V v FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS. PROBLEM DRINKING AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR AMONG ADOLESCENT MALES Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FRANK H. BARRON 1970 f” :1 .115.“ “a .. .cl‘ -.' TIIEfiiZSS III!IIIIIIIIZIIIJILIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIII!IIIIIIIIIZIIIIII I F i HOAGD & GSUNS’ .-' BOOK BINDERY INC amozns I?!“ :‘IIH’IIM ABSTRACT FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, PROBLEM DRINKING AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR AMONG ADOLESCENT MALES BY Frank H. Barron The present study was designed to examine the relationship of familial affectional relations, parental model, and the parental application of direct controls to problem drinking and antisocial behavior among ado- lescent males. It was hypothesized that parental and adolescent rejection; deviant parental models; and the lax or strict application of direct controls would be related to higher scores on measures of adolescent antisocial behavior and problem drinking. The adolescent subjects included in the present study were 103 boys, aged 16 to 18, who were juniors or seniors in high school. Measures of the antisocial behavior of these adolescents were obtained through the use of a modified version of the Antisocial Behavior Checklist (Kulik §E_Ei°v 1968). A measure of adoles- cent problem drinking was obtained from the Park Problem Drinking Scale (Park, 1962) while the adolescent's Frank H. Barron rejection of his parents was estimated by the use of items from the Antisocial Behavior Checklist. Data concerning the relevant parent variables were obtained from both parents of 62 percent of the ado- lescent sample. For the remainder, either one or both parents were missing from the home, or uncooperative in completing the study material. Measures of parental re- jection of the adolescent and parental application of direct controls were obtained through the use of items from the Parent-Child Activity Inventory (Bronfenbrenner, 1961). The quality of the parental model, in terms of antisocial behavior or drinking practice, was also de- termined by means of questionnaires. An assessment of parental antisocial behavior was obtained from Kalin and Williams' (in press) antisocial behavior scale. Data concerning the drinking practices of each parent was obtained through the use of items from Cahalan and Cisin's (1968) questionnaire which yields a Quantity-Frequency- Variability index. Statistical analysis demonstrated that adolescent problem drinking; the adolescent's rejection of his parents; the presence of a deviant maternal model and the application of direct controls by the mother were all significantly related to adolescent antisocial be- havior. Trends in the data indicated that paternal rejection, a deviant paternal model and the application Frank H. Barron of direct controls by the father may also be related to antisocial behavior among adolescents. In terms of adoles- cent problem drinking, statistically significant relation- ships were obtained for the adolescent's rejection of his parents and maternal rejection of the adolescent. Trends in the data indicated that both the paternal and maternal models may also be related to adolescent problem drinking. On the basis of these results the suggestion was made that two different familial environments may be associ- ated with these two forms of deviant behavior. It was suggested that adolescent antisocial behavior may occur in a familial atmosphere of rather intense conflict, while problem drinking occurs within homes that are character- ized by a more subtle pattern of rejection between parent and child. FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS, PROBLEM DRINKING AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR AMONG ADOLESCENT MALES BY we v 5 Frank H} Barron A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1970 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Robert Zucker, chairman of my thesis committee, for his guidance and encouragement in this research. I would also like to thank Dr. John McKinney for his thoughtful reading of my proposal and Dr. Dozier Thornton and Dr. Lucy Ferguson for their participation as members of my thesis committee. I would also like to express my gratitude to Paul Weisbord without whose help I would still be battling the computer. This research was in part supported by grants to Robert A. Zucker from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH 05655 and MH 17120), the Division of Community Health Services of the Bureau of State Services (CH 00231) and from the Friends of the Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS AcmOWLE DGMENTS O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 0 I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Literature Review . . . Statement of the Problem Definitions . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . II 0 METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 III. IV. V. RESULTS 0 O O O O I O O O O 0 O O O 0 DISCUSSION 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O Affectional Relationship, Antisocial Behavior and Problem Drinking . . Direct Controls, Antisocial Behavior and Problem Drinking . . . . . . . Parental Model, Antisocial Behavior and Problem Drinking . . . . . . Familial Relationships, Antisocial Behavior and Problem Drinking . . S UMMRY I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF “FERENCES O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDICES O O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O I. Park Problem Drinking Scale . . . . . II. Adolescent Antisocial Behavior III. Quantity-Frequency-Variability Questionnaire . . . . Index 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iii Drinking Page ii vii 16 18 19 22 29 44 46 51 56 60 66 69 72 72 72 79 Chapter Page IV. Kalin and William's Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 82 V. Measures of Rejection and Direct Controls from the Parent-Child Activity Inventory . 84 VI. Intercorrelations between the original item clusters concerning parental rejection and discipline from the Parent-Child Activity Inventory . . . . . . . . . 87 VII. Tables of Means for Analyses 1,2, 6- 10 . . 89 iv Table l. 10. LIST OF TABLES Analysis of variance on antisocial be- havior scores, parental rejection, and adolescent's rejection of parents . . Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores, parental rejection, and adolescent's rejection of parents Means and computed t between high and low parent rejection adolescents on measures of anitsocial behavior and problem drinking. . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance on antisocial be- havior scores and Mother and Father direct controls . . . . . . . . . . . Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for levels of parental direct contrOlS O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores on Mother and Father direct controls . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores and parental drinking model. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance on antisocial be- havior and parental antisocial behavior model. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of variance on antisocial behavior, paternal rejection and antisocial behavior model . . . . . . Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores, paternal rejection and drinking model. . . . . . . . . . Page 31 31 33 33 35 35 39 39 41 41 Table 11. 12. l3. l4. VII.l VII.2 VII.3 VII.4 VII.5 VII.6 VII.7 Analysis of variance on antisocial be- havior, maternal model and rejection. Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for maternal model and rejection 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores, maternal drinking model and rejection . . . . . . . . . Adolescent problem drinking mean scores for maternal model and rejection. . . Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for adolescent rejection x paternal rejection x maternal re- jection analysis of variance. . . . . Adolescent Park problem drinking mean scores for adolescent rejection x paternal rejection x maternal re- jection analysis of variance. . . . . Adolescent Park problem drinking mean scores for levels of parental direct contrOIS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for parental antisocial be- havior model. . . . . . . . . . . . .» Adolescent Park problem drinking mean scores for parental drinking model based on Q-F-V index. . . . . . . . . Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for paternal model and re- jection O O I O O O O O O O O O O C O Adolescent Park problem drinking mean scores for paternal rejection and model based on Q-F-V index. . . . . . Page 42 42 43 43 89 89 90 91 91 91 92 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Adolescent Antisocial Behavior as Related to Parental Controls . . . . . 36 2. Quantity-Frequency-Variability Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It has been suggested that heavy or problem drinking is an impulsive and antisocial behavior (Zucker and Fillmore, 1968). This suggestion has received sup- port through research such as that conducted by Jones (1968) which found that adult problem drinkers have a long history of undercontrolled, impulsive, and rebel- lious behavior that extends back into adolescence. In a comparison of adolescent problem and non-problem drinkers, Zucker and Fillmore (1968) found that among the problem drinkers there occurred a greater frequency of impulsive, aggressive and antisocial behavior. Another study conducted by Jessor gt_§1. (1968) reported a con- sistent relationship between deviant drinking and other socially deviant behavior. The fact that this relation- ship exists has been recognized in delinquency research and as a result various indices of problem drinking have been included in studies of adolescent antisocial be- havior (Nye and Short, 1957; Siegman, 1966; Kulik, Stein and Sarbin, 1968). This relationship between problem drinking and impulsive antisocial behavior suggests an approach to the study of adolescent problem drinking which permits the utilization of a considerable amount of delinquency theory and research. However, despite the apparent existence of this relationship there has been little expenditure of research effort to further define the relationship or to discover if delinquency and problem drinking share a common base in terms of etiology. In fact the only two currently published studies concerned with delinquency and problem drinking have focused upon the pattern and practices of this drinking rather than its social or personality correlates (McKay, 1963; Blacker, Demone and Freeman, 1965). It is the purpose of the present study to explore the etiological foundations of adolescent problem drinking through the social control perspective proposed by Nye (1958) in his study of family relationships and delin- quent behavior. The advantage of utilizing this partic- ular theory of delinquency is that it represents an integrated attempt to assess the effect of parental limit setting and the affectional relationships within the family upon the development of delinquent behavior. The effect of these factors has also been studied by several other investigators and a body of research support has accumulated (Zucker, 1943; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Bandura and Walters, 1959). Although subject to the limitations inherent in all retrospective research, these studies are indicative of the importance of these factors in the genesis of delinquent behavior. Given the rela- tionship between delinquent behavior and problem drinking it appears reasonable that the same patterns of affec- tional relations and parental limit setting may serve a similar function in the development of problem drinking among adolescents. Since the study of this problem.wi11 be approached through social control theory, an elabora- tion of Nye's theoretical formulation will be presented below. Research support will be presented following this discussion. Literature Review In his book, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior (1958), Nye presents a comprehensive treatment of his social control theory of delinquent behavior. It is in this work that the familial factors which are con- sidered crucial for the development of this control are delineated. Nye views the occurrence of delinquent behavior as a failure of controls, both internal and external, which have been imposed upon the individual through the agency of the family. These controls consist of three types which are interrelated in terms of func- tion and development. The first form of behavioral control, direct control, is imposed upon the child by his parents. It primarily consists of parental restrictions concerning such things as choice of companions, types of leisure activity, and time permitted away from home and is best maintained through a maximum of parental super- vision. This type of control can only be effective when the parents promise and deliver punishment for any viola- tion of parental and societal regulations. While direct control is most closely related to parental limit setting, indirect control is related to the adolescent's affectional relations with his parents. The basis of this control lies within the adolescent's desire to please and a reluctance to hurt or disappoint his parents. Therefore indirect control can be exer- cised only where there is an affectionate relationship between parent and child. Due to the central impor- tance of this relationship Nye believes that the efficiency of indirect control decreases as negative feelings increase between the adolescent and his parents. The third form of social control is internalized control which is exercised through conscience. Nye states that the development of this form of control is dependent upon two conditions, the first of which con- cerns the consistency with which the parents provide a conforming model for the child. However Nye does not conceive of the effect of parental presentation of a deviant model in the same manner as Bandura and Walters (1963). From Nye's point of view it is not the deviant behavior that is learned in most cases but rather the parent, whose children learn of his deviant behavior, lessens his effectiveness as an agent for securing con- forming behavior. Therefore if the behavior of parents does not indicate internalization of norms it is much less likely that internalization will occur in their children. The second condition which is necessary for the development of internalized control is the existence of a constructive, affectionate relationship between parent and child. While this requirement closely approximates the conditions necessary for the development of indirect control; Nye reasons that it is also necessary for internal control since it is not likely that the child will accept the teachings of the parent unless he accepts the parent himself. Nye states that the individual must be subject to at least a minimum of each type of control if the occurrence of delinquent behavior is to be avoided. However all three types of control are not equally powerful in securing conformity. It is due to these differences in power that there is less need for direct control when indirect control is relatively efficient. Furthermore, the greater the efficiency of internal control the less need there is for any other kind. During adolescence indirect and internalized control become par- ticularly important due to the increased mobility of the adolescent and the resulting decrease in the effectiveness of parental supervision. It is at this age that the quality of the parent-child relationship, both past and present, becomes crucial for it is upon this relationship that both indirect and internal control are developed. Therefore it is expected that the child who has failed to form a positive affectional relationship with his parents would be particularly prone to delinquent in- volvement. Three major research studies have reported data pertaining to the parental practices which are believed to maintain direct control over the adolescent (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Nye, 1958; Bandura and Walters, 1959). The relevance of restrictions and discipline for the control of adolescent antisocial behavior has been a concern of each of these studies. Nye (1958), in an attempt to ascertain if there were differences in the pattern of direct control main- tained by the parents of delinquent and non-delinquent adolescents, examined the disciplinary practices and restrictions imposed upon the adolescent in these families. In doing so he obtained some unexpected results, one of which was that strictness of discipline was unrelated to delinquency in males. There was also no indication that any particular technique of discipline was associated with non-delinquent behavior. Bandura and Walters (1959) also failed to find any significant difference between disciplinary techniques utilized by parents of aggressive adolescents and the control group when the factor of parental rejection of the child was controlled. In another study, Glueck and Glueck (1950) reported that physical punishment was significantly used more often as a disciplinary technique among the delinquent than the non-delinquent group. In contrast, reasoning was more often utilized by the parents of non-delinquent boys. However, since the parents of the delinquents were also found to be significantly more rejecting of and indif- ferent to their offspring, it seems likely that these findings are subject to the same considerations as those of Bandura and Walters. The prevalence of these dis- ciplinary techniques is, in all probability not independ- ent of the parent's attitude toward the child. The amount of freedom permitted the adolescent by his parents is also considered to be a component of direct control. Nye (1958) in examining the relevance of this factor for differentiating between delinquent and non-delinquent youth found that there was no rela- tionship between the amount of freedom the adolescents received and delinquent behavior. Bandura and Walters (1959) also found that restrictions placed upon aggressive and control group boys by their parents did not differ. However, in both studies it was found that it was the adolescents' attitudes toward and reactions to discipline and restrictions which differentiated between the groups even when parental practices failed to do so. In this context Nye found that there was a negative association between the adolescent's attitude toward freedom and delinquent behavior. The adolescents who were satisfied with the amount of freedom they re- ceived displayed significantly less delinquent involvement. Adolescents with the most favorable attitudes toward discipline administered by their parents also displayed less delinquent behavior. Bandura and Walters (1959) found that the aggressive boys responded to restrictions with significantly more resistance and resentment than did the control group. In Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (1950), the Gluecks report a relationship between certain general types of parental discipline and delinquent behavior. In this examination of disciplinary practices it was found that delinquents were subject to lax or erratic discipline significantly more often than non-delinquents. This was the case with the discipline administered by both parents. In relatively few cases could the discipline imposed upon the delinquent boys be described as "firm but kindly" while this approach to discipline waS'ch3racteriatic of the majority of parents of non-delinquentsf“ In addition one fourth of the fathers of delinquents were described as being over-strict while only nine percent of the fathers of non-delinquents could be so classified. To a certain extent these results conflict with Nye's report that strictness of discipline failed to differentiate be- tween most delinquent and least delinquent groups. How- ever it is in general agreement with the conclusions which Nye drew from the totality of his data on direct control. Nye concludes that the association between strictness of direct control and delinquency is "U-shaped" in that delinquent behavior is at a minimum where a moderate amount of direct control is exercised but tends to occur where direct control is overly strict or lax. While evidence for the differential operation of direct control among delinquent and non-delinquent groups is not particularly firm, this is not the case in regard to the pattern of affectional relations between these adolescents and their parents. Due to the centrality of these relationships for the develoPment and maintainence of indirect and internalized control, the identification of a differential pattern of affectional interaction in the families of delinquent and non-delinquent boys is of major importance for Nye's formulation. It is just such a relationship which has been reported in several 10 studies (Zucker, 1943; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Nye, 1958; Bandura and Walters, 1959). However it would be an over- simplification to consider these relationships to be all of one kind. In actuality the affectional relationships within the family may be divided into two different types which represent the feelings of the parent toward the child and those of the child toward the parents. The discussion of research data concerning these relationships will adhere to the same division. The earliest study of the delinquent's affec- tional attachment to his parents was conducted by Zucker (1943). He found that significantly fewer delinquents displayed an affectional attachment to their parents than non-delinquents. Also boys who were characterized by a weak attachment to their parents tended to violate paren- tal prohibitions and exercised little restraint in taking' things they liked. In the Gluecks' study of delinquent boys a far smaller proportion of delinquents than non-delinquents reported feelings of attachment for their father while a higher pr0portion of them expressed feelings of hostility. This relationship held for their feelings toward their mother also although for both groups the proportions that expressed'affection for her were much greater. In focusing upon the parent's feelings toward the child, the Gluecks found that both the mothers and fathers of ll delinquent boys were significantly more often indifferent or rejecting of their sons than the parents of non- delinquents. The parents of non-delinquents were more often rated as having warm feelings toward their sons. Like the Gluecks, Nye (1958), in his examination of familial affectional relationships, found that both the adolescent's rejection of his parents and parental re- jection of the child were related to delinquent behavior. However the affectional pattern which displayed the strongest relationship to delinquent involvement was the pattern of mutual rejection between parent and adoles- cent. Bandura and Walters (1959), in their study of adolescent aggression, found that the aggressive boys displayed significantly less warmth and were less in- clined to identify with their fathers than were the con- trol group. However the difference in warmth of these boys for their mothers did not reach the level of signi- ficance. The aggressive boys also felt considerably more rejected by both their mothers and fathers than did the control group. The data from interviews with the parents indicate that the boys' perceptions were to a great extent correct. The fathers of the aggressive adolescents showed less warmth for their sons and re- jected them to a significantly greater extent than fathers of the control group. This relationship was 12 less clear in regard to the mother-son relationship. An additional analysis which concerned the degree to which the father was involved in affectional interaction with the boy in childhood also proved to be discriminating. By use of a combined estimate derived from interviews with both parents it was found that the fathers of ag- gressive boys spent less time involved in affectional interaction with their sons during this earlier period. The consistency with which these studies indicate the existence of a differential pattern of affectional relationships within the homes of delinquent and non- delinquent adolescents is impressive. As a result, the existence of these disturbed relationships within the family appears to be a potent factor in differentiating delinquent from non-delinquent youths and as such is indicative of the failure of the home to provide an emotional atmosphere which is conducive to the develop- ment and maintenance of indirect and internalized control. The quality of these affectional relationships is considered to be the primary factor in determining whether or not indirect control will be effective for the adolescent. However this is only one of the two factors which are believed to affect the development of internal control. The second factor is the quality of the parental model to which the adolescent is exposed. It has been hypothesized that if the adolescent's parents engage in l3 socially deviant behavior, the development of internalized control should be less effective and delinquent behavior facilitated (Nye, 1958). This expectation of the in- creased delinquent involvement of adolescents with socially deviant parents has received support in the literature (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Nye, 1958; Bandura and Walters, 1959; Robins, 1966). -uThe Gluecks (1950), in an examination of the family setting of the delinquent boys, found that both their parents possessed a history of drunkenness and criminality that far exceeded the pr0portion of parents possessing such a history in the non-delinquent group. It was also reported that the family history of the delinquents' parents was also characterized by a sig- nificantly greater occurrence of drunkenness and crimi- nality. However the existence of a history of deviant behavior does not necessarily say anything concerning current parental functioning which has been hypothesized to be a crucial influence in the development of adoles- cent antisocial behavior. In order to assess this influence the Gluecks rated the present conduct standards of the home in terms of the current behavior manifested by the parents and siblings of the adolescents studied. Through this examination they found that the conduct standards in the delinquents' homes were significantly? poorer than in the homes of non-delinquents as a result 14 of a greater incidence of criminality drunkenness, and immorality within the family. a Nye (1958) also examined the relationship between the quality of the parental model and the delinquent in- volvement of the adolescent. As a result of this analysis it was found that antisocial or unethical parental be—fi havior was positively related to delinquent behavior in, the adolescent. Although Bandura and Walters (1959) made no attempt to directly assess the quality of the parental model, they did report that many of the parents of ag- gressive adolescents displayed an antisocial orientation' themselves. The research which has been cited above clearly indicates that both the parental model and the quality of the familial affectional relationships was important factors in differentiating between delinquent and non- delinquent adolescents. However these studies fail to provide information concerning how these factors inter- act and what effect their interaction might have upon the development of antisocial behavior in the adolescent. This is a question of some importance since these two factors do not operate in isolation within the adoles— cent's familial environment. In all probability the effect of a deviant parental model differs greatly in relation to whether the parents are warm and accepting or whether the adolescent is subject to parental l5 rejection. To date there have been no studies which have explicitly focused upon the possible effects of this interaction in adolescence. However the McCords (1958), through an analysis of data from the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, have attempted to determine the role of the parental model in the development of criminal behavior and the extent to which it interacts with the affectional relations and disciplinary practices within the family. Since the determination of the subjects' criminality was made after they had reached their mid-twenties, these findings may not be strictly applicable to adolescent antisocial behavior. However these results do, in all probability, provide some indication of how these factors are likely to behave within an adolescent population. The McCords' findings from a preliminary analysis of the data were in accord with the research previously cited. More specifically, it was found that parental deviance was strongly related to the criminal activity of the son. It was also discovered that in families in which neither of the parents was warm and accepting the rate of criminal involvement was high regardless of the quality of the parental model. When the McCords focused upon the three interacting vaiables of parental model, affectional relations, and discipline they found that the effect of a paternal criminal model upon the criminal activity of the son was largely dependent upon the other 16 familial factors. Specifically, if paternal rejection, the absence of maternal affection, or maternal deviance are coupled with a deviant paternal model, then there is a high probability that the son will be deviant. It was also found that if at least one parent is loving and the adolescent is subject to consistent discipline, then the influence of the deviant paternal model is largely coun- teracted. This last conclusion, as it relates to con- sistency of discipline, is somewhat tenuous due to the extremely small number of subjects in the "No Loving Parent - Consistent Discipline" condition. However, in general terms, this study indicates that while affec- tional relationships and the parental model are conceived of as being important individual factors on the deve10p- ment of antisocial behavior, they do interact and that the effect of the paternal model often depends upon the quality of the affectional relationships within the family. Statement of the Problem The studies cited above provide support for the importance which has been attributed to affectional rev-U lationships and the role of the parental modéi by Nye and others. On the other hand, the role of parental restric- tions and discipline appears more doubtful as a means of controlling the behavior of adolescents although its effect may be curvilinear as suggested by Nye (1958). In 17 any event, these factors have been isolated as being potentially useful for understanding the development of delinquent behavior. However, despite this existing research support, further study of these variables and their relationship to adolescent antisocial behavior is necessary if confidance is to be placed in these findings. At the present time the theoretical orientations and results of delinquency research are so varied that com- plete confidence cannot be placed in any one approach on the basis of a limited number of studies. Therefore one of the purposes of this thesis is to attempt to replicate v” the research findings in regard to these three familial factors as they relate to delinquent behavior among adoles- cents. The second purpose of this study is to focus upon the interaction of the parental model with the parent- child affectional relationship in terms of its signifi- cance for the development of antisocial behavior in the adolescent. This is an area which has not been sub- jected to systematic investigation in the delinquency literature but one which may be crucial for our under- standing of the determinants of this behavior. As has been previously indicated, there appears to be an association between problem drinking and other impulsive antisocial behavior. It is due to this asso- ciation that the question arises as to whether the familial 18 factors related to delinquent behavior are also relevant to the study and understanding of adolescent problem drinking. While this relationship appears quite plausible there is at the present time little research data which would justify the direct application of these concepts to the more delimited area of adolescent problem drinking. Currently there is only one published study which gives an indication that these factors may indeed be operating in the.genesis of problem drinking among adolescents. This study, conducted by Jessor gt_al, (1968), found that among a high school sample both socially deviant behavior in general and problem drinking in particular were related to such factors as the mother-child affectional relation- ship, exposure to deviant models, limited regulations and sanctions, and the mother's feeling of alienation. It is the primary purpose of this study to examine the relation- ship between familial factors and problem drinking among adolescents in an effort to provide further evidence of the operation of these factors which are antithetical to the develoPment of social control in the adolescent. Definitions For the purposes of this study antisocial behavior is defined as rule breaking behavior which brings the individual into conflict with the agents of social control (ie. parents, school, or the police). This behavior 19 usually involves infringement of the rights of others through such acts as theft or assault. The definition of problem drinking used here is adapted from that of Keller (1962). Problem drinking is considered to be the drinking of alcoholic beverages which results in injury to the individual's health, social, or economic functioning. In short, problem drinking is any drinking that has the potential of getting the individual in trouble with himself or the network of social rela- tionships. Hypotheses 1. It is predicted that among adolescent males problem drinking will be positively correlated with antisocial behavior. The first hypothesis focuses upon the relationship between problem drinking and other forms of antisocial behavior. It is expected that if adolescent problem-drinking is a form of impulsive and antisocial behavior then it will be associated with other manifestations of this behavior. 2a. Adolescents who are rejected by their parents will display a higher incidence of problem drink- ing and antisocial behavior than non-rejected adolescents. b. Adolescents who are rejecting of their parents will display a higher incidence of problem drink- ing and antisocial behavior than adolescents who do not reject their parents. c. Mutual rejection between parent and adolescent will be most strongly related to problem drink- ing and antisocial behavior. 20 The second hypothesis is concerned with the effects of the familial affectional patterns upon the antisocial behavior and problem drinking of the adolescent. As indicated previously, these affectional relationships are considered to be of great importance in the development of socially deviant behavior. 3. Direct controls utilized by the parents will have a curvilinear relationship to problem drinking and antisocial behavior in that lax or overstrict controls will be associated with higher anti— social behavior and problem drinking than will moderate direct controls. The third hypothesis deals with the parental application of direct controls and its relationship to the adolescent's involvement in antisocial behavior and problem drinking. In terms of social control theory it is expected that the moderate application of direct control will be most effec- tive in controlling socially deviant behavior. Lax and overly strict controls are expected to be less effective since lax controls fail to provide adequate guidance for the adolescent while overly strict controls should tend to evoke resentment and rebellion. 4. Adolescents whose parents engage in heavy drink- ing and antisocial behavior will evidence a higher incidence of problem drinking and anti- social behavior than adolescents with non-deviant parents. 7 This final major hypothesis relates to the effect of a deviant parental model upon the behavior of the adoles- cent. According to social control theory, the parent 21 who is socially deviant himself will weaken his effec- tiveness in securing non—deviant behavior from his chil- dren. Therefore it is expected that parental deviance will increase the probability of socially deviant be- havior on the part of the adolescent. In addition to the major hypotheses listed above, an exploratory examination of the possible effects of an interaction between the parental model and the parent- child affectional relationship upon adolescent problem drinking and antisocial behavior will be made. Since very little research or theory has focused upon the effect of such an interaction no explicit hypotheses re- garding its effect have been formulated for this study. CHAPTE R I I METHOD The subjects were 103 boys who ranged in age from 16 to 18, and were juniors and seniors in high school. They were members of the cross-validation sample of Zucker's (1968a, 1968b) continuing research on the de- velopment of problem drinking among adolescents. The subjects were chosen at random from class lists of the one public high school in a community of slightly under 15,000 peOple. This community is located in the Middle Atlantic States and is characterized by a fairly wide distribution of income and educational levels and reli- gious and nationality groups. A sample of the parents of adolescents in the cross-validation was also obtained. The target group for this sample included all the natural mothers and fathers of the children in the sample. If the parents were separated, only the spouse raising the child was contacted. Parent surrogates (eg. step-parents, grand- parents) were included if they played an active role in the child's upbringing for three or more years, and pro- vided that the child was still living with them. Due 22 23 to the potential problem of obtaining cooperation from older subjects, trained interviewers made the initial contact with each family at their home. At this time an appointment was set up when both parents could be together for completion of the study materials. Outright refusals were followed up by using more experienced interviewers and a modified approach in an effort to convert the re- fusals. Due to refusals, inability to schedule interviews, and incomplete follow-up 16.5 percent of the families were not available. This yielded a parent sample of 86 families which were represented by at least one parent. Of these 86 families a total of 64 provided data on both the mother and father. This last figure represented 62 percent of the original target group. Procedure: The adolescent subjects, who were each paid five dollars for participation, were contacted at home and asked to attend a two hour questionnaire session in a church educational building in their community. The study was introduced as one "concerned with teenagers' leisure time activities." Information was gathered con- cerning these activities, the drinking of alcohol being included as one of them. Questions were also included to determine the extent of antisocial behavior and the adolescent's affectional relationship with his parents. The determination of problem drinking for the adolescents was made through scores derived from the 24 Park Problem Drinking Scale (Park, 1962). This factor analytically derived scale is conceived of as a measure of predisposition toward alcoholism (cf. Williams, 1965; 1967). As such it was designed to measure the occurrence of such things as excessive alcoholic intake, impairment of social relations due to drinking, antisocial behavior associated with drinking, and symptomatic behaviors parti- cularly associated with alcoholism such as blackouts, morning drinking, etc. This instrument and scoring direc- tions can be found in Appendix I. An antisocial behavior checklist was utilized to provide a measure of the subjects' impulsive and anti- social behavior. This seventy item checklist was a modified version of the Antisocial Behavior Checklist (Kulik gE_gl., 1968) which in its survey of antisocial activities includes a wide range of behaviors which can best be described as those which will, if detected, bring the adolescent into conflict with his parents, school, and other agencies of social control such as the police and juvenile courts. The principle modification of the Antisocial Behavior Checklist involved the addition of items concerning the consumption of alcoholic beverages and the occurrence of impulsive behavior associated with drinking. A subscore of this checklist, total non- alcoholic antisocial behavior, was utilized as the measure of antisocial behavior in this study. This score was 25 obtained by eliminating an eleven item cluster associated with alcoholic antisocial behavior. (See Appendix II for the items and scoring for this instrument.) A measure of the adolescent's rejection of his parents was obtained through the use of the parental de- fiance cluster of the Antisocial Behavior Checklist from Kulik gt_al. (1968). (For specific items see the first five items in Appendix II). This cluster consists of items which range in severity from defying parental wishes to strikings one's mother or father. As such the parental defiance cluster appears to reflect both an emotional re- jection of the parents and a rejection of them in their role of providing for the supervision and discipline of the adolescent. In all analyses which assessed the effect of the adolescent's rejection of his parents upon his antisocial behavior, the items of the parental defiance cluster were removed from the measure of antisocial behavior. The parents, who were paid ten dollars for parti- cipation, completed the study materials in their home with the interviewer present. Each parent worked independently and following completion of all materials, questions about the study and the instruments were answered. The informa- tion gathered in these sessions included measures of parental drinking practices and antisocial behavior, the parent-child affectional relationship, and disciplinary 26 practices. Data concerning the drinking practices of each parent was obtained through the use of items from Cahalan and Cisin's (1968) questionnaire which concerns the quan- tity, frequency and variability of alcoholic beverage consumption. This questionnaire, which was originally developed for use in a national survey of adult drinking practices, yielded a Quantity-Frequency-Variability Index which was utilized to classify each parent in terms of the drinking model he presented to his child. Drink- ing practices which resulted in a high index were con- sidered evidence of heavy drinking and therefore as the presentation of a deviant model. Parents who obtained a low Q-F-V index were considered to be non-deviant models. (See Appendix III for the questions from which this in- formation was obtained and the method for generating the Q-F-V index). An assessment of parental antisocial behavior was obtained from Kalin and William's (in press) twenty-four item antisocial behavior scale. This particular scale was a factor in a larger questionnaire designed by Kalin and Williams to study the personality self4descriptions of heavy drinkers. It is described by the authors as containing "items dealing with behavior that can get a person into trouble." The scale focuses upon antisocial behavior of a generally less serious nature and does not 27 include items dealing with felonious activity. For a list of items in this scale see Appendix IV. A measure of parental rejection was obtained through the use of selected item clusters from the Parent- Child Activity Inventory (Bronfenbrenner, 1961). Item clusters from the inventory which concerned the affec- tional relationship between parent and child were selected and the intercorrelations between these clusters were obtained for both the mothers and fathers. On the basis of an inspection of the intercorrelation matrices two clusters, Expressive Rejection and Neglect, were selected. (See Appendix VI for the intercorrelations between the originally selected item clusters). In answering the items from these two clusters, each parent was instructed to indicate how applicable the listed parental behaviors were to his own behavior toward the child while he was growing up. For each parent the scores obtained on both item clusters were summed and the total used to categorize him as being high or low in terms of rejection of the adolescent. (See Appendix V for the items and scoring of the two clusters). Data concerning parental disciplinary practices was also obtained through the use of selected item clusters from the Parent-Child Activity Inventory (Bronfenbrenner, 1961). Item clusters which concerned parental discipline and supervision were selected from 28 the inventory and the intercorrelations between these clusters were obtained for both the mothers and fathers. (See Appendix VI for the intercorrelation matrices be- tween the original item clusters). On the basis of an inspection of these intercorrelations four clusters were selected to serve as a measure of parental discipline. The items contained in these clusters (eg. Power, Physical Punishment and Threat, Deprivation of Priviledge or Property, and Social Isolation) were answered separately by each parent and the scores on each item cluster were summed to form an index of the parental application of direct controls. On the basis of this combined score each parent was classified as either lax, moderate, or strict in his application of direct controls. (See Appendix V for the items contained in these four clusters). CHAPTER III RESULTS With the exception of hypothesis 1, analyses of variance were utilized to test the hypotheses of this study. Due to the existence of unequal cell frequencies the least squares method for the estimate of sum of squares was adopted. The least squares method was adopted due to its appropriateness for cases in which unequal cell frequencies are believed to be related to the size of the corresponding population strata. For hypothesis 1 it was predicted that there would be a significant positive correlation between anti- social behavior and problem drinking among adolescents. To test this hypothesis a Pearson product moment correla- tiontion was computed between the Park Problem Drinking score and the total non-alcoholic antisocial behavior score for all adolescents. The resulting correlation between these measures was .66 which was significant at the .0005 level. Hypotheses 2a, b and c were concerned with the effects of the familial affectional relationships upon the antisocial behavior and problem drinking of the 29 30 adolescent. Since the interaction of a parent's rejec- tion of the child and the child's rejection of the parents was of interest, all three hypotheses were analyzed through the use of a 2x2x2 analysis of variance. Summary tables for these analyses may be found in Tables 1 and 2 in this section. (See Tables VII.l and VII.2 in Appendix VII for the tables of means for these analysis). Hypothesis 2a predicted that adolescents who are rejected by their parents will evidence a higher incidence of problem drinking and antisocial behavior than adoles- cents of low rejecting parents. The results of this analysis failed to support the hypothesis since neither the mother or father rejection effects reached the level of significance for either problem drinking or antisocial behavior. However in a later analysis, which was able to utilize additional mother and son pairs, the mother re- jection effect reached the .02 level of significance for the dependent variable of problem drinking. (See Table 13 for a summary table of this analysis). However this effect failed to reach the level of significance for antisocial behavior. In the light of these results hy- pothesis 2a may be considered to be partially supported by the data in regard to problem drinking and maternal rejection. Hypothesis 2b predicted that adolescents who are rejecting of their parents would display a higher incidence 31 Table 1. Analysis of variance on antisocial behavior scores, parental rejection, and adolescent's rejection of parents. Source SS df MS F Total 20549.74 63 A. Maternal Rejection 80.70 1 80.70 .25 B. Paternal Rejection 609.98 1 609.98 1.90 C. Adolescent Rejection 1129.06 1 1129.06 3.51* A x B 33.81 1 33.81 .11 A x C 259.85 1 259.85 .70 B x C 202.72 1 202.72 .63 A x B x C 236.11 1 236.11 .74 Error 17997.51 56 321.38 *p < .07, two-tailed test. ° ’eun ° (at 1 us no Table 2. Wfigfihn‘b‘gfiflrflfi ,Jpgg p em drinking scores; parental'rejec ion, and adolescent's rejection of parents. Source SS df MS F Total 374.11 63 A. Maternal Rejection , 4.91 l 4.91 .85 B. Paternal Rejection 8.33 l 8.33 1.44 C. Adolescent Rejection 2.56 1 2.56 .44 A x B 3.84 l 3.84 .66 A x C 10.66 1 10.66 1.84 B x C 9.99 l 9.99 1.72 A x B x C 9.29 l 9.29 1.60 Error 324.53 56 5.80 32 of problem drinking and antisocial behavior than adoles- cents who evidenced low rejection of their parents. For this analysis the effect of adolescent rejection did not reach the level of significance for either problem drink- ing or antisocial behavior. However, for antisocial behavior there was a trend toward significance in the data (p < .07). Due to the dependence of the three-way analysis of variance upon complete data for both parents and adolescent, a total of thirty-nine adolescents had to be dropped from the analysis due to the fact that one or both of their parents were unavailable for the study. In order to circumvent these restrictions on the analysis of the effect of adolescent rejection, a t-test was per- formed between high and low rejecting adolescents on problem drinking and antisocial behavior for all 103 adolescents. Table 3 shows that adolescents who are high. in rejection of their parents are significantly higher in] terms of antisocial behavior and problem drinking than // adolescents who are low in rejection of their parents:/ Hypothesis 2c predicted that mutual rejection be- tween parent and adolescent would be most strongly related to problem drinking and antisocial behavior. This hy- pothesis failed to be supported by the data since neither the mother-son, father-son, or triple interaction proved to be significant. 33 Table 3. Means and computed t between high and low parent rejection adolescents on measures of antisocial behavior and problem drinking. Measure Means t High Rejecting Low RejeCting Antisocial Behavior 46.55 25.41 4.81* Problem Drinking 4.13 2.90 2.36** *p < .001, two-tailed test. **p < .05, two-tailed test. Table 4. Analyses of variance on antisocial behavior scores and Mother and Father direct controls. Source SS df MS F Total 23101.36 63 Mother Controls 2763.27 2 1381.64 4.13* Father Controls 1571.01 2 785.53 2.35 Interaction 356.23 4 89.06 .27 Error 18410.85 55 334.74 *p < .025, two-tailed test. 34 Hypothesis 3 was concerned with the parental application of direct controls and its relationship to adolescent involvement in problem drinking and antisocial behavior. The hypothesis predicted that direct controls utilized by the parents would have a curvilinear relation- ship to problem drinking and antisocial behavior in that lax or strict controls would be associated with higher antisocial behavior and problem drinking than would the application of moderate controls. A summary of the anal- ysis of variance and a table of means for antisocial behavior may be found in Tables 4 and 5 respectively. Neither the father effect or the interaction proved to be significant, however the effect for maternal controls reached the .025 level of significance. The Newman- Keuls method was utilized to test the difference between the individual cell means; none of which proved to be significant. An inspection of Figure 1 reveals that the obtained relationship between parental controls and anti- social behavior does not fit the hypothesized curvilinear relationship. In fact the relationship appears to be strongly linear for maternal controls. The analysis of variance of Problem Drinking scores revealed that neither father controls, mother controls, or the interaction effect were significant. The summary for this analysis of variance may be found in Table 6. (See Table VII.3 in Appendix VII for a 35 Table 5. Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for levels of parental direct controls. Mother Controls Father Controls I M Mother Lax Moderate StriEt F Main Effect Mean 0-.80 .90-1.20 l.25-1.8 Item Scorea Strict 1.40-2.20 30 44.6 48.2 40.93 Moderate 1-1.35 26.2 36.3 34 32.17 Lax 0-.95 18.2 25.3 27.5 23.67 Father Main Effect 24.80 35.40 36.57 aMean item score is based upon the following scoring code: 0=definitely does not apply; l=applies only a little; 2=applies fairly well; 3=applies well; 4=applies strongly, outstanding. The mean item score indicates the range of the average score obtained for all twenty items for the subjects in each level of direct control. Table 6. Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores on Mother and Father direct controls. Source SS df MS .F Total 381.45 63 Mother Controls 7.92 2 3.96 .60 Father Controls 5.30 2 2.65 .40 ‘Interaction 5.08 4 1.27 .19 Error 363.15 55 6.60 Antisocial Behavior Mean Scores Adolescents' 36 50% 40f .L-Paternal Direct 30" Controls L—-Maternal Direct Controls 20" 10" ‘0 fit % f Lax Moderate Strict Quality of Direct Controls Figure 1. Adolescent Antisocial Behavior as Related to Parental Controls 37 table of means for this analysis). Due to the rather small variation between the means, this analysis also failed to support the hypothesis of a curvilinear rela- tionship between parental controls and problem drinking. \. \ Hypothesis 4 predicts that adolescents whose parents engage in heavy drinking and antisocial behavior would evidence a higher incidence of problem drinking and antisocial behavior than adolescents with non- deviant parents. To answer this question two separate 2x2 analyses of variance were computed to test the effects of the quality of the model presented by the parents in terms of their own drinking and the extent of their own antisocial behavior and attitudes. The results of these analyses failed to support the hypoth— esis for either adolescent antisocial behavior or problem drinking since neither the father model, mother mOdel, or the interaction between the two reached the level of significance. Summary tables for these analyses on antisocial behavior and problem drinking may be found in Tables 7 and 8 respectively. (See Tables VII.4 and VII.5 in Appendix VII for the tables of means for antisocial behavior and problem drinking). However in a later anal- ysis, which was able to utilize additional mother and son pairs, the effect of the maternal model reached the .02 level of significance for adolescent antisocial behavior (See Table 11). In a similiar analysis concerned with 38 adolescent problem drinking, the maternal drinking model did reach what could be considered a trend level (p < .08). See Table 13 for a summary of this analysis. In addition to the analysis of the four major hypotheses, an exploratory examination of the possible effects of an interaction between the quality of the paren- tal model and parental rejection upon adolescent antisocial behavior and problem drinking was undertaken through the use of four separate 2x2 analyses of variance. The first analysis concerned the effect of the quality of the pater- nal model and paternal rejection upon the antisocial behavior of the adolescent. For this analysis it was found that neither the model effect, rejection, or the interaction proved to be significant. Similarly, in the second analysis the effects of the paternal drinking model, rejection and the interaction also failed to reach the level of significance for adolescent problem drinking. Summary tables for these analyses of variance may be found in Table 9 and 10. (See Tables VII.6 and VII.7 in Appendix VII for the means for these analyses). A third analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between the maternal model, rejection and the adolescent's antisocial behavior. Neither maternal rejection nor the interaction was found to have a sig- nificant effect upon antisocial behavior. However the effect of the maternal model reached the .02 level of 39 Table 7. Analysis of variance on antisocial behavior and parental antisocial behavior model. Source SS df MS F Total 24346.94 63 Mother Model 749.32 1 749.32 1.93 Father Model 273.63 1 273.63 .71 Interaction 79.32 1 79.32 .21 Error 23244.67 60 387.41 Table 8. Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores and parental drinking model. Source SS df MS F Total 378.69 63 Mother Model 1.34 1 1.34 .22 Father Model 14.71 1 14.71 2.44 Interaction .23 1 .23 .04 Error 362.41 60 6.04 40 significance. A summary of this analysis is presented in Table 11. The means for this analysis appear in Table 12. The final exploratory analysis was concerned with the relationship between the maternal drinking model, maternal rejection and adolescent problem drinking. In this analysis the effect of the maternal model reached the trend level (p < .08) while the effect of maternal rejection reached the .02 level of significance. How- ever, once again the interaction failed to reach the level of significance. A summary of this analysis is presented in Table 13 while the means appear in Table 14. A con- sideration of the results presented in these four anal- yses reveals that there was in fact no significant interaction between the quality of the parental model and rejection in terms of adolescent antisocial behavior and problem drinking. 41 Table 9. Analysis of variance on antisocial behavior, paternal rejection and antisocial behavior model. Source SS df MS F Total 24800.37 63 Model 702.30 1 702.30 1.87 Rejection 911.86 1 911.86 2.43 Interaction 659.77 1 659.77 1.76 Error 22526.44 60 375.44 Table 10. Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores, paternal rejection and drinking model. Source SS df MS F Total 379.39 63 Model 14.00 1 14.00 2.34 Rejection 5.14 1 5.14 .86 Interaction .88 l .88 .15 Error 359.37 60 5.99 42 Table 11. Analysis of variance on antisocial behavior, maternal model and rejection. Source SS df MS F Total 44255 75 Model 3289 l 3289 5.95* Rejection 1120 l 1120 2.03 Interaction 4 1 4 .01 Error 39842 72 553 *p < .02, two-tailed test. Table 12. Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for maternal model and rejection. Classification Mean Score Deviant Model High Rejection 47.8 Low Rejection 39.5 Non-Deviant Model High Rejection 33.9 Low Rejection 26.5 Deviant Model Main Effect 43.65 Non-Deviant Model Main Effect 30.20 High Rejection Main Effect 40.85 Low Rejection Main Effect 33 43 Table 13. Analysis of variance on Park problem drinking scores maternal drinking model and rejection. Source SS df MS F Total 581.3 75 Model 22.2 1 22.2 3.14* Rejection 44.5 1 44.5 6.29** Interaction 5.8 l 5.8 .82 Error 508.8 72 7.07 *p < .08, two-tailed test. **p < .02, two-tailed test. Table 14. Adolescent problem drinking mean scores for maternal model and rejection. Classification Mean Score Deviant Model High Rejection 4.9 Low Rejection 2.6 Non-Deviant Model High Rejection 3.1 Low Rejection 1.9 Deviant Model Main Effect 3.75 Non-Deviant Model Main Effect 2.5 High Rejection Main Effect 4.0 Low Rejection Main Effect 2.25 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Before a discussion of the results of this thesis can be undertaken a major problem pertaining to the ob- tained data and its interpretation must be noted. The loss of subjects due to lack of complete data for one or both parents resulted in a loss of 38 percent of the original target group for the basic analyses of this study. The seriousness of such a loss cannot be underestimated and appears to have definite implications for any inter- pretation of the results obtained. In particular, the subject loss appears to be directly relevant to the hypotheses under investigation. This contention is supported by the results of several "t-tests" which were computed between those subjects who were included and those excluded from the study on antisocial behavior and problem drinking scores. The difference between the included and excluded adolescent subjects on the variable of antisocial behavior was found to be statistically significant (t= 2.66; p < .01, two-tailed test). Likewise a significant difference was also obtained in regard to problem drinking (t= 3.02; p < .01, two-tailed test). It 44 45 should be noted that the extent of the subject loss was the greatest in connection with the investigated rela- tionship between father variables and the behavior of the adolescent. It is also precisely at this point that the obtained results are so meagre and at variance with prior research on adolescent antisocial behavior. It appears likely that the inability to gather father data for a large number of the subjects in the adolescent sample may actually be a reflection of the father's disinterest in his son and a product of a general lack of family cohesiveness. If this is indeed the case, then it may well be that many adolescents with less than an adequate father-son relationship and, as indicated by the above "t-tests," a relatively higher incidence of antisocial behavior and problem drinking have been ex- cluded from this study. Therefore it would not appear to be an unwarranted assumption that such a differential loss of subjects may have served to vitiate the results obtained for the father variables. Due to such a possi- bility, all the results on father variables which fall below the .20 level of significance will be discussed more fully than would usually be the case. Such results will be considered to represent trends in the data which are worthy of further consideration. The results indicate that the hypothesis concern- ing the association between problem drinking and 46 antisocial behavior received strong support; there was a significant positive correlation obtained between them. This gives further support to the findings of other in- vestigators who have pointed out that problem drinking is one of a group of behaviors that can be classified as impulsive and antisocial (Jones, 1968; Zucker and Fillmore, 1968). However the primary importance of this finding is that this strong association between problem drinking and other forms of antisocial behavior provides a rationale for focusing upon those familial variables which have been traditionally linked to adolescent antisocial behavior and investigating their relationship to problem drinking (See Zucker, 1968). Affegtional Relationships, Antisocial Behavior and Problem Drinking The results obtained in the present study indicate that the hypothesis concerning the relationship between paternal rejection and adolescent antisocial behavior was partially supported by a trend effect (p < .13). Adoles- cent boys whose fathers evidenced high rejection of them participated in antisocial behavior to a greater extent than boys who had low rejecting fathers. This result is in accord with the research of Nye (1958), Bandura and ‘Walters (1959) and the Gluecks (1950); all of whom have reported a strong relationship between adolescent 47 antisocial behavior and paternal rejection. McCord and McCord (1960) have also reported that paternal rejection was strongly related to the adult criminality of the son. The hypothesized relationship between paternal rejection and adolescent problem drinking was not sup- ported by the data of this study. While adolescents with high rejecting fathers did obtain higher problem drinking scores than those with low rejecting fathers, this dif- ference was not statistically significant (p < .36). This particular finding is difficult to evaluate since little previous research has focused upon adolescent problem drinking in terms of familial variables. However the McCords (1960) report that fathers who were rejecting of their sons produced the highest rate of alcoholism in their offspring when evaluated as adults. Unfortunately this study does not provide information concerning the drinking behavior of the subjects as adolescents. As a result, while the McCords' findings are suggestive, they are not directly applicable to adolescent problem drink- ing. However, from the results presented in the current study, it would appear that the role of paternal rejection may be quite different for adolescent problem drinking than for antisocial behavior. In contrast to paternal rejection, an evaluation of the relationship between maternal rejection and anti- social behavior indicated that maternal rejection was 48 not significantly related to the adolescent‘s antisocial behavior. While this result fails to support the hy- pothesized relationship, it is not a particularly sur- prising one, since the research literature has not consistently reported a strong relationship between maternal rejection and adolescent antisocial behavior. The Gluecks (1950) reported that the mothers of delin- quent boys were significantly more often indifferent or rejecting of their sons than the mothers of non- delinquents. The McCords (1960) also report a signifi- cant relationship between adult criminality and the presence of maternal rejection in adolescence. However, Bandura and Walters (1959) failed to find any clear relationship between maternal rejection and adolescent aggression. Nye (1958), using the adolescent's per- ception of his parents as being either rejecting or accepting, found only a moderate relationship between maternal rejection and antisocial behavior. From these results it would appear that the extent of the relation- ship between maternal rejection and adolescent antisocial behavior is yet to be established. In marked contrast to the above results, maternal rejection was found to be significantly related to prob- lem drinking among the adolescents in the current study. The sons of high rejecting mothers evidenced a signifi- cantly greater occurrence of problem drinking than sons 49 of low rejecting mothers. This result conforms to that of Jessor gE_§l. (1968), who also found problem drinking to be related to the mother-child affectional relation- ship. McCord and McCord (1960) reported that mothers who alternated between rejection and affection produced the highest prOportion of alcoholic sons as adults while actively affectionate mothers produced the smallest proportion. From the data presented in these studies, it would appear that adolescent problem drinking is re- lated to maternal rejection. The results discussed above indicate that the hypothesized relationship between parental rejection and adolescent antisocial behavior and problem drinking is not totally supported. While it appears that paternal rejection is related to the incidence of adolescent anti- social behavior, this relationship does not obtain for problem drinking. On the other hand, while maternal re- jection is significantly related to problem drinking this is not the case in regard to antisocial behavior. There- fore, instead of the expected general relationship between parental rejection and problem drinking and antisocial behavior, the data indicates that such a relationship depends upon which parent is rejecting and the particular deviant behavior of the adolescent that is focused upon. It had also been hypothesized that adolescents who were rejecting of their parents would display a higher 50 incidence of problem drinking and antisocial behavior than adolescents who did not reject their parents. This relationship received strong support; high rejecting adolescents were significantly higher on measures of anti- social behavior and problem drinking than adolescents who evidenced low rejection of their parents. The existence of a strong relationship between the adolescent's re- jection of his parents and antisocial behavior has been well documented in the research literature (Bandura and Walters, 1959; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Nye, 1958; Zucker, 1943). However, unlike antisocial behavior, the relation- ship between problem drinking has not been sufficiently investigated. In their study of alcoholism McCord and McCord (1960) discussed the affectional relationship of prealcoholics and their parents. From the data pre- sented by the McCords, it would appear that the attitudes of prealcoholics toward their parents in childhood are similar to those obtained in the present study. More specifically, it was reported that prealcoholics signifi- cantly more often rejected their mothers than did non- deviants. In addition, a higher proportion of pre- alcoholics than non-deviants evidenced rejection of their fathers. However, this second finding did not reach the level of statistical significance. The final prediction concerning affectional re- lations and adolescent problem drinking and antisocial 51 behavior stated that mutual rejection between parent and child would be most strongly related to problem drinking and antisocial behavior. In general this hypothesis was not supported, however an inspection of the data does reveal that the difference between groups on antisocial behavior and problem drinking were generally in the pre- dicted direction. The lowest problem drinking and antisocial behavior scores did occur among these subjects who were classified as being low in rejection of their parents and whose parents were also classified similarly. On the other hand, the highest problem drinking scores were associated with high rejecting adolescents whose parents were both classified as being high in rejection. However, contrary to expectation, the highest rate of antisocial behavior was not associated with mutually high rejection. Instead, the highest antisocial behavior scores occurred where both the adolescent and his father were classified as being high in rejection but the mother was considered to be low in rejection. Direct Controls, Antisocial Behavior, and Problem Drinking The predicted curvilinear relationship between the parental application of direct controls and adoles- cent antisocial behavior and problem drinking was not obtained in this study. Instead, the relationship 52 between maternal direct controls and antisocial behavior, while significant, was strongly linear in nature. An inspection of Figure 1 indicates that contrary to expec- tation, antisocial behavior scores tended to be lowest when associated with "lax" direct controls while the highest scores were obtained in association with the "strict" application of direct controls. The paternal application of direct controls reached the trend level (p < .11) for antisocial behavior but it also failed to conform to the hypothesized curvi- linear relationship. Once again the antisocial behavior scores tended to be lowest when associated with "lax" direct controls and to increase with increasing strict- ness of their application. However the increase in these scores were negligible between the "moderate" and "strict" application of paternal controls. The results presented above are in conflict with much of the delinquency literature which concerns itself with paternal restrictions and discipline. Nye (1958) reported that strictness of discipline by either parent was unrelated to delinquency in adolescent males. Furthermore, the amount of freedom permitted the adoles- cent was also found to be unrelated to delinquent behavior. However Nye did report that, on the basis of the totality of his data, the parental application of direct controls (i.e., discipline and restrictions) 53 was related to antisocial behavior in a "U-shaped" manner. This expectation that the rate of antisocial behavior would be greater in association with "lax" or "strict" controls than with "moderate" direct controls was not supported by the results of the present study. Glueck and Glueck (1950) also reported that lax or strict discipline tended to be associated with adoles- cent delinquent involvement while the more moderate "firm but kindly" discipline was characteristic of the parents of non-delinquents. On the other hand, Bandura and Walters (1959) reported that neither disciplining techniques nor parental restrictions differentiated between the aggressive and non-aggressive adolescent groups in their study. In reference to the results of the present study, a rather unexpected finding was that the lowest rate of antisocial behavior was associated with the "lax" applica- tion of direct controls by either parent. Most of the research and theory in the area of delinquency indicates that quite the opposite should be true. However, in actuality, the discipline and restrictions characterized as "lax" in the present study may not be accurately por- trayed as such. The approach used to classify the parents as either lax, moderate, or strict utilized the number of items endorsed and the estimated frequency with which these disciplinary acts or restrictions were applied (See 54 Appendix V). If a low score was obtained thus indicating that a limited number of items were endorsed and that the items were endorsed as occurring relatively infrequently; then the parental application of direct controls was classified as "lax". Higher scores were correspondingly classified as the "moderate" or "strict" application of direct controls. However, instead of a low score being indicative of lax direct controls, quite the opposite may be true. The low number of items endorsed may ac- tually represent a more moderate application of controls in which demands and discipline are limited but enforced in a highly consistent manner. Therefore, the relatively low number of items endorsed and a correspondingly low frequency of their application may be more an indication of the success of the parental application of direct controls rather than laxness. In addition to this possi- bility, it also appears likely that parents who are lax in their discipline of the child and place few demands and restrictions upon him may be underrepresented in the present study. These are the parents who are more likely to take less interest in their children as may have con- stituted a large proportion of the parents who did not take part in the study due to a lack of interest or unavailability. _ If the above factors were Operating in the deter- mination of the composition of the "lax" group, then the F1 (a... 55 association of this group with the lowest antisocial be- havior scores would appear to be reasonable. At the same time, the occurrence of the highest rate of antisocial behavior in conjunction with the "strict" application of direct controls does support Nye's (1958) contention that antisocial behavior occurs with greater frequency with increasing strictness of parental direct controls. Unlike antisocial behavior, adolescent problem drinking showed no relationship to the parental applica- tion of direct controls. An inspection of the Park problem drinking mean scores reveals that, in fact, there is little variation in these scores across the three levels of controls applied by either parent. There are few comparable studies against which to compare the cur- rently obtained results, however, Jessor et_§l. (1968) did report that they found the rate of problem drinking among adolescents to be the highest when they were sub- ject to limited regulations and sanctions. Due to the possibility that the present sample may contain few truly "lax" parents, the current results are difficult to evaluate in terms of the findings of Jessor gt_gl. However, in light of the extremely limited variability in problem drinking scores for the three levels of direct controls, it would appear that the extent to which direct controls are applied by the adolescents' parents has little relationship to their sons' drinking behavior. 56 Parental Model, Antisocial Behavior and Problem Drinking The hypothesis that adolescent antisocial behavior is related to the parent's own antisocial behavior re- ceived support from the results of the present study. The quality of the maternal model was found to be signifi- cantly related to the incidence of adolescent antisocial behavior. As was expected the deviant maternal model was associated with a higher incidence of antisocial be- havior than was the non-deviant model. The quality of the paternal model was also within the trend limits set for this study (p < .18) with the highest incidence of adolescent antisocial behavior occurring in conjunction with the deviant paternal model. The relationship between the parental model and adolescent antisocial behavior has been consistently reported in the research literature. As noted previously, both Nye (1958) and the Gluecks (1950) found parental antisocial behavior and unethical conduct to be positively. related to the occurrence of delinquent behavior among their adolescent sons. Robins (1966), in an investiga- tion of sociopathy in the son, reported that when either parent displayed antisocial behavior there was an increase in the incidence of antisocial behavior on the part of the child. This relationship between parental antisocial behavior and the behavior of the child was found to be 57 statistically significant for the fathers' behavior but not for the mothers'. Robins attributes the lack of statistical significance between the maternal model and the child's antisocial behavior to the limited number of mothers in the study who displayed problems of antisocial behavior. Similar results were also obtained by McCord and McCord (1960) who focused upon the criminality of the son as an adult. In this case they reported that a deviant paternal model was strongly related to the later adult criminal behavior of the son. Likewise, maternal deviance was also found to be strongly related to the son's later criminal behavior. While both the paternal and maternal models appear to be related to the adolescents' antisocial behavior, the effect associated with the paternal model in the current study is surprisingly weak in the light of pre- vious research. To some extent this disparity might be explained in terms of a differential loss of the more antisocial fathers in this study due to their lack of interest or absence from the home. However, an equally likely explanation may lie in the questionnaire which was used to assess the quality of the paternal model. An examination of this questionnaire reveals that the majority of the items deal with the parent's behavior as an adolescent. The assumption here is that this behavior is predictive of later adult behavior. In 58 actuality these behaviors may have less of a positive correlation with later adult behavior and attitudes than is supposed. In this case the questionnaire would fail to provide an adequate assessment of the present quality of the paternal model. This would be particularly true if the antisocial behavior reported is of relatively minor consequence and stage specific rather than reflect- ing a pervasive antisocial orientation. On the other hand, the stronger effect obtained in regard to the maternal model may be the result of a closer corres- pondence between prior antisocial behavior and present orientation for females. If this is the case, then the occurrence of antisocial behavior in adolescence would be more predictive of the later behavior of the female than the male. As a result, the measure currently used to assess the deviance of the parental model would be more accurate in regard to the maternal model than the paternal model. The results obtained in the present study failed to support the hypothesized relationship between the parental drinking model and adolescent problem drinking as strongly as was the case for antisocial behavior. While neither of the parental models was statistically significant, both the maternal model (p < .08) and the paternal model (p < .13) did reach the trend level. In both cases the obtained results were in the expected 59 direction with the highest problem drinking scores being obtained in conjunction with the parental model charac- terized by a high Q-F—V index. The results of the current study indicate that parents who are moderate to heavy drinkers tend to have sons who obtain higher problem drinking scores than those of parents who drink relatively infrequently. Apparently parents who drink legitimate this form of behavior for their sons. The adolescent may observe the drinking practices of his parents and their motiva- tion for drinking and, as a result, may adopt a similar pattern of alcohol usage as a symbol of adult status. This is the position taken by Maddox and McCall (1964) who conclude that "teenage drinking behavior is associated with growing up in an environment in which an important status to which he legitimately aspires, that of becoming an adult, is perceived typically as involving alcohol use." The position that the drinking behavior of the parents affects the drinking of their sons is given further support by the results of Globetti gt_§l, (1967) who report that parents who drink were more likely than abstaining parents to have children who drank. However, this relationship may only be true for parental drinking which falls within rather broadly defined limits of social acceptability and may not hold for parental alco- holism. In the latter case, the adolescent may adopt a 60 similar pattern of drinking as a means of coping with personal pressures or he may reject this pattern of behavior as a result of observing the negative con- sequences of parental alcoholism both to his parents and himself. This second possibility may account for the results reported by McCord and McCord (1960) in which the quality of the paternal drinking model was found to be unrelated to the later adult alcoholism of the son. Familial Relationships, Antisocial Behavior and Problem Drinking The correlation obtained between adolescent prob- lem drinking and antisocial behavior is indicative of a rather strong relationship between these two forms of deviant behavior and suggests that individuals who engage in one of these activities are likely to also engage in the other. However, in examining the familial factors associated with each form of socially deviant behavior it appears that a somewhat different pattern emerges in association with each. The nature of the affectional relationship be- tween parent and child appears to be of basic importance to both problem drinking and antisocial behavior. In both cases the relationship between the adolescent's deviant behavior and his rejection of his parents proved to be significant. However, this relationship was stronger 61 for antisocial behavior than for problem drinking. In terms of parental rejection of the adolescent, a dif- ferent pattern emerges. The father's rejection of his son was found to be related to adolescent antisocial behavior while maternal rejection was not. On the other hand, maternal rejection was related to problem drinking among adolescents while paternal rejection displayed no such relationship. The parental model proved to be of some impor- tance for both antisocial behavior and problem drinking among adolescents. While the only statistically signi- ficant relationship was between the maternal model and antisocial behavior, trends were noted in the case of the paternal model and for both parental models in re- lation to adolescent problem drinking. However, the parental application of direct controls proved to be related only to adolescent antisocial behavior. For both maternal and paternal controls, antisocial behavior 'was found to increase with greater strictness of direct controls. In contrast there was little variation in problem drinking among adolescents for different levels of direct controls. A general conclusion that may be drawn from these results is that both adolescent problem drinking and antisocial behavior are associated with many of the same familial variables such as rejection or the quality of 62 the parental model. However, while it may be true that they have similar relationships in common, this is not to say that they occur within the same type of familial environment. In actuality the difference between the variables associated with each form of deviant behavior suggest that they may not. Adolescent problem drinking appears to occur in an environment in which the mother is rejecting of the child and he in turn rejects his parents. Furthermore, as we have seen, the adolescent's problem drinking score tends to be highest when there is a complete mutuality of rejection in that not only does the adolescent reject his parents but both the mother and father are rejecting of him. In addition to the factor of rejection, the provision of a moderate to heavy parental drinking model also appears to be related to the occurrence of higher problem drinking scores among the adolescents. It appears reasonable that the occurrence of this type of behavior on the part of the parents facilitates the adolescent's adoption of this form of behavior. While the major characteristics of the familial environment associated with adolescent problem drinking appear to be rejection coupled with the parental presen- tation of drinking as an appropriate behavior, this does not.appear to be entirely the case for adolescent anti- social behavior. The most general characteristic that 63 can be drawn from the data on familial variables asso- ciated with this behavior appears to be familial conflict. In this particular case the rejection of the parents by the adolescent was more strongly associated with anti— social behavior than was true for problem drinking. In addition unlike problem drinking, the highest rate of antisocial behavior does not occur in conjunction with mutuality of rejection but where the father and son are both highly rejecting but the mother evidences low re- jection of the son. The possibilities of parental and parent-child conflict which might arise out of such a situation are quite apparent. In addition to these affectional patterns, the parental application of direct controls was also found to be of importance for adolescent antisocial behavior. The fact that higher levels of antisocial behavior were found with increasing strictness of the parental appli- cation of direct controls is also suggestive of familial conflict. As Nye (1958) has pointed out, attempts to control the adolescent's behavior and insure conformity primarily through the use of restrictions and discipline is relatively ineffective and is associated not only with parent-child conflict but also increased antisocial be- havior. What may be at issue here is not only the discipline and restrictions the adolescent is subject to but also a power struggle between the parent and the 64 adolescent which revolves around the question of who is in control. In summarizing the home environments associated with these two forms of deviant behavior, it would appear that problem drinking is associated with a familial environment in which the affectional relationships be- tween parent and child are best characterized as rejecting. However, this rejection is of a more subtle nature and less bound up in overt conflict than that associated with adolescent antisocial behavior. On the other hand, anti- social behavior appears to be more thoroughly associated with a familial surrounding which is characterized not only by conflict between parent and child but also be- tween the parents themselves (cf. Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Nye, 1958). For both adolescent problem drinking and antisocial behavior the quality of the parental model also appears to be of some importance and may serve to increase the probability that the adolescent will select that form of deviant behavior which corresponds to par- ental drinking practices or antisocial orientation. At best these conclusions are of a speculative nature and should be subjected to further examination. The amount of conflict, both parent-child and marital conflict, should be assessed in an attempt to determine ‘whether this factor does differentiate adolescents high in problem drinking from those that engage in antisocial 65 behavior. Such research must also carefully consider the possibility that such conflict may be a reaction on the part of the parents to the antisocial activities of the adolescent rather than a contributing factor to the development of such behavior. CHAPTER V SUMMARY The present study was designed to examine the relationship of familial affectional relations, parental model and the parental application of direct controls to problem drinking and antisocial behavior among adolescent males. It was hypothesized that parental and adolescent rejection, deviant parental models, and the lax or strict application of direct controls would be related to higher scores on measures of adolescent antisocial behavior and problem drinking. The adolescent subjects included in the present study were 103 boys, aged 16 to 18, who were juniors or seniors in high school. Measures of the antisocial be- havior of these adolescents were obtained through the use of a modified version of the Antisocial Behavior Checklist (Kulik gE_§l., 1968). A measure of adolescent problem drinking was obtained from the Park Problem Drinking Scale (Part, 1962) while the adolescent's rejection of his parents was estimated by the use of items from the Antisocial Behavior Checklist. 66 67 Data concerning the relevant parent variables were obtained from both parents of 62 percent of the adolescent sample. For the remainder, either one or both parents were missing from the home, or uncooperative in completing the study material. Measures of parental rejection of the adolescent and parental application of direct controls were obtained through the use of items from the Parent- Child Activity Inventory (Bronfenbrenner, 1961). The quality of the parental model, in terms of antisocial be- havior or drinking practices, was also determined by means of questionnaire. An assessment of parental antisocial behavior was obtained from Kalin and Williams' (in press) antisocial behavior scale. Data concerning the drinking practices of each parent was obtained through the use of items from Cahalan and Cisin's (1968) questionnaire which yields a Quantity-Frequency-Variability index. Statistical analysis demonstrated that adolescent problem drinking, the adolescent's rejection of his parents, the presence of a deviant maternal model and the application of direct controls by the mother were all significantly related to adolescent antisocial behavior. Trends in the data indicated that paternal rejection, a deviant paternal model and the application of direct con- trols by the father may also be related to antisocial behavior among adolescents. In terms of adolescent prob- lem drinking, statistically significant relationships 68 were obtained for the adolescent's rejection of his parents and maternal rejection of the adolescent. Trends in the data indicated that both the paternal and maternal models may also be related to adolescent problem drinking. On the basis of these results, the suggestion was made that two different familial environments may be asso- ciated with these two forms of deviant behavior. It was suggested that adolescent antisocial behavior may occur in a familial atmosphere of rather intense conflict while problem drinking occurs within homes that are charac- terized by a more subtle pattern of rejection between parent and child. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Bandura, An,and Walters, R. H. Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald Press,71959. Bandura, An,and Walters, R. H. Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Blacker, E., Demone, H. W., and Freeman, H. E. Drinking Behavior of Delinquent Boys. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 1965, 26, 223-237. Bronfenbrenner, U. Some Familial Antecedents of Responsibility and Leadership in Adolescents. In Petrullo, L. and Bass, B. M. (Eds.) Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Cahalan, D., and Cisin, I. H. American Drinking Practices: Summary of Findings from a National Probability Sample. I. Extent of Drinking by Population Subgroups. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 1968, 29, 130-151. Globetti, G., and Chamlin, F. Problem Drinking Among High School Students in a Mississippi Community. Mimeo, College of Arts and Sciences, Mississippi State University, July, 1966. Globetti, G., Harrison, D., and Oetinger, G. The Use and Misuse of Beverage Alcohol among High School Students in Two Mississippi Communities. Mimeo, College of Arts and Sciences, Mississippi State University, September, 1967. Glueck, S.,and Glueck, E. Unraveling Juvenile Delinguency. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. 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 and Winston, 1968. 69 70 Jones, M. C. Personality Correlates and Antecedents of Drinking Patterns in Adult Males. ‘Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, I968,'§23 2-12. Kalin, Ru.and Williams, A. F. Personality Self- descriptions of Heavy Drinking College Students. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, in press. Keller, M. The Definition of Alcoholism and Estimation of its Prevalence. In Pittman, D. J. and Snyder, C. (Eds.) Society, Culture and Drinking Patterns. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Kulik, J. A., Stein, K. B., and Sarbin, T. R. Dimensions and Patterns of Adolescent Antisocial Behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 375-382. MacKay, J. R. Problem Drinking among Juvenile Delin- quents. Crime and Delinquency, 1963, 9, 29-38. Maddox, G. L., and McCall, B. C. Drinking among Teen- a ers. New Brunswick, N. J. Rutgers Center of A co 01 Studies, 1964. McCord, J., and McCord, W. The Effects of Parental Role Model on Criminality. Journal of Social Issue, 1958, 14, 66-75. McCord, J., and McCord, W. Origins ofAlcoholism. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1960. Nye, F. I., and Short, J. F. Scaling Delinquent Be- havior. American Sociolggical Review, 1957, 22, 326—331. Park, P. Problem Drinking and Role Deviation. In Pittman, D. J., and Snyder, C. (Eds.) Society, Culturey and Drinking Patterns. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Robins, L. N.' Deviant Children Grown Up: A Sociological and Psychiatric Study of Socigpathic Personality. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1966. Siegman, A. W. Father Absence During Early Childhood and Antisocial Behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 11, 71-74. 71 Williams, A. F. Self-concepts of College Problem Drinkers. I. A Comparison with Alcoholics. 'Quarterl Journal of Studies on Alcohol, l965,‘2§, 586-594. Williams, A. F. Validation of a College Problem Drinking Scale. Journal of Projective TechniqueS'and Personality Assessment, 1967, :1, 33-40. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Zucker, H. J. Affectional Identification and Delinquency. Archives of Psychology, 1943, 40, 286. Zucker, R. A. Genesis of Problem Drinking and Normal Drinking in Adolescents. Mimeo, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1968. Zucker, R. A. and Fillmore, K. M. Motivational Factors and Problem Drinking among Adolescents. Paper presented at the symposium on "Educational Implications of Recent Adolescent Drinking Re- search," at the International Congress on Alcohol and Alcoholism, Washington, D.C., September, 1968. APPENDICES L-.. _ APPENDIX I Park Problem Drinking Scale Park Problem Drinking Scale (Subject answers yes or no) Have you ever felt that you might become dependent on or addicted to the use of alcoholic beverages? Have you ever feared the long range of consequences of your own drinking? Do you like to be one or two drinks ahead without others knowing it? Have you ever gone on the water wagon (stopped drinking completely for a period of time) as the result of self—decision or the advice of your family or friends? Have you ever gone on a week-end drinking spree (been high or tight most of Saturday and Sunday with nothing worse than a hangover on Monday)? Score one if any of the following questions (7a-7f) is answered yes: 7a. 7b. 7c. 7d. 7e. 7f. Have you ever been arrested or detained or charged because of drunken driving or other behaviors re- sulting from drinking? Have you ever come before school authorities in connection with drinking? Have you ever had alcohol interfere with your pre- paration for classes or exams? Has the use of alcohol ever caused you to miss appointments? Has the use of alcohol ever caused you to not be able to afford other things because of the expense of liquor? Has the use of alcohol ever caused you to lose close friends or other friendships? 72 73 Score one for each "yes" answer: 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. Have you ever gotten into a fight or damaged prOperty while you were drinking? Have you ever had a drink or two before or instead of breakfast? Have you ever drunk so much that you could not remember afterwards some of the things you had done? Have you ever had some drinks when you were alone? Have you ever been drunk? Drinks one or more times a week and on the average consumes at least four drinks per occasion. (Deter- mined from subject's drinking reports.) APPENDIX I I Adolescent Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire Adolescent Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire Following is a list of activities and things you may have done. Indicate to what extent you have done each of them since beginning grade school. If If If If If you have never done the activity, blacken in the space under "0." you have done the activity once or twice, blacken in the space under "1," you have done the activity several times, blacken in the space under "2." you have done the activity often, blacken in the space under "3." you have done the activity very often, blacken in the space under "4." 1. 11. 12. Gone against your parents' wishes? Defied your parents' authority (to their face)? Shouted at your mother or father? Cursed at your mother or father? Struck your mother or father? Smoked against parents' wishes? Skipped school without a legitimate excuse? Cheated on a class test? Received a ticket for speeding? Caused teachers a lot of trouble by cutting up in school? Been sent to the principal because of trouble you'd gotten into? "Run away" from home? 74 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 75 Driven a car without a driver's license or permit? (Do not include driver training courses). Been drunk? Been out past one A.M. when you were not accom- panied by an adult? Stayed out overnight without your parents' per- mission? Taken part in a "gang fight"? "Beaten up" on a kid who hadn't done anything to you? Obtained alcohol by having older friends buy it for you? Driven a car when drinking (or right after drinking)? Been expelled from school? Carried a phony ID card? Gotten into a fight or damaged property while you were drinking (or right after)? Played poker or shot craps or other gambling for money? Stopped someone on the street, and asked for money? Broken street lights or windows or car radio antennas for the fun of it? Crashed a party? Snuck into some place of entertainment (movie theatre, ball game, drive-in) without paying admission? Killed or tortured some animal (bird, cat, dog, frog) just for fun? Carried a switchblade or other weapon? Had a drink or two before or instead of break- fast? 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 76 Drunk so much that you could not remember after- wards some of the things you had done? Sniffed "glue" or taken "bennies" for kicks? Gone for a ride in a car someone had stolen? Taken little things (less than $2) that did not belong to you? Taken things of medium value (between $2 and $50) that did not belong to you? Stolen things from a car (hubcaps, etc.)? Bought or accepted property that you knew was stolen? Bought alcohol or gone drinking in New York? Taken a car for a ride without the owner's per- mission? Purposely damaged, marked up, or destroyed public or private pr0perty that did not belong to you? Gone "all the way" (sexual relations) with a person of the opposite sex? Had sexual relations while you were drinking (or right after drinking)? Been loud or disorderly in a public place? Exposed yourself indecently in public? Taken things of large value (over $50) that did not belong to you? Gone speeding or driving recklessly? Snatched a woman's purse from her? Been questioned by police? Smoked Marijuana? Cursed at a teacher? Hit a teacher? 53. 54. 55. 56a. 56b. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 77 Taken something from a store without paying for it? Taken things from someone's locker that didn‘t belong to you? Broken into a store, home, warehouse, or some other such place in order to steal something? (for boys) Had sexual relations with another male? (for girls) Had sexual relations with another female? Used "over-the-counter" drugs to get a high? Been in a fight which led to a "stomping"? Done any necking? Driven a car while drunk? Done any petting? Taken part in any robbery? Had some drinks when you were alone? Been arrested? Used narcotic or psychedelic drugs (other than marijuana)? Gone around with friends or companions who have been arrested? Gone around with friends or companions who have spent some time in a reform school or correc- tional institution? Quit a job? "Stood someone up" for a date or appointment? 78 70. Used an alias (a name you made up or that was not your own)? Scoring Scores were assigned according to the code above. The scores for each item were then totaled to provide a summary score of antisocial behavior. APPENDIX I I I Quantity-Frequency-Variability Drinking Index Quantity—Frequency-Variability Drinking Index The Q-F-V index was utilized to assess the drink- ing practices of the parents included in the present study and to classify them in terms of the drinking model they presented. The Q-F-V index took into consideration the type of beverage consumed, amount, frequency, and the variability of drinking. The variability was assessed by the most usual amount consumed (modal quanity) and the highest amount consumed at least occasionally. The quantity and variability dimension of the Q-F-V index were determined through the use of the follow- ing questions. (The questions below were also asked for beer and liquor.) a. When you are drinking, what proportion of the time are you likely to drink wine (or a punch containing wine) rather than some other kind of drink? (CHECK ONE ANSWER) a. Nearly every time. . . . . . . . a b. Most of the time . . . . . . . . b c. More than half the time. . . . . c d. About half the time. . . . . . . d e. Less than half the time. . . . . e f. Once in a while. . . . . . . . . f 9. Never. . . . . . . . . . . . . . g 79 80 When you drink wine (or a punch containing wine) how much do you usuaIIy drink at one time? ANSWER) a. Less than one glass. b. About one glass. . . c. 2 glasses. . . . . . d. 3 glasses. . . . . . e. 4-6 glasses. . . . . f. 7-9 glasses. . . . . g. More than 9 glasses. The answers given to the (CHECK ONE LQH'nOQJOU'DJ above questions provide the data to establish the subject's quantity-variability classification is generated as follows: Code Modal* Quantity 1 5 or more drinks 2 3 drinks 3-4 3 drinks 5 3 drinks 6-7 2 drinks 8 2 drinks 9 l or 2 drinks 10 1 or 2 drinks 11 l or 2 drinks 12 less than one drink 13 less than one drink 14 Never drink any alcoholic beverage U! I—‘LOUJU'I U'IWU1U1 2 Maximum Usual Quantity or more time" or more time" or more - "less or more time" or more - "less - "once or 2 - time" or more time" "1 drink" drink" than 8 or - "less than 8 the - "less than k the - "once in a while" than 8 the time" - "less than k the - "once in a while" than k the time" in a while" "less than k the or "once in a while" - "less than k the "once in a while" or "less than one for either "less the time" or "once in a while" *The usual quantity in the beverage usually consumed. Frequency of Drinking any Alcoholic Beverage 81 Quantity-Variability Class for Beverage Drunk Most Often (high) l|23456789 10 11 12 (low) 13 3 or more times a day *' HEAVY 2 times a day DRINKERS Once a day Nearly every day 3-4 times‘ a day MODERATE 1-2 times“ a week , DRINKERS 2-3 times” a month Once a month LIGHT DRINKERS A few thmsa year Once a year INFREQUENT DRINKERS IL Less than once a year Once or twice in life ABSTAINERS db Never Figure 2. Quantity-Frequency-Variability Classifications APPENDIX IV Kalin and William's Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Kalin and William's Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire As a youngster in school I used to give the teachers a lot of trouble. In school I was sometimes sent to the principal for cutting up. During one period when I was a youngster I engaged in petty thievery. I used to steal sometimes when I was a youngster. In school my marks in deportment were quite regularly bad. I have often either broken rules (school, club, etc.) or inwardly rebelled against them. I played hooky from school quite often as a youngster. As a youngster I was suspended from school one or more times for cutting up. I have often gone against my parents' wishes. Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. My parents have often objected to the kind of people I went around with. I have always hated regulations. I enjoy playing cards for money. I find that a well-ordered mode of life with regular hours is not congenial to my temperament. At times I feel like picking a fist fight with some- one. I enjoy a race or game better when I bet on it. I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think. I often lose my temper. 82 83 19. I enjoy gambling for small stakes. 20. One should not give free rein to the passions, but rather control them before expressing them. 21. I do not like to see women smoke. 22. I have used alcohol moderately (or not at all). 23. I have never indulged in any unusual sex practices. 24. I have never been in trouble with the law. Scoring The above statements were presented in a true- false format in which one point was scored for each "true" response to items 1-19 and for each "false" response to items 20-24. The item scores are then totaled to provide a measure of antisocial behavior. APPENDIX V Measures of Rejection and Direct Controls from the Parent-Child Activity Inventory Measures of Rejection and Direct Controls from the Parent-Child Activity Inventory In this section we are interested in how parentS“ act with their children. Read each.item and then indicate' the extent to which it applies to your way of acting with your child §§_hg.(§hgl_w2§ growing up, Please use the following scale: 0 = definitely does not apply, something that I would never do, or that never happened. 1 = applies only a little, happened only occasionally. 2 = applies fairly well, happened fairly often but not regularly. 3 = applies well, a usual thing to happen between me and him (or a usual thing that I would do). 4 = applies strongly, outstanding--extremely likely to happen between us (or extremely likely that I would do this). (The measure of parental rejection consisting of the Expressive Rejection and Neglect item clusters appears below.) Expressive Rejection Nagged, scolded, or yelled at him. Ridiculed and made fun of him. Complained about him. Compared him unfavorably to other children. Went out of the way to hurt his feelings. Neglect Completely ignored him. Avoided his company. Forgot his birthday. Kept forgetting things I was supposed to do for him. Paid no attention to him. WDWNH QWNH o o o 0 U1 0 84 85 (The measure of parental application of direct controls consisting of the Power, Physical Punishment and Threat, Deprivation of Priviledge or Property, and Social Isolation item clusters appears below.) Power 1. Decided how late he could stay out. 2. Decided how much spending money he could have. 3. Decided what friends he could go around with. 4. Decided what shows, movies, or parties he could go to. 5. Decided on what music lessons, camp, or after- school activities he could have. Physical Punishment and Threat 1. Slapped him. 2. Spanked him. 3. Threatened physical punishment. 4. Hit him with switch, stick, fist, or belt. 5. Cursed at him. Deprivation of Priviledge or Prgperty 1. Punished him by taking away allowance. 2. Punished him by taking away priviledge. 3. Punished him by taking away his favorite posses- sions. 4. Punished him by not allowing him to go out. 5. Punished him by making him do work. Social Isolation l. Punished him by sending him out of the room. 2. Punished him by not allowing him to be with his friends. . Punished him by locking him up. 4. Punished him by ignoring him until he was good again. 5. Punished him by sending him to bed. Scoring The score assigned to the answer given for each item was made according to the scale presented above (0-4). 86 These scores were then summed over the items in each cluster and the cluster scores added to provide a score for rejection and direct controls respectively. APPENDIX VI Intercorrelations between the original item clusters concerning parental rejection and discipline from the Parent-Child Activity Inventory Intercorrelations between the original item clusters concerning parental rejection and discipline from the Parent-Child Activity Inventory Intercorrelations of the original item clusters concerned with affectional relations.a Ex. Rej. Neg. Nur. Aff. Aff. C. Aff. R. EX. Rej. .51 -015 -016 -010 -026 Neg. .27 -.42 -.14 -.25 -.28 Nur. -.28 -.29 .55 .38 .61 Aff. * -.15 -.09 .50 .50 .70 Aff. C. -.21 -.20 .36 .51 .42 Aff. R. -.14 -.12 .54 .58 .31 J aCorrelations on father data are given above the diagonal and mother data below the diagonal. Key Ex. Rej. = Expressive Rejection Neg. = Neglect Nur. = Nurturance Aff. = Affection Aff. C. = Affiliative Companionship Aff. R. = Affective Reward Intercorrelations of the original item clusters concerned with parental discipline.a Pow PPT DPP SI Ind Pow .31 .42 .33 .09 PPT .29 .37 .50 .04 DPP .28 .32 .42 -.10 SI .25 .58 .47 .03 Ind. .06 -.04 .03 .02 aCorrelations on father data are given above the diagonal and mother data below the diagonal. 87 88 52:: Pow - Power PPT = Physical Punishment and Threat DPP = Deprivation of Priviledge or Property SI = Social Isolation Ind = Indulgence APPENDIX VII Tables of Means for Analyses l, 2, 6-10 Tables of Means for Analyses l, 2 6-10 Table VII.1 Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for adolescent rejection x paternal rejec- tion x maternal rejection analysis of variance. Adolescent High Rejection Paternal Rejection Low High High 22.5 36.9 Maternal Rejection Low 37.4 42.3 Adolescent Low Rejection Paternal Rejection Low High High 28 28.3 Maternal Rejection Low 18.? 23.6 Table VII.2 Adolescent Park problem drinking mean scores for adolescent rejection x paternal rejection x maternal rejection analysis of variance Adolescent High Rejection Paternal Rejection Low High High 1.5 4.4 Maternal Rejection Low 3.0 3.4 89 9O Adolescent Low Rejection Paternal Rejection Low High High 3.5 3.2 Maternal Rejection ) Low 1.8 1.9 Table VII.3 Adolescent Park problem drinking mean scores for levels of parental direct controls. Mother Controls Father Controls Mother Lax Moderate Strict Main Effect * Mean 0-.80 .90-l.20 1.25-1.8. Item Scorea Strict 1.40-2.20 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.53 Moderat 1.0-1.35 2.4 2.3 3.0 2.57 Lax 1 0 - .95 2.2 2.0 3.3 2.50 Father Main Effect 2.87 2.57 3.17 aMean item score is based upon the following scoring code: 0 = definitely does not apply; 1 = applies only a little; 2 = applies fairly well; 3 = applies well; 4 = applies strongly, outstanding. The mean item score indicates the range of the average score obtained for all twenty items for the subjects in each level of direct controls. 91 Table VII.4 Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for parental antisocial behavior model. Maternal Model Paternal Model Maternal Model Main Effect Non-Deviant Deviant Deviant 39.6 38.2 38.90 Non-Deviant 26.3 33.3 29.80 Paternal Model Main Effect 32.95 35.75 Table VII.5 Adolescent Park problem drinking mean scores for parental drinking model based on Q-F-V index. Maternal Q-F-V Paternal Q-F-V Maternal Model Main Effect Low High High 2.6 3.5 3.05 Low 2.5 2.8 2.65 Paternal Model Main Effect 2.55 3.15 Table VII.6 Adolescent antisocial behavior mean scores for paternal model and rejection. -; Rejection Model Rejection ~v Main Effect Non-Deviant Deviant High 30 43.1 36.55 Low 27.8 29.1 28.45 Model Main Effect 28.9 36.1 Table VII.7 92 Adolescent Park problem drinking mean scores for paternal rejection and model based on Q-F-V index. Rejection Paternal Q-F-V Rejection Main Effect Low High - High 2.5 3.73 3.12 Low 2.25 2.89 2.57 Model Main Effect 2.38 3.31 ”L 1 3 1959 MICHIGAN STGTE UNIV. LIBRARIES 31293101279424