Winfree, L.T., Jr. (1985). Peers, parents and adolescent drug use in a rural community: a two-way panel study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14(6), 499-512.

OVERVIEW

This study investigates the way in which parent and peer relationships affect drug use patterns in adolescents. Throughout the past 20 years of drug research, links between adolescent drug use and peer and parent influence have been consistent. It has been established, without recorded exception, that drug using peers provide a supportive framework—a drug subculture—in which experimentation occurs more easily and frequently than normal (Bowker, 1974; Lawrence and Vellman, 1974). Research also concludes that general peer values, especially those related to drug use, result in detachment from parents as well as rejection of their values (Kandel, 1974; DeFleur and Garrett, 1970). Another related study indicates that, during the teen years, parental influence decreases while peer influence rises. The same researchers note that it is within this time that there is a greater incidence of adolescent drug involvement (Kandel and Adler, 1982). Factors of parental influence—particularly the drug-use patterns of parents—were shown to be important only when teens moved toward drugs other than alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, but especially toward polydrug use (Kandel et al., 1976).

There is an empirical link between adolescent drug use and parent and peer influences. What these findings fail to reveal and what this researcher attempts to discover is the manner in which these factors of influence affect drug-use patterns.

DESIGN

The researcher asked, "What is the impact of changes in peer and parental relationships on youthful drug use?" In order to examine changes in relationships, it was necessary to collect data over an extended period of time. To meet this need, the researchers employed a design with a three-year interval between data collections.

The subjects of the study were student volunteers enrolled in all 12 grades of a rural Rocky Mountain public school district. The focus of the study was on a smaller sampling of these youths, those who took the survey while in grades 7-9 during 1979. Three years later (1982), students in grades 10-12 were surveyed again and were then matched with their prior responses. Only 94 students remained in the study through this process of elimination.

The three variables in this study were drug involvement, parental influence, and peer influence. The method of study involved a survey that asked questions in each of these areas.

The students were asked to select one from several drug patterns (varying from "never used" to "40 times or more" that year) that best represented their level of involvement with the drug in question (alcohol or marijuana). Three questions measured parental influence. The respondents were asked to rate the degree of difference that existed between their views on drugs and their parents’ views. Next, they were asked to indicate the frequency with which they and their parents discussed drug oriented issues. Finally, they were asked to check the responses most accurately reflecting the content of their drug related discussions with parents. The answers provided as options on the survey limited the respondents to pro-drug or anti-drug discussions. To allow for response beyond these limited categories, an "other topics" category was provided. The students were allowed to check all topics that applied to their conversations with parents since it was recognized that parents and children might address more than one drug-related issue.

In regard to the peer variable, the survey used questions identical to those of the parental influence survey except that the respondents were then answering on reference to the influence of their close friends.

ANALYSIS

The study had a two-part analysis. First, the researcher sought to reveal the significant changes between 1979 and 1982 in both attitudes and behavior in relation to parents and peers. Second, the analysis examined the changes in alcohol or marijuana use during this three-year period.

FINDINGS

This study had two goals. The first was to examine the extent to which drug use orientations and behaviors of a panel of teens had changed over a three-year period. The results indicated that the use rates of both alcohol and marijuana increased significantly between 1979 and 1982. While at the middle school level 36.2% of the panel claimed not to have had a drink in the previous year, in 1982 only 21.3% were still abstainers. Among those who drank in 1979 (60), far more increased their involvement (37) than remained at the same level (10) or drank less (13). On the other hand, 20 of the 1979 abstainers were drinking alcohol in 1982, accounting for 35.1% of those reporting increases in alcohol use over the three-year period.

Changes in marijuana use were similar. Non-involvement was the rule in both 1979 (85.1%) and 1982 (76.2%). Most 1979 abstainers (75%) were still abstaining in 1982 (95.2%). The indication here is that non-use in the middle school years is a greater protection against later marijuana use than the same status is a protection against later alcohol use. At the same time, most (83.3%) of the panelists who reported increased involvement with marijuana were drawn from the ranks of the uninitiated.

The survey included two types of drug discussions with parents (pro-drug and anti-drug). In both 1979 and 1982, it appeared that drug discussions with parents were a rarity. In 1979, almost two thirds of the children reported that they had never or rarely discussed drugs with their parents. Three years later, over one half (52.l%) still reported the same levels of inactivity. These increases were significant and outnumbered decreases two to one. Of discussions held with parents, most were anti-drug related with fewer than 10% of the children reporting any level of pro-drug discussion with their parents.

Conflict with parental view on drugs increased significantly from 1979 (36.2%) to 1982 (47.9%). Most (54) of the participants, though, did not change their observations from 1979 to 1982 with 72% of them reporting no differences.

The statistics that surprised this author regarded the change in peer drug oriented discussions over the three-year period. Both pro-drug and anti-drug discussion rates changed significantly. The surprising fact was that the increases in anti-drug discussions with peers outnumbered decreases 8 to 1. On the other hand, decreases in producing discussions outnumbered increases 2 to 1. Both sets of 1979 peer-discussion rates failed to be strong indicators of 1982 rates.

Although changes on the rate of drug discussion tended to include both positive and negative aspects of drug use, the level of youth/peer conflicts did not change significantly over the three years. This openness of discussion with little resulting conflict opposes the results for parental drug discussions where conflicts arose with limited discussion of the topic of drugs.

The second goal of the study was to examine the influence of the changes in orientation on current levels of drug involvement. It was found that the single best predictor of alcohol use in 1982 was alcohol use in 1979. Results indicated that though past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, such links are apparently behavior specific: The level of 1979 marijuana use did not reveal much about 1982 alcohol involvement. Marijuana use in 1982 was best predicted by the level of involvement in 1979.

In terms of parent and peer influences on drug use, the outcome definitely fell in line with the author’s predictions. Children with increased levels of conflict with parents regarding drugs were among those most heavily involved with alcohol in 1982. Both pro- and anti-drug discussions with peers seemed to indicate significant and positive effects on the current level of involvement. While it was anticipated that increased pro-drug discussions with close friends would be found among those heavily involved with marijuana, it was not expected that negative discussions would also impact on the current level of marijuana use.

CONCLUSIONS

• Alcohol use increases as kids get older.
• Marijuana attracts a fluctuating experimental crowd along with a stable group of users.
• The best predictor of drug behavior for a kid in high school is his/her behavior in earlier, middle school years.
• A movement toward greater conflict with parents over drugs is another strong predictor of increasing drug involvement.
• The fact that changes in peer-related orientations play such an insignificant role in understanding current drug-use patterns suggests that, by high school, the peer motivated learning of general values regarding drug behavior has already occurred.

CRITIQUE AND EVALUATION

• A larger sample group is needed.
• The results could be different in another setting, a non-rural school.
• Did the rural setting have anything to do with the low occurrence of marijuana use?
• The researchers noted that one difficulty was that high-drug users may have been eliminated from the study due to school expulsion or drop-out rates.

IMPLICATIONS

1. Educators can use this information as they plan drug education and intervention for adolescents. Since the study indicated that early drug behavior (middle school) was the best predictor of future drug behavior (high school), it seems apparent that early non-user status has some protective properties against later drug involvement.
2. This information is important to parents as it indicates the necessity of positive communication with children concerning drugs. Communication needs to be ongoing but should begin at an early age.
3. Kids, although their influence does not always seem significant, do have an open door to discussing both positive and negative aspects of drugs with their friends. Kids should understand that their greatest influence will be when friends are in their preteen years and that this influence levels off as drug behavior patterns become established over time.
4. The findings of this study should encourage those who work directly with kids to focus on their preteen years since this is such an influential time. It is important to help young teens establish a positive support network early on in their lives.