271

Warriors and Worriers:

A Longitudinal Study of Gender

Differences in Drug Use

Judith S. Brook, Ed.D.; Martin Whiteman, Ph.D.; and

Patricia Cohen, Ph.D.

INTRODUCTION

Within the past two decades, several studies have examined

personality attributes associated with drug use (Brook et al. 1983, 1986;

Newcomb and Bentler 1986a). Such personality traits as unconventionality, intrapsychic difficulty, and poor emotional control have been

identified as risk factors for initiating drug use. No studies have examined the extent to which childhood and adolescent personality risk

factors serve to mediate the relationship between gender and adult drug

use. Although males tend to score higher than females on drug use

(Cohen et al. 1991, pp. 168-171), no attempts have been made to link

this finding with gender differences in child and adolescent personality

characteristics that predispose the individual to adult drug use.

The authors conducted a prospective study to examine the gender

differences in childhood and adolescent personality risk factors for drug

use. A second goal involved the study of the mechanisms through which

gender operates to affect drug use. This study focused on risk and protective factors for drug use, not on drug abuse and dependence. Risk factors

for the progression from drug use to abuse and dependence among women

are addressed elsewhere in this volume (e.g., Kandel et al.; Merikangas

and Stevens; Collins et al.; and Rosenbaum and Irwin).

Various theories have been proposed to explain the gender differences in personality traits. According to the biological framework,

gender differences in personality reflect innate biologically derived

differences. Support for the biological model can be found in (1) twin

studies involving the heritability of personality traits and (2) research

demonstrating the relationship between personality traits such as aggression and gonadal hormones (Zuckerman 1991). According to NolenHoeksema (1987), sex differences in chromosomes may contribute to

greater prevalence and severity of depression in women than in men.
272

Another framework emphasizes the importance of social and cultural

factors as contributors to gender differences in personality. Eagly and

Wood (1991) propose a social-role model to explain gender differences

in personality: More specifically, gender roles determine what is appropriate for males and females. Sex differences also may reflect differences

in the way males and females are treated.

According to the biosocial model, biological or evolutionary factors

may shape the sociocultural factors that result in personality differences

between males and females. A fourth model combines biological and

environmental factors that may affect gender differences in personality,

without any necessary causal relationship between biological and cultural

factors.

Gender differences in personality traits, particularly those associated

with drug use, have received some attention in the literature. A classic

review of sex differences in personality by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974)

reported that males were more aggressive than females. At the same

time, females were found to have greater intrapsychic distress. Recent

studies have tended to support these findings (Feingold 1994).

Aside from gender differences, several studies have examined

childhood and adolescent precursors of adolescent drug use. In a classic

study, Block and colleagues (1988) found that childhood personality

attributes of less social competence and less control predicted greater

adolescent drug use. In another major study of lower class AfricanAmerican youngsters living in Chicago, Kellam and coworkers

(1983, pp. 17-52) reported that aggressive first-graders were more likely

to use drugs in adolescence. Several cross-sectional and longitudinal

studies have demonstrated that adolescents and young adults who

become involved with drugs tend to be more unconventional, experience

great intrapsychic distress, have poor control of emotions, and have

difficulty relating to others. Studies on adolescents include those by

Brook and colleagues (1986), Jessor and Jessor (1977), Johnston and

colleagues (1986), Kandel (1982), Kaplan (1980), Kaplan and colleagues

(1984), and Newcomb and Bentler (1986a, 1986b); studies on young

adults include those by Clayton and Voss (1977), Kandel (1984),

Kaplan and colleagues (1986), Newcomb and Bentler (1986a, 1988),

and Robins (1966).

To examine the relationship between gender and drug-conducive

personality factors and between gender and drug use, the authors
273

employed two approaches: (1) studying the relationship between

gender and drug-conducive personality factors as they affect drug use

and (2) studying the relationship between gender and drug use as

possibly mediated by personality differences.

METHOD

Sample

In 1975 the authors interviwed a sample of 976 mothers living in

two upstate New York counties about their children 1 to 10 years of age.

Three subsequent data collections were conducted with both the mothers and children. The last data collection occurred in 1992, when the

average age of the children was 22 years. The children were administered questionnaires assessing personality, family, and peer factors. The

approximate ages of the children at data collections were as follows:

early childhood, 5.5 years (T1); early adolescence, 14 years (T2); middle

adolescence, 16 years (T3); and late adolescence/young adulthood,

22 years (T4). Approximately half the child sample was female. Children who remained in the study were compared on the early childhood

(T1) measures with those who dropped out. No significant differences

between the two groups were identified on the measures included

in this chapter.

Procedures and Instruments

When the children were at T1, the mothers were given a structured

interview in their own homes by trained interviewers. The interviews

contained questions about the children’s personality/behavior, parental

childrearing techniques, family structure, family health, and demographics. The mothers were given a parallel version of this instrument when

the children were at T2, T3, and T4. In each of the three adolescent

waves, the adolescents were given a questionnaire assessing their own

personality/behavior and drug use.

Several scales were developed from the adolescent questionnaires,

which measured four aspects of the child’s personality: (1) conventionality, (2) control of emotions, (3) intrapsychic functioning, and

(4) interpersonal relatedness. The conventionality measures included

noncompliance, predelinquency, intolerance of deviance, school
274

achievement, rebelliousness, responsibility, sensation-seeking, selfdeviance, and church attendance. The measures designed to assess

control of emotions included temper tantrums, anger, and impulsivity.

The measures of intrapsychic functioning included ego integration,

depression, anxiety, obsessiveness, and guilt. The interpersonal relatedness measures included fearlessness, aggression against siblings, aggression against peers, and interpersonal aggression. In addition, several

childhood scales that were parallel to the adolescent measures were

included, for example, noncompliance, predelinquency, temper tantrums,

anger, fearlessness, aggression against siblings, and aggression against

peers. For a complete description of these scales, their sources, and

their Cronbach alphas, see Brook and coworkers (1986).

The dependent variable was a weighted measure of drug stage at

late adolescence/young adulthood (T4). The T4 drug index consisted of

the weighted frequency of consumption of beer, wine, and other alcohol

and use of tobacco, marijuana, and other illicit drugs from middle to late

adolescence/young adulthood, placing greater weight on the illicit drugs

(N=41.1, standard deviation [SD]=24.3). A further description of the

weighting procedure appears in Brook and coworkers (1990).

RESULTS

Males scored higher on measures of unconventionality, whereas

females scored higher on measures of intrapersonal distress, such as

depression, anxiety, and obsessiveness. Gender was related to personality

risk factors during late adolescence/young adulthood, which in turn were

related to adult drug use.

As shown in table 1, during childhood males scored higher on

several risk factors for drug use. Males tended to score higher than

females in acting-out behaviors such as aggression against peers and

predelinquency. In contrast, females scored higher on crying and temper

tantrums, variables related to emotional control. Gender differences

were found in both early and late adolescence/young adulthood on the

various risk factors for drug use. Although only the early adolescent

gender differences on the T2 measures are presented, a similar pattern

emerged at late adolescence/young adulthood.

As shown in table 1, significant differences appear in the adolescent

variables listed under the three domains of conventionality, emotional
275

TABLE 1. Gender differences in early childhood (T1) and early

adolescence (T2) measures

Characteristic Male Female

Childhood (T1)

Aggression against peers 10.07 9.93*

Temper tantrums 10.12 9.89†

Predelinquency 10.19 9.80†

Anger 10.03 9.96

Crying 9.92 10.08‡

Noncompliance 10.10 9.89‡

Aggression toward siblings 10.04 9.95

Fear 0.95 1.03

Adolescence (T2)

Conventionality

Rebelliousness 16.61 15.85*

Responsibility 17.23 17.90‡

Sensation-seeking 9.84 9.59‡

Self-deviancy 9.18 7.98†

Compliance 5.59 5.86†

Perception of school achievement 17.20 17.60*

Emotional control

Impulsivity 13.30 13.75*

Interpersonal aggression 6.50 5.97†

Intrapsychic distress

Ego integration 19.70 19.21*

Depression 10.09 10.78‡

Anxiety 8.54 9.34†

Obsessiveness 9.75 10.27*

*p<0.05

†p<0.001

‡p<0.01

control, and intrapsychic distress. Males reported greater unconventionality, such as greater rebelliousness, less responsibility, and greater

sensation-seeking. Females, in contrast to males, scored higher on

internalizing factors, such as depression, anxiety, obsessiveness, and low

ego integration. However, these intrapsychic factors—note that these

do not represent clinical diagnoses—were not related to drug use.

Two-way analyses of variance were done to examine the interaction

of sex and personality as it affected drug stage. Less than 5 percent of
276

the interactions were significant, which probably results from chance.

Because there were few personality-by-gender interactions when personality by drug use (table 2) and gender by personality by drug use (table 3)

were studied, the analyses were done for the combined sample.

Pearson’s correlation coefficients (Snedecor and Cochran 1980,

pp. 175-193) were computed between the personality variables at different

childhood through middle adolescent developmental stages (T1 through

T3) and the late adolescence/young adulthood stage of drug use (T4).

As expected, drug stage in middle adolescence (T3) was significantly

related to stage of drug use at young adulthood (r [correlation]=0.41).

TABLE 2. Correlations: Personality and drug use

T1 Personality T2 Personality T3 Personality

Personality by T4 Stage of by T4 Stage of by T4 Stage of

Measures Drug Use Drug Use Drug Use

Aggression against peers 0.02 0.10* 0.09†

Aggression against siblings 0.02 NS NS

Anger 0.07† 0.10* 0.08†

Fearlessness 0.07† 0.10* 0.11*

Noncompliance 0.06 0.12* 0.12*

Predelinquency 0.07† 0.17* 0.22*

Temper tantrums 0.09† NS NS

School achievement -0.10* NS

Cheating 0.17‡ 0.17‡

Church attendance -0.10* -0.19‡

Ego integration -0.14* -0.13*

Guilt -0.13* -0.20‡

Impulsivity 0.10* 0.13*

Interpersonal aggression 0.10* 0.08†

Intolerance of deviance -0.23‡ -0.32‡

Rebelliousness 0.25‡ 0.27‡

Responsibility -0.13* -0.17‡

Sensation-seeking 0.30‡ 0.35‡

Self-deviancy 0.24‡ 0.27‡

Depression 0.03 0.06

Anxiety -0.02 0.05

Obsessiveness 0.01 0.01

*p<0.01

†p<0.05

‡p<0.001

NOTE: Blanks denote no measure administered.

KEY: NS=not significant
277

TABLE 3. r

2

s for T1, T2, and T3 personality sets and T3 stage of drug

use with T4 stage of drug use

With Control on Other Domains

T1 T2 T3 T3 Stage of

Domain No Control Personality Personality Personality Drug Use

Gender

r

2 0.02* 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01

F 13.49* 9.93† 4.52† NS 14.46*

df 1,732 1,723 1,715 1,715 1,743

T1 personality

r

2 0.02 — 0.00 0.01 0.01

F 2.13† — 0.58 1.10 1.23

df 6,727 — 6,710 6,710 6,726

T2 personality

r

2 0.14 0.13 — 0.03 0.04

F 6.86* 6.20* — 1.62 2.48*

df 17,716 17,710 — 17,699 17,715

T3 personality

r

2 0.19 0.18 0.08 — 0.07

F 10.25* 9.74* 4.58* — 3.86*

df 17,716 17,710 17,699 — 17,715

T3 stage of drug use

r

2 0.18 0.16 0.08 0.07 —

F 154.52* 146.82* 73.55* 64.19* —

df 1,732 1,726 1,715 1,715 —

*p<0.01

†p<0.05

KEY: r2=multiple correlation square; F=F test; NS=not significant; df=degrees of freedom

The findings indicated that children (both boys and girls) who

were fearless had difficulty in controlling their emotions (e.g., temper

tantrums and anger), and those who demonstrated behavior problems

were at higher stages of drug use during late adolescence/young adulthood. In contrast to the childhood factors, the early and late adolescent

factors were more highly related to subsequent drug use.

Table 3 explores the possible role of the childhood and adolescent

personality sets as mediators between gender and adult drug use and

whether gender differences are still significant with control on the

personality factors.

The hierarchical regression findings support a hypothesized

mediational model (table 3). Gender differences lost significance with
278

control on middle adolescent personality factors (T3) but not earlier

personality factors (T1 and T2). Table 3 points to the importance of

adolescent personality as a mediating factor. Thus, gender was associated with middle adolescent personality factors that, in turn, were

related to higher stages of drug use. Middle adolescent personality

attributes (T3) served as mediators not only for gender but also for

earlier personality factors at early childhood and early adolescence

(T1 and T2). The early personality factors were not related to adult

drug use with control on middle adolescent personality factors (T3).

Middle adolescent (T3) personality factors were related to adult

drug use even with control on adolescent drug use (T3). Although

the domains of gender in early childhood and personality at early

adolescence lost significance with control on the middle adolescent

personality domain, these domains are of importance because these

more distal factors lay the foundation for the more proximal personality

factors implicated in drug use. Middle adolescent (T3) drug use had

an important effect on late adolescence/young adulthood drug use,

independent of the personality factors. The influence of gender differences on adult drug use also was mediated by adolescent drug use.

DISCUSSION

Overall, the findings with regard to gender differences in personality

traits are consistent with those of Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) and Hall

(1984).

Males scored higher than females on childhood aggression, and

adolescent males scored higher than adolescent females on externalizing

behavior as assessed by their measures of unconventionality (e.g.,

rebelliousness, tolerance of deviance, delinquency). The greater importance of drug-prone personality traits relating to externalizing behavior

on drug use most likely explains the fact that males scored higher than

females on illegal drug use (with the exceptions of tobacco and alcohol).

On the other hand, females scored higher than males on internalizing behavior, such as anxiety, depression, obsessiveness, and low ego

integration. Although females scored higher on internalizing behavior,

this domain was not related to drug use.

Results were consistent with a mediational model in which gender

and childhood risk factors lay the foundation for the development of
279

drug-conducive personality traits during early and late adolescence/

young adulthood. The mediational model has two explanatory advantages. First, it points to a mechanism by which gender and childhood

factors relate to adult drug use by emphasizing the significance of the

mediating personality conditions that are proximal to later drug use.

Second, the mediational model stresses the importance of the early

and late adolescent/young adulthood variables in attenuating the power

of the gender and childhood variables as precursors, because the early

childhood factors are no longer significant with control on the more

proximal variables. The authors’ childhood personality research results

were consistent with their earlier findings (Brook et al. 1986, 1990)

and with research conducted by Block and coworkers (1988); these

studies all point to the relationship between early childhood factors

and later drug use.

Specific childhood variables associated with adult drug behavior

included a measure denoting lack of emotional control (e.g., short

temper). Fearlessness and predelinquency were associated with higher

stages of drug use. Block (1971) and Block and colleagues (1988)

reported that lack of emotional control and noncompliance during

childhood were associated with greater drug use during adolescence.

Personality traits during early and late adolescence/young adulthood

as well as childhood were associated with young adult drug use. The

personality traits that were of importance during early adolescence were

similar to those during late adolescence/young adulthood and were also

similar for males and females. These included traits of unconventionality (e.g., tolerance of deviance), poor emotional control (e.g., impulsivity), intrapsychic distress (e.g., low ego integration), and interpersonal

relatedness (e.g., aggression against peers). It is interesting to note that

the personality dimensions that are drug related can be located in four

of the five factors deemed as fundamental psychological structures

(Costa and Widiger 1994). The broad dimensions include neuroticism

(e.g., the authors’ measure of low ego integration), openness to experience (e.g., as assessed by sensation-seeking), lack of agreeableness

(e.g., anger and aggression variables), and lack of conscientiousness

(e.g., low achievement, low responsibility). Similar correlates of

adolescent drug use have been identified in the authors’ earlier work

and in the work of others (Brook et al. 1986, 1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1992,

pp. 359-388; Kaplan and Johnson 1992, pp. 299-358; Newcomb and
280

Bentler 1986a, 1988; Petraitis et al. 1995). The importance of the

adolescent personality risk factors was highlighted by the authors’

findings that such factors were associated with adult drug use despite

control on late adolescent/young adulthood drug use. The gender

findings add to the literature by demonstrating a pathway through

which gender affects personality, which then affects drug use.

Interpreting the importance of gender differences in drug-conducive

personality traits can invoke two processes discussed by Caspi and

coworkers (1989). One refers to cumulative continuity, which is the

individual selecting environments that reinforce the individual’s personality style. Thus, unconventional males may select friends who display

similar characteristics and who may use drugs. Another possibility, also

suggested by Caspi and coworkers (1989), is interactional continuity

that arises when the individual’s style evokes reciprocal responses from

others in ongoing interactions that can be described as social in nature.

For example, an unconventional child may evoke parental rejection

directed at the child that then maintains the child’s original unconventional behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

Personality factors in late adolescence/young adulthood serve to

mediate the relationship between gender and adult drug use. Future

research will need to clarify how early gender differences are related to

the emergence of drug-prone personality differences. Attention also

must be directed toward better understanding of the nature of other

factors and processes that mediate the relationship between gender

and adult drug use.

REFERENCES

Block, J. Lives Through Time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books, 1971.

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.

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

psychosocial etiology of adolescent drug use: A family interactional

approach. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 116(2):111-267, 1990.
281

Brook, J.S.; Cohen, P.; Whiteman, M.; and Gordon, A.S. Psychosocial risk

factors in the transition from moderate to heavy use or abuse of drugs. In:

Glantz, M., and Pickens, R., eds. Vulnerability to Drug Abuse. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association, 1992.

Brook, J.S.; Nomura, C.; and Cohen, P. A network of influences on adolescent

drug involvement: Neighborhood, school, peer, and family. Genet Soc Gen

Psychol Monogr 115(1):123-145, 1989a.

Brook, J.S.; Nomura, C.; and Cohen, P. Prenatal, perinatal, and early childhood

risk factors and drug involvement in adolescence. Genet Soc Gen Psychol

Monogr 115(2):221-241, 1989b.

Brook, J.S.; Whiteman, M.; and Gordon, A.S. Stages of drug use in

adolescence: Personality, peer, and family correlates. Dev Psychol 19:269-

277, 1983.

Brook, J.S.; Whiteman, M.; Gordon, A.S.; and Cohen, P. Dynamics of

childhood and adolescent personality traits and adolescent drug use.

Dev Psychol 22:403-414, 1986.

Caspi, A.; Bem, D.J.; and Elder, G.H. Continuities and consequences of

interactional styles across the life course. J Pers 57:375-406, 1989.

Clayton, R.R., and Voss, H.L. Shacking up: Cohabitation in the 1970s.

Marriage and the Family 39:273-283, 1977.

Cohen, P.; Brook, J.S.; and Kandel, D.B. Predictors and correlates of adolescent

drug use. In: Lerner, R.M.; Petersen, A.C.; and Brooks-Gunn, J., eds.

Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York: Garland, 1991.

Costa, P., and Widiger, T.A. Personality Disorders and the Five Factor Models of

Personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1994.

Eagly, A.H., and Wood, W. Explaining sex differences in social behavior:

A meta-analytic perspective. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 17:306-315, 1991.

Feingold, A. Gender differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A crosscultural perspective. Sex Roles 30:81-92, 1994.

Hall, J.A. Nonverbal Sex Differences: Communication Accuracy and Expressive

Style. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.

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

New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Johnston, L.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Bachman, J.G. Drug Use Among American

High School Students, College Students, and Other Young Adults. DHHS Pub.

No. (ADM)86-1450. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental

Health Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1986. 237 pp.

Kandel, D.B. Epidemiological and psychosocial perspectives on adolescent drug

use. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 21:328-347, 1982.
282

Kandel, D.B. Marijuana use in young adulthood. Arch Gen Psychiatry 41:200-

209, 1984.

Kaplan, H.B. Deviant Behavior in Defense of Self. New York: Academic Press,

1980.

Kaplan, H.B., and Johnson, R.J. Relationship between circumstances

surrounding initial illicit drug use and escalation of drug use: Moderating

effects of gender and early adolescent experiences. In: Glantz, M., and

Pickens, R., eds. Vulnerability to Drug Abuse. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association, 1992.

Kaplan, H.B.; Martin, S.S.; and Johnson, R.J. Self-rejection and the

explanation of deviance: Specification of the structure among latent

constructs. Am J Sociol 92:384-411, 1986.

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.; Brown, C.H.; Rubin, B.R.; and Ensminger, M.E. Paths leading

to teenage psychiatric symptoms and substance use: Developmental

epidemiological studies in Woodlawn. In: Guze, S.B.; Earls, F.J.; and

Barrett, J.E., eds. Childhood Psychopathology and Development. New York:

Raven Press, 1983.

Maccoby, E.E., and Jacklin, C.N. The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press, 1974.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Cocaine use among adolescents:

Longitudinal associations with social context, psychopathology, and

use of other substances. Addict Behav 11(3):263-273, 1986a.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. Cocaine use among young adults. Adv

Alcohol 6:73-96, 1986b.

Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M. The impact of family context, deviant

attitudes, and emotional distress on adolescent drug use: Longitudinal

latent-variable analyses of mothers and their children. J Res Pers 22(2):

154-176, 1988.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and

theory. Psychol Bull 101(2):259-282, 1987.

Petraitis, J.; Flay, B.R.; and Miller, T.O. Reviewing theories of adolescent

substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychol Bull 117(1):67-86,

1995.

Robins, L.N. Deviant Children Grown Up. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins,

1966.

Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G. Correlation. In: Snedecor, G.W., and

Cochran, W.G., eds. Statistical Methods. Ames, IA: Iowa State University

Press, 1980.
283

Zuckerman, M. Psychobiology of Personality. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge

University Press, 1991.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was conducted through support from National Institute on Drug Abuse grant DA-03188 and Research Scientist Award

K05 DA-00178 to Dr. Brook. Joseph Shapiro performed statistical runs,

and Linda Capobianco prepared the tables.

AUTHORS

Judith S. Brook, Ed.D.

Professor of Community Medicine

Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Martin Whiteman, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Columbia University

One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1044A

New York, NY 10029

(212) 241-8820 (Tel)

(212) 423-0548 (Fax)

Patricia Cohen, Ph.D.

Professor of Epidemiology

School of Public Health

Columbia University

722 West 168th Street, Box 47

New York, NY 10032

(212) 740-1460 (Tel)

(212) 928-2219 (Fax)