statistical analysis of what causes drug use

8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 1/21

Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi

Teenage Drug Use: What Causes Teens to Use Drugs?

The use of drugs is a troubling problem plaguing society. It starts at an early age

and may continue for an individual’s entire life. In order for society to reduce or rid itself

of drugs, it must understand when drug use starts and why. Drug use usually starts at

earlier stages in ones life. Teenage drug use is the use of any drug (alcohol, tobacco,

stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogenic) by youths under the age of twenty one. Past

research has shown that by the time of high school 90% of American adolescents have

tried alcohol, 60% have used marijuana, and one-third have used amphetamine

(Anastasios, Behr, Johnson. 1986). Though figures have diminished in some areas, the

numbers are still presently high. Society has programs that deal with drug addiction and

rehabilitation but these are ‘after the fact interventions’. What I mean by ‘after the fact

interventions’ is that drug use has already occurred and now stopping the use is the focus.

The methods of prevention have only recently come out, generally on television. Before

then it was left to parents and what little health education schools had to offer. To

address the problem and find a resolution, society must determine what causes or what

drives teenagers to use drugs. In the case of teenage drug use the problem has been

identified but the causes are still speculative. The most successful way to combat teenage

drug use is to determine the credited source or sources and target them for reformation or

elimination.




As a new focus on the problem of drug use, this research paper will look at the

root of societal drug use by concentrating on the youth. This research paper will examine

what causes teenagers to use drugs.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There has been little attention to religion and its affects on drug use. Some

research has argued that religion plays an important role in social conformity (Tittle and

Welch 1983). Social conformity can influence perceptions of drug use. Religion relates to

social conformity in that it has the ability to teach the youth what is socially acceptable.

We know by our laws that drug use is not socially acceptable and is actually frowned

upon. However, the findings by Tittle and Welch support religion as a means of social

conformity only when the society is characterized by certain conditions. These conditions

are low social conformity, perceptions of low peer conformity, and a large proportion of

religious non-affiliates (Tittle and Welch 1983). What they are saying is that religion can

play an important role in social conformity only if a large portion of society has low

social integration, the factor of society are not stronger than the factors of religion.

Religion is also thought to bring meaning to life and build friendships through

social interaction and bonding (Anastasio et al. 1998). The first idea presented here is that

religion will provide a better appreciation for life and as a result teens would be less

likely to use drugs since they would hold their life in higher value. The value of life can

also come from bonding with other youths. So value of life and bonding can evolve from

one another. The second idea, bonding, is important in that attitudes and values about

drugs can be passed on. Bonding in church also has an indirect effect on parent-




adolescent relationships (Anastasio et al. 1998). Youths in a church setting can make

friends and become involved in peer groups that do not use drugs. It is also worthy to

note that peer groups can be formed with an accepted value of abstinence from drugs.

These forms of religious activities have a strong effect preventing deviant behavior (Tittle

and Welch 1983). Church communities can play a role in program development about

drug education. A church community-based program targeting family resilience can

prevent youth drug abuse (Berbaum et al. 1998). In conclusion, religious activities can

prevent and reduce the likelihood of youth drug use by way of appreciation of life,

friendships made through religious social interaction, and by adopting a standard of

values the is negative towards drug use that is accepted by youths (Anastasio et al. 1998;

Berbaum et al. 1998; Tittle and Welch 1983).

Belief systems are a major part of religion. These belief systems play an important

role in reinforcing individual beliefs about drug use (Anastasio 1998) When an individual

is actively part of a church they are, in a sense, belonging to a community. If a set of

beliefs is accepted by a community then those who belong to the community are more

prone to adopt those beliefs. This idea ties to Tittle and Welch’s (1983) results where

religion builds social conformity. Therefore, the restrictions that Tittle and Welch put on

the applications of their results would extend and be applicable to more societies not

exhibiting the conditions they stated (Tittle and Welch 1983).

Most research done on youth drug abuse has been focused on family variables

(Abbott et al2002.; Denton and Kampfe 1994; Robertson and Simons 1989). Family

interaction is a common determinant of youth drug abuse. Family interaction is defined as

involvement with family, communication, and discipline (Denton and Kampfe 1994).




Inattentiveness and neglect to teens can make them feel unwanted or uncared for. Teens

who feel a rejection by their family will often turn to drugs. They may also associate with

deviant peer groups who use drugs. Weak bonds to family and strong bonds to deviant

peers are associated with substance abuse (Robertson and Simons 1989). However, in this

case parent-teen relation is indirectly related to teen drug abuse. The teens drive to use

drugs is brought by their deviant peer group, but the association with the deviant peer

group is the result of poor parent-teen relations. Some researches argue that biggest

influence of adolescent drug use is having friends who do drugs (Anastasio, Bahr, and

Johnson 1986). What this research fails to connect is the relationship between family and

the deviant peer group. The parent-teen relationship affects “the parent’s ability to

influence his/her child’s friendship choices” (Robertson and Simons 1989). Robertson

and Simons (1989) argue that a child is less likely to care about their parent’s opinions

when there is a poor relationship between them. Hence, their choice of friends may not be

reflective of their parents.

Research has had mixed findings on the parental discipline and its impact on

adolescent drug use. Teens that use drugs may have parents with a permissive attitude or

that uses excessive control (Denton and Kampfe 1994). However, some research has

shown that higher family monitoring and consistent discipline lowers the risk of

adolescent drug abuse (Abbott, Catalano, Guo, Hawkins, and Hill 2002). The conflicting

findings cannot show that discipline or lack of discipline effects adolescent drug use.

The most important family variable in teen drug use is family bonding and

communication. Low levels of family conflict and a warm supporting family are at lower

risk for teen drug use (Abbott et al 2002). Communication builds trust and strengthens




the bond between parents and children. The importance of bonding is that the parent

becomes more involved with the child life. The child may also accept the parent’s

decisions more. The quality of a peer group can be affected by a strong parent-teen

relationship created by bonding (Denton and Kampfe 1994). When there is parent-child

bonding youths are more likely to respect, listen to, and have a desire to please their

parents (Anastasio et al. 1998). Bonding may also help youths resist outside influences on

drugs (Anastasio et al. 1998)

HYPOTHESIS

The literature covered here suggests that religion plays an important role in

teenage drug use. Religion is a protecting factor against drug use for adolescents

(Bachman et al. 2003). Some researchers have found that religion, church, and religious

activities decrease the likelihood and prevent the use of drugs by teenager’s teenage

(Anastasio et al. 1998; Tittle and Welch 1983; Bachman et al. 2003). Religious views and

values that church communities condemn the use of drugs. Therefore, involvement in a

religion or religious activities by an individual would provide them with the education

and peer groups, as well as positive social forces, to deter them from drug use. It has been

suggested that social forces are a determinant of drug use (Anastasio, Bahr, and Johnson

1986) . Religion and religious activities create their own set of social norms parallel with

society. Social forces are just as strong at work in a religious atmosphere as they are in

society. So if social forces influence teenagers to use drugs then they can also deter

teenagers from using them as well. Communication between parents and teenagers open

up discussions for issues about drug use to be talked about more. Talking about drugs




with teens lets a parent know if their teen is at risk. Bonding can strengthen in a religious

setting between parents and children (Anastasio et al. 1998). By looking at a teenagers

frequency of attendance at church and their drug use, we can determine the extend to

which religious participation effects drug abuse. Examining the relationship between teen

drug use and religion, I propose the following hypothesis:

In comparing teenagers, those who have low religious participation will be more

likely to use drugs than those who have high religious participation.

Much of the research done on teenagers who use drugs focuses on family factors

as predictors of drug use. Research has shown that weak family bonding has influenced

teen drug use (Denton and Kampfe 1994). Family factors may directly or indirectly

influence teenage drug use. Anastasio, Bahr and Johnson (1986) find that the most

influential predictor of drug use is peers that use drugs. On the other hand, Robertson and

Simons (1989) find that what leads teens to drug using peer groups is the quality of the

parent-child relationship. It is important to note that it has been found that few gender and

racial differences exist when examining the possible causes of teen drug use (Abbott et al.

2002; Bachman et al. 2003). Also parental drug use has minimal effects on the drug use

of teens (Denton and Kampfe 1994; Robertson and Simons 1989). Family plays a role in

education about drugs and abstinence from deviant peer groups. The role of family and

the connection between family members seems to have a large impact on youth drug use.

By examining the communication between parents and teens we can determine the level

of family bonding to determine the extend to which bonding affects drug use.

Acknowledging the importance of family I propose the following hypothesis to be true:




In comparing teenagers, those who have strong family bonding will be less likely

to use drugs than those with weak family bonding..

Data and Methods

The data that will be used to test these hypotheses is data from the Harris 1970

Youth Survey no. 2047, which was extracted from the archive of The Odum Institute.

The producer of the questionnaire was Louis Harris and Associates which was distributed

by the Louis Harris Data Center at the University of North Carolina. The data was

collected from a cross-sectional sample of young people ages 15-21 years old living in

the United States. Included in this cross-section is a sample of U.S. college students. The

total cross-sectional sample was 1,223 respondents. The questionnaire focused on such

issues as family, morals, religion, parents, attitudes, drugs and education, just to name a

few. The total number of questions asked was 41 with various subsections. There was

also an additional section labeled ‘F’ with 11 questions. The goal of this questionnaire

was to examine young persons, ages 15-21, opinions about different social issues. The

data was collected with a face to face interview using the questionnaire.

The variables that were used from this survey to test my hypotheses were drugs,

communication with parents, and church attendance. The dependent variable that was

used, drugs, is a nominal level variable that is coded 0 for ‘NO’ and 1 for ‘YES’. The

way this variable is defined is does the respondent spend money on drugs. According to

the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, indicators of teen drug use include youth spending

money on drugs (Tom Corbett, 2005). Therefore, this variable that focuses on youth

spending on drugs is appropriate for this analysis. The first independent variable,




communication with parents, is defined as trouble communicating with parents. This

variable is coded 1 for ‘have trouble communicating’, 2 for ‘do not have trouble

communicating’, and 3 for ‘don’t know’. The second independent variable, church

attendance, refers to the frequency in which one attends church or a synagogue. This

variable is coded 1 for ‘attend regularly’, 2 for ‘don’t attend regularly’, and 3 for ‘don’t

know’.

Results

The dependent variable, drug spending, received few responses of ‘yes’. The

number of respondents who responded ‘yes’ was 3.5% which is shown in Table 1. Since

the dependent variable is nominal, the mode is used to calculate the central tendency of 0.

Note that the response 0 codes for ‘NO’. Figure 1 shows that there is little dispersion on

this variable and that 96.5% responded 0 ‘NO’ and 3.5% responded 1 ‘YES’.

The first independent variable, communication with parents, had moderate

dispersion as shown in Figure 2. This variable is nominal so the central tendency used is

the mode. Taking a look at Figure 1, the mode is 2 which is ‘do not have trouble’. This

was the response given by 65.9% of the respondents. The percentage that responded

‘have trouble” was 32.3%.

The second independent variable, attend church/synagogue’, had equal dispersion

across the two categories of ‘attend regularly’ and ‘don’t attend regularly’ (see Figure 3).

This variable is nominal and the median is used for central tendency which is 2, ‘don’t




attend regularly’, as is shown in Table 1. Those who attend regularly was 49.1% and

those who don’t attend regularly was 50.1%

The third category will not get attention for this analysis due to its low number of

respondents. It is important to remember that this analysis will look at the effects of

religious attendance on drug use and not those who don’t know if the attend church. This

category will be treated a missing values. The same situation is also applied to the ‘don’t

know’ category for communication with parents.

Table 5 is a cross tabulation that examines the relationship between

communication with parents and drugs spending. The results show that those who have

trouble communicating with their parents have a higher percentage of drug spending than

those who do not have trouble communicating with their parents. 5.3% of those who have

trouble communicating with their parents spend money on drugs while 2.5% of those

who do not have trouble communicating with their parents use drugs. It is clear from

Table 5 results that those having trouble communicating with their parents are more

likely to use drugs that those that do not have trouble communicating with their parents.

The Cramer’s V indicates that the relationship is weak, with a value of .086. However,

the relationship is statistically significant, with a P value of .011.

Very similar results were found in the cross tabulation of church/synagogue

attendance and drug spending. Table 6 shows the relationship where those who attend

church/synagogue regularly have a lower percentage of drug spending than those who

don’t attend regularly. Of those who attend regularly only 1.3% spend on drugs as

opposed to 5.7% of those who don’t attend regularly. The relationship is moderate with a




Cramer’s V of .119 and is statistically significant at the .000 level. Both of these cross

tabulations are consistent with the hypotheses.

I now turn to the multivariate analysis to examine the relationships of the

independent variables and dependent variable, with each independent variable held

constant for the other. Table 7 examines the relationship between drug spending and

communication with parents with church/synagogue attendance as the control. At both

categories of church/synagogue attendance those having trouble communicating are still

more likely to spend on drug than those that do not have trouble communicating. Located

in Table 8 are the tests of statistical significance and measures of association from this

cross tabulation. The controlled comparison at the category of attend regularly is not

statistically significant because of a level of .760. However, the category of don’t attend

regularly has a level of .033 which is statistically significant. The Cramer’s V shows that

the relationship, controlling for don’t attend regularly, is moderate with a value of .106.

The value of the controlled attend regularly is .030 which is weak and irrelevant because

it is not statistically significant.

The second cross tabulation (Table 9) compared the relationship between drug

spending and church/synagogue attendance controlling for communication shows that

those who attend regularly are less likely to use drugs, at both categories of the control,

than those who don’t attend regularly. Unlike the previous cross tabulation, both

controlled comparisons were statistically significant with levels of .037 and .030. The

Cramer’s V is .129 showing that the relationship was stronger in the category of ‘have

trouble’. The Cramer’s V for the ‘don’t have trouble’ category is .093 which is weak.




Discussion

These findings conclude that there is no relationship in the population between

drug spending and communication except for those who don’t attend church/synagogue

regularly. The statistical level of .076 confirms that this is not statistically significant and

therefore the null hypothesis has to be accepted. Turning to Table 7, the difference on

drug spending for those who don’t attend regularly differs 3.7 percentage points between

those who have trouble communicating and those who don’t. The Cramer’s V in Table 8

for those who don’t attend regularly shows that there is a moderate relationship. However,

the relationship in the population is only at this category and not those who attend

regularly.

There is a relationship in the population between religious attendance and drug

spending. The Cramer’s V for religious attendance shown in Table 6 is .119, while Table

10 shows the relationship to be stronger for trouble with communicating (.129) and

weaker for don’t have trouble (.093). The impact is strongest for religious attendance for

those who have trouble communicating than those who don’t. This relationship is also

interactive. The relationship between the religious attendance and drug spending depends

on the category of communication. Table 9 shows that the difference in drug spending

for those having trouble communicating differs by 5.4 percentage points between those

who regularly attend and those that don’t. The difference in drug spending for those who

do not have trouble communicating differs by 2.9 percentage points between those who

regularly attend and those that don’t.




Conclusion

The results from the analysis of the relationship between communication and drug

spending do not support the hypothesis. Lack of communication does not increase drug

spending except for those who don’t attend church/synagogues regularly. Therefore, the

hypothesis cannot be fully supported and must be rejected. One could conclude that those

who don’t attend church/synagogues regularly and have trouble communicating are more

likely to spend on drugs than those that don’t attend church/synagogues regularly and

don’t have trouble communicating. Communication by itself is not a sufficient predictor

of drug abuse by itself. This is partially contrary to the findings of Abbott et al 2002 and

Denton and Kampfe 1994. They find that the main contributing factors to drug use are

lack of family communication and bonding. I say that the findings above are partially

contrary because there were other variables that these other studies used to determine the

effects of family. The results in this analysis show that communication itself is not a good

predictor of teenage drug use. However, these finding do coincide with the study done by

Anastasio et al. 1998. This study looked at family bonding through religious activity,

which confirms a portion of my second hypothesis.

The results from the analysis of the relationship between religious attendance and

drug spending do confirm my hypothesis. There is a moderate relationship between drug

spending and religious attendance. The results from Table 9 can clearly show that those

who that attend church/synagogues regularly are less likely than those to spend on drugs

than those who don’t attend regularly. The communication variable is interactive in this

relationship. Figure 4 is a multiple line graph that shows the relationship between the

three variables. 7.76% spend on drugs of those who don’t attend church/Sinagogues




regularly and have trouble communication. 1.86% spend on drugs of those who attend

regularly and have trouble communicating. Clearly religious attendance has a major

impact, having 5.9 percentage points drop when one attends church/synagogue regularly.

The graph also shows the different values at different categories of each independents

variable further portraying the interactive relation. The findings show that the relationship

is stronger for those who have trouble communicating. This concludes that those who

don’t attend church/synagogues regularly and have trouble communicating with their

parents are more likely than those who do attend church/synagogues regularly and have

trouble communicating with their parents to spend on drugs. Those who don’t attend

church/synagogues regularly and have trouble communicating with their parents are more

likely to spend on drugs than those who don’t attend church/synagogues regularly and

don’t have trouble communicating with their parents. The findings support Tittle and

Welch’s study as well as Bachman et al. Religion does have an impact on teenage drug

spending.

Some other factors may contribute to family communication and is influence on

drug use. Communication may not be a sufficient enough form of family bonding to

influence drug use. The studies noted in this research acknowledge the role of family

bonding. What type of bonding and the effects on drug use need further investigation.

The dependent variable may have assumed too much that teens spend money on drug. It

is possible that this variable failed to notice that some teens receive drugs for free,

consequently excluding them from what the variable was intended to measure.. However,

there is sufficient evidence that religion plays an important role in whether teens use

drugs or not. The actual causes are unknown, but it is though that peer groups formed in a




religious setting seems to hold major influence on one another in their decision to use

drugs. There are many other factors that lead to drug use such as peer groups, parents

who use drugs, lack of discipline, and gateway drugs. More research has to be done to

find what the most important factor contributing to teenage drug abuse. Only then can the

bulk of the problem be targeted.




Table 1: Central Tendency for All Variables

Spend Money on

Drugs

Communicating

with Your Parents

Attend

Church/Synagogue

Regularly

Mode No Do not have trouble Don’t attend

regularlyMedian No Do not have trouble Don’t attend

regularly

Table 2: Frequency Distribution for Spend Money on Drugs

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Valid No 1180 96.5 96.5 96.5

Yes 43 3.5 3.5 100.0

Total 1223 100.0 100.0

Table 3: Frequency Distribution for Communicating with Your Parents


Percent

Valid Have trouble 395 32.3 32.4 32.4

Do not have trouble 806 65.9 66.1 98.4

Not sure 19 1.6 1.6 100.0

Total 1220 99.8 100.0

Missing System 3 .2

Total 1223 100.0

Table 4: Frequency Distribution for Attend Church/Synagogue Regularly


Percent

Valid Attend regularly 604 49.4 49.5 49.5

Don t attend regularly 613 50.1 50.2 99.7

Not sure 4 .3 .3 100.0

Total 1221 99.8 100.0

Missing System 2 .2

Total 1223 100.0




Figure 2 Bar Chart of Communicating with Your Parents

Not sure Do not have trouble Have trouble

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1.56%

66.07%

32.38%

Figure 1: Bar Chart of Spend Money on Drugs

Yes No

100

80

60

40

20

0

P e r c e n t

3.52%

96.48%

P e r c e n t




Table 5: Bivariate Crosstab between Spend Money on Drugs and Communicating with

Your Parents

374 786 17 1177

94.7% 97.5% 89.5% 96.5%

21 20 2 435.3% 2.5% 10.5% 3.5%

395 806 19 1220

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

No

Yes

Spend Moneyof Drugs

Total

Have troubleDo not have

trouble Not sure

Communicating with Your Parents

Total

Note: Chi-square = 9.094; p<.011. Lambda = .000; Cramer’s V = .086

Figure 3: Bar Chart of Attend Church/Synagogue Regularly

Not sure Don t attend regularly Attend regularly

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

P e r c e n t

50.2% 49.47%

0.33%




Table 6: Bivariate Crosstab between Spend Money on Drugs and AttendingChurch/Synagogue Regularly

596 578 4 117898.7% 94.3% 100.0% 96.5%

8 35 0 43

1.3% 5.7% .0% 3.5%

604 613 4 1221

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count%

Count

%

Count

%

No

Yes

Spend Moneyon Drugs

Total

Attendregularly

Don t attendregularly Not sure

Attend Church/Synagogue Regularly

Total

Note: Chi-square = 17.365; p<.000. Lambda = .000; Cramer’s V = .119

Table 7: Multivariate Crosstab between Spend Money on Drugs and Communicating

With Your Parents, Controlling for Attend Church/ Synagogue Regularly

158 429 7 5

98.1% 98.8% 100.0% 98.

3 5 0

1.9% 1.2% .0% 1.

161 434 7 6

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.

214 354 9 5

92.2% 95.9% 81.8% 94.

18 15 2

7.8% 4.1% 18.2% 5.

232 369 11 6

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.

1 2 1

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.

1 2 1

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

No

Yes

Spend Moneyon Drugs

Total

No

Yes

Spend Moneyon Drugs

Total

NoSpend Moneyon Drugs

Total

AttendChurch/SynagogueRegularly

Attend regularly

Don t a ttend regularly

Not sure

Have troubleDo not have

trouble Not sure

Communicating wi th Yor P arents

Tota

Table 8: Statistical Significance and Measures of Association for Multivariate Crosstab

between Spend Money on Drugs and Communicating with Your Parents,Controlling for Attend Church/Synagogue Regularly

Chi-square/Sig. Lambda Cramer’s V

Attend Regularly .548

p< .760

.000 .030

Don’t Attend

Regularly

6.831

p< .033

.011 .106




Table 9: Multivariate Crosstab between Spend Money on Drugs and AttendChurch/Synagogue Regularly, Controlling for Communication with

Your Parents

158 214 1 373

98.1% 92.2% 100.0% 94.7%

3 18 0 21

1.9% 7.8% .0% 5.3%

161 232 1 394

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

429 354 2 785

98.8% 95.9% 100.0% 97.5%

5 15 0 20

1.2% 4.1% .0% 2.5%

434 369 2 805

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

7 9 1 17

100.0% 81.8% 100.0% 89.5%

0 2 0 2

.0% 18.2% .0% 10.5%

7 11 1 19

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

No

Yes

Spend Moneyon Drugs

Total

No

Yes

Spend Moneyon Drugs

Total

No

Yes

Spend Moneyon Drugs

Total

Communicating withYour Parents

Have trouble

Do not have trouble

Not sure

Attendregularly

Don t attendregularly Not sure

Attend Church/Sinagogue Regularly

Total

Table 10: Significance and Measures of Association for Multivariate Crosstab

between Spend Money on Drugs and Attend Church/Sinagogue Regularly,Controlling for Communicating with Your Parents

Chi-Square/Sig. Lambda Cramer’s V

Have Trouble6.603

p = .037.000 .129

Don’t have Trouble7.036

p =.030.000 .093

Not Sure

1.626

P = .444 .000 .293




Figure 4: Multivariate Line Chart of Spend Money on Drugs by Attend

Church/Sinagogue Regularly and Communicating with Your Parents

N ot sureD onot havet r oubl eH avet r ouble

CommunicatingwithYourParents

20. 00

15. 00

10. 00

5. 00

0. 00

Y e s ( R ) S p e n d s M o n e y o n D r u g s

0.0%0.0%0.0%

18.18%

4.07%7.76%

0.0%1.15%1.86%

N ot sure

D ont at tend

regul ar ly

At t endregular ly

AttendChurch/Sinagogue

Regularly

__




REFERENCES

Abbott, Robert D., Richard F. Catalano, Jie Guo, David Hawkins, and Karl G. Hill. 2002.“A Developmental Analysis of Sociodemographic, Family, and Peer Effects on

Adolescence Illicit Drug Initiation.” Journal of the American Academy of Child

and Adolescent Psychiatry. 47.7: 838(8).

Anastasios, Marcos C., Stephen J. Bahr, and Richard E. Johnson. 1998. “Family,

Religiosity, and the Risk of Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of Marriage and the

Family 60: 979-992.

Anastasios, Marcos C., Stephen J. Bahr,Suzanne L. Maughan, Bindoa Li. 1986. “Test of

a Bonding/Association Theory of Adolescence Drug Use.” Social Forces 65:

131-161.

Bachman, Jerald G., Tony N. Brown, Thomas A. Laveist, and John M. Wallace Jr. 2003

“The Influences of Race and Religion on Abstinence from Alcohol, Cigarettes,and Marijuana among Adolescence.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64.6: 843(6).

Berbaum, Michael, Denise D. Bryant, David A. Collins, Knowlton Johnson, Tim D. Noe,

and Ted N. Strader. 1998. “Preventing and Reducing Alcohol and other DrugsUse Among High-Risk Youth by Increasing Family Resilience.” Social Work 43:

297(12).

Denton, Rhonda E. and Charlene M. Kampfe. 1994. “The Relationship Between FamilyVariables and Adolescent Substance Abuse: A literature Review.” Adolescence

29: 475(21).

Robertson, Joan F., and Ronald L. Simons. 1989. “The Impact of Parenting Factors,Deviant Peers, and Coping Style upon Adolescent Drug Use.” Family Relations

38: 273-281.

Tittle, Charles R. and Michael R. Welch. 1983. “Religiosity and Deviance: Toward aContingency Theory of Constraining Effects.” Social Forces 61: 653-682.

Corbet, Tom. Pennsylvania Attorney General. “Know the Signs: Drug and Alcohol

Abuse in Children”. Office of the Attorney GeneralBrochure. www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Drugs/signs.pdf

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Drugs/signs.pdf



statistical analysis of what causes drug use

Documents