well-being of African-American individuals. For example,

recent research conducted by Gfoerer and De La Rosa (in press) has provided

information on the important role that parents play in preventing drug use among

Hispanic and other minority youth. However, many African-Americans are

concerned that the research conducted in their communities by non-AfricanAmerican researchers is not relevant and responsive to the perceived needs

and concerns of African-American communities.

Moreover, gaining access to African-American populations for research purposes

has changed dramatically over the past two or three decades. Increasing

numbers of communities will not allow researchers to enter without demonstrating

some commitment of resources or strong statement of expected benefit to the

community. Furthermore, some communities will not allow investigators of

different racial or ethnic backgrounds to enter without some overt connection to

members within those communities. Entry often must be made through a political

connection or through becoming a pseudomember of the community by living in

the community for some time. This method of entry is not much different from

that used by anthropologists who work in other countries and have long had to

deal with the problems and politics of conducting research in a different culture.

Historically, these researchers would submerge themselves in a culture for 2 or

299
more years, collect intimate details of people’s lives, write their dissertation or

books, and leave without contributing in a meaningful way to the society.

Communities are no longer tolerating this form of scholarly exploitation. It

should also be noted that the relatively high rate of crime in urban areas creates

safety concerns for all researchers: however, the risk of victimization may be

higher if the researchers appear not to be members of the community. In a few

cases, researchers have been threatened or assaulted because of their skin

color.

In the 1960s, Third World people became more politically conscious and

questioned how the research would benefit their societies or individual families

and subjects (Billingsley 1968). Political consciousness has increased in the

same way in this country, and now neighborhoods within cities are beginning

to ask the same questions.

What has emerged from this research in African-American communities is the

realization that the barriers encountered by U.S. anthropologists, when collecting

data in inner-city minority communities, are not much different from those of

their colleagues working in the Third World. For example, whereas researchers

in the Third World have to worry about dealing with national governments or the

international implications of their research, researchers in the United States need

to be more aware of their interactions with governmental institutions and private

agencies. Often, these organizational systems are reluctant to participate in

research, fearing that the data collected and the issues involved might have a

negative impact on future funding.

Although the information may not be released to law enforcement agencies,

the possibility exists that the data, once published, might have negative

consequences for future public policy. Furthermore, the image of the AfricanAmerican community presented by social scientists is of vital concern to AfricanAmerican leaders and organizations. Social science research in this country

has historically focused on poverty and crime in the African-American community

and has rarely focused on the positive aspects of African-American life (Mendez

1988; Schaefer 1990). Research on drug abuse among African-Americans and

Hispanics at times has reinforced the stereotypes of minorities as being the only

ones who are using drugs.

Similarly, since the early 1900s the news media have in many instances

portrayed African-American communities as riddled with drug addicts and drugrelated criminal activities. More recently, media stories have been expanded to

include Hispanic communities (Banks 1991).

300
DEVELOPING RAPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY—THE TIME FACTOR

Overcoming the community’s suspicions and basic mistrust of research and

establishing open lines of communication is, perhaps, the first major task in

implementing research. This can take a significant amount of time. For

example, in conducting research in African-American communities in the South,

a considerable length of time was required to develop rapport with people in the

community and with workers in organizations (Conley and Debro, in press).

In a project in Atlanta, the authors were required to obtain the approval of the

neighborhood planning units in four specific areas before conducting race and

crime research.

In some cases it takes years for trust to develop. Unfortunately, most research

projects are short term, and the data collection process seldom lasts more

than a few months or years; therefore, many researchers are unwilling to

spend time establishing community ties. Often, the people and organizations

with whom researchers work seem to resent the “hit-and-run” tactics. To improve

the credibility of drug abuse research, a long-term commitment has to be

demonstrated before area residents are willing to cooperate with researchers.

This, problem can be addressed by including persons within the community in

the research design. Community residents are much more receptive if they see

themselves as having a part in the decisionmaking.

In one research project, the authors combined participant observation with a

survey to gather information about drug use and to evaluate an acquired

immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) street education program. The project

spanned a 3-month period, and researchers found at the end of the period that

much of the information provided by subjects in the initial pretest was false. For

instance, subjects seldom would admit to illegal drug use on the pretest survey,

although the housing project they lived in was noted for heavy drug traffic and

use. It was discovered that subjects lied for at least two reasons. Many believed

that the research was a front for undercover narcotics. agents, and a couple of

individuals admitted that the information they provided on the pretest was the

response they thought the researchers wanted to hear. Efforts to establish

relationships with community members and groups were undertaken to increase

the accuracy of the self-reports.

Once a working relationship was established with the mothers of the community,

the researchers were able to collect the information that was needed. Some

residents began to open up and admit to drug use after seeing researchers in the

community everyday for several weeks. If the project had continued for a longer

period, even more information on drug use could have been collected, but the

project ended just when residents had finally developed enough trust to open

up and provide full and complete information.

301
Compensating subjects and recruiting community residents as paid members of

the research team can be an effective means of gaining community cooperation

and access. However, it should be noted that this does not lead to immediate

trust and full disclosure. In other studies, researchers found that although

informants were paid for interviews, monetary payment could not substitute

for time spent assisting persons in the community. For example, during our

Ecology of Crime and Drugs project, funded by the Social Science Research

Council (Conley and Debro, in press), a researcher recruited an individual in

the community to act as an informant and guide. She conducted indepth

interviews with him and obtained his life history during the first month of the

project. Nevertheless, it took 8 months before he admitted that he had AIDS

and was still an occasional drug user. He did not volunteer this information

until after the researcher had helped his father file a police brutality complaint.

Other informants expected researchers to sit down and chat or visit their homes

several times before opening up. Community access is usually best established

through a support group or social networks within communities. (These initial

interactions also might be important when establishing rapport with other

minority communities, such as Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, Dominicans,

Jamaicans, Haitians, Filipinos, Japanese, and Koreans.) Based on the authors’

experiences, regional differences may exist in community receptiveness to

various entry networks and strategies. Although it is a generalization, in the

South the general rule of etiquette is that people have to get to know you first

and establish your “roots” before they talk to you. In the African-American

community, this means attending a local church or a historically African-American

college, such as Clark-Atlanta University, Morehouse College, Spelman College,

or Morris Brown College, or having an older person or a minister in the

community provide a verbal reference.

Affiliation with community leaders is a definitive plus when developing a working

relationship with African-American organizations and communities. These

linkages have often been ignored by researchers, leading in some instances to

initial distrust by the communities regarding the activities of the researchers.

To obtain the support of African-American communities and their leaders, efforts

must be undertaken by researchers, particularly those focusing on sensitive

issues such as drug abuse, to involve all significant gatekeepers throughout

the entire research process.

AFRICAN-AMERICAN RESEARCHERS: THEIR IMPACT ON THE RESEARCH

PROCESS AND COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS

Other concerns or issues for researchers conducting drug abuse research on

African-American communities are the impact that African-American researchers

have on the research process and the community expectations toward these

researchers. Sharing the same ethnicity or historical experiences of oppression

can be a double-edged sword. African-Americans and other minorities who work

302
in community organizations with whom the authors have collaborated often have

different expectations of minority researchers. For instance, they often will see a

minority researcher as a potential ally and as someone who will be an advocate

for their organization or cause. In contrast, they might see a white researcher

insensitive to their plight as a potential enemy, as an outsider who has once again

come in to study nonwhite people and malign their organizations. As a result,

often the minority researcher has a definite initial advantage over his or her white

counterpart because the people in these organizations are more willing to help

a minority researcher collect data and to confide important information to him or

her than a white researcher who may show little concern for the plight of AfricanAmericans. On the other hand, this can pose problems for African-Americans

who are researchers hired to evaluate a program. The organization might feel

betrayed if the evaluation report is the least bit critical of the organization, its

activities, or its administration,

The race of the principal investigator in some instances can also make a

difference in the analysis and interpretation of data obtained in African-American

communities. Wilson (1978), in his study of African-American communities in

Chicago, found that poverty was the root cause of urban decay in that city. His

data were misinterpreted and turned into a discussion of race vs. class in which

majority researchers attempted to discount race as a contributing variable in urban

violence. After many years, Wilson (1987) is still explaining his interpretation of

data collected in Chicago ghettos. Despite the controversy surrounding his work,

he as still seen as an African-American investigator with unlimited access to ghetto

areas in Chicago.

When researchers are affiliated with a historically African-American college,

it is assumed that the project is controlled by African-Americans and that the

researcher will interpret data from an African-American perspective: however,

if the researcher is affiliated with a predominantly white university or research

organization, it is assumed and often true that the African-Americans are merely

the hired “field hands” and that the data will be analyzed and interpreted from a

majority perspective. When African-Americans are hired only to supervise or

participate in the data collection process, several problems may arise. For

instance, in some cases subjects might assume that African-Americans working

on the project have more influence than they actually do over how the data are

interpreted and presented. Furthermore, African-American researchers might be

embarrassed to admit that they are being supervised by white senior researchers

and that they cannot alter the focus of the research questions or control decisions

concerning the budget. Once the people in the community find out this

information, they might see the minority researcher as a “front person” and

become more reluctant to cooperate with research efforts.

303
Several of the research projects in which the authors have been involved during

the past 3 years have attempted to address the above-mentioned issue by:

Working with people who are on the front lines in the drug wars

Informing community residents of ongoing research activities in their

communities

Delineating the responsibility for grant-related activities

Inviting community people to the university and requesting their input into

grant-related activities that affect their communities

PAYMENT AND RECIPROCITY

Another problem confronted by drug abuse researchers conducting research in

African-American communities concerns the issue of payment and reciprocity

for the subjects and communities participating in such studies.

It is not unusual for subjects to expect some type of payment. Drug users

especially have become more sophisticated about payment and often will

not participate without compensation. There is also the misconception that

social science researchers are making a lot of money from the articles and

books they write. One of the authors’ researchers is frequently asked by subjects

for more money because the information about their lives will “sell a lot of books”

or provide the “plot for a TV miniseries.” It is difficult to explain to people in the

community that academics trade money for academic status and that their

articles will be read by only a few people. To address this issue, the authors

found that other types of assistance could substitute for money. For example,

Atlanta’s low-income housing communities have been stripped of many social

services. Something as simple as handing out free condoms is perceived

positively in the community. Many people merely need information, such as

where to go to apply for the Women, Infants, and Children supplemental food

program or where to get free prenatal care, legal assistance, or drug treatment.

In one project, some of the authors’ researchers gave secondhand books to

the children of the families participating in the study. These children’s books

were a luxury and were appreciated more than the $5 that was paid for interviews.

In some cases, the authors have been advised against paying subjects because

it might undermine the influence of other organizations working in the community.

For instance, recovering addicts who were enrolled in drug treatment programs

were not paid for interviews because it could differentiate them from other clients

in the program and reward the addicts for providing information about a negative

aspect of their lives. Outreach workers who were recovering addicts were also

protective of their clients and sat in on interviews. It was important that the

304
authors’ researchers did not compete with the counselors or outreach workers or

contact clients without the knowledge of their counselors, who became protective

of the recovering addicts and were concerned that clients not be exploited or

used for political gain.

STRATEGIES FOR FACILITATING RESEARCH

Following is a summary of approaches for facilitating research that have met

with some success.

1. It is imperative that organizations that are asked for assistance are fully

aware of the purpose of the research and that the results are shared with

them. Before the research is undertaken, the actors in these organizations

and neighborhood political organizations should be asked to contribute their

ideas. The authors have frequently incorporated questions or included

certain issues in a research design at the request of outreach workers or

community activists. The researcher should attend community meetings

and find out what issues concern the community and also should be willing

to provide assistance to these organizations. For instance, a community

organization might be fighting to ban a dump site or prevent other negative

development but might not know how to go about conducting research to

support such a position. The researcher does not have to take sides but

can provide an organization with information on how to do research and

with access to university libraries.

2. The relationship with the organization and community activists should

not end when the research project ends: rather, steps must be taken to

stay in contact with these individuals, including providing them with some

type of assistance in attaining their goals. For example, many outreach

workers have asked for advice about continuing their education. Although

the authors have not been able to offer scholarships, we have referred

workers to various faculty and academic programs. Others have asked for

assistance in writing grants to establish their own programs and have been

referred to persons or agencies that can assist them. We have also invited

persons from organizations into the classroom to lecture and to learn more

about the research process. Understanding the research process helps to

develop trust and a greater understanding of the academic world.

3. Research subjects should realize some benefits; monetary compensation is

not enough. Some researchers have been revolutionary and incorporated

social service resources into the grant.

4. Government and private funding agencies should capitalize on the research

potential of historically African-American colleges and universities—not only

are many of these institutions located in African-American communities, but

305
they also employ African-American researchers as well as those of other

cultural and ethnic backgrounds who are more likely to be able to gain entree

into these communities.

As a closing observation, it should be noted that gaining entree into AfricanAmerican communities is becoming more difficult, primarily because violence

has become endemic to the urban community, posing serious concerns for

the personal safety of research team members as well as potential research

participants. Researchers must begin to rely more on persons of the same

racial or ethnic background to conduct social research in those communities.

Although some of the causes of violence are understood, it still is not understood

why drug-related violence might be higher among certain ethnic groups.

Community people must be utilized more in research so that the underlying

causes of this violence can be avoided in minority communities.

REFERENCES

Banks, R. Living the legacy: Historical perspective on African-American drug

abuse, In: Debro, J., and Bolek, C.S., eds. Drug Abuse Research Issues at

Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Tuskegee, AL: Tuskegee Institute,

Department of Social Work, 1991. pp. 56-110.

Billingsley, A. Black Families in White America. New York: Prentice Hall, 1968.

Conley, D.J., and Debro, J. The ecology of crime and drugs in a southern city:

An ethnographic study of the English Avenue community. In: Fagan, J., ed.

The Ecology of Crime and Drugs in the Inner City. New York: Social Science

Research Council, in press.

Currie, E. Dope and Trouble: Portraits of Delinquent Youth. New York: Pantheon

Books, 1991.

Drake, S.C., and Cayton, H.R. Black Metropolis. New York: Harper & Row, 1944.

Gfoerer, J., and De La Rosa, M. Protective and risk factors associated with drug

use among Hispanic youth. J Addict Dis, in press.

Headley, B.D. What really lies behind the myth of “no discrimination” in the

criminal justice system. In: MacLean, B.D., and Milovanovic, D. eds. Racism,

Empiricism and Criminal Justice. Vancouver, British Columbia: Collective

Press, 1990. pp. 91-95.

Jones, J.H. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. New York: Free

Press, 1981.

Liebow, E. Tally’s Corner: A Study of Negro Street Corner Men. Boston: Little,

Brown, 1967.

Mendez, G.A. Crime is not a part of our black heritage: A theoretical essay. In:

The State of Black America. New York: National Urban League, 1988. pp. 211-

216.

306
Moynihan, D.P. The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. Washington

Office of Policy Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor.

Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1965.

Myrdal, G. An American Dilemma. New York: Pantheon Books, 1974.

Pinderhughes, D.M. Power and progress: African American politics in the new

era of diversity. In: The State of Black America. New York: National Urban

League, 1992. pp. 265-280.

Rainwater, L. Behind Ghetto Walls: Black Families in a Federal Slum. Chicago:

Aldine, 1970.

Rebach, H. Substance use and black college students. In: Drug Abuse

Research Issues at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Tuskegee,

AL: Tuskegee Institute, Department of Social Work, 1991. pp. 111-146.

Schaefer, R.T. Racial and Ethnic Groups. New York: Little, Brown, 1990.

U.S.. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Final Report of the

Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: Supt.

of Docs., US. Govt. Print. Off., 1973.

Willie, C.V. Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status: A Theoretical Analysis

of Their Interrelationship. New York: General Hall, 1983.

Wilson, W.J. The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing

American Institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Wilson, W.J. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1987.

AUTHORS

Julius Debro, D.Crim.

Associate Dean and Vice Provost

The Graduate School, AG-10

Darlene J. Conley, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Sociology Department, DK-40

University of Washington

Seattle, WA 98195

307
Substance Use Disorders Among

Young Minority Refugees: Common

Themes in a Clinical Sample

Joe Westermeyer

INTRODUCTION

An extensive literature exists regarding drug use among a diversity of youth

groups, including students in high school and college, “street” youth, and

incarcerated young persons (Amini et al. 1976; Baumrind and Moselle 1985;

Dias and Polvora 1983; Kandel 1982; Kandel et al. 1986; Keyes and Block

1984; McKirnan and Johnson 1986; McLaughlin et al. 1985; Morrissey 1981;

Patterson et al. 1988; Robson 1984; Rosenberg 1971; Smart and Adlaf 1986).

Anecdotal case reports and clinical experience with adolescent drug abusers

are also numerous (Amini et al. 1976; Baumrind and Moselle 1985; Bean 1982;

Bernstein 1984; Blum 1967; Coupey and Schonberg 1982; Czechowicz 1988;

Easson 1976; Geist 1974; Griffin 1981; Heilbrunn 1967; Hennecke and Gitlow

1983; MacDonald and Newton 1981; MacKenzie 1982; Masland 1972; Niven

1986; Solow and Solow 1986; Wells 1985), with a smaller number of careful

clinical surveys of adolescent substance abusers (Kashani et al. 1985; Safer

1987; Smart 1979). Several studies of adolescent substance abusers have

focused on family and peer factors (Burnside et al. 1986; Klinge and Vazirir

1977; McDermott 1984; Rathers et al. 1977; Rosenberg 1971; Schuckit and

Chiles 1978; Smart and Fejer 1972). Morgan and colleagues (1984) studied

alcohol use among Indochinese youth ages 16 to 22, comparing them with

African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian youth. They observed that these

recently immigrated Indochinese youth began drinking later and were less

likely to have experienced problems related to drinking but were more likely

to drink “to forget” (Morgan et al. 1984). In a clinical study of 28 Indochinese

adolescents conducted within a few months to 5 years of their arrival in the

United States, none received a substance use disorder (SUD) diagnosis

(Williams and Westermeyer 1983).

Following World War II, Krupinski (1967) in Australia commented on the

increase in SUDs among refugees several years following relocation. However,

he did not remark on such problems among young refugees. Because the

308
pandemic of substance abuse among post-World War II youth had not yet been

described (Cameron 1968), perhaps young refugees were not at risk of such

disorders at that time. However, refugees nowadays both come from and

migrate to areas in which SUD occurs among adolescents and young adults

(Westermeyer and Neider 1988). Thus, it was of interest to review the author’s

clinical experience with adolescent and young adult refugees to see whether

any general trends might be perceived. Particularly interesting were the

following questions:

Are there special demographic characteristics among young refugee

substance abusers?

Are refugee experiences (e.g., wartime losses, persecution) common among

young refugees with SUDs?

Do the substances used by young refugees resemble those of their country

of origin or those commonly used in the United States?

Are there particular forms of associated psychopathology among young

refugees with these disorders?

METHOD

Sample

The subjects described below were encountered as patients in a clinical

program for refugees located in the Department of Psychiatry at the University

of Minnesota Hospitals and Clinics. Only patients in their teenage years and

twenties were analyzed for the report presented in this chapter. All subjects

were born outside the United States and admitted as refugees to the United

States.

Adolescent subjects included the following:

Hmong male, age 15, cannabis dependent, orphaned unaccompanied

minor, single, student, lives with Hmong relatives

Vietnamese male, age 15, cannabis-alcohol abuse, unaccompanied minor,

single, student, lives with older brother and American foster parents

Lao-Hmong female, age 15, alcohol abuse, single, student, lives with

parents

Cambodian male, age 16, cannabis abuse, single, student, lives in an

adolescent detention center

309
Cuban female, age 18, cocaine dependent, unaccompanied minor, was living

in a common-law relationship, unemployed, lives in jail (accessory to murder)

Ethiopian female, age 19, heroin dependent, unaccompanied minor, was

living in a common-law relationship, unemployed, lives with a foster family

Young adult subjects in their twenties were as follows:

Hmong male, age 22, alcohol-cannabis abuse, single, unemployed, lives

alone

Hmong female, age 22, opium dependent, separated, five children in welfare

custody, unemployed, lives alone

Palestinian male, age 23, heroin dependent, single, student, lives in university

housing

Hmong male, age 25, opium dependent, married, five children, unemployed,

lives with family

Hmong male, age 25, opium dependent, married, five children, unemployed,

lives with family

Lao male, age 27, cannabis dependent, single, unemployed, lives alone

Hmong female, age 29, opium dependent, married, three children, lives with

family (husband employed)

Data Collection

Information obtained regarding substance use included types of substances

used, age at first use, years of use (excluding periods of abstinence), days

of use in the past year, doses (including usual dose and maximum dose),

and route of administration. Problems associated with use were described.

Collateral sources of data were utilized in all cases; these included family,

friends, and various professional persons. Rating scales included the

Modified Michigan Alcohol-Drug Screening Test (Westermeyer and Neider

1988), Substance Abuse Problem Scales (SAPS) devised by the author, Beck

Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al. 1961), 90-item Symptom Checklist

(SCL-90) (Derogatis et al. 1973), Hamilton Depression (Hamilton 1960) and

Anxiety (Hamilton 1959) Scales (HAM-D and HAM-A), and Global Assessment

Scale (Endicott et al. 1976). A five-axis DSM-III-R diagnosis (American

Psychiatric Association 1987) was also made after a period of observation

and evaluation that lasted 2 to 4 weeks in most cases.

310
Analysis

The number of cases was too small to utilize statistical analysis. These cases

were studied to identify common issues and problems, as well as differences,

among young drug-abusing refugees.

FINDINGS

Demographic Characteristics

Among these 13 subjects were 8 males and 5 females. All six adolescents

were single, although the Cuban and Ethiopian females had been living

in common-law relationships with male drug dealers. Three of the young

adults were single, three were married and living with spouses, and one was

separated from her husband. The educational levels of the adolescents ranged

from 8 to 10 years of schooling, with a mean of 9.2 years. Among the young

adults, three had no education; one had 2 years of college: one was a high

school graduate: one had attended school for 10 years; and one had attended

school for 3 years. Three of the adolescents were in high school and living with

their family of origin; two adolescents were incarcerated; and one adolescent

had recently been living with a boyfriend who traded in illicit drugs. All seven

young adults were unemployed and living alone or with their family of marriage.

Premigration, Migration, and Postmigration History

Subjects had been in the United States for periods ranging from 1 to 9 years,

with a mean of 5.6 years. Adolescents and young adults did not differ in the

length of time they had been in the United States. However, their migration

histories did differ to a considerable extent.

Four of the adolescents currently held or had previously held the legal status

of “unaccompanied minors” (a specific category for refugees used by the

Bureau of Naturalization and Immigration, U.S. Department of State). The

15-year-old Hmong male had fled with his parents and two younger siblings

across the Mekong River from Laos into Thailand with a large group of

Hmong. They came under fire, and his entire family was killed in the river.

He had been placed with Hmong relatives in the United States. The 15-yearold Vietnamese male had come to the United States with his father and older

brother; his mother remained in Vietnam. Soon after their arrival in the United

States, his father died suddenly, and the youth was placed with an American

family. The 18-year-old Cuban female, already in trouble with her family and

community, fled Cuba with the Mariel refugees at age 16. Although placed as

an unaccompanied minor, she soon entered a sexual liaison with an older

Cuban man, also a Mariel refugee, who soon became a cocaine trader and

merchant. She acquired her cocaine dependence through him. The 19-year311
old Ethiopian female had escaped from Ethiopia after having been released

from a political jail (her father and brothers also had been incarcerated as

political prisoners). She fled to Greece as an illegal immigrant, where an

Iranian drug dealer took her in and provided her with her first experiences

with illicit drugs. After she became addicted to heroin and was sick, her

boyfriend abandoned her. A refugee aid organization had facilitated her entry

into the United States, where she again entered a relationship with a drug

dealer and became readdicted to heroin.

The 15-year-old Cambodian male had come to the United States with both of

his parents, who divorced soon afterwards. He was the only survivor among

four siblings; the other three had died during the Pol Pot regime, as had all of

his extended family except for a maternal uncle. He had witnessed numerous

murders and massacres by the Khmer Rouge. The 15-year-old Lao-Hmong

female was the oldest daughter among four siblings in an intact family. Her

father worked 80 hours per week at two jobs, and her mother worked 40 hours

per week at an evening job. In addition to her schoolwork, the patient was

expected to care for her three siblings in the evenings and prepare dinner.

A year earlier she had assumed a “punk” appearance, became sexually active

with an adult man, started regular drinking, and refused to come home before

midnight (about the time that her parents arrived home). Her father beat her

with a wire and insisted that she act “in the proper Lao fashion.” Her mother,

not an ethnic Lao, did not support the father in his rigid expectations of the girl.

The young adults experienced a different set of circumstances vis-a-vis

migration. Only one patient, a 25-year-old married Hmong man with five

children, had experienced catastrophic losses prior to leaving his country.

His father and three older brothers had died in the war in Laos, and his mother

had died when he was a child. In addition, he had been attacked a year earlier

by an intruding robber in his apartment, leaving him with a permanent injury

to his eye. He had also lost his job 5 months earlier, about the time that he

began to smoke opium to relieve the chronic pain in his eye. Another 25-yearold Hmong man, also the father of five children, began smoking opium soon

after being laid off from work. A 22-year-old Hmong woman, the mother of five

children, began smoking opium with her mother and female friends in a context

of marital disharmony. Her unemployed husband had begun to abuse her

verbally and physically, accusing her of infidelity. A 29-year-old Hmong

woman smoked opium occasionally over a 3-year period in the company of

her husband and friends. Her use increased after miscarrying a pregnancy

and again after having a stillborn infant. The remaining two single men, one

22-year-old Hmong and one 27-year-old Lao, had recurrent psychotic episodes

and repeated hospitalizations in association with cannabis and other substance

abuse. Alienated from their families and unemployed, they associated with

other substance abusers. The 23-year-old Palestinian, the eldest son of a

wealthy merchant living in Lebanon, had been sent to the United States to cure

312
his heroin habit and to establish an entree for the family in the United States.

Although attending college with family support, he soon became lonely and

craved heroin. He readily located heroin merchants and began to use his

family’s money to purchase heroin.

Substance Use-Related History

None of the six adolescents was known to have a family history of SUD.

Among the seven young adults, three had family histories of SUD. One 25-

year-old Hmong man had an opium-addicted father, and the other 25-year-old

Hmong man had an opium-addicted mother (who was also readdicted in the

United States). Both parents and the husband of the 29-year-old Hmong

woman were opium addicts.

Three subjects (i.e., the 15-year-old Hmong male, the 19-year-old Ethiopian

female, and the 23-year-old Palestinian male) had begun substance abuse

prior to arriving in the United States. The Hmong young man began smoking

cannabis in the Thai refugee camp soon after the deaths of his parents and

siblings during the escape from Laos (there had been no funeral ceremonies

or attempts to solace this grieving adolescent). The Ethiopian woman became

addicted to heroin while living as an illegal resident of Greece, following her

political arrest (as an activist student) and that of her father and brothers. The

Palestinian man began using heroin in the context of the war in Lebanon where,

as the eldest son in the family, he had been pressured by his father to relocate

the family to a safe haven such as the United States. All the remaining subjects

had initiated their cannabis, alcohol, opium, or cocaine use in the United States.

The 18-year-old Cuban woman began cocaine use within 1 year after arrival in

the United States. The remaining seven patients had begun their substance

use after 2 to 7 years of residence in the United States.

The six adolescents had begun alcohol and/or other drug use in the company

of friends. The three adolescent females had been introduced to substance

use by adult male sexual companions. Among the seven young adults, three

Hmong had begun opium use in the company of relatives (a mother in two

cases, a husband in one case). The remaining four male adults had started

opium, cannabis, heroin, and alcohol use in the company of peer-age friends,

The duration of use prior to the first clinical event had been relatively short in

most cases. Among the six adolescents, three had been abusing cannabis or

alcohol for about 1 year: three had been abusing cocaine, heroin, or cannabis

for about 2 years. Among the four Hmong adults addicted to opium, their

durations of use were 5 months, 1 year, 1 year, and 6 years. Three of these

four opium addicts had begun addictive use virtually from the beginning of

their opium use, whereas the fourth used opium for 3 years before becoming

addicted. Among these four opium addicts, original use had varied from

313
3 to 10 pipes per day. Currently, they were smoking from 20 to 60 pipes

per day (with a mean of about 40 pipes for the group). Two single men with

recurrent psychoses had been abusing cannabis and other substances for

several years, but their initial psychiatric hospitalizations occurred within a few

years of initiating cannabis smoking. The Palestinian man had been addicted

to heroin for more than a year in Lebanon but had been addicted to heroin in

the United States for only 4 months before seeking treatment.

Five subjects abused cannabis by smoking it; two of them also abused

alcohol heavily. Four persons were opium dependent. Two subjects were

heroin dependent. One adolescent female abused only alcohol, and another

adolescent female abused only cocaine. Three subjects also smoked at least

20 cigarettes daily for the last year, and another four subjects smoked

cigarettes to a lesser extent.

Severity of SUD was assessed with the Modified Michigan Alcohol-Drug

Screening Test. All the adult subjects scored above 20 (well into the

pathological range), with a mean score of 25. On the SAPS, adult index

scores for all 59 items ranged from .32 to .78, with a mean of .61. The

adolescents scored lower than the adults but greater minimization, denial,

and misrepresentation in this younger group made the scores less reliable.

Despite these problems, the adolescent scores were in the lower range of

pathology on the SAPS.

Other Psychiatric Symptoms and Disorders

Five of the six adolescents (excluding the Ethiopian woman) met behavior

criteria for conduct disorder (American Psychiatric Association 1987) prior

to age 18, including repeatedly starting fights, repeated casual sexual

relationships, selling drugs, stealing, running away, truancy, lying, and

disregard for rules or conventions. Generally, these behaviors began in

early adolescence, although the Cambodian boy had begun repeatedly

fighting and biting other children, consistently disobeying, lying, and stealing

during his elementary school years. This Cambodian male also met criteria

for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (American Psychiatric Association

1987); he had nightmares and intrusive thoughts of murders and massacres

that he had observed prior to age 7. The 15-year-old Hmong orphan had

missed bereavement as a result of losing his entire family 2 years earlier.

The 19-year-old Ethiopian woman also had missed bereavement regarding

the loss of her family. The 15-year-old Lao-Hmong girl was subjected to

physical abuse by her father over a period of several months.

Among the adults, only the 23-year-old Palestinian man and the 29-year-old

Hmong woman had no other Axis 1 psychiatric disorder besides their opiate

addiction. Among the remaining five adults, two had recurrent psychotic

314
episodes in association with their cannabis abuse and dependence. Both

these men had received diagnoses of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder,

and bipolar disorder with mania (American Psychiatric Association 1987).

However, in the author’s opinion, neither had been free of cannabis abuse

over a sufficient duration to make any of these diagnoses. Delirium (toxic)

psychosis (DTP) (American Psychiatric Association 1987) applied best to

both of them at the current time. It was not possible in either case to obtain

a sufficient period of abstinence to establish another diagnosis, and both of

them had recurrences of psychosis in association with cannabis abuse. Two

additional adults, both Hmong opium addicts, had major depressive disorder

(MDD) (American Psychiatric Association 1987). One of these subjects, a

22-year-old Hmong woman, had a BDI score of 26, an SCL-Depression score

of 2.46, and a HAM-D score of 22 (all well in the pathological ranges). The

other MDD subject, a 25-year-old Hmong man, had a BDI score of 45, an

SCL-Depression score of 2.46, and a HAM-D score of 16 (also in pathological

ranges). The 25-year-old Hmong man had chronic pain and minor symptoms

of depression following his discharge from work, robbery by a home intruder,

and eye injury. His BDI score was 14, and his SCL-Depression score was

1.54 (both outside the normal range).

DISCUSSION

Despite the small number of subjects, certain general themes appear out of

these cases, which warrant further study. If these findings are supported, they

suggest means for possible prevention and early recognition of SUD. These

findings also indicate the need for certain treatment resources to be available

for young refugees with SUD.

Among adolescent refugees, status as an unaccompanied minor appears to

have been an important etiologic factor. The vulnerability of refugee children

separated from both their cultures and their families was described 35 years

ago by Rathbun and colleagues (1958). In consultations conducted with

Indochinese refugees in camps soon after flight from Southeast Asia, Harding

and Looney (1977) and Looney and colleagues (1979) described the following

among unaccompanied refugee children: depression, somatic complaints,

sleep disturbance, social withdrawal, violence, and antisocial behavior. Some

boys were described as “ready to cause trouble,” and a few teenage girls were

“dressed in a sexually provocative manner.” Most of these unaccompanied

refugee children have been placed in American families rather than in families

of their own ethnic group: Egan (1985) has described the challenges for both

the child and the family that ensue from this difficult situation. Eventual

outcomes among such children can be salutary, especially if mental health

services are available to these children and their families (McBogg and Wouri

1979; Rathbun et al. 1965).

315
Among those adolescents who were accompanied by family, absent or

unavailable families was also a prominent finding. The latter consisted of

families who did not accompany the young person, families in which war or

political persecution had reduced family size, divorced or separated families,

and families who devoted excessively long hours to work while leaving the

children to fend for themselves. Tobin and Friedman (1984) have studied the

attitudinal, behavioral, and value gaps apt to stress the refugee child-parent

relationship; their findings are relevant to this issue.

All these factors underscore the importance of providing strong family support

to refugee adolescents as they transit not only from childhood to adulthood but

also from their traditional culture of origin to their new lives as foreign-born,

minority Americans. As many of these adolescents may also manifest

conduct disorder, missed bereavement, and/or PTSD, support for them

may require professional assistance to the natural, foster, and adoptive

families raising these young people.

Among young adults, other social factors appeared to be operative. One

of these was acculturation failure, in association with illiteracy, heavy family

obligations (including many dependent children), and/or job loss (refugees are

often last hired and first fired). Comorbid psychopathology, including MDD

and DTP, was prominent in this age group. Psychiatric care would be

needed to address these conditions.

The course of the substance use-related disorder was rapid in these patients,

with their first clinical event often occurring within a year or two after starting

substance abuse. Smart (1979) has also noted a rapid course of SUD among

native-born Canadian youth compared with older persons. Unlike alcohol,

which has been the predominant substance of abuse in other American youth

(Patterson et al. 1988; Sarvela and McClendon 1987), other drugs were clearly

more common in this small sample of young refugees with SUD. Although a

few subjects began their use of substances prior to arriving in the United States,

most initiated their substance use after arrival. As Krupinski (1967) observed in

Australia decades ago, substance abuse generally began after a few to several

years in the United States. The substances of abuse were typically those found

in the United States, such as cannabis and cocaine. However, several Hmong

subjects used opium, the traditional drug of abuse from their Asian homeland

(Westermeyer 1982). Two refugees, from Ethiopia and from Palestine, had

begun heroin use prior to their migration to the United States.

In light of limited knowledge regarding drug use and abuse among refugee

populations, further study is warranted. These case studies suggest that

sampling should include subjects who have been in the United States for

several years or longer, because delayed onset following migration appears

frequent. By the same token, some recently arriving subjects should also be

316
included, as cases of premigration drug use and abuse also were encountered.

It is likely that such data would not be easily obtained from recently arriving,

nonclinical subjects, because suspicion and fear among refugees often

preclude data collection on such topics. Lengthy association with refugees,

development of rapport, and field observation would probably be necessary to

study younger adolescents, because questionnaires and interviews may yield

dubious information. Acquisition of valid drug use information from younger

adolescents is commonly a problem even in clinical samples of native-born

children. Intensive case studies can yield useful information, as evidenced in

these cases; but this method requires time, patience, and skilled personnel.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders: Third Edition-Revised. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric

Association, 1987.

Amini, F.; Salasnek, S.; and Burke, E. Adolescent drug abuse: Etiological and

treatment considerations. Adolescence 11:281-299, 1976.

Baumrind, D., and Moselle, K.A. A developmental perspective on adolescent

drug abuse. Adv Alcohol Subst Abuse 4:41-67, 1985.

Bean, M. Identifying and managing alcohol problems of adolescents.

Psychosomatics 23:389-396, 1982.

Beck, A.T.; Ward, C.M.; Mendelson, M.; Mock, J.; and Erbaugh, J. An inventory

for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 4:561-571, 1961.

Bernstein, J.G. Kids and drugs. Part 1. Recreational use. Clin Ther Drug Ther

1459-72, 1984.

Blum, R.W. Adolescent substance abuse: Diagnostic and treatment Issues.

Pediatr Clin N Am 34:523-537, 1967.

Burnside, M.; Baer, P.; McLaughlin, R.; and Pokomy, A. Alcohol use by

adolescents in disrupted families. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 10:274-278, 1986.

Cameron, D.C. Youth and drugs. JAMA 206:1267-1271, 1968.

Coupey, SM., and Schonberg, S.K. Evaluation and management of drug

problems in adolescents. Pediatr Ann 11:653-658, 1982.

Czechowicz, D. Adolescent alcohol and drug abuse and its consequences—an

overview. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 14:189-197, 1988.

Derogatis, L.R.; Lipman, R.S.; and Covi, L. The SCL-90. An outpatient

psychiatric rating scale. Psychopharmacol Bull 9(1):13-28, 1973.

Dias, C., and Polvora, F. Drug addiction among adolescents. Bull Narc 35:81-

86, 1983.

Easson, W.M. Understanding teenage drug abuse. Postgrad Med 59:173-177,

1976.

Egan, M.G. A family assessment challenge: Refugee youth and foster family

adaptation. Topics Clin Nurs 7(3):64-69, 1985.

Endicott, J.; Spitzer, R.L.; Fleiss, J.L.; and Cohen, J. The Global Assessment

Scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 33:766-771, 1976.

317
Geist, R.A. Some observations on adolescent drug use. Am Acad Child

Psychiatry 13:54-71, 1974.

Griffin, J.B. Some psychodynamic considerations in the treatment of drug abuse

in early adolescence. Am Acad Child Psychiatry 20:159-166, 1981.

Hamilton, M. Hamilton Anxiety Scale: The assessment of anxiety states by

rating. Br J Med Psychol 32:50-55, 1959.

Hamilton, M. Hamilton Depression Scale: A rating scale for depression.

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23:56-62, 1960.

Harding, R.K., and Looney, J.G. Problems of Southeast Asian children in a

refugee camp. Am J Psychiatry 134(4):407-411, 1977.

Heilbrunn, G. Comments on adolescent drug users. Northwest Med 66:457-

460, 1967.

Hennecke, L., and Gitlow, S. Alcohol use and alcoholism in adolescence. N Y

State J Med 6:936-940, 1983.

Kandel, D. Epidemiological and psychosocial perspectives on adolescent drug

use. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 21:328-347, 1982.

Kandel, D.; Davies, M.; Karus, D.; and Yamaguchi, K. The consequences in

young adulthood of adolescent drug involvement. Arch Gen Psychiatry

43:746-754, 1986.

Kashani, J.; Keller, M.; and Solomon, N. Double depression in adolescent

substance users. J Affective Disord 8(2):153-157, 1985.

Keyes, S., and Block, J. Prevalence and patterns of substance use among early

adolescents. J Youth Adolesc 13:1-14, 1984.

Klinge, V., and Vazirir, M. Characteristics of drug abusers in an adolescent inpatient psychiatric facility. Dis Nerv Sys 38:275-279, 1977.

Krupinski, J. Sociological aspects of mental-ill health in migrants. Soc Sci Med

1:267-281, 1967.

Looney, J.; Rahe, R.; Harding, R.; Ward, H.; and Liu, W. Consulting to children

in crisis. Child Psychiatry Human Dev 10(1):5-14, 1979.

MacDonald, D., and Newton, M. The clinical syndrome of adolescent drug

abuse. Adv Pediatr 28:1-25, 1981.

MacKenzie, R. The adolescent as a drug abuser: A paradigm for intervention.

Pediatr Ann 11:659-668, 1982.

Masland, R.P. Drug abuse: A symptom of adolescent unrest. Postgrad Med

55:227-230, 1972.

McBogg, P., and Wouri, D. Outcome of adopted Vietnamese children. Clin

Pediatr 18(3):179-183, 1979.

McDermott, D. The relationship of parental drug use and parent’s attitude

concerning adolescent drug use to adolescent drug use. Adolescence 19:89-

97, 1984.

McKirnan, D., and Johnson, T. Alcohol and drug use among “street”

adolescents. Addict Behav 11:201-205, 1986.

McLaughlin, R.; Baer, P.; Burnside, M.; and Pokorny, A. Psychosocial

correlates of alcohol use at two age levels during adolescence. J Stud

Alcohol 46:212-218, 1985.

318
Morgan, M.C.; Wingard, D.L.; and Felice, M.E. Subcultural differences in

alcohol use among youth. J Adolesc Health Care 5:191-195, 1984.

Morrissey, E. The measurement of multiple drug use and its relationship to the

patterning of alcohol intake. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 8:311-328, 1981.

Niven, R.G. Adolescent drug abuse. Hosp Cornmunity Psychiatry 37:596-607,

1986.

Patterson, E.W.; Myers, G.; and Gallant, D.M. Patterns of substance use on a

college campus: A 14-year comparison study. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse

14:237-246, 1988.

Rathbun, C.; Di Virgilio, L.; and Waldfogel, S. The restitutive process in children

following radical separation from family and culture. Am J Orthopsychiatry

28:408-415, 1958.

Rathbun, C.; McLaughlin, H.; Bennett, C.; and Garland, J. Later adjustment of

children following radical separation from family and culture. Am J

Orthopsychiatry 35(3):604-609, 1965.

Rathers, S.; Fichner-Rathus, L.; and Siegel, L. Behavioral and familial

correlates of episodic heroin abuse among suburban adolescents. Int J Addict

12:625-632, 1977.

Robson, J. Alcohol abuse in adolescence. Alcohol Alcohol 19:177-179, 1984.

Rosenberg, C.M. The young addict and his family. Br J Psychiatry 118:469-470,

1971.

Safer, D. Substance abuse by young adult chronic patients. Hosp Community

Psychiatry 38:511-514, 1987.

Sarvela, P.D., and McClendon, E.J. Early adolescent alcohol abuse in rural

northern Michigan. Community Ment Health J 23:183-191, 1987.

Schuckit, M., and Chiles, J. Family history as a diagnostic aid in two samples of

adolescents. J Nerv Ment Dis 166:165-176, 1978.

Smart, R., and Adlaf, E. Patterns of drug use among adolescents: The past

decade. Soc Sci Med 23:717-719, 1986.

Smart, R., and Fejer, D. Drug use among adolescents and their parents:

Closing the generation gap in mood modification. J Abnorm Psychol

29(2):153-160, 1972.

Smart, R.G. Young alcoholics in treatment: Their characteristics and recovery

rates at follow-up. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 3:19-23, 1979.

Solow, R.A., and Solow, B.K. Mind-altering drugs: Effects on adolescent sexual

functioning. Med Aspects Human Sexuality 20:24-34, 1986.

Tobin, J.J., and Friedman, J. Intercultural and developmental stresses

confronting Southeast Asian refugee adolescents. J Operational Psychiatry

15:39-45, 1984.

Wells, L.A. Chemical dependence among adolescents. Mayo Clin Proc 60:557-

561, 1985.

Westermeyer, J. Poppies, Pipes and People: Opium and Its Use in Laos.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982.

Westermeyer, J., and Neider, J. Social network and psychopathology among

substance abusers. Am J Psychiatry 145:1265-1269, 1986.

319
Williams, C.L., and Westermeyer, J. Psychiatric problems among adolescent

Southeast Asian refugees. J Nerv Ment Dis 171:79-85, 1983.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Partial support for this study came from National Institute on Drug Abuse grant

DA-07309-01 and the Laureate Psychiatric Research Foundation. John Neider

assisted with the database and chart search.

AUTHOR

Joe Westermeyer, M.D., Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Psychiatry

Box 393 Mayo Building

University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN 55455

320
Current Gaps and New Directions

for Studying Drug Use and Abuse

Behavior in Minority Youth

Mario R. De La Rosa, Juan-Luis Recio Adrados,

Nancy J. Kennedy, and Norweeta Milburn

INTRODUCTION

The drug-using behavior of minority youth1 has been the subject of investigation

by drug abuse researchers during the past 15 years (Achenbach et al. 1990;

Austin and Gilbert 1989; Beauvais et al. 1989; Bachman et al. 1991; Brunswick

1979, 1988; Chavez and Swaim 1992; Clayton et al. 1990; Dembo et al. 1979;

Debro and Bolek 1991; De La Rosa et al. 1990a; Glick and Moore 1990;

Hartford and Lowman 1989; Maddahian et al. 1987; Moore 1985; National

Institute on Drug Abuse 1990; Johnston et al. 1991; Rebach 1992; Trimble

et al. 1987; Tucker 1985). Emanating from this research are data relating to

the prevalence, patterns, and consequences of alcohol and illicit drug use

and abuse within the minority youth population as well as speculations on the

causes. As with previous drug abuse research on nonminority populations,

this new information may prove valuable to practitioners, policymakers,

and law enforcement officials in developing effective and efficient drug use

prevention and treatment programs and law enforcement strategies targeted

to the minority youth population (Bachman et al. 1990; National Commission

on Drug-Free Schools 1990; Office of National Drug Control Policy 1992;

Leukefeld and Bukoski 1991; Griswold-Ezekoye et al. 1986). Despite this

recent proliferation of additional information, however, researchers still do

not adequately understand the extent and nature of the licit and illicit drugusing behavior2

 of minority youth.

This chapter (1) provides a broad overview of the most recent research findings

and discusses some of the existing gaps in research, (2) delineates the critical

elements of a more comprehensive etiologic model of drug-using behavior by

minority youth that can serve as the foundation for future etiologic research,

and (3) proposes the development of a data collection approach that uses

qualitative methods in combination with quantitative methods for determining

the drug-using behavior of minority youth.

321
OVERVIEW AND GAPS IN RESEARCH ON THE DRUG-USING BEHAVIOR

OF MINORITY YOUTH

Epidemiologic Research

Data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), the

Monitoring the Future High School Senior Survey, and a survey on the

drug-using behavior of American Indian youth have indicated that, except

for American Indian youth, minority youth ages 12 to 24 were less likely

during their lifetime or during the past month to have used alcohol, cigarettes,

psychotherapeutics (i.e., nonmedical use of sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants,

and analgesics), and most types of illicit drugs (i.e., marijuana, inhalants,

hallucinogens) compared with their white non-Hispanic counterparts (Beauvais

et al. 1989; National Institute on Drug Abuse 1991a, 1991b, 1992). By contrast,

the findings from these surveys also indicated that minority youth, particularly

African-American and Hispanic youth, were more likely than their white nonHispanic counterparts to have used cocaine and crack at least once during

their lifetime or in the month preceding their interviews.

Furthermore, data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) for 1989 on

emergency room episodes suggest that African-American and Hispanic male

and female youth ages 12 to 17 had higher rates of cocaine-related emergency

room admissions than their white non-Hispanic counterparts (National Institute

on Drug Abuse 1990). In addition, African-American and Hispanic male and

female youth ages 12 to 17 had higher rates of heroin- and cocaine-related

emergency room admissions per 100,000 populations than their white nonHispanic counterparts. These DAWN rates may be influenced by many factors,

including the lower rate of private health insurance and the higher prevalence of

cocaine and crack use among minority youth compared with nonminority youth.

Whatever the reasons, the DAWN data support other findings that have shown

that severe health consequences may be associated with the use of such drugs

as cocaine and heroin (Fischman et al 1985; Gawin and Kleber 1985). Other

consequence-oriented research has suggested that a stronger association

exists between dropping out of school and illicit drug use among minority youth,

particularly Hispanic adolescents, than among their white non-Hispanic youth

counterparts (Chavez and Swaim 1992; Chavez, this volume: Friedman et

al. 1985).

Despite these findings, additional research is needed to more adequately

understand the patterns, prevalence, and consequences of illicit and licit drug

use and abuse within minority youth populations. Current research has

not been able to provide comprehensive information as to the prevalence

of drug use among minority youth ages 12 to 24 who belong to recent

immigrant groups. Little, if any, information exists on the prevalence of

drug use in Asian-American and Pacific Islander youth, Hispanic youth of

322
South and Central American origin, and with the exception of Puerto Ricans,

youth from Caribbean nations (National Institute on Drug Abuse and Capital

Consulting Corporation 1991). Furthermore, the prevalence of drug use and

abuse among foreign-born and first-, second-, and third-generation minority

youth remains unexplored. Even when information exists as to the prevalence

of drug use among Hispanic, African-American, American Indian, and Alaska

Native youth, these data have been challenged. The inability to generate

representative samples of minority youth, resulting in sampling errors, higher

nonresponse rates, and response bias, has led some researchers to question

the validity and reliability of data on the licit and illicit drug use behavior of

minority youth (LoSciuto et al., this volume: Groves 1987; Marin and Marin

1991; Cox et al. 1991; Virag et al. 1991).

Information on the dynamic and continually changing patterns of drug use

among the various ethnic and racial minority groups needs additional

exploration. Studies are needed to evaluate whether the patterns of drug

use and progression to abuse among minority youth mirror those of nonminority

youth. Previous research studies have suggested that nonminority youth follow

a specific pattern of drug use and progression to abuse, as illustrated by the

use of wine, beer, and cigarettes before escalation to marijuana and other illicit

drugs such as cocaine, PCP, and heroin (Kandel 1982; Hawkins et al. 1985;

DeMarsh and Kumpfer 1986). By contrast, anecdotal information derived

from prevention, education, and treatment programs serving minority youth

suggests that, unlike many nonminority youth, minority youth do not follow

these same patterns of drug use and subsequent progression to abuse (Office

for Substance Abuse Prevention 1991). Instead, many minority youth start

their drug-using behavior with inhalants and alcohol and progress quickly to

using cocaine and heroin accompanied with heavy alcohol use (Austin and

Gilbert 1989; Crider and Rouse 1988).

In addition, there is a dearth of research on the effect of drug use on the

emotional and physical well-being of minority youth. Data derived from

national surveys as well as more focused studies have provided limited

information about this effect on minority youth and their families or on the

social and economic survival of inner-city minority communities (Kopstein

and Roth 1990; Dembo et al. 1990; Soriano and De La Rosa 1990; Wallace

and Bachman 1991). For example, research is needed to determine the

interrelationship between the drug-using behavior of minority youth and the

high rate of homicides and other violent criminal acts found among these

youth (De La Rosa et al. 1990b; Elliott et al. 1985). Whether the use of drugs

and drug dealing account for most of the homicides and other violent acts

reported among minority youth or whether they are merely statistical artifacts

of a subculture of violence characterizing many inner-city minority communities

is yet unanswered.

323
How the educational and vocational careers of minority youth are affected

by their using drugs is another area needing further investigation. Also

needed is research that examines the role that drug use plays in minority

youth dropping out of school and, thus, further handicapping their opportunities

for gainful employment (Chavez et al. 1989; Friedman et al. 1985). Finally,

the interrelationship between the intravenous drug-using behavior of minority

youth and the prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus infection, hepatitis,

sexually transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis should be explored in more

depth.

Etiologic Research

Similarly, although some progress has also been made in understanding the

underlying factors responsible for the drug-using behavior of minority youth,

many more gaps remain. Research is needed that explores the role that

familial factors such as lack of family support, family violence, and lack of

male role models play in the initiation, continuation, escalation, and cessation

of drug use in the minority youth population (Brook, this volume; Watts and

Wright 1990). Other potential familial risk factors that may be associated

with the drug-using behavior of minority youth that have not been adequately

researched include poor parental supervision, serious parental drug use, the

breakdown of the extended family system, the changing role of the mother

within the family system, and the family’s low socioeconomic status (Brook,

this volume; Vega 1990; Recio Adrados 1990; Hardway et al. 1990). Previous

research only recently has investigated the interrelationship between familial

factors and initiation into drug use among Hispanic and African-American youth

(Brook, this volume). Missing is theory-based research, which would explore

the causal link between familial factors such as those mentioned above and

the initiation to drug use and, more important, progression to abuse among

minority youth. Needed also are studies to examine whether familial factors

have a greater positive or negative impact on the drug-using behavior of

foreign-born or U.S.-born first-, second-, and third-generation minority youth.

Studies are also needed to examine the link among the disintegration of the

traditional familial value system found nowadays among minority populations,

the socioeconomic status of minority families, and the increasing involvement

of minority youth in drug distribution.

In addition, research is needed to investigate the importance of cultural values,

acculturation-related stress, and loss of cultural identification on the drug-using

behavior of minority youth populations. The lack of definitive research to

adequately understand, operationalize, and measure the construct of culture

as it relates to the drug-using behavior of various racial and ethnic minority

groups can be attributed to its complexity and multidimensionality (Recio

Adrados, this volume; Vega et al., this volume; Marin and Marin 1991). Most

research exploring the role of acculturation on the drug-using behavior of

324
minority youth has been based on studies that utilized clinical case studies or

employed small nonrandom samples of middle-class Cuban-American youth,

a group not representative of other minority youth (Szapocznik and Kurtines

1980). This research has suggested that the stress between Cuban-American

adolescents and their parents caused by emerging parent-child cultural

differences may be a factor responsible for the increase in the use of drugs

among Cuban-American youth. Studies are needed that explore the impact

that acculturation-related stress has on the drug-using behavior of foreign-born

and first-, second-, and third-generation Hispanic youth of Mexican, Caribbean,

and South and Central American ancestry: Asian-American youth: and

American Indian youth. Of particular interest are studies that explore the

role of cultural values in protecting minority female adolescents, particularly

those belonging to recent immigrant groups, from the use and abuse of drugs.

Equally important is research to explore the interrelationship between loss of

cultural identity, low self-esteem, lack of economic opportunity, and drug use

among minority youth.

The effect of association with deviant peers on the drug-using behavior of

minority youth and their possible subsequent transition into heavy drug use also

should be explored in greater depth. Investigation of this association is

important in that research conducted on the drug-using behavior of nonminority

youth has determined that association with deviant peers may be more

responsible for adolescents’ initiation to alcohol and tobacco use than for

progression to drug abuse (Kaplan et al. 1987; Newcomb and Bentler 1986;

McLaughlin et al. 1985; Gottlieb and Baker 1986). Particularly needed are

studies that will investigate whether association with deviant peers plays a

more important role in the drug-using behavior among first-, second-, and

third-generation U.S.-born Hispanic and Asian-American and Pacific Islander

youth than among their foreign-born counterparts. The importance of this

research is highlighted by the fact that previous research has suggested

that foreign-born Hispanic youth are less likely than their American-born

counterparts to be influenced by their peers into deviant activities or behaviors

(Vega 1990). Moreover, existing research has not adequately explored

the impact of the high availability of drugs and drug distribution networks

in minority communities, poor school systems, weak attachment to religious

institutions, and the lack of adequate community recreational and employment

opportunities and their effect on the drug-using behavior of minority youth.

Although information exists on this topic, it is largely anecdotal and has not

addressed the impact that the emerging crack distribution trade has had on

the drug-using and drug-dealing activities of minority youth (Brunswick 1988;

Glick and Moore 1990; Johnson et al. 1985; Padilla 1987; Pettiway, this

volume). Except for the studies by Bachman and colleagues (1991) and

Wallace and Bachman (1991) relating to the importance of religious institutions

in the drug-using behavior of African-American youth, the remaining studies

have concentrated on examining the interrelationship between the drug-using

325
behavior of minority youth and their involvement in criminal activities. Needed

are studies that investigate the role that the poor economic conditions of many

minority youth have on their involvement in the crack distribution trade and

drug-using behaviors. Lacking also is etiologic research to explore the

interactive effect that the above-mentioned environmental factors have on

the drug-using behavior of minority youth. Investigation of these factors is

important given the high rate of unemployment and poor school systems in

inner-city minority communities compared with nonminority enclaves in urban

and suburban areas as well as the prominent role religious institutions play

in minority communities (Sampson 1987; McGeary and Lynn 1988).

Concomitantly, studies are needed to determine the effect of minority youth

drug use and related criminality on the social and economic well-being of

resident neighborhoods affected by the drug problem (Moore 1985; Johnson

et al. 1985, 1990; Fagan and Ko-lin 1990). Anecdotal information suggests that

the emergence of drug distribution networks has resulted in a flight of capital

and small business from inner-city minority communities to suburban areas

(Johnson et al. 1990). Additional study of drug-using behavior is warranted for

investigating the impact of societal forces such as racism: negative experiences

with established social institutions such as law enforcement organizations,

schools, and social service programs: and the sense of powerlessness that

many minority youth feel. As the recent events related to the Rodney King

trial in Los Angeles in 1992 have shown, inherent frustration toward existing

social institutions can result in the adoption of deviant behaviors that can be

destructive to individuals as well as to their communities (The Washington

Post 1992).

There also is a need for research to investigate whether minority youth

exhibit certain individual neurobiological and/or genetic as well as emotional

predispositions to the use and eventual abuse of specific drugs such as cocaine

and heroin that differ significantly from that of nonminority youth (Hesselbrook

1986). Such research should explore individual vulnerability to drug use

spanning the different maturational periods of youth, beginning in early infancy

and progressing through young adulthood. Using this longitudinal approach,

researchers can explore whether minority youth who were identified as infants

and children as having problems (e.g., temper tantrums, lower responses to

positive parental stimuli, lower-than-average differentiation of self and others)

were more likely to become users and abusers of drugs than other minority

youth who showed no such signs of infant and childhood problems. Other

individual variables, such as gender, need further exploration as to their impact.

Although recent research has shown that being male continues to be an

important risk factor associated with drug-using behaviors among minority

youth, changing cultural values are exposing more minority female adolescents,

particularly those belonging to recent immigrant groups (e.g., from Central and

South America and the Caribbean) to the use and abuse of licit and illicit drugs

326
(Vega 1990; Austin and Gilbert 1989; Gfoerer and Da La Rosa, in press:

Caetano 1988; Rodriguez and Recio Adrados, in press).

Most needed, however, is research that investigates the interactive roles

of intrapersonal, interpersonal, familial, cultural, and community factors and

other larger societal factors relating to drugs and minority youth such as onset,

casual use, escalation to abuse, maintenance, development of dependence,

cessation of abuse, and relapse. This research should explore whether certain

factors play a more significant role in protecting or exposing specific subgroups

of minority youth to a drug-using lifestyle. For example, research is needed

that would explore whether such factors as low self-esteem, association with

deviant peers, weak religious affiliation, and lack of familial support play a more

significant role in the drug-using behavior of Mexican-born youth than among

third-generation Mexican-American adolescents, African-American youth, or

youth belonging to the other ethnic or racial subgroups. This research should

be theory driven and based on a comprehensive conceptual framework that

would allow researchers to adequately investigate the underlying factors

responsible for the drug-using behavior of minority youth (Tucker 1985).

PROPOSED ELEMENTS OF A MORE INTEGRATED ETIOLOGIC MODEL

OF DRUG USE AND ABUSE AMONG MINORITY YOUTH POPULATIONS

To enhance research on the drug-using behavior of rninority youth, future

etiologic studies need to go beyond the few existing theoretical models utilized

to explain drug-using behavior among these populations. The few conceptually

based studies conducted on the drug-using behavior of minority youth have

been based on unidimensional theoretical models that have asserted that

drug use and abuse may be (1) mostly due to familial problems, (2) caused

by external stressful and constraining environmental forces, (3) the result of

faulty interpersonal relationships or psychological problems, (4) caused by

acculturation-related stress, or (5), to a lesser extent, the result of some

intraindividual vulnerability such as biological susceptibility to a particular drug

or type of drugs (Brook, this volume; Rodriguez et al., this volume; Vega et al.,

this volume). The theoretical models used in this research also tended to be

based on conceptual frameworks that are grounded only or primarily in the

sociological sciences, the psychological sciences, and to a lesser degree the

biological sciences. Furthermore, these etiologic conceptualizations of the

problem also tend to limit researchers from one discipline (e.g., psychology,

sociology, medicine) in integrating their knowledge with those of other

disciplines to develop a more integrated and multidimensional approach

to the study of drug use and its related problems among minority youth.

Few conceptualizations integrate knowledge from all the related sciences

(Battjes and Jones 1985; Kaplan et al. 1987).

327
Although these views of causation of drug use have merit, they do not fully

address the complexity of the drug problem thought to exist within minority

youth populations. As with more recent drug abuse research on nonminority

youth, future research on the drug-using behavior of minority youth needs to

be based on a more integrated conceptual model. Such a conceptualization

should consider not only individual and environmental factors but also the

interaction of these factors in exposing minority youth to or protecting them

from drug-using behavior. As an essential criterion, this model must be

multidimensional and have a multidisciplinary approach. In addition, it should

be based on a person-in-situation-environment configuration, including the

various stages of the drug use continuum: nonuse, initiation of use, escalation

to abuse, addiction, cessation of drug use, and potential relapse. This personin-situation-environment configuration will allow this model the flexibility to

adjust its theoretical framework to be sensitive to those factors thought to be

most important to the development of drug-using behavior among each of

the various racial or minority groups.

Essential to this conceptual framework is the concept that the risk for drug use

and abuse evolves over time and is particularly high during the maturational

period of the individual, mainly the adolescent years. Thus, as envisioned,

this model must be dynamic and not static oriented. The model must also

encompass the recognition that drug use and abuse can become a progressive,

chronic, and relapsing disease that evolves and manifests itself in unique

ways for different individuals. For some, drug-using behavior develops into

psychoactive substance dependence as defined by specific diagnostic criteria

(American Psychiatric Association 1987). For others, drug-using behavior

does not go beyond experimentation.

Critical to this conceptual framework is the reciprocal relationship that

exists between individuals and their immediate social environment (i.e.,

family, friends, neighborhood, school, workplace). The authors’ hypothesis

is that an individual’s drug-using behavior, including drug-dealing activities,

may affect positively or negatively economic, social, or behavioral activities,

including the use of drugs by family members, friends, schoolmates, coworkers,

or neighbors. For example, a minority youth who uses and sells drugs can

create an environment that may influence a younger sibling’s involvement

in drug-using activities. So, too, the drug-using behaviors or drug-dealing

activities of a minority youth may so anger his or her neighbors that they may

organize their neighborhood to rid it of drugs. In turn, the neighbors’ actions

may lead to the creation of a neighborhood environment not conducive

to drug-using and drug-dealing activities. The development of such an

environment could eventually have a positive impact in reducing the drugusing behavior and drug-dealing activities of such a youngster. Similarly,

the warmth and loving support that families provide youngsters who live in

328
“high-risk” communities can have a significant influence in preventing their

involvement in deviant behaviors, including drug use.

Equally important to the proposed model is the recognition that reciprocal

interrelationships exist between societal forces and the immediate social and

physical environment of minority youth. These interrelationships can create

the social and economic conditions that may either expose minority youth to

or protect them from involvement in drug-using behavior. For example, the

lack of public and private resources to address the high unemployment rates

existing in many inner-city minority communities has been blamed for creating

the economic conditions thought to be responsible for the development of drug

distribution businesses and networks that often proliferate in these communities

(Johnson et al. 1990). In turn, these drug distribution organizations have

resulted in a greater availability of drugs to minority youth and other individuals

living in these communities. Many minority leaders have considered the

availability of drugs accompanied by the lack of economic opportunity the

main factors responsible for the increasing use of drugs and the drugdealing activities of minority youth.

Application of the above-mentioned elements can result in the development

of comprehensive models to explain drug-using behavior among minority youth

as has been proposed by drug abuse researchers in their quest to understand

the underlying factors responsible for the drug-using behavior of nonminority

youth. Previous etiologic research on the drug-using behavior of nonminority

individuals has used comprehensive theoretical models to explore the nature

and extent of drug use among these populations (Huba et al. 1980; Kaplan

1990; Kaplan et al. 1989; Glantz 1992). Elements of this model should be

synthesized from previous research conducted on nonminority populations

that has described the biological, intrapersonal, interpersonal, sociocultural,

and economic domains that may be directly related to the drug-using behavior

of nonminority youth (Jessor and Jessor 1977; Huba and Bentler 1982; Cadoret

et al. 1986; Brook et al. 1988; Cloninger et al. 1988; Hawkins et al. 1985;

Hesselbrook 1986).

Underpinning this model is the principle of ecological system theory, which

states that behavior is dynamic in nature and must be measured within the

person-in-situation-environment and that changes in one part of a system

can affect functioning in other parts (Germain and Gitterman 1980). The

proposed model also should integrate the principles of human development

from the neonatal period through early adulthood. Finally, also underpinning

the comprehensive model is the testing of principles embodied in Kandel’s

Gateway model (Kandel et al. 1978), which theorizes that adolescents,

regardless of their ethnic or racial background, usually progress through

different stages of drug use initiation, with each stage facilitating escalation to

more frequent use with larger doses and more types of illegal drugs (Kandel et

329
al. 1978). The integrated etiologic model will explore whether minority youth,

like nonminority youth, progress through increasingly deviant behaviors for their

index group rather than a particular order of drug use.

TOWARD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MORE COMPREHENSIVE DRUG

ABUSE DATA COLLECTION APPROACH

important to the enhancement of drug abuse research on minority youth is

the need to develop more effective strategies for collecting valid and reliable

information on their drug-using behavior. Most needed is a community-based

approach grounded in both qualitative and quantitative methods. Using this

approach, certain aspects of qualitative methodology would be utilized in the

improvement and refinement of the data collection procedures and instruments

used in cross-sectional and longitudinal drug abuse studies on minority youth.

Ethnographic field stations: discussion and focus groups with users, former

users, and nonusers; and extensive observational studies are the methods

needed to address some of the most serious concerns affecting quantitativeoriented etiologic research on the drug-using behavior of minority youth.

Utilization of such methodological approaches, however, may need adjustment

and further refinement based on different problems and conditions encountered

when collecting drug use information from the different subgroups of minority

youth.

By utilizing ethnographic field stations, drug abuse researchers may be able

to improve their image in minority communities and gain more access to these

communities. As previous research on the drug-using behavior of minority

youth has shown, two serious problems confronting drug abuse researchers

are their poor image in minority communities and the lack of trust that many

minority individuals have toward them (Debro and Conley, this volume: Debro

and Bolek 1991; Joe, this volume). According to Debro and Conley (this

volume) and Milburn and coworkers (1991), the most effective method of

building linkages with minority communities is through the utilization of

ethnographic field stations and discussion groups. Quantitative-oriented drug

abuse researchers who are able to establish rapport with minority communities

will be in a better position to collect the most useful information on the drugusing behavior of minority youth (Milburn et al. 1991; Goldstein et al. 1990).

The information obtained by researchers through the use of discussion

groups and extensive observation can also help in the enhancement of current

sampling and retention procedures used in drug use surveys and longitudinal

studies. The selection of matched control groups in community-based research

designs may be enhanced through this method. Having extensive information

on the population of interest also may help in the development of more effective

strategies to identify, select, and interview representative samples of minority

youth in longitudinal-oriented studies (Watters and Biernacki 1989). Obviously,

330
the ability of drug abuse researchers to interview the most representative sample

of minority youth will enhance the generalizability of the study results. This is

particularly true of special subpopulations of minority youth, such as school

dropouts, homeless youth, and gang members, where there are no studies that

represent population samples.

Knowledge of the research population may also help researchers to develop

effective retention plans to track and retain minority youth in longitudinal studies.

Gaining and maintaining the cooperation of school officials is essential to the

development of a good tracking system. One method that could be used is to

elicit such cooperation to provide minimal services to school systems such as

the provision of information on the rate of drug use for each school participating

in the study through an annual report to the school principal. Two other

methods that drug abuse researchers could utilize to track students effectively

are the development of a survey log list containing up-to-date information on

the whereabouts of the students and the publication of a newsletter to be

distributed among parents of children attending the schools participating in

the study. According to Bush and colleagues (this volume) and Cordray and

Polk (1983), the quality of data collected in longitudinal studies is dependent on

the ability of the researcher to track and retain as many subjects as possible.

As the number of subjects who remain in the study decreases, the ability to

generalize the results also decreases.

The information obtained from these ethnographic field stations and focus

group techniques can assist in the development of scales and interviewing

instruments that will more appropriately measure the effects of cultural and

community factors on the drug-using behavior of minority youth (Vega et al.,

this volume; Recio Adrados, this volume; Rogler et al. 1991; Rogler 1989).

As many drug abuse researchers have stated, a serious gap in the field is

the lack of valid and reliable scales to measure underlying social and cultural

factors thought to be related to the drug-using behavior of minority youth (Vega

et al., this volume). Such scales, if developed properly, could measure the loss

of cultural identity; acculturation-related stress; the influences of availability of

drugs; and the influence of housing conditions, recreational facilities, health

care facilities, social service institutions, and places of worship on the drugusing behavior of minority youth.

The use of a combined qualitative and quantitative methodological approach

could also reduce the refusal rates and underreporting problems associated

with drug use surveys and longitudinal studies that collect data on the minority

youth population (Cox et al. 1991; LoSciuto et al., this volume). These

problems often have affected the validity and reliability of the collected

drug use data. Finally, utilizing qualitative methods such as the use of

focus groups can enhance the ability of drug abuse researchers to generate

hypotheses or research questions that can serve as the foundation for etiologic

331
research. Drug abuse researchers often have preconceived notions regarding

the nature of the drug use problem among minority youth that may not reflect

a minority community’s view regarding this problem. Failure by drug abuse

researchers to validate their views with those of the community may lead to

the development of research projects based on erroneous assumptions.

This proposed approach to combine qualitative and quantitative methods in

drug abuse studies is not a departure from past research designs employed by

other drug abuse researchers. Ethnographic field stations in combination with

social survey methodology have been used recently by researchers such as

Waldorf (1991), Morgan (1990), and Chavez (this volume) to locate, interview,

and retain gang members, school dropouts, and homeless individuals. Other

researchers such as Brook (1988), Vega (1988), and Thornberry (1991) have

recently used focus groups to develop scales to collect more valid information

on the drug-using behavior of minority youth.

However, notwithstanding these efforts, the integration of qualitative and

quantitative methods in drug abuse research is the exception rather than the

rule. Current drug abuse research of minority youth continues to follow

methodological approaches grounded in either ethnographic studies, crosssectional surveys, or to a limited degree, longitudinal studies. Researchers

surveying drug use or conducting longitudinal studies of minority youth have

seldom availed themselves of focus groups in developing their instruments or

in identifying and interviewing study participants. Conversely, ethnographers

often have failed to move their studies on the drug-using behavior of minority

youth beyond the exploratory stages. They have made few linkages with

quantitative methodologies to utilize the results from such research to develop

well-thought-out research questions and questionnaires (Feldman and Aldrich

1990). This lack of integration may be attributed to the relative infancy of drug

abuse research as well as to the deficiency of research institutions to train

researchers, particularly minority scientists, in the integrative use of qualitative

and quantitative methodologies (Debro and Bolek 1991). It should be noted

that an integrative approach to the collection of drug use data on minority youth

must be accomplished within an interdisciplinary framework. This framework

would allow for the development of an approach based on the combined

expertise of quantitative methodologies and ethnography.

CONCLUSION

The development of an integrated qualitative/quantitative community-based

research design model based on a culturally appropriate etiologic model is

essential to the future understanding of the drug-using behavior of minority

youth. Emanating from such research will be descriptive profiles or typologies

to permit early identification of minority youth at risk of using drugs or

becoming abusers. The data collected through this research also will be

332
critical in developing effective and culturally appropriate individual, family,

and community prevention and treatment strategies and programs. As the

minority population in the United States continues to increase, the failure to

address the problem of drug use within minority youth populations can be

detrimental to the social and economic well-being of this country.

NOTES

1. As has been defined in this monograph, minority youth are youth up

to 24 years of age and include foreign-born as well as U.S.-born (first-,

second-, and third-generation) Asian-Americans and Pacific Islander

youth (i.e., Vietnamese, Filipino, Korean, Cambodian, Chinese, Japanese,

Samoan); Hispanic youth (i.e., Mexican-American, Cuban-American,

Puerto Rican, South and Central American, or other Caribbean youth of

Spanish ancestry): African-American youth: youth immigrating recently from

other countries such as Haiti, Jamaica, Uganda, and Nigeria: and American

Indian and Alaska Native youth belonging to one of more than 200 tribes

currently found in the continental United States and Alaska. In addition,

although the focus of this research monograph is on minority youth, some

of the issues discussed can be used to improve understanding of the drug

use problem faced by minority individuals 25 years and older and

nonminority youth and adults.

2. Drug-using behavior is being used interchangeably in this chapter with licit

and illicit drug use.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T.M.; Bird, H.R.; Canino, G.; Phares, V.; Gould, M.S.; and RubioStipec, M. Epidemiological comparisons of Puerto Rican and U.S. mainland

children: Parent, teacher, and self-reports. J Am Acad Child Adolesc

Psychiatry 29:85-93, 1990.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders. 3d ed., rev. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1987.

Austin, G., and Gilbert, M.J. Substance abuse among Latino youth. Prevention

Research Update, No. 3. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Educational

Laboratory, 1989.

Bachman, J.G.; Wallace, J.M., Jr.; Kurth, C.; Johnston, L.D.; and O’Malley, P.M.

Drug Use Among Black, White, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian

American High School Seniors (1976-1989): Prevalence, Trends, and

Correlates. Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper 30. Ann Arbor, Ml:

Institute for Social Research, 1990.

333
Bachman, J.G.; Wallace, J.M., Jr.; O’Malley, P.M.; Johnston, L.D.; Kurth, C.L.;

and Neighbors, H.W. Racial/ethnic differences in smoking, drinking, and illicit

drug use among American high school seniors, 1978-89. Am J Public Health

79:634-836, 1991.

Battjes, R.J., and Jones, C.L. Implications of etiological research for preventive

interventions and future research. In: Jones, C.L., and Battjes, R.J., eds.

Etiology of Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention. National Institute on Drug

Abuse Research Monograph 56. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)87-1335.

Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. pp. 269-276.

Beauvais, F.; Oetting, E.R.; Wolf, W.; and Edwards, R.W. American Indian

youth and drugs, 1976-1987: A continuing problem. Am J Public Health

81:372-377, 1989.

Brook, J.S. “Drug Abuse and Problem Behaviors in Minority Youth.” Research

grant application DA-05702 submitted to National Institute on Drug Abuse,

Rockville, MD, 1988.

Brook, J.S.; Whiteman, M.; Noruman, C.; Gordon, A.; and Cohen, P.

Personality, family, and ecological influences on adolescent drug use: A

developmental analysis. J Chem Depend Treat 1:123-161, 1988.

Brunswick, A.F. Black youths and drug use-abuse behavior. In: Beschner, G.,

and Friedman, A., eds. Youth and Drug Use: Problems, Issues, and

Treatment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1979.

Brunswick, A.F. Young black males and substance abuse. In: Taylor, J., ed.

Young, Black and Male in America. Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1988.

Cadoret, R.; Troughton, E.; O’Gorman, M.; and Heywood, E. An adoption study

of genetic and environmental factors in drug abuse. Arch Gen Psychiatry

43:1131-1136, 1986.

Caetano R. Alcohol use among Hispanic groups in the United States. Am J

Drug Alcohol Abuse 14:293-308, 1988.

Chavez, E.L.; Edwards, R.W.; and Oetting, E.R. Mexican American and white

American dropouts: Drug use, health, and violence. Public Health Rep

104:594-604, 1989.

Chavez, E.L., and Swaim, R.C. An epidemiological comparison of MexicanAmerican and white non-Hispanic 8th- and 12th-grade students’ substance

use. Am J Public Health 82(3):445-447, 1992.

Clayton, R.R.; Robbins, C.; Skinner, W.F.; and Martin, S. “Minority Drug Use

and the Transition to Adulthood.” Final report submitted to the National

Institute on Drug Abuse and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

and Prevention, Washington, DC, 1990.

Cloninger, C.R.; Sigvardson, S.; and Bohman, M. Childhood personality

predicts alcohol abuse in young adults. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 12:494-505,

1988.

Cordray, S., and Polk, K. The implications of respondent loss in panel studies of

deviant behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 20:214-242, 1983.

334
Cox, B.G.; Witt, M.B.; and Patula, J.F. “Nonresponse in the 1988 NHSDA: Final

Report Draft.” Prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Chapel Hill,

NC: Research Triangle Institute, 1991.

Crider, R.A., and Rouse, B.A., eds. Epidemiology of Inhalant Abuse: An

Update. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 85. DHHS

Pub. No. (ADM)88-1577. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print.

Off., 1988.

Debro, J.J., and Bolek, C.S. Drug Abuse Research Issues at Historically Black

Colleges and Universities. Research monograph published by Clark

University and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Atlanta, GA: Tuskegee

Press, 1991.

De La Rosa, M.; Lambert, E.Y.; and Gropper, B., eds. Drugs and Violence:

Causes, Correlates, and Consequences. National Institute on Drug Abuse

Research Monograph 103. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-1721. Washington, DC:

Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990b.

De La Rosa, M.R.; Khalsa, J.H.; and Rouse, B.A. Hispanics and illicit drug use:

A review of recent findings. Int J Addict 25:665-691, 1990a.

DeMarsh, J., and Kumpfer, K.L. Family environmental and genetic influences

on children’s future chemical dependency. In: Griswold-Ezekoye, S.;

Kumpfer, K.L.; and Bukoski, W.J., eds. Childhood and Chemical Abuse:

Prevention and Intervention. New York: Haworth Press, 1986. pp. 117-151.

Dembo, R.; Williams, L.; Wothke, W.; Schmeidler, J.; Getreu, A.; Berry, E.;

Wish, E.D.; and Christensen, C. The relationship between cocaine use, drug

sales, and other delinquency among a cohort of high-risk youths over time. In:

De La Rosa, M.; Lambert, E.Y.; and Gropper, B., eds. Drugs and Violence:

Causes, Correlates, and Consequences. National Institute on Drug Abuse

Research Monograph 103. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-1721. Washington, DC:

Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990. pp. 112-135.

Dembo, R.D.; Burgos, W.; Des Jarlais, D.; and Schmeidler, J. Ethnicity and

drug use among urban junior high school youths. Int J Addict 14:557-568,

1979.

Elliott, D.S.; Huizinga, D.; and Ageton, S. Explaining Delinquency and Drug

Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985.

Fagan, J., and Ko-lin, C. Violence as regulation and social control in the

distribution of crack. In: De La Rosa, M.; Lambert, E.Y.; and Gropper B., eds.

Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences. National

Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 103. DHHS Pub. No.

(ADM)91-1721. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990.

pp. 8-43.

Feldman, H.W., and Aldrich, M.R. The role of ethnography in substance abuse

research and public policy: Historical precedent and future prospects. In:

Lambert, E.Y., ed. The Collection and Interpretation of Data From Hidden

Populations. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 98.

DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)90-1678. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt.

Print. Off., 1990. pp. 12-30.

335
Fischman, M.W.; Schuester, C.R.; Javid, J.; Hatano, Y.; and Davis, J. Acute

tolerance development to the cardiovascular and subjective effects of cocaine.

J Pharmacol Exp Ther 235:677-682, 1985.

Friedman, A.S.; Glickman, N.; and Utada, A.T. Predicting from earlier substance

abuse and earlier grade point average to failure to graduate from high school.

J Alcohol Drug Ed 31(1):25-31, 1985.

Gawin, F.H., and Kleber, H.D. Cocaine use in a treatment population: Patterns

and diagnostic distinctions. In: Kozel, N.J., and Adams, E.H., eds. Cocaine Use

in America: Epidemiologic and Clinical Perspectives. National Institute on Drug

Abuse Research Monograph 61. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)87-1414. Washington,

DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1985. pp. 182-192.

Germain, B.C., and Gitterman, A. The Life Model of Social Work Practice. New

York: Columbia University Press, 1980.

Gfoerer, J., and De La Rosa, M. Protective and risk factors associated with drug

use among Hispanic youth. J Addict Dis, in press.

Glantz, M.D. A developmental psychopathological model of drug abuse

vulnerability. In: Glantz, M.D., and Pickens, R., eds. Vulnerability to Drug

Abuse. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, 1992.

Glick, R., and Moore, J.W., eds. Drugs in Hispanic Communities. New Brunswick,

NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1990.

Goldstein, P.J.; Spunt, B.J.; Miller, T.; and Bellucci, P. Ethnographic field stations.

In: Lambert, E.Y., ed. The Collection and Interpretation of Data from Hidden

Populations. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series 98.

DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)90-1678. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt.

Print. Off., 1990. pp. 80-95.

Gottlieb, N.H., and Baker, J.A. The relative influence of health beliefs, parental

and peer behaviors and exercise participation on smoking, alcohol, and physical

activity. Soc Sci Med 22:915-927, 1988.

Griswold-Ezekoye, S.; Kumpfer, K.; and Bukoski, W.J., eds. Childhood and

Chemical Abuse: Prevention and Intervention. New York: Haworth Press, 1986.

Groves, R.M. Research on survey data quality. Public Opinion Q 51:156-172,

1987.

Hardway, P.L.; Gurin, G.; and Rodriguez, A. “Parental Conflict: A Link Between

Deviance and Broken Homes.” Unpublished manuscript, 1990.

Hartford, T.C., and Lowman, C. Alcohol use among black and white teenagers.

In: Spiegler, D.L.; Tate, D.A.; Aitken, S.S.; and Christian, C.M., eds. Alcohol

Use Among U.S. Ethnic Minorities. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)89-1435. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs.,

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1989.

Hawkins, J.D.; Lishner, D.M.; Catalano, R.F.; and Howard, M.O. Childhood

predictors of adolescent substance abuse: Toward an empirically grounded

theory. J Child Contemp Soc 8:11-48, 1985.

Hesselbrook, V. Family history of psychopathology in alcoholics: A review and

issues. In: Meyer R., ed. Psychopathology and Addictive Disorders. New York:

Guilford Press, 1986.

336
Huba, G., and Bentler, P. A developmental theory of drug use: Derivation and

assessment of a causal modeling approach. In: Bates, P., and Brim, O., eds.

Life-Span Development and Behavior, Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1982.

Huba, G.J.; Wingard, J.A.; and Bentler, P.M. Framework for interactive theory of

drug abuse. In: Lettieri, D.J.; Sayers, M.; and Pearson, H.W., eds. Theories on

Drug Abuse: Selected Contemporary Perspective. National Institute on Drug

Abuse Research Monograph 30. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)84-967. Washington,

DC: Supt. of Docs., US. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. pp. 95-101.

Jessor, R., and Jessor, S. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A

Longitudinal Study of Youth. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Johnson, B.; Goldstein, P.J.; Preble, E.; Schmeidler, J.; and Lipton, E. Taking

Care of Business: The Economics of Crime by Heroin Abusers. Lexington, MA:

Heath, 1985.

Johnson, B.; Williams, T.; Dei, K.; and Sanabria, H. Drug abuse and the inner city:

Impact on drug users and the community. In: Tonry, M., and Wilson, J.Q., eds.

Drugs and Crime. Crime and Justice Series, Vol. 13. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1990. pp. 9-67.

Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Bachman, J.G., eds. Drug Use Among

American High School Seniors, College Students and Young Adults, 1975-

1990. 2 vols. National Institute on Drug Abuse. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-1813.

Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991.

Kandel, D.B. Epidemiological and psychosocial perspectives on adolescent drug

use. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 21:328-347, 1982.

Kandel, D.B.; Kessler, R.; and Marguilies, R. Antecedents of adolescence

initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. J Youth Adolesc

7:13-40, 1978.

Kaplan, H. Advances in substance abuse research: Dimensions and directions.

In: Bonjean, C.M., and Foss, D.J., eds. Mental Health Research in Texas:

Retrospect and Prospect. Proceedings of the Seventh Robert Lee Sutherland

Seminar in Mental Health. Hogg Foundation, 1990. pp. 96-122.

Kaplan, H.B.; Johnson, R.J.; and Bailey, C.A. Deviant peers and deviant behavior:

Further elaboration of a model. Soc Psychol Q 50:277-284, 1987.

Kaplan, H.B.; Martin, S.S.; and Robbins, C. Toward an explanation of increased

involvement in illicit drug use: Application of a general theory of deviant

behavior. Res Community Mental Health 5:270-289, 1989.

Kopstein, A.N., and Roth, P.T. “Drug Abuse Among Race/Ethnic Minorities.”

Unpublished report. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, 1990.

Leukefeld, C.G., and Bukoski, W.J., eds. Drug Abuse Prevention Intervention

Research: Methodological Issues. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research

Monograph 107. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-1761. Washington, DC: Supt. of

Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991.

Maddahian, E.; Newcomb, M.D.; and Bentler, P.M. Substance abuse and

psychosocial risk factors among teenagers: Associations with sex, age, ethnicity,

and type of school. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 13(4):413-433, 1987.

337
Marin, G., and Marin, B.V. Research With Hispanic Populations. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage, 1991.

McGeary, M.C., and Lynn, L.E., eds. Urban Change and Poverty. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press, 1988.

McLaughlin, R.J.; Baer, P.E.; Burnside, M.A.; and Pokorny, A.D. Psychosocial

correlates of alcohol use at two levels during adolescence. J Stud Alcohol

46:212-218, 1985.

Milburn, N.; Gary, E.; Booth, J.; and Brown, D.R. Conducting epidemiologic

research in minority communities: Methodological considerations. J

Community Psychol 19:3-12, 1991.

Moore, J.W. Isolation and stigmatization in the development of an underclass.

Social Prob 33:144-158, 1985.

Morgan, P. “Ice and Methamphetamine Use: An Exploratory Study.” Grant

application DA-06853 submitted to the National Institute on Drug Abuse,

Washington, DC, 1990.

National Commission on Drug-Free Schools. Toward a Drug-Free Generation:

A Nation’s Responsibility. Final Report. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S.

Govt. Print. Off., September 1990.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Statistical Series. Annual Emergency Room

Data 1990. Data From the DAWN. Series I, Number 10-A. DHHS Pub. No.

(ADM)90-1839. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., US. Govt. Print. Off., 1990.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug Use Among Youth: Findings From the

1988 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-

1765. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991 b.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse:

Main Findings 1990. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-1788. Washington, DC: Supt.

of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1991a.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

Population Estimates 1991. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)92-1887. Washington, DC:

Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1992.

National Institute on Drug Abuse and Capital Consulting Corporation.

“Examining Drug Abuse Research Issues Among American Indians/Alaskan

Natives, Hispanics and Asian Pacific Islanders.” Conference Proceedings and

Recommendations by J.E. Trimble, E.L. Chavez, N. Zane, and J.E. Brose.

1991.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Substance abuse and ethnicity: Differential

impact of peer and adult models. J Psychol 120:83-95, 1986.

Office for Substance Abuse Prevention. “Individual Risk Factors for Substance

Abuse and Effective Individual-Oriented Prevention Research.” Unpublished

manuscript, Rockville, MD, 1991.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. National Drug Control Strategy: A Nation

Responds to Drug Use. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President,

1992.

Padilla, F. Puerto Rican Chicago. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame

Press, 1987.

338
Rebach, H.M. Substance Abuse Among Ethnic Minorities: An Annotated

Bibliography. New York: Garland Press, 1992.

Recio Adrados, J.-L. El papel de la familia Mexicano-Americana en el abuso de

drogas. In: Buxo, M.J., and Calvo, T., eds. Culturas Hispanas en los Estados

Unidos de America. Madrid: lnstituto de Cooperación Iberoamericana, 1990.

Rodriguez, O., and Recio Adrados, J.-L. The applicability of the social control

model to Puerto Rican drug use. J Crime Justice, in press.

Rogler, L.H. The meaning of culturally sensitive research in mental health. Am J

Psychiatry 166:296-303, 1989.

Rogler, L.H.; Cortes, D.E.; and Malgady, R.G. Acculturation and mental health

among Hispanics: Convergence and new directions for research. Am Psychol

46:585-597, 1991.

Sampson, R.J. Urban violence: The effect of male joblessness and family

disruption. Am J Social 93:348-382, 1987.

Soriano, F.I., and De La Rosa, M.R. Cocaine use and criminal activities among

Hispanic juvenile delinquents in Florida. In: Glick, R., and Moore, J., eds.

Drugs in Hispanic Communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University

Press, 1990. pp. 55-73.

Szapocznik, J., and Kurtines, W. Acculturation, biculturism, and adjustment

among Cuban Americans. In: Padilla, A.M., ed. Acculturation: Theory,

Models, and Some Findings. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1980. pp. 139-

159.

Thornberry T. “Social Network Approach to Drug Use of Minority Youth.”

Research grant application DA-05512 submitted to the National Institute on

Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, 1991.

Trimble, J.E.; Padilla, A.; and Bell, C., eds. Drug Abuse Among Ethnic

Minorities. National Institute on Drug Abuse Office of Science Monograph.

DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)87-1474. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., US. Govt.

Print. Off., 1987.

Tucker, M.B. US. ethnic minorities and drug abuse: An assessment of the

science and practice. Int J Addict 20:1021-1047, 1985.

Vega, W. “Patterns of Drug Use: Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Male Teens.”

Research grant application DA-05912 submitted to the National Institute on

Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD, 1988.

Vega, W. Hispanic families in the 1980s: A decade of research. J Marriage

Family 52:1015-1024, 1990.

Virag, T.; Duffey, A.; Frick, C.; Rush, G.; Snodgrass, J.; and Ardini, M.A. “1990

NHSDA: Data Collection: Final Report.” Prepared for the National Institute on

Drug Abuse. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute, 1991.

Waldorf, D. “Crack Sales, Gangs and Violence: An Exploration.” Research grant

application DA-06487 submitted to the National Institute on Drug Abuse,

Rockville, MD, 1991.

Wallace, J.M., Jr., and Bachman, J.G. Explaining racial/ethnic differences in

adolescent drug use: The impact of backgrounds and lifestyles. Soc Prob

38:333-357, 1991.

339
The Washington Post. A looting binge born of necessity. May 10, 1992. p. A1.

Watters J., and Biernacki, P. Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hidden

populations. Soc Prob 36:416-430, 1989.

Watts, W.D., and Wright, L.S. The drug use-violent delinquency link among

adolescent Mexican-Americans. In: De La Rosa, M.; Lambert, E.Y.; and

Gropper, B., eds. Drugs and Violence: Causes, Correlates, and

Consequences. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 103.

DHHS Pub. No. (ADM)91-1721. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt.

Print. Off., 1990.

National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 103. DHHS Pub. No.

(ADM)91-1721. Washington, DC: Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1990.

pp. 136-159.

AUTHORS

Mario R. De La Rosa, Ph.D.

Social Science Analyst

Epidemiologic Research Branch

Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Nancy J. Kennedy, Dr.P.H.

Epidemiologist

Epidemiology Studies and Surveillance Branch

Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Rockwall 2, Suite 615

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, MD 20857

Juan-Luis Recio Adrados, Ph.D.

Visiting Research Scientist

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Profesor Titular de Sociología

Facultad de Ciencia Politicas y Sociología

Universidad Complutense

28023 Madrid SPAIN

Norweeta Milburn, Ph.D.

Professor

Department of Psychology

Hofstra University

Hempstead, NY 11550

340
While limited supplies last, single copies of the monographs may be obtained free of

charge from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI).

Please contact NCADI also for information about availability of coming issues and

other publications of the National Institute on Drug Abuse relevant to drug abuse

research.

Additional copies may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office

(GPO) and/or the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) as indicated. NTIS

prices are for paper copy; add $3.00 handling charge for each order. Microfiche

copies are also available from NTIS. Prices from either source are subject to

change.

Addresses are:

NCADI

National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information

P.O. Box 2345

Rockville, MD 20852

(301) 468-2600

(800) 729-6686

GPO

Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

P.O. Box 371954

Pittsburgh, PA 15220-7954

(202) 738-3238

FAX (202) 512-2233

NTIS

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

Springfield, VA 22161

(703) 487-4650

For information on availability of NIDA Research Monographs 1-70 (1975-1986) and

others not listed, write to NIDA, Community and Professional Education Branch,

Room 10A-39, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

341
71 OPIATE RECEPTOR SUBTYPES AND BRAIN FUNCTION. Roger M.

Brown, Ph.D.; Doris H. Clouet, Ph.D.; and David P. Friedman, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #89-151955/AS $31

72 RELAPSE AND RECOVERY IN DRUG ABUSE. Frank M. Tims, Ph.D.,

and Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01302-1 $6 NTIS PB #89-151963/AS $31

73 URINE TESTING FOR DRUGS OF ABUSE. Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D., and

C. Nora Chiang, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01313-7 $3.75 NTIS PB #89-151971/AS $23

74 NEUROBIOLOGY OF BEHAVIORAL CONTROL IN DRUG ABUSE.

Stephen I. Szara, M.D., D.Sc., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01314-5 $3.75 NTIS PB #89-151989/AS $23

75 PROGRESS IN OPIOID RESEARCH. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1986

INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS RESEARCH CONFERENCE. John W.

Holaday, Ph.D.; Ping-Yee Law, Ph.D.: and Albert Herz, M.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

Not available from NTIS

76 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1986: PROCEEDINGS OF THE

48TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO out of stock NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #88-208111/AS $53

77 ADOLESCENT DRUG ABUSE: ANALYSES OF TREATMENT

RESEARCH. Elizabeth R. Rahdert, Ph.D., and John Grabowski, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01348-0 $4 NCADI out of stock

NTIS PB #89-125488/AS $23

78 THE ROLE OF NEUROPLASTICITY IN THE RESPONSE TO DRUGS.

David P. Friedman, Ph.D., and Doris H. Clouet, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #88-245683/AS $31

79 STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS OF THE CANNABINOIDS.

Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D., and Alexandros Makriyannis, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #89-109201/AS $31

342
80 NEEDLE SHARING AMONG INTRAVENOUS DRUG ABUSERS:

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES. Robert J. Battjes,

D.S.W., and Roy W. Pickens, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #88-236138/AS $31

81 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1987: PROCEEDINGS OF THE

49TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01354-4 $17 NTIS PB #89-109227/AS

Contact NTIS for price

82 OPIOIDS IN THE HIPPOCAMPUS. Jacqueline F. McGinty, Ph.D., and

David P. Friedman, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #88-245691/AS $23

83 HEALTH HAZARDS OF NITRITE INHALANTS. Harry W. Haverkos, M.D.,

and John A. Dougherty, Ph.D., eds.

GPO out of stock NTIS PB #89-125496/AS $23

84 LEARNING FACTORS IN SUBSTANCE ABUSE. Barbara A. Ray, Ph.D.,

ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01353-6 $6 NTIS PB #89-125504/AS $31

85 EPIDEMIOLOGY OF INHALANT ABUSE: AN UPDATE. Raquel A. Crider,

Ph.D., and Beatrice A. Rouse, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01360-9 $5.50 NTIS PB #89-123178/AS $31

86 COMPULSORY TREATMENT OF DRUG ABUSE: RESEARCH AND

CLINICAL PRACTICE. Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W., and Frank M. Tims, Ph.D.,

eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01352-8 $7.50 NTIS PB #89-151997/AS $31

87 OPIOID PEPTIDES: AN UPDATE. Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D., and Bhola N.

Dhawan, M.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01366-8 $7 NTIS PB #89-158430/AS $45

88 MECHANISMS OF COCAINE ABUSE AND TOXICITY. Doris H. Clouet,

Ph.D.; Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D.; and Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01359-5 $11 NTIS PB #89-125512/AS $39

89 BIOLOGICAL VULNERABILTY TO DRUG ABUSE. Roy W. Pickens,

Ph.D., and Dace S. Svikis, B.A., eds.

GPO Stock #017-022-01054-2 $5 NTIS PB #89-125520/AS $23

343
90 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE 1988: PROCEEDINGS OF THE

50TH ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01362-5 $17

91 DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DATA.

Steven W. Gust, Ph.D., and J. Michael Walsh, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01384-6 $10 NTIS PB #90-147257/AS $39

92 TESTING FOR ABUSE LIABILITY OF DRUGS IN HUMANS. Marian W.

Fischman, Ph.D., and Nancy K. Mello, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01379-0 $12 NTIS PB #90-148933/AS $45

93 AIDS AND INTRAVENOUS DRUG USE: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR

COMMUNITY-BASED PREVENTION RESEARCH. C.G. Leukefeld, D.S.W.;

R.J. Battjes, D.S.W.; and Z. Amsel, D.Sc., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01388-9 $10 NTIS PB #90-148941/AS $39

94 PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF AMPHETAMINE AND

RELATED DESIGNER DRUGS. Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D., and Errol De

Souza, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01386-2 $11 NTIS PB #90-148958/AS $39

95 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE 1989: PROCEEDINGS OF THE

51 ST ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01399-4 $21 NTIS PB #90-237660/AS $67

96 DRUGS OF ABUSE: CHEMISTRY, PHARMACOLOGY, IMMUNOLOGY,

AND AIDS. Phuong Thi Kim Pham, Ph.D., and Kenner Rice, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01403-6 $8 NTIS PB #90-237678/AS $31

97 NEUROBIOLOGY OF DRUG ABUSE: LEARNING AND MEMORY. Lynda

Erinoff, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01404-4 $8 NTIS PB #90-237686/AS $31

98 THE COLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA FROM HIDDEN

POPULATIONS. Elizabeth Y. Lambert, MS., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01407-9 $4.75 NTIS PB #90-237694/AS $23

99 RESEARCH FINDINGS ON SMOKING OF ABUSED SUBSTANCES.

C. Nora Chiang, Ph.D., and Richard L. Hawks, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01412-5 $5 NTIS PB #91-141119 $23

344
100 DRUGS IN THE WORKPLACE: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DATA.

VOL. II. Steven W. Gust, Ph.D.; J. Michael Walsh, Ph.D.; Linda B. Thomas,

B.S.; and Dennis J. Crouch, M.B.A., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01458-3 $8

101 RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF ABUSED DRUGS ON BEHAVIOR. John W.

Spencer, Ph.D., and John J. Boren, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01426-7 $6 NTIS PB #91-172858/AS $31

102 ANABOLIC STEROID ABUSE. Geraline C. Lin, Ph.D., and Lynda Erinoff,

Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01425-7 $8 NTIS PB #91-172866/AS $31

103 DRUGS AND VIOLENCE: CAUSES, CORRELATES, AND

CONSEQUENCES. Mario De La Rosa, Ph.D.; Elizabeth Y. Lambert, M.S.;

and Bernard Gropper, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01427-3 $9 NTIS PB #91-172841/AS $31

104 PSYCHOTHERAPY AND COUNSELING IN THE TREATMENT OF

DRUG ABUSE. Lisa Simon Onken, Ph.D., and Jack D. Blaine, M.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01429-0 $4 NTIS PB #91-172874/AS $23

105 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, 1990: PROCEEDINGS OF THE

52ND ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMIT-TEE ON PROBLEMS

OF DRUG DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01435-4 $22

106 IMPROVING DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT. Roy W. Pickens, Ph.D.; Carl

G. Leukefeld, D.S.W.; and Charles R. Schuster, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01439-7 $12 NTIS PB #92-105873

Paperback $50 Microfiche $19

107 DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION INTERVENTION RESEARCH:

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES. Carl G. Leukefeld, D.S.W., and William J.

Bukoski, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01441-9 $9 NTIS PB #92-160985

Paperback $35 Microfiche $17

108 CARDIOVASCULAR TOXICITY OF COCAINE: UNDERLYING

MECHANISMS. Pushpa V. Thadani, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01446-0 $7 NTIS PB #92-106608

Paperback $35 Microfiche $17

345
109 LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF HIV INFECTION IN INTRAVENOUS DRUG

USERS: METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN NATURAL HISTORY RESEARCH.

Peter Hartsock, Dr.P.H., and Sander G. Genser, M.D., M.P.H., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01445-1 $4.50 NTIS PB #92-106616

Paperback $26 Microfiche $12.50

110 THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF COCAINE USE AND ABUSE. Susan Schober,

Ph.D., and Charles Schade, M.D., M.P.H., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01456-7 $11 NTIS PB #92-14624-0

Paperback $43 Microfiche $17

111 MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH VOLUME I:

RECEPTOR CLONING, NEUROTRANSMITTER EXPRESSION, AND

MOLECULAR GENETICS. Theresa N.H. Lee, Ph.D., ed.

Not for sale at GPO NTIS PB #92-135743

Paperback $35 Microfiche $17

112 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND NEW DIRECTIONS IN DRUG

ABUSE RESEARCH. Rao S. Rapaka, Ph.D.; Alexandros Makriyannis, Ph.D.;

and Michael J. Kuhar, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01455-9 $11N NTIS PB #92-155449

Paperback $44.50 Microfiche $17.50

113 ECONOMIC COSTS, COST-EFFECTIVENESS, FINANCING, AND

COMMUNITY-BASED DRUG TREATMENT. William S. Cartwright, Ph.D.,

and James M. Kaple, Ph.D., eds.

Not for sale at GPO NTIS PB #92-155795

Paperback $35 Microfiche $17

114 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CONTROLLED STUDIES ON EFFECTS

OF PRENATAL EXPOSURE TO DRUG ABUSE. M. Marlyne Kilbey, Ph.D., and

Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01459-1 $12 NTIS PB #92-146216

Paperback $43 Microfiche $17

115 METHAMPHETAMINE ABUSE: EPIDEMIOLOGIC ISSUES AND

IMPLICATIONS. Marissa A. Miller, D.V.M., M.P.H., and Nicholas J. Kozel, M.S., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01460-5 $4

116 DRUG DISCRIMINATION: APPLICATIONS TO DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH.

Richard A. Glennon, Ph.D.; Torbjörn U.C. Järbe, Ph.D.; and Jerry Frankenheim,

Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01470-2 $13

346
117 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL, PREVENTION,

AND TREATMENT RESEARCH ON DRUG-EXPOSED WOMEN AND THEIR

CHILDREN. M. Marlyne Kilbey, Ph.D., and Khursheed Asghar, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01472-9 $12

118 DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT IN PRISONS AND JAILS. Carl G.

Leukefeld, D.S.W., and Frank M. Tims, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01473-7 $16

119 PROBLEMS OF DRUG DEPENDENCE 1991: 53RD ANNUAL

SCIENTIFIC MEETING, THE COMMITTEE ON PROBLEMS OF DRUG

DEPENDENCE, INC. Louis S. Harris, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01474-5 $22

120 BIOAVAILABILITY OF DRUGS TO THE BRAIN AND THE BLOODBRAIN BARRIER. Jerry Frankenheim, Ph.D., and Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01481-8 $10

121 BUPRENORPHINE: AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT FOR OPIOID

DEPENDENCE. Jack D. Blaine, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01482-6 $5

122 RESEARCH METHODS IN WORKPLACE SETTINGS. Steven W. Gust,

Ph.D; Helen Axel, M.A.; and Dennis J. Crouch, M.B.A., eds.

123 ACUTE COCAINE INTOXICATION: CURRENT METHODS OF

TREATMENT. Heinz Sorer, Ph.D., ed.

124 NEUROBIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO BRAIN-BEHAVIOR

INTERACTION. Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., and Joseph Frascella, Ph.D., eds.

GPO Stock #017-024-01492-3 $9

125 ACTIVATION OF IMMEDIATE EARLY GENES OF ABUSE. Reinhard

Grzanna, Ph.D., and Roger M. Brown, Ph.D., eds.

126 MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH VOLUME

II: STRUCTURE, FUNCTION, AND EXPRESSION. Theresa N.H. Lee, Ph.D.,

ed.

127 PROGRESS AND ISSUES IN CASE MANAGEMENT. Rebecca Sager

Ashery, D.S.W., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01490-7 $14

347
128 STATISTICAL ISSUES IN CLINICAL TRIALS FOR TREATMENT OF

OPIATE DEPENDENCE. Ram B. Jain, Ph.D., ed.

GPO Stock #017-024-01491-5 $6.50

129 INHALANT ABUSE: A VOLATILE RESEARCH AGENDA. Charles Wm.

Sharp, Ph.D.; Fred Beauvais, Ph.D.; and Rechard Spence, Ph.D., eds.

348
NIH Publication No. 93-3479

Printed 1993