wt—Rm .u... ‘

 

   

 

 

,
«Man? if... .

 

. .mq

 

F t
, 95
: ..
. mar
.S
2.83.“ :

LR... L...

.«‘ml

19...:

 

 

 

s
- mwuai.
.4?

 

.
‘rtut

 

(‘9

. z. ‘ 5...
.252;
unit).

"I. ti: 1::
w.

J ‘. Enk‘l.

2:1 .. :i z . .mmmfiwm

 

2.31:. .321... . ,

 

 

IHIWIIIUlllHilHUHlHlllllHHHUHHllllllHlllllHl

3 1293 01565 022

 

YHESIS
/ z ,,
‘ " LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEMALE ADOLESCENT DRUG USE
AND DRUG USE ATTITUDES AND PERCEIYED PARENTING STYLE
IN UPPERgeMIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

presented by

Christopher A. Branton

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Child Deizelopment

KW,

 

Major professor

Date 12/20/96

07639 MS U is an Afimative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or bdoro date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE" DATE DUE

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU IoAnNfirmdlvo Mon/Equal Opportunity Intuition
Wm:

 

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEMALE ADOLESCENT DRUG USE
AND DRUG USE ATTITUDES AND PERCEIVED PARENTING STYLE
IN UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
BY

Christopher A. Brenton

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1996

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEMALE ADOLESCENT DRUG USE
AND DRUG USE ATTITUDES AND PERCEIVED PARENTING STYLE
IN UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

By
Christopher A Branton

This study examined the relationship between upper-middle class.
female adolescents' behaviors and attitudes regarding drug use and their
perceptions of their own parents' style of parenting (i.e. permissive,
authoritative. or authoritarian). The primary focus of the study was the
relationship between self-reported drug use and perceived parenting style.
The relationshipbetweendrug useattitudesand perceivedparentingstyle
was also investigated.

The results indicatethatfemaleadolescentswhoperceivedtheir
parentstohavehadamoreperrnissivestyleweremostlikelytousedmgs
and have liberal drug use attitudes. Thosewhoperceivedtheirparentsto
have employed a more authoritarian stylewere least likely to use drugs and
had conservative dmg use attitudes. Finally. female adolescents who
perceMd an authoritative style in their parents' approach were less likely to
usedmgsthanthosewho perceiveda permissive style. butmmorelikely
to use drugs than those who perceived their parents to have used an
authoritarian style. Similarly. with regard to drug use attitudes. female
adolescentswho perceived an authoritativestyle bytheir parents had more
consewafiveviewsthanthosewhoperceivedtheirparentstobepennissive.
butmoreliberalviewsthanthosewho perceivedtheirparentstobe
authoritarian.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A work such as this would not have been possible without the help of
numerous individuals, including my family, my graduate adviser, Dr. Robert
Boger, and the rest of my committee, and the staff of the Department of Family
and Child Ecology at Michigan State University. I have received invaluable
academic and financial support, without which this publication would never have
been completed. Further, I have received continuous encouragement throughout
the writing of this thesis that has allowed me to successfully fulfill my degree
requirements. I pray that, one day, this paper may be used to further educate
anyone who is interested in the healthy development of children. Again, I give my

sincere thanks to all who were involved in helping me to complete this work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. INIRQMIIQN
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Importance of the Problem 2
Research Objectives 3
Theoretical Framework 3
Conceptual & Operational Definitions 8
Assumptions 12
II. BEVIEIALQELIIEBAILIBE
Review of Literature 13
Research Questions 20
III. W
Research Predictions 12
Research Hypotheses 23
Research Design 25
Decision Rule 25
Research Procedure 25
Sample Selection 26
Sample Description 26
Instrumentation 27
Data Analysis 29
IV. RESULIS
Research Findings 30
V. DLSQDSSIQN
Implications for Human Ecology Theory 43
Individual Second Order Effects 44
VI. W
Limitations of the Study 49
Conclusions and Implications for Future
Research 50
AEEENDICES
A. UCRIHS Approval Letter 53
B. Parent Attitude / Drug Use Survey 55
C. Two-Factor Index of Social Position 65
D. Timeline for Work 75

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF REFERENCES

vi

vii

76

LIST OF TABLES

little

1. Pearson Correlation Coefficients
between Independent and Dependent
Variables

239$

38

 

2. Linear Regression Analyses

3. Correlations of Subjects' Mean
Individual Parenting Style Scores

4. Correlations of Subjects' Reported

Actual Drug Use and Drug Use
Attitudes

vi

39

4O

41

LIST OF FIGURES

Home

1. The Relationship Between Female Adolescent Drug
Use and Drug Use Attitudes and Perceived Parenting
Style in Upper-Middle Class Families Model

2. Histogram of Subjects' Reported Frequency
of Drug Use

vii

42

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION
Introduction

Over the past decade, dmg, alcohol, and cigarette use have come to
be seen as significant health problems. These problems are not characteristic
of adults, only. One third of all high school seniors report having drunk at
least five drinks in a row at least Once in 'a two week period; Seventeen
percent report monthly use of marijuana. and nineteen percent smoke
cigarettes on a daily basis (Bachman, et al., 1991; National Institute on Drug
Abuse, 1990). Research, over the years. has generally supported the cairn
that lover-class youth are overrepresented in rates of substance abuse and
other types of delinquency. Some studies, however, have concluded that
upper-class youth are more likely to be drug users or delinquent (Williams 8
Gold, 1972; Drug Abuse Council, 1975). It appears, from the differences in
thesestrrdieswthatyouth atbothendsoftheeconornicspectrurn,areatrisk.

In a recent study, (Lorch,1990), student self-reports showed that
substance abuse and other types of delinquency were most predominant
among Iower-classyouth,withanunexpectedsecondplacefinishbythose
youth from upper-class families. How could this be? Adolescents from
familieswitheducated parentsandacomfortableincomewerealsoexhibiting
high levels of drug abuse and delinquency. Unlike adolescents from families
with Iittlematerialwealth,onecanassumethatadolescentsfrom upper-or
upper-middledassfamiliesarenotafiectedbymesuessoflackofeoonomic
resources. The so-celled, “rich kids”, have problems that are generally
considemdlessimpactingwhenwmparedtothoseofyouthinpoverty. They
donothavetoworryaboutwhetherornottherewill beenough moneyfor

1

food or clothing, or if they will be the victim of a drive-by shooting on the way
to school. They have well educated parents, with good jobs and more than
enough money to provide life's basic necessities. Why, then, are the
incidence rates of drug and alcohol use the same for these two vastly different
groups of youth? At this point, it is necessary to focus upon a non-economic
variable that is common among all adolescents: the quality and style of
parenting that a child has received throughout his/her lifetime.

Statement Of The Problem

This study investigated the relationship between female adolescent
drug use and perceived parenting style. Smcificelly, the study investigated
therelationshipbetweenfemaleadolescentdrug useanddruguseattitudes
and the perceived style of parenting exhibited by parents in upper-middle
class families as reported by undergraduate students at Michigan State
University, in East Lansing, Michigan.

Importance Of The Problem

Asubstantial numberofarticleshavebeenwr'ittenwlthregardto
adolescent substance abuse in Iowa-class families (Lester, 1992; Turner. et
al.,1991), buttherehasbenveryfrttleresearchdcnewithadolescehtsfrom
upper-middle class families. The purpose of this study. therefore, was to
showerelationshipbetweenadolescentdruguseand upper-middleclass
parenting styles. Theresultsmaylendthernselvestofurtherresearchonthe
problem, and following more extensive research, solutions may be offered to

reduce the rates of drug use by adolescents by focusing upon the quality and
style of parenting that they receive as they are growing up.

Research Objectives

The overall purpose of this research was to investigate the relationship
between adolescent drug use and perceived parenting style in upper-middle
class families. In order to reach this goal, the following, morespecific
research objectives were developed:

”To investigate the relationship between adolescent drug use
and drug use attitudes and permissive parenting in upper-middle
class families as measured by the ”Parent Attitude I Drug Use
Survey".

‘To investigate the relationship between adolescent dmg use and drug
use attitudes and authoritarian parenting in upper-middle class
families as measured by the "Parent Attitude I Drug Use Survey“.

‘To investigate the relationship between adolescent drug use and drug
use attitudes and authoritative parenting in upper-middle class
families as measured by the ”Parent Attitude I Drug Use Survey".

Theoretical Framework

Thetheoreticalframeworkforthis studyisfocusedupon human
ecologytheory(8ubolz&Sontag,1993). Asdefined byBubolz&Sontag, the

family, in continuous interaction with its environment, constitutes an
ecosystem. The whole and its parts are interdependent, and they operate in
relation to each other.

Human ecology theory involves several levels that are applicable to this
study. In particular, the concept of human-derived rules (i.e. social norms,
distribution of power. traditions, etc.) are one way that interactions are
governed within the ecosystem. The independent variables that are being
measured in this study (permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative parenting
styles) are indicative of the manner in which these human-derived rules are
employed. Permissive parents employ few rules and little control over their
children, allowing for loose boundaries within the ecosystem. The children are
moreorlessfreetodoastheywish, withouttheconsequenceofbreakingany
rules. Authoritarian parentsemploystrictrulesand much controlovertheir
children, causing the ecosystem's boundaries to be very rigid. These children
have littleautonomyindecision making, andalwaysruntheriskofbreaking
one ofthe many rules laid down by their parents. Lastly, authoritative parents.
employing clear and consistent rules and control over their children, are
sensitive to the child's need for independence. These children have many
opportunitiesforautonomy and independence. butitis inthecontextofa
loving and caring parental overseer to guide and protect the child.

Further, decision making, the central control process in families,
directs actions for attaining individual and family goals (Bubolz 8r Sontag,
1993). Like human-derived rules. careful decision making is paramount to the
successful functioning of the family ecosystem. With regard to children,
parental decision making can have positiveornegativeeffectsuponthe
children within the system. These effects can be either dimct or indirect. For
example, ifa parent makesthedecisiontotakeapromotion. itmaybe

considered a personal career opportunity. However, that decision has
indirectly effected the entire family system. The family may have to relocate,
and if that is the case, there will be new and unfamiliar people and
environments with which the family must interact. These interactions may be
positive, like the forming of new friendships, or negative, like becoming
involved in delinquent activities. as far as the children are concerned.

Decision making within the family ecosystem is not dependent upon
socioeconomic status, race, culture, or location. It is a process that goes on
in all families (not necessarily in the same way) that effects every member of
that family; positively or negatively, directly or indirectly.

With regard to the this study, the context of upperomiddle class families
was chosen for its unique qualities that have an effect upon the members of
the family system. Typically, in upper-middle class families, both parents are
involved in some kind of comer. This career usually takes up ‘a substantial
amount of the parent's time and energy, and also creates additional stress
that has the potentialtoaffectthe membersofhislherfamilywhen helshe
returns home. Further, the upper-middle class society stresses financial
competition and high educational expectations. If the child, in this context.
doesnotliveuptotheseperentalexpectations, helshe mayexperience
feelings of inadequacy or inferiority. A child that experiences these kinds of
feelings may be more likely to use drugs. Simply, parental decision making
(or parenting style) has an effect on adolescent decision making (whether or
not to use dnrgs), as energy flows throughout the system and all parts
interact.

According to human ecology theory. the ecosystem is dynamic and in a
state of continuous change, over time. This change occurs via the flow of
energy throughout the system. The system has permeable boundaries that

allow energy to flow in, out, and throughout it. Energy can take many forms,
from personal decision making and conforming to societal norms, to the
simple giving and receiving of a hug.

The visual representation of the conceptual model for this study is
illustrated in Figure ( 1). The figure shows an upper-middle class family
system, with two parents and one child. The parents, both, have a
relationship with each other and with their child. The energy that flows, here,
is known as the primary effects. Each dyad (mother-father, father-adolescent,
mother-adolescent) has a relationship that can effect each member of the
family, individually. This energy represents the second order effects. Finally,
each dyadic relationship can effect another dyadic relationship within the
family system, and this energy transfer is known as third order effects. The
relationship upon which this study has focused is the secondary effect of the
mother-father dyad upon the adolescent (i.e. the effect of parenting style upon
the adolescent). The visual representation of this conceptual model is shown

in Figure 1, on the following page:

FIGURE 1

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEMALE ADOLESCENT DRUG USE
(AND DRUG USE ATTITUDES) AND PERCEIVED PARENTING STYLE
IN UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES

 

 

 

 

   

UPPER-MIDDLE
CLASS FAMILY
SYSTEM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRuc USE
ATTITUDES
KEY: ARROWS REPRESENT FLOW or: ENERGY
C > PRIMARY EFFECTS

 

é>»» SECOND ORDER EFFECTS

E a THIRD ORDER EFFECTS

7

Conceptual & Operational Definitions

WM

Conceptual:

Operational:

Conceptual:

Operational:

Conceptual:

Operational:

FEMALE ADOLESCENT DRUG USE

Female adolescent drug use refers to those females, in
grade twelve, who report the use of marijuana and/or
alcohol.

Female adolescent drug use was measured using the - ,
”Parent Attitude I Drug Use Survey”, which is derived
fromasurveydesigned bytheSearch lnstitutein
Minneapolis, Minnesota (Search Institute, 1990).

FEMALE ADOLESCENT ALCOHOL USE

Femaleadolesoentalcohol usereferstothosefemale
adolescents.withinthesample,whoreporttheuseof
alcohol during their senior yearof high school.
Femaleadolescentalcohol usewasmeasured using
the ”ParentAttitude/Drug Use Survey".

FEMALE ADOLESCENT MARIJUANA USE

Female adolescent marijuana use refers to those
female adolescents. within the sample, who report the
use of marijuana during their senior year of high school.
Female adolescent marijuana use was measured using
the "Parent Attitude! Drug Use Survey".

FEMALE ADOLESCENT DRUG USE ATTITUDES
Conceptual: Female adolescent drug use attitudes refers to the way
a subject, within the sample, feels about the use of,
potential risks. and problems associated with a particular
drug.
Operational: Female adolescent drug use attitudes was measured
using the ”Parent Attitude I Dnrg Use Survey".

FEMALE ADOLESCENT ALCOHOL ATTITUDES
Conceptual: Female adolescent alcohol attitudes refers to the way
an adolescent, within the sample, thinks about alcohol
with regard to risks. potential problems. and personal
choice.
Operational: Female adolescent alcohol attitudes was measured
using the ”Parent Attitude! Drug Use Survey”.

FEMALE ADOLESCENT MARIJUANA ATTITUDES
Conceptual: Female adolescent marijuana attitudes refers to the
way an adolescent, within the sample, thinks about
marijuana with regard to risks, potential problems, and
personal choice.
Operational: Female adolescent marijuana attitudes was measured
using the ”Parent Attitude I Drug Use Survey“.

10

Independemxan'ables
PERCEIVED PARENTING STYLE
Conceptual: Perceived parenting style refers to the way in which

Operational:

Conceptual:

Operational:

an adolescent, within the sample, perceives her own
parents' behavior with mgard to her own upbringing.
Parenting style refers to the manner in which the

parent exhibits parenting behaviors toward their child,
incIUding'the Showing IoVe. discipline, the use of rules
and regulations, autonomy of decision making, and
support. There are three styles, or prototypes, of interest
as defined by Diana Baumrind, in 1971: permissive,
authoritative. and authoritarian.

Perceived parentingstylewill bemeasured usingapartof
the "ParentAttitudeI Drug Use Survey", known asthe
"Parental Authority Questionnaire", or PAO. It is
designed to elicit the child's opinion of hisIher parent's
style, or prototype. as defined by Baumrind (1971).

PERMISSIVE PARENTING
Permissive parentingreferstothoseparentsthatset
few limits for their child. They are accepting of their
child's impulses and appear cool and uninvolved. They
OXI'IIDI‘I high levels of acceptance with low levels of
discipline, as defined by Baumrind (1971).
Permissive parenting was measured using the "Parent
Attitude I Drug Use Survey".

Conceptual:

Operational:

Conceptual:

Operational:

990mm

11

AUTHORITARIAN PARENTING
Authoritarian parenting refers to those parents who
exercise firm control. in a power-oriented fashion, without

regard to their child's individuality. They emphasize

. control, with limited nurturance or support to achieve it

They exhibit low levels of acceptance with high levels of
discipline, as defined by Baumrind (1971).

Authoritarian parenting was 'measlired using the
"Parent Attitude I Drug Use Survey".

AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING
Authoritative parenting refers to those parents who
exercise firm control of the child's behavior, but also
emphasize the individuality and independence of the
child. Control is balanced with support and
nurturance. and they exhibit high levels of acceptance
with high levels of discipline, as defined by Baumrind
(1971)
Authoritative parenting was measured using the
"Parent Attitude I Drug Use Survey".

UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

Conceptual:

Operational:

Upper-middle class refers to those adolescents whose
total family income is at least $80,000, and at least one
parent has a post-secondary education.

Upper-middle class socioeconomic status was

12

measured using the "Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of
Social Position", which measures both level of education

and level of income.

GENDER - FEMALE

Conceptual: The female gender refers to those subjects who reported
to be female.
Operational: Gender was measured using one question on the "Parent

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Attitude I Drug Use Survey".

Research Assumptions

Lack of economic resources is not a stress that affects the adolescents

within the sampling frame.

The quality and style of parenting that a child receives throughout
his/her life will have a significant impact upon the types of behavior that
he/she will exhibit.

Female adolescent drug use may be the result of a combination of

factors.

Female adolescents that have more liberal drug use attitudes are more

likely to use drugs than those who have more conservative attitudes.

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review Of Literature

As stated earlier, the theoretical model for this research is human
ecology theory (Bubolz 8r Sontag, 1993). The basic premise is that the family
is in continuous transaction with its environment and is a part of a functional
ecosystem. All parts of the family ecosystem are interdependent and operate
in relation to each other and to the larger contexts of the family system. A
very similar perspective, by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) is known as
ecological theory. The following excerpt, by Bronfenbrenner, defines the

ecology of human development as:

the scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation between
an active. growing human being and the changing properties of the
immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this

is affected by relations beMeen those settings, and by the larger
contexts in which those settings are embedded (Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
p. 21).

The smallest settings in which the family members are embedded are known
as microsystems. For example, a child is involved in a school microsystem,
while a parent is involved in a career microsystem. Each member has
multiple microsystems in which heIshe is embedded. and the combination of
all ofthem is known asthe mesosystem, which isthe Iargercontext in whidi
the individual is involved. Another system, the exosystem, refers to one or
more settings that do not involve the individual, but in which events occur that
affect, or are affected by, what happens in the setting containing the individual
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The last of Bronfenbrenner‘s systems is knovm as
the macrosystem, which is defined as the "cultural milieu", or societal

13

14

surroundings, and encompasses the individual's microsystems, mesosystems,
and exosystems. For the purposes of this study, the upper-middle class
macrosystem will be of primary concern.

Utilizing this theoretical model, this research seeks to investigate the
children's perceptions of the transactions that their upper-middle class parents
had with them, and whether or not these transactions have any relationship to
these adolescents' drug use or drug use attitudes while in high school.

Much research has focused upon the relationship between substance
abuse and poverty (Braithwaite, 1981; Eliot 8r Ageton, 1980). A study done in
Toronto, Canada, by Smart (1994), suggested that the highest rate of
adolescent drug and alcohol use was found in areas with the lowest
socioeconomic characteristics. These characteristics, specifically, were:
areas with the highest rates of single-parent households and those with low
overall family incomes. Smart also found that areas with low standard,
government subsidized housing had social and racial problems, in addition to
problems with drugs and delinquency.

One study, by Lorch (1990), suggested that upper-class youth are just
as likely as lower-class youth to be substance abusers. Based upon an
evaluation of student self-report questionnaires, Lorch found a curvilinear
relationship between social class and substance abuse. The two high ends of
the curve belonged to both upper and lower-class youth. Regarding upper-
class youth, Lorch stated that one contributing factor may be a greater
discrepancy between aspirations and present accomplishments. In upper or
upper-middle class families, the adolescent is surrounded by other family
members and friends that have achieved a certain degree of success. When
comparing these achievements to his/her own current accomplishments, the

adolescent may feel inadequate or unable to live up to family standards,

15

whether they are simply perceived or specifically defined by the parents. If
indeed the adolescent perceives him/herself as not being able to fulfill hisIher
aspirations or the aspirations of the parents, this may lead to status frustration
and depressed feelings of self-worth, which may in turn make them more
prone to abuse substances as a way to escape these feelings of inadequacy.

Children's development is the result of increasingly complex
interactions with socializing adults - primarily parents - who. during the early
years, have the power to control these interactions (Baumrind, 1975). . -
Permissive parents exhibit low levels of control. They give unconditional love
with insufficient rules and regulations. This type of parenting, associated with
an affluent environment, may be the causal culprit in youthful deviance '
(Levine & Koaak, 1979). lfthe adolescmt perceives hisIher parents to have
little involvementinthetypesofactivitieshelshechoosesto participatein,
theyarelikelytobecomeinfluenced bypeersand notexercisethetypeof
decisionmaking thatwould allowthemtoavoid experimentationwithdrugsor
alcohol. Parents who exhibit excessive pennissiveness and little control are
more likely to have adolescents who become involved in delinquency (Gluek
8r Gluek, 1962).

Similarly, parental pressure to succeed and overly high expectations
can generate self-rejecting attitudes in adolescents (Kaplan, 1982). When
young peoplebelievethemselvesto besubjecttointense pressuretoperform,
they may lose confidence in their capacity to achieve valued goals (Eskilson
et al., 1986). In affluent families, adolescents' egos are developed in a culture
that places extraordinary emphasis on individual achievement. Therefore, in
an upper-class environment that stresses competition, achievement, and
success, and in which most of the adults are visibly successful, feelings of
competence may by elusive for the high-status adolescents (Muehlbauer 8

16

Doddler, 1983). This may create a predisposition for adolescents with these
feelings to fall prey to substance abuse, in an attempt to mask the perceived
incompetence. The following excerpt provides a further perspective on the
concept of parental pressure to sumed and the potential effects on the
adolescent:

If parental expectations are congruent with the childladolescent's
ability, then it is likely that the adolescent will exhibit control over
his or her school environment. If expectations and ability differ,
and the adolescent is goaded or seduced into accepting un-
malistic academic or vocational goals. the variance between
actual self and ideal self often results in turmoil. A child viewed
as an object of pride, as a kind of family property, who consistent-
ly fails to meet family expectations, perceives a loss of familial
respect that often results in estrangement. Because his or her
actual self varies widely from his or her ideal self, this vulnerable
adolescent is likely to engage in acting-out behavior

(Shine, 1992; pg. 51).

Altl'loughtheseproblemsaretoooftenconsidered Iessofaconcemthanthe
problemsofadolescentsin poverty, thebehavioroftheadolesoentsisthe
same; substance abuse. No matter what the socioeconomic status of

a particular individual, substance abuse is an issue that wanants careful
consideration by our society.

A rather substantial body of research investigated the relationship
betweenadolescentdrug useandtheirassociationwithdrug using peers.
Familyattachmentisdecreasedbydivorceorbythepresenceofastepparent
which increases the likelihood of association with drug using peers. Higher
association with drug using peers, coupled with decreased family attachment,
increased the probability of adolescents initiating marijuana use and elevated
the frequency of use (Hoffman, 1995). Another study, by Bauman (1994)
claimed that peers are the major determinants of adolescent drug use and that
social network analysis is an appropriate method for studying adolescent drug

17

use if it is in the context of peer relations. Irvin (1994) found that the
contributing factors to adolescent drug use are: peer relations, self-concept.
social competence. and sociocultural considerations. That study also
suggested that successful prevention programs must focus upon a peer
component and the social milieu of substance abuse. Mounts (1995)
investigated the interactive effects of peer influence and perceptions of
authoritative parenting and found that high rates of adolescent drug use was
the result of low perceptions of authoritative parenting and high levels of peer
drug use. Another study, in North Carolina, examined drug use among
student athletes and found that athletes' drug problems were significantly less
than the general student body. The data suggested that participation in
athletics was a strong deterrent to drug use or abuse (Shields, 1995).

Otherresearchhasfocused upontheeffectsoffamilyattachmentor
family bonds on adolescent dnrg use. Adolescents with stronger family bonds
are less likely to have friends that use drugs. Similarly, adolescents with
higher educational commitments (which is positively related to strong family
bonds) drink less frequently and in smaller quantities (Bahr, 1995). Another
study, among Spanish adolescents, examined the mother-child bond and its
relationship to adolescent drug use (Recio, 1995). Cultural traits among
Spanish adolescents were responsible for the preventative role that the
mother-child bond played (la. the strong family bond was responsible for less
drug abuse).

As stabd earlier, the quality and style of parenting has a significant
impact upon the types of behaviors and social-emotional functioning that a
child vln'll exhibit while they are growing up (Haskett, 1995). The most
effective style of parenting is authoritative, characterized by raised levels of
acceptance and control. Other styles that are characterized by low levels of

18

acceptance and control are associated with school disaffection and poor
psychological outcomes (Shucksmith, 1995). A parenting style which included
caring and empathy, and was devoid of excessive intrusion and infantilization,
correlated with the best family functioning and adolescent well-being
(McFarlane, 1995). Another study found that parenting styles may be related
to levels of perfectionism shown by adolescents (Flett, 1995). Socially
prescribed perfectionism (i.e. bettering oneself to please society) was
associated with high perceptions of authoritarianism by parents. Perceived
authoritative parenting was associated with self-oriented perfectionism (i.e.
bettering oneself for one's own benefit).

Permissive parenting was found to be significantly correlated to
extrinsic social commitment in a study by Giesbrecht (1995). Extrinsic social
commitment is synonymous with peerassociation, and ifthose peers use
dI'UQS. the adolescent will have a predisposition to participate in those
activities, as well. The same study showed that authoritative parenting and
spousal agreement in style appeared to be instrumental in fostering intrinsic
religious commitment among adolescents. The stronger the bond to religion,
the less likely the adolescent will be to succumb to the pressure ofdrug using
peers.

A study, by Paulson (1994), looked at the relationship between
perceived parenting style and achievement among students. The data
suggested that adolescents' reports of both maternal and paternal demands.
responsiveness, and parental involvement in achievement predicted
significant proportions of variance in achievement outcome by the
adolescents. Adolescent achievement was more highly related to their own
perceptions of parenting style than to the style of parenting that the parents,
themselves, believed they were utilizing.

19

No research was found that specifically addressed adolescent drug
use (or attitudes) and its relationship to upper-middle class parenting styles.
Some research focused upon the relationship between juvenile delinquency
(in general) and low perceptions of self-worth (Levine 8. Kozak, 1979). Others
found that low self-esteem was related to parental perrnissiveness andIor
authoritarianism (Kaplan, 1982). Others showed that perrnissiveness was a
characteristic typical of upper or upper-middle class parents (Shine, 1992). In
some families, parental actions encompass both extreme social
pennissiveness and rigid expectations for academic success (F riedman, et al.,
1992). Still, other studies suggested that adolescent drug use was the result
of association with drug using peers (Hoffman, 1995; Bauman, 1994).

Thlsstudywill attempttobridgethegapinthepreviouslymentioned
studies, byfocusing uponthespecificconnection beMen adolesmntdrug
use (and drug use attitudes) and perceived parenting styles of upper-middle
class parents.

20

Research Questions

Based upon this review of literature, the following specific research
questions will be addressed:

" What is the relationship beMen female adolescent drug use and
perceived permissive parenting, by the adolescent, in upper-middle
class families?

' What is the relationship between female adolescent drug use
attitudes and perceived permissive parenting, by the adolescent, in
upper-middle class families?

' What isthe relationship betweenfemale adolescentdrug useand
perceived authoritarian parenting, by the adolescent, in upper-middle
class families?

* Wnatistherelationshipbetweenfemaleadolescentdnrg use
attitudes and perceived authoritarian parenting. by the adolescent, in
upper-middle class families?

* What is the relationship between female adolescent dnrg use and
perceived authoritative parenting, by the adolescent, in upper-middle
class families?

21

" What is the relationship behrveen female adolescent drug use
attitudes and perceived authoritative parenting, by the adolescent, in
upper-middle class families?

CHAPTER III - HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY

Research Predictions

Based upon the research questions, the following relationships were

predicted between the variables measured in the study:

I II III" III E 'I' ,

(1)

l2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Female adolescents who perceive their parents to be more permissive
will exhibit higher levels of drug use than those who perceive their
parents to be less permissive.

Femaleadolescentswho perceivetheir parentsto bemorepennissive
will reporlmoreliberaldnlg useattitudesthanthosewhoperceivetheir
parents to be less pennisslve.

Femaleadolescentswhoperceivetheirparentstobemore
authoritarian will exhibit higher levels of drug use than those who
perceive their parents to be less authoritarian.

Female adolescents who perceive their parents to be more
authoritarian will report to report more conservative drug use attitudes
than those who perceive their parents to be less authoritarian.

Female adolescents who perceive their parents to be more
authoritative will exhibit lower levels of drug use than those who

22

(6)

23

perceive their parents to be less authoritative.

Female adolescents who perceive their parents to be more
authoritative will report more liberal drug use attitudes than those
who perceive their parents to be more authoritarian, but will report
more conservative drug use attitudes than those who perceive their

parents to be more permissive.

Research Hypotheses

: There is no relationship between female adolescent dnrg use and

perceived pennissive parenting in upper-middle class families.
Femaleadolescentswhoperceivetheirparentsto bemorepennissive
will exhibit higher levels of drug use than those who perceive their
parents to be less permissive in upper-middle class families.

: There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use and

perceived authoritarian parenting in upper-middle class families.
Female adolescents who perceive their parents to be more
authoritarian will exhibit higher levels of drug use than those who
perceive their parents to be less authoritarian in upper-middle class

families.

There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use and
perceived authoritative parenting in upper-middle class families.

24

Female adolescents who perceive their parents to be more
authoritative will exhibit lower levels of drug use than those who
perceive their parents to be less authoritative in upper-middle class

families.

There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use attitudes
and perceived permissive parenting in upper-middle class families.
Female adolescents who perceive their parents to be more permissive
will report more liberal drug use attitudes than those who perceive their
parents to be less permissive in upper-middle class families.

There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use attitudes
and perceived authoritarian parenting in upper-middle class families.
Femaleadolescentswhoperceivetheirparentstobemore
authoritarian will report more conservative drug use attitudes than
those who perceive their parents to be less authoritarian in upper-
middle class families.

There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use attitudes
and perceived authoritative parenting in upper-middle class families.
Adolescentswho perceivetheirparentstobemoreauthoritativewill
reportmoreconservativedruguseattitudesthanthosewhoperceive
their parents to be less authoritative in upper-middle class famrlies.

25

Research Design

In order to carry out the objectives of this research most effectively, an
exploratory, applied research design was implemented. The study was
experimental and was carried out in a partially controlled setting. The unit of
analysis for this research was the undergraduate student. These students
were enrolled in two different, freshman-level. undergraduate courses. The
study took place at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, Michigan. The
sample population was approximately 375. The actual number of sample
elementsthatfitthecriteria forthe studywas67.

Decision Rule

A chance probabilrty of .25 or less (p525) will be required to reject the
null hypotheses and accept the alternative hypotheses.

Research Procedure

Following a review and approval of the research by the University
Council for Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) at Michigan State
University. the researcher contacted the professors ofthe courses in which
the study was to be implemented. A copy of the approval letter is provided in
Appendix A Dates were set up with each to administer the survey, and the
surveyswereprovidedtoeachoftheprofessorsbytheresearcher. Oneof
them administered the survey during class time, and the other gave it to the
students to take home and bring back. Consent forms were attached to the
instrument, stating that participation was voluntary and that all information

26

given would be kept in strict confidentiality. The consent form also stated that
the surveys were completely anonymous and that no names were to be
written anywhere on them. After the surveys were complete, they were
compiled and kept in a safe place at the researchers home office. A copy of
the survey and consent form is provided in Appendix B.

Sample Selection

The subjects involved in this study were enrolled in one of two 100-
level, undergraduate courses at Michigan State University. In order to have
beenselectedforthestudythesubjectsneededtomeetthecriteriaofthe
control variables. upper-middle class socioeconomic status and female
gender, as defined in the "Conceptual and Operational Definitions" section of
this thesis. Not all individuals that completed the survey became sample
elements, and those that did, were anonymously identified. After all ofthe
surveys were collected, only those that met the criteria of upper-middle class
SES and female gender became part of the sample (approximately 20% of
those surveyed). The sample size was 67.

Sample Description

All ofthe sample elementswerebetweentheagesof18 and 20. All
were enrolled in one of two 100-level, undergraduate courses at Michigan
State University, from an upper-middle class background, and were female.
Religion, cultural background, or ethnicity was not measured for the purposes
of this study, although the majority (over 80%), were White. All subjects

27

attended high school at one time, as many of the questions focused upon their

behaviors during their senior year.

Instrumentation

The dependent variables. or outcomes of this study (adolescent drug
use and adolescent drug use attitudes). were measured using a portion of the
"Parent Attitudel Drug Use Survey". This portion of the survey. called the
"Alcohol and Other Drugs Survey", was developed by the Search Institute in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a multiple choice questionnaire that consists of
questions regarding specific types of substance abuse, including alcohol,
marijuana, and other drugs. In addition to questions regarding frequency of
drug use, the survey asks questions about specific attitudes regarding the
different types of drug use, and about dnlg use, in general. For example,
therearequesfionsthataskwhedlerornotmesubjectfeelsflrataparficular
drug isa problemformenagers. orwhetherdrug use should beconsidered a
crime vs. a personal choice. An example ofthe survey is provided in
Appendix B.

The independent variables. or predictors of this study (perceived
permissive. authoritarian. and authoritative parenting styles, by the
adolescent)weremeasumd using anotl'lerportionofthe"ParentAttitudel
Drug Use Survey". This portion of the survey was called the "Parent Attitude
Questionnaire" or "FAQ". It was developed by Buri, (1991). This
questionnaire involved 30 questions in a 5-point Likert Scale format. The
responses to each question could range from "Definitely Not Like My Family"
to "Exactly Like My Family". The survey was designed to measure a child's
perception of their own parent's style of parenting. There were 10 questions

28

related to each of the three styles of parenting (i.e. pennisslve. authoritarian,
and authoritative), as defined by Baumrind (1971 ). All of the questions were
given as one, single list of questions, and were mixed up with regard to which
style of parenting they focused upon. This scale was chosen for its ability to
measure adolescents' perceptions of the parenting styles described by
Baumrind (1971). An example is provided in Appendix B.

The "Parent Attitude Questionnaire" and "Alcohol and Other Dmgs
Survey" were combined to form the "Parent Attitude I Drug Use Survey”: ' '
Theywelegiventothestudentsas awhole, and evaluated separately bythe
researcher. There were a total of fifty-one questions on the "overalf' survey.
All subjects finished within thirty minutes. All aspects of the survey remained
anonymous and confidential.

One control variable, (upper-middle class sociwconomic status), was
measured using the "Hollingshead Two-Factor Index Of Social Position". This
index, developed by August Hollingshead in 1957, was designed to measure
an individual‘s social class. It assigns numeric values to two different aspects
of the individual: (1) the annual family income. and (2) the level of the parents'
education. By multiplying these two numbers, Hollingshead has created a
scale consisting of five different social class levels. They range from "upper
class" to "lower class". Hollingshead reported that the correlation beMen the
estimated social class of an individual and their actual behavior had been
validated by the use of factor analysis. This index was chosen, by the
researcher. because it was an objective. easily applicable procedure to
. estimate the positions that families occupy in the status structure of our
society. The researcher used the "Hollingshead Two-Factor Index of Social
Position" to obtain the actual sample elements that met the criteria ofthe

29

control variable (upper-middle class SES). These criteria were defined as
follows:

‘ an annual family income of at least $80,000.

" at least one parent with post-secondary education (beyond high

school).
An example of Hollingshead's index is provided in Appendix C.

The second control variable. (female gender), was measured using one
question on the first page of the "Parent Attitude I Drug Use Survey". The
subject was asked to check the box that applied to his/her gender. The
choices were: 1) Male, and 2) Female. Only those that reported to be female
were involved in the study. I

Data Analysis

All data collected, for this study, was evaluated using the "Student ‘
Edition of Minilab" statistical software package for DOS, by Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company. In order to assess any relationships between the
independent and dependent variables, conelational and regressional
statistical analyses were used. A Pearson Product Moment Correlation Matrix
was produced, which is provided in Table 1. Linear regression formulas were
used to assess any linear relationships between the independent and
dependent variables, and examples are provided in Table 2. Conelations and
regressions were considered significant when the coefficient was greater than
zero and had a probability value (p-value) that was less than or equal to .25.

CHAPTER IV - RESULTS
Research Findings

The results of this research will be discussed in relation to the
hypotheses that were posed in Chapter III. A Pearson Correlation Matrix is
shown in Table 1, and indicates the correlations between the independent and
dependent variables. Linear regression formulas that indicate linear
relationships between the independent and dependent variables are provided
in Table 2.

W
There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use and
perceived permissive parenting in upper-middle class families.
Results;
The independent variable, perceived pennissive parenting, is
conelated with the following demndent variables:
ALCOHOL USE - Perceived permissive parenting showed a mild.
positive correlation (.140) with female adolescent alcohol use.
MARIJUANA USE - Perceived permissive parenting showed a mild,
negative correlation (-.135) with female adolescent marijuana use.
TOTAL DRUG USE - Perceived permissive parenting showed a slight.
positive correlation (.017) with female adolescent total drug use.
The linear regression results are as follows:
ALCOHOL USE - The "R-squared" value for this relationship is .02, or
2.0% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent alcohol use) is
explained by the predictor (perceived permissive parenting).

30

31

MARIJUANA The "R-squared" value for this relationship is .018, or
1.8% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent marijuana use) is
explained by the predictor (perceived permissive parenting).

TOTAL DRUG USE - The "R-squared" value for this relationship is 0.0.
or none of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent total drug use) is
explained by the predictor (perceived pennissive parenting).

The probability value associated with the relationship between female
adolescent drug use and perceived permissive parenting is .889, and based
on the decision rule, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The alternative
hypothesis, therefore, cannot be accepted.

WW:
There is no relationship beMen female adolescent drug use and
perceived authoritarian parenting in upper-middle class families.
Results:
The independent variable. perceived authoritarian parenting, is
conelated with the following dependent variables:
ALCOHOL USE - Perceived authoritarian parenting showed a
moderate, negative conelation (-. 387) with female adolescent alcohol
use.
MARIJUANA USE - Perceived authoritarian parenting showed a mild,
negative correlation (-.152) with female adolescent marijuana use.
TOTAL DRUG USE - Perceived authoritarian parenting showed a
moderate. negative correlation (-.328) with female adolescent total drug
use.

The linear regression results are as follows:

32

ALCOHOL USE - The "R-squared" value for this relationship is .15, or
15% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent alcohol use) is explained
by the predictor (perceived authoritarian parenting).

MARIJUANA USE - The "R-squared" value for this relationship is .023, or
2.3% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent marijuana use) is
explained by the predictor (perceived authoritarian parenting).

TOTAL DRUG USE - The "R-Squared" value for this relationship iS .107,
or 10.7% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent total drug use) is
explained by the predictor (perceived authoritarian parenting).

The probability value associated with the relationship between female
adolescent drug use and perceived authoritarian parenting is .007, and based on
the decision rule, the null hypothesis is rejected. The alternative hypothesis,
however, cannot be accepted because the relationship found between the
variables is negative. The alternative hypothesis states that there is a positive
relationship between female adolescent drug use and perceived authoritarian
parenting in upper-middle class families. Based upon these results, a new
alternative hypothesis will be proposed: Female adolescents who perceive their
parents to be more authoritarian will exhibit lower levels of drug use than those

who perceive their parents to be less authoritarian in upper-middle class families.

Nulljypcthesisj;
There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use and
perceived authoritative parenting in upper-middle class families.

' Results:

The independent variable, perceived authoritative parenting, is correlated

with the following dependent variables:

33

ALCOHOL USE - Perceived authoritative parenting Showed a mild,

positive correlation (.114) with female adolescent drug use.

MARIJUANA USE - Perceived authoritative parenting showed a slight,

negative correlation (-.078) with female adolescent marijuana use.

TOTAL DRUG USE - Perceived authoritative parenting showed a slight,

positive correlation (.031) with female adolescent total drug use.
The linear regression results are as follows:

ALCOHOL USE - The "R-squared" value for this relationship is .01, or 1%
of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent alcohol use) is explained by
the predictor (perceived authoritative parenting).

MARIJUANA USE - The "R-Squared" value for this relationship is .027, or
2.7% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent marijuana use) is
explained by the predictor (perceived authoritative parenting).

TOTAL DRUG USE - The "R-squared" value for this relationship is .001,
or .1 % of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent total drug use) is
explained by the predictor (perceived authoritative parenting).

The probability value associated with the relationship between female
adolescent drug use and perceived authoritative parenting in upper-middle class
families is .842, and based on the decision rule, the null hypothesis cannot be

rejected. The alternative hypothesis, therefore, cannot be accepted.

NuLHyDothesiSA:
There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use attitudes

and perceived permissive parenting in upper-middle class families.

34

Results:

The independent variable, perceived permissive parenting, is correlated
with the following dependent variables:

LIBERAL VIEWS ABOUT ALCOHOL USE - Perceived permissive

parenting Showed a mild, positive correlation (.166) with female

adolescent liberal views about alcohol use.

LIBERAL VIEWS ABOUT MARIJUANA USE - Perceived permissive

parenting showed a mild, positive correlation (.210) with female

adolescent liberal views about marijuana use.

TOTAL LIBERAL DRUG USE VIEWS - Perceived permissive parenting

Showed a moderate, positive correlation (.337) with female adolescent

total liberal drug use views.

The linear regression results are as follows:

LIBERAL VIEWS (ALCOHOL) - The "R-squared" value for this relationship
is .027, or 2.7% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent liberal alcohol
views) is explained by the predictor (perceived permissive parenting).

LIBERAL VIEWS (MARIJUANA) - The "R-Squared" value for this
relationship is .044, or 4.4% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent
liberal marijuana views) is explained by the predictor (perceived permissive
parenting). '

LIBERAL VIEWS (TOTAL) - The "R-Squared" value for this relationship is
.114, or 11.4% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent total liberal
drug use views) is explained by the predictor (perceived permissive parenting).

The probability value associated with the relationship between female
adolescent drug use attitudes and perceived permissive parenting in upper-

middle class families is .005, and based on the decision rule, the null hypothesis

35

is rejected. The alternative hypothesis, therefore, is accepted: Female
adolescents who perceive their parents to be more permissive will report more
liberal drug use attitudes than those who perceive their parents to be less

permissive in upper-middle class families.

W15:

There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use attitudes

and perceived authoritarian parenting in upper-middle class families.
Results:

The independent variable, perceived authoritarian parenting, is correlated
with the following dependent variables:

LIBERAL VIEWS ABOUT ALCOHOL - Perceived authoritarian parenting

showed a mild, negative correlation (-.107) with female adolescent liberal

views about alcohol use.

LIBERAL VIEWS ABOUT MARIJUANA - Perceived authoritarian

parenting showed a mild, negative correlation (-.153) with female .

adolescent liberal views about marijuana use.

TOTAL LIBERAL DRUG USE VIEWS - Perceived authoritarian parenting

showed a moderate, negative correlation (-.338) with female adolescent

total liberal drug use views.
The linear regression results are as follows:

LIBERAL VIEWS (ALCOHOL) - The "R-Squared" value for this relationship
is .011, or 1.1% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent liberal alcohol
views) is explained by the predictor (perceived authoritarian parenting).

LIBERAL VIEWS (MARIJUANA) - The "R-squared" value for this

relationship is .024, or 2.4% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent

36

liberal marijuana views) is explained by the predictor (perceived authoritarian
parenting).

LIBERAL DRUG USE VIEWS (TOTAL) - The "R-Squared" value for this
relationship is .114, or 11.4% of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent
total liberal drug use views) is explained by the predictor (perceived authoritarian
parenting).

The probability value associated with the relationship between female
adolescent drug use attitudes and perceived authoritarian parenting in upper-
middle class families is .005, and based on the decision rule, the null hypothesis
is rejected. The alternative hypothesis, however, cannot be accepted because
the relationship is negative, and the alternative hypothesis states that there is a
positive relationship between female adolescent drug use attitudes and
perceived authoritarian parenting in upper-middle class families. Based on these
results, a new alternative hypothesis is proposed: Female adolescents who
perceive their parents to be more authoritarian will report less liberal drug use
attitudes than those who perceive their parents to be less authoritarian in upper-

middle class families.

HUN—BMW:
There is no relationship between female adolescent drug use attitudes
and perceived authoritative parenting in upper-middle class families.
Results:
The independent variable, perceived authoritative parenting, is correlated
with the following dependent variables:
LIBERAL VIEWS ABOUT ALCOHOL - Perceived authoritative parenting
Showed a mild, positive correlation (.105) with female adolescent liberal

views about alcohol.

37

LIBERAL VIEWS ABOUT MARIJUANA - Perceived authoritative
parenting showed a slight, positive correlation (.035) with female
adolescent liberal views about marijuana.

TOTAL LIBERAL DRUG USE VIEWS - Perceived authoritative

parenting showed a slight, positive correlation (.074) with female

adolescent total liberal drug use views.
The linear regression results are as follows:

LIBERAL VIEWS (ALCOHOL) - The "R-squared" value for this
relationship is .011, or 1.1% of the variance in the outcome (female
adolescent liberal alcohol views) is explained by the predictor (perceived
auflroritative parenting).

LIBERAL VIEWS (MARIJUANA) - The "R-squared" value for this
relationship is .001, or .199 of the variance in the outcome (female adolescent
liberal marijuana views) is explained by the pmdictor (perceived authoritative
parentina).

LIBERAL DRUG USE VIEWS (TOTAL) - The 'R-squared" value for
this relationship is .005, or .5% of the variance in the outcome (female
adolescent total liberal drug use views) is explained by the predictor
(perceived authoritative parenting).

The probability value associated with the relationship between female
adolescent drug use attitudes and perceived authoritative parenting in upper-
middle class families is .552, and based on the decision rule, the null
hypothesis cannot be rejected. The alternative hypothesis, therefore, cannot
be accepted.

TABLE 1

.140
Ill-258)

-. 1 35
(9-274)

.017
(PROM

.166
(P'JUI'

.21 0
(IF-00°F

.337
@005)”

. -.387.

0..”th

-. 1 52
Ila-2201'

-.328
(P-Gm'"

-.107
(were)

-.153
IP21”

-.338
IP-MI‘”

. ..-°_.93 ..

-. 164
(p.104)‘

-.025
(9-142)

.105
(tr-m

.035
Ill-177)

.074
(9.552)

 

FEMALE ADOLESCENT DRUG USE vs.

PERCEIVED PARENTING STYLE
Ramsalnnfinuatlnn 82 3.12. E
alcohol use = 2.24 + .556 " permissive .02 .49 .258
alcohol use = 6.42 - 1.02 " authoritarian .15 .30 .001
alcohol use = 2.52 + .263 * authoritative .01 .33 .430
marijuana use = 2.88 - .448 ‘ permissive .02 .41 .274
marijuana use = 2.80 - .335 * authoritarian .02 .27 .220
marijuana use = 3.25 - .368 * authoritative .03 .27 .184
total use = 5.12 + .108 " permissive 0.0 .77 .889
total use = 9.22 - 1.36 " authoritarian .11 .49 . .007
total use = 5.77 - .104 ' authoritative .001 .52 .842

FEMALE ADOLESCENT DRUG USE ATTITUDES vs.

PERCEIVED PARENTING STYLE
W 3’ 5.0. E
alcohol views = 6.29 + .594 * permissive .03 .44 .180
alcohol views = 8.38 - .255 " authoritarian .01 .23 .389
alcohol views = 6.69 + .255 * authoritative .01 .30 .398
marijuana views = 5.02 + .811 " permissive .04 .47 .088
marijuana views = 8.01 - .394 " authoritarian .02 .32 .215
marijuana views = 6.55 + .092 ' authoritative .001 .32 .777
total drug views = 14.9 + 3.24 * permissive .114 1.1 .005
total drug views = 28.5 - 2.17 " authoritarian .114 .75 .005
total drug views = 20.5 -r- .482 " authoritative .005 .81 .552

39

TABLE 3

'Il’3 'I' 'Fz’! II‘-I I. ' 5. -_ 3| I‘ \ ‘ .9 '

AUIHQRIIABIAN -.367 ~-
ALIIBQBIIAIIME -.033 -.185
" Note:

The purpose of this table is to demonstrate that the subjects' individual
parenting styles scores are, in fact, independent of one another. Each
subject answered questions and received a separate score with regard

to each parenting style.

40

TABLE 4

E I I' [S I' I 'B I I
ActuaLnguseandDmgmamudes
RemuedflmaDse
Alcohol Marliuana Intel
W .503 .122 .386
MarliuanaMettts .557 .468 .605
IotalLilzeraDIlews .495 .300 .475

41

FIGURE 2

III [SI' '8 IE [I2 I!

ALCQHQLJISE

*i’..**fi*.*i*****
*****t**

*fittfii‘ifi
Iiifififitiii
**********

***t.****

Naimth-i

t'kii‘k

MARIJUANAUSE

*fl‘tfifittfl’t‘lttifl*iittfittittfltiiififi.********ti***t
*W‘IOWO

if.

tilt

ti

NO’U‘I-hOIN-h

tfii

(N=67)

1 = 0 times

2 = 1-2 times

3 = 3-5 times

4 = 6-10 times

5 = 11-20 times

6 = 21-40 times

7 = more than 40 times

* Time frame represents subjects 990W.

42

CHAPTER V - DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to consider the effects of the perceptions
of parenting style, by the adolescents, on resulting drug use and drug use
attitudes. The intention was not to put a label on any particular parent's style
of parenting, or to infer that because of the way an adolescent answered a
particular question on the survey, their parent was bound to one of the three
parenting style categories. In fact, it is likely that most parents exhibit
characteristics of all three styles, depending upon the situation at hand.
However, due to the nature of the study and the questions on the survey. it
was necessary to delineate the adolescents' perceptions of the three
individual parenting styles and how they related to the way they perceived
their own parents in many different situations as they were growing up.

Implications Of The Results For Human Ecology Theory

Human ecology theory describes the family as an ecosystem, with the
whole and its parts being interdependent and operating in relation to each
other. Energy flows through the family ecosystem, as the boundaries are
permeable (see Figure 1). This energy is not necessarily heat, light, or
electricity, as energy is typically perceived. It can take the form of speech,
love, or parenting style, for example, and travels between members of the
family ecosystem. For the purposes of this study, it is energy, in the form of
perceived parenting style, that is of particular interest.

The perceived style of parenting (i.e. pennisslve. authoritarian, or
authoritative), by the adolescent, represents energy flowing from the parents
to the child. As shown in Figure 1, this energy produces what is known as a

43

secondary, or second order effect. The parents' dyadic relationship produces
a parenting style, which is then transferred to their child. This energy
dynamic determines the dependent variables that were measured in this
study. The adolescents resultant behaviors regarding the use of drugs and
his/her drug use attitudes deterrnlne the independent variables and reflects
the internal energy that is flowing within the adolescent. Second order effects
of this energy represent the relationship between female adolescent drug use
(and drug use attitudes) and perceived parenting style in upper-middle class

families.

Individual Second Order Effects

Based on the results, in Chapter N, the strongest correlations between
independent and dependent variables were those that involved perceived
parenting style and female adolescent drug use attitudes, although
relationships between perceived parenting style and drug use were evident.
Perceptions regarding the energy transferred to the adolescent in the form of
parenting style, by the parent, predicted the most variance in the female
adolescents' reported drug use attitudes. Specifically, those female
adolescents who perceived their parents to be more permissive reported the
most liberal drug use attitudes. In contrast, these female adolescents who
perceived their parents to be more authoritative reported much more
conservative drug use attitudes. The differing perceptions of parenting styles,
by the female adolescents, accounted for some of the variance in reported
drug use attitudes, and should be considered individually.

Some parents, defined as permissive in Chapter I, are insufficiently

involved in the lives of their children. They exhibit much acceptance of their

45

adolescents' behaviors and do not implement appropriate discipline.
Adolescence is a time of life when a child is striving for independence and
autonomy, looking for new and exciting experiences, and struggling to make
difficult decisions. If the parent is not willing or available to offer guidance
through these difficult times, the adolescent may make wrong decisions,
based on lack of knowledge or pressure from peers. Liberal drug use
attitudes, or not being aware of the dangers and detrimental effects of drug
use, can have a negative impact on the lives of these female adolescents. If
there are no parental guidelines that suggest otherwise, they may show little
concern for their own health and safety, or that of others, with regard to how
they perceive the use of controlled substances. Liberal drug use attitudes, as
defined in Chapter I, include liberal views of the potential risks of alcohol and
marijuana. Female adolescents who perceive their parents to be more
permissive were more likely to minimize the risks of these drugs. This may be
the result of a lack of communication with their parents, who did not take the
time to discuss these dangers with their child, or parental indifference or
ignorance about how these dnlgs are potential risks to their child.

If the child perceives excessive perrnissiveness on the part of hisIher
parents, and comes to believe that drugs and alcohol do not involve dangers
and should not be avoided, there may be a predisposition for drug use and/or
abuse. Although the results of this study did not support this, for reasons that
will be discussed in the next chapter, female adolescents who perceive their
parents to be more permissive may also exhibit higher levels of drug use, in
addition to reporting more liberal dnig use attitudes.

Some parents, defined as authoritarian in Chapter 1, exhibit strict rules
and regulations and do not allow the child much room for autonomy and

independence. Although experts do not consider it a preferred style of

46

parenting, due to its tendency toward harsher discipline and overwhelming
pressure on the child, the data in this study showed results that were
unexpected. That is, female adolescents who perceived their parents to be
more authoritarian had less liberal drug use attitudes and lower levels of drug
use than those who perceived their parents to be less authoritarian. These
results are contrary to the predictions of the study (i.e. that those female
adolescents who perceived their parents to be more authoritarian would
exhibit higher levels of drug use and less liberal dmg use attitudes). It is
possible that because of the authoritarian parenting style perceived by these
female adolescents, they were afraid to admit that they had any liberal drug
use attitudes, or had ever used any drugs or alcohol to speak of. If an
adolescent is accustomed to overbearing rules and regulations and the
punishment associated with delinquent activities, helshe might not admit to
any dmg use, and might report conservative drug use attitudes, as that is
what hisIher parent would expect. It is difficult to accept the minimal reported
use of dmgs and conservative attitudes by these female adolescents. It may
be that these reported levels are spurious, and that the actual use of drugs
are more similar to those adolescents who perceive their parents to be more
permissive. Typically, adolescents will rebel against parental authority,
especially when it is excessive, as their need for autonomy and individuality
at this stage of life is paramount This being the case, it is possible that those
adolescents who perceive a more authoritarian parenting style would report
more liberal drug use attitudes and exhibit higher levels of dmg use, as it may
be contrary to what the authoritarian parent expects. Further research into
actual drug use behavior is needed.

These female adolescents who perceived their parents to be more

authoritative reported lower levels of drug use and more conservative drug

47

use attitudes than those who perceived their parents to be pennisslve.
Authoritative parents are characterized by their careful balance of love and
acceptance with guidance and discipline. This style of parenting is most
preferred to ensure the healthy upbringing of a child. When confronted with
issues concerning drug use, the child of the authoritative parent is more likely
to use better judgment by not giving in to peer pressure or to the urge to
experiment with substances. The female adolescents in this study also had
more conservative drug use attitudes, which includes a greater knowledge of
the potential risks and harmful effects that are associated with alcohol and
drugs. If the adolescent perceived a more authoritative parenting style, they
also were more likely to view drug use as a crime and potentially harmful to
teenagers. Although not measured in this study, conservative drug use
attitudes are likely to coincide with low levels of actual drug use. This is an
important result of the relationship between drug use and perceived
authoritative parenting. If the attitudes are such that drug use is wrong
and/or dangerous, the corresponding behaviors will likely follow.

The second order effects measured in this study were of great
importance to the behaviors of the female adolescents within the sample. The
highest levels of drug use and most liberal drug use attitudes came as a result
of the second order effects of the permissive style of parenting. The lowest
levels of drug use and most conservative attitudes conelated most highly with
authoritarian parenting, although this must be qualified as an unhealthy
parenting practice. The most effective style of parenting was authoritative,
and the behaviors associated with these second order effects were
characterized by low levels of drug use and less liberal drug use attitudes. A
balance of love, nurturance, autonomy, and discipline, perceived by these

female adolescents, was most effective in providing them with the knowledge

48

and ability to avoid risks of having liberal drug use attitudes andIor high levels

of drug use.

(1)

l2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

CHAPTER VI - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Limitations Of The Study

The female adolescents within the study were reluctant to report drug
use of any kind, beyond alcohol use, which caused the total (1le use
correlations to be very weak. The validity of these reports is
questioned due to the prevalence of adolescent drug use in the media.
The fact that many of the sample elements reported no drug use of any
kind, but did report very liberal drug use attitudes raises questions
about the validity of the reported drug use responses. (See Figure 2)

The sample was taken from two undergraduate courses at Michigan
State University. Both classes were within the Department of Family
and Child Ecology. This may or may not create some bias with

regard to the nature of the responses on the survey.

The original sample consisted of an unbalanced number of male and
female subjects (a ratio of approximately 1:4, respectively).
Therefore, the male subjects were dropped from the sample, and
gender became a control variable. The data reflects only the
responses of female subjects.

The sample size was relatively small: N = 67.

The survey was given to subjects enrolled in a freshman-level,

49

50

undergraduate course, but many of the questions were called for
retrospective judgments in the context of their senior year in high
school, or about a period of their childhood. Accurate memories of the
past cannot be guaranteed. and may or may not reflect complete,

reality.

ConclusiOns And Implications For Future Research

This study was relatively small in scale, but it did point out the
importance of the relationships between perceived parenting style and drug
use (and drug use attitudes). Adolescent drug use is more prevalent in
today's society than it ever has been. and it deserves careful consideration.
Based on the results of this study, the parent has a major impact Upon the
kinds of behaviors and viewpoints that their adolescent will have with regard
to drugs and drug use. With this knowledge, it may be possible to impact
drug use, to some degree, by educating parents and alerting them to the types
of parenting styles that are perceived by their children to be linked with the
predisposition to use drugs or hold liberal drug use attitudes.

This study focused Upon upper-middle class family systems. This
socioeconomic level has a high percentage of permissive parents (Levine &
Kozak, 1979). These data suggest that the adolescent girls who perceived
their parents to be most permissive were those that reported the highest
levels of drug use, and also had the most liberal drug use attitudes. Parents
need to be aware of this trend. If they become aware and more involved in
the lives of their children, a reduction in female adolescent drug use may
result. However, busy work schedules and long hours do not always allow for

time to provide the necessary communication and guidance that an

51

adolescent needs. The point is that these parents must make time. From the
researchers perspective, the importance of consistent and reasonable
involvement with their children far outweighs the need to be over-involved with
their careers. If there is no parental figure to point out the potential risks of
illegal substances, their adolescent may decide for themselves or learn from
peers that drug use is an acceptable form of recreation.

Although it is true that even if an adolescent perceives an authoritative
style of parenting, helshe may still engage in drug use, or have liberal
attitudes, these data suggest that an authoritative style is most highly
correlated with lower levels of use and conservative attitudes. Adolescents
may seem to have minds of their own, especially when it comes to peer
activities, but there is no substitute for the nurturance and guidance that can
. be provided by the parents.

Further research is needed that explores the same research questions
that were posed in this study, on a much larger scale, to evaluate male
adolescent drug use and drug use attitudes, as both genders need to be
considered. Also, further research upon the relationships between actual drug
use and drug use attitudes would likely prove beneficial.

For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that if an adolescent
had liberal dnlg use attitudes, helshe would also exhibit drug use (see Table
4). This assumption should be further tested. Adolescent dnlg use attitudes
were explored by this survey, but a more in-depth questionnaire would have
provided richer data. Questions about why an adolescent feels a certain way
about certain drugs, for example, would be useful. Future research might also
focus upon perceived parenting style and other types of delinquent activities
(i.e. theft, or violence).

52

The most important concern, for those who are interested in the well-
being and healthy, drug free development of children, is the quality and style
of parenting that a child receives as they are growing up. Unlike permissive or
authoritarian parenting, authoritative parenting provides adolescents with the
tools they need to deal with today's ever—changing societal influences (i.e.
drugs and alcohol) and make the correct decisions based on what they have
Ieamed and how they were reared throughout their lives. Parents of today
must be aware that they have a significant impact upon the health and
success of their child's future. Truly, there is no substitute for a loving,
involved, parental authority figure to encourage, guide, and nurture the child
throughout his/her childhood and adolescence.

APPENDIX A

 

RESEARCH
AND
GRADUATE
STUDIES

aHIIRnNMnNhI
twnmnmdl
Ikfiwfihhfldmflh
DHmHmanflhmflg
w| e 'I.|-
GBNAON

flnfibflll
FAX‘ SUM-1171

Imamahuhmnhn
mm

MICHIGAN STATE 53

UNIV

January 15,

ERSITY

1996

TO: Christopher.A. Branton
520 Cornell Ave.
E. Lansing, MI 48823

RE: IREiI:

95-522

TITLE: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADOLESCENT DRUG USE AND

PARENTING STYLE IN UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS ENHILIES

REVISION REQUESTED: 11/15/95
CATEGORY: l-C
APPROVAL DATE: 10/18/95

The university Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'IUCRIESI
review of this project is complete.. I am pleased to advsee that the
rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately
pgotected and methods to obtazn anformed consent are apprOprxate.

erefore,
above.

REVISIONS:

PROBLIIB/
CIANOIS:

the UCRIBS approved this project and any revseiona listed

OCRIBS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with
the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to
continue a project be nd.ome year must use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t e oraginal a roval letter or when a

pro act is renewed) to seek to certification. There is a
max mum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investsgatora
wiehin to continue a project beyond tha time need to eubmzt 1:
again or complete rev ew.

OCRIBS must review an changes in roceduree involving human
subjects. rior to in tiation of t e change. If this is done at
the tame o renewal, please use the reen renewal form. To
revise an approved protocol at an 0 her time during the year
send your wrrtten request to the the Chair. requestrng revised
approval and referencing the project's IRB # and tatle.. Include
in your request a descraption of the change and any revzeed

ans rut-ante. consent form or advertisements that. are applicable.

Should either of the follow arise during the course of the
work. investigators must noti UCRIBS promptly: (1) problems
(unexpected ezde effects comp ainte, e c.l.1nvo1ving uman
sub) acts or (2) changes the research envsronment or new
information indicating greater risk to the human sub ecte than
existed when.the protocol was previously reviewed an approved.

If we can be of any future helpé lease do not hesitate to contact us

at'l517I3SS-2190 or EAX (517I4

Sincerely,

DEW:bed
«than

171.

    

Boger

54
Consent

The following survey is being conducted by a graduate
student at Michigan State University. The information obtained by
the survey will be used to write a Master's thesis, which is a part of
the graduation requirements for this individual.

This survey contains questions for students that ask them
about certain aspects of their families and their parents' behaviors,
as well as about their own behaviors. The purpose of this study is
to examine the nature of certain relationships between adolescents
and their parents, and what behaviors can be expected because of
these relationships.

Participation in this survey is voluntary. If you do not wish to
participate, please let your teacher know, and helshe will tell you
what to do.

All information in this survey will be completely anonymous
and confidential. There are to be no names written anywhere on
the questionnaire. The researcher is only interested in the
responses to the questions, and NOT who, specifically, gave these
responses.

Any questions or concerns about this survey may be directed
to Dr. Robert Boger, Department of Family and Child Ecology, at
Michigan State University. The phone number is: (517) 353-
4453 .

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this survey.

dCRlHS APPROVAL FOR
THIS project EXPIRES:

DCTIBES

andmustbetenswedwlmln
11 monthstocontinus.

APPENDIX B

55

TEENAGERS AND THEIR FAMILIES

(AN ANONYMOUS SURVEY)

56

Consent

The following survey is being conducted by a graduate
student at Michigan State University. The information obtained
by the survey will be used to write a Master's thesis, which is a
part of the graduation requirements for this individual.

This survey contains questions for students that ask them
about certain aspects of their families and their parents'
behaviors, as well as about their own behaviors. The purpose of
this study is to examine the nature of certain relationships
between adolescents and their parents, and what behaviors can
be expected because of these relationships.

Participation in this survey is voluntary. If you do not
wish to participate, you do not have to fill it out.

All information in this survey will be completely
anonymous and confidential. There are to be no names written
anywhere on the questionnaire. The researcher is only
interested in the responses to the questions, and NOT who,
specifically, gave these responses.

Any questions or concerns about this survey may be
directed to Dr. Robert Boger, Department of Family and Child
Ecology, at Michigan State University. The phone number is:
(517) 353-4453.

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate
by completing and returning this survey.

57

Please answer the following:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

What is your sex?

A. Male
B. Female

What is your age?
A. under 18
B. 18-20
C. 21-23
D. 24 or older

Where did you go to high school?

 

(CITY and STATE, or COUNTRY)

What was your approximate MW during the time
you were in high school?

A. over $100,000

B. 580,000-100,000

C. $60,000-79,000

D. $40,000-59,000

E. $20,000-39,000

F. less than $20,000

What was the highmlexdnfedncation that either one of your
parents had completed during the time you were in high school?

A. never completed high school

B. high school graduate or equivalent
C. some college

D. bachelor's degree

E. master's degree

F . professional or doctorate degree

58

Instructions:

For each of the following statements, circle the
number on the 5-p0int scale that best applies to you and
your parents during the time you were in high school.

Read each statement and think about how it applies
to you and your family as you were growing up. There
are NO right or wrong answers. We just want to know

how each statement applies to Wilma
minhigluchaal. Please do not skip any questions.

 

1. While I was growing up, my parents felt that the children should have 1 2 3 4 5
theirwayasofienastheparents do.

2. Even if the children didn‘t agree with them, my parents felt that it was 1 2 3 4 5
for our own good to do whatever they thought was right.

3. Whenevermyparents toldmetodo something, theyexpected me to 1 2 3 4 5
do it immediately, without asking any questions.

4. Aslwasgrowingup,whenadecisionhadbeenmade,myparents 1 2 3 4 5
discussed the reasoning behind the decision with the children in the
family.

5. My parents have always encouraged me to ask questions whenever I 2 3 4 5
I have felt that family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.

59

My parents have always felt that children need to be free to make up 1
their own minds, even if it does not agree with what the parents want.

As I was growing up, my parents did not allow me to question any 1
decision that they made.
As I was growing up, my parents directed the children calmly, using 1

reasoning and discipline.

My parents have always felt that more force should be used by parents 1
in order to get their children to do what they are supposed to.

10. As I was growing up, my parents felt that I did not need to obey the 1

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

rules and regulations of behavior just because someone with authority
said so.

As I was growing up, I knew what my parents expected ofme, but I 1
also felt free to discuss those expectations with them if I thought they
were unreasonable.

My parents felt that wise parents should teach their children early just 1
who is boss in the family.

As I was growing up, my parents did not give me expectations and 1
guidelines for my behavior very often

As I was growing up, my parents consistently gave me guidance and 1
directions in calm and understanding ways.

Most of the time when I was growing up, my parents did whatever I
the children wanted when making family decisions.

When I was growing up, my parents would get very upset if I tried to 1
disagree with them.

My parents feel that most problems in society would be solved if 1
parents would not be so strict about their children's activities, decisions,
and dreams as they are growing up.

As I was growing up, my parents let me know what behavior they 1
expected of me, and if I didn't meet those expectations, they
punished me.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

60

As I was growing up, my parents allowed me to decide most things 1
for myself without a lot of direction from them.

As I was growing up, my parents asked the children what they wanted 1
when making family decisions, but they would not decide on something
just because the children wanted it.

My parents did not feel they were responsible for directing and 1
guiding my behavior as I was growing up.

My parents had clear standards of behavior and activities for the 1

children in our family, but they were willing to compromise to fit
the needs of each individual.

My parents gave me guidelines for my behavior, and they expected 1
me to follow them, but they were always willing to listen to my
concerns and to discuss their decisions with me.

As I was mowing up, my parents allowed me to have my own point 1
of view, and they usually allowed me to decide for myself what 1 was
going to do.

My parents have always felt that most problems in society would be I
solved if parents would be strict and forceful with their children when
they don't do what they are supposed to.

As I was mowing up, my parents often told me exactly what they 1
wantedmetodoandhowtheywanted metodoit.

As I was mowing up, my parents gave me clear directions for my 1
behavior, but they were understanding when I disagreed with them.

H

As I was mowing up, my parents did not direct the behaviors,
activities, and dreams of the children in the family.

Aslwasmowingup,lknewwhatmy parentsexpectedofmeinthe 1
family, and they insisted that I respect their authority and do what they
told me to do.

As I was mowing up, if my parents made a decision in the family that 1
hurt me, they were willing to discuss that decision with me and admit
it if they had made a mistake.

2

2

N

N

N

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

45

61

For the next part of this survey, you will be asked
questions about diflerent kinds of drug use. Rememben

’ II III] III III I] I’] I I

W Circle the letter

that makes the most sense to you, personally.

 

For the following items, mark the answer that best describes wriggling:
about...

1. Teenagers that drink alcohol -
A a serious problem
B. a moderate problem
C. a small problem
D. not a problem

2. Teenagers that smoke marijuana -
A. a serious problem
B. a moderate problem
C. a small problem
D. not a problem

3. Teenagers that use hallucinogenics (mushrooms, LSD, acid) -
A a serious problem
B. a moderate problem
C. a small problem
D. not a problem

4. Teenagers that use cocaine or crack -
A. a serious problem
B. a moderate problem
C. a small problem
D. not a problem

62

How much do you think that people risk hurting themselves if they...

5. Try marijuana once or twice?
A. big risk
B. medium risk
C. small risk
D. no risk

6. Smoke marijuana regularly?
A. big risk
B. medium risk
C. small risk
D. no risk

7. Use cocaine or crack once or twice?
A. big risk
B. medium risk
C. small risk
D. not risk

8. Use cocaine or crack regularly?
A big risk
B. medium risk
C. small risk
D. no risk

9. Drink alcohol occasionally?
A. big risk
B. medium risk
C. small risk
D. no risk

10. Drink alcohol every day?
A. big risk
B. medium risk
C. small risk
D. no risk

11. Use hallucinogens (LSD, acid, mushrooms) every once in a while?
A big risk
B. medium risk
C. small risk
D. no risk

63

12. Use hallucinogens (LSD, acid, mushrooms) regularly?
A. big risk
B. medium risk
C. small risk
D. no risk

How many times, WW did you... (Remember,

this survey is anonymous. We don‘t know or care who you are, so please be honest.)

13. Use cocaine or crack?
A. 0 times
B. 1-2 times
C. 3-5 times
D. 6-10 times
B. 11-20 times
F. 21-40 times
G. more than 40 times

14. Drink alcohol to get drunk?
A 0 times
B. 1-2 times
C. 3-5 times
D. 6-10 times
B. 11-20 times
F. 21-40 times
G. more than 40 times

15. Smoke marijuana?
A 0 times
B. 1-2 times
C. 3-5 times
D. 6-10 times
B. 11-20 times
F. 21-40 times
G. more than 40 times

16. Use hallucinogens (LSD, acid, mushrooms)?
A. 0 times G. more than 40 times
B. 1-2 times
C. 3-5 times
D. 6-10 times
B. 11-20 times
F. 21-40 times

 

54

Do you think that pe0ple should be able to

17. Drink alcohol?
A. no - it's wrong
B. yes - but I think it's wrong
C. yes - it doesn't bother me

18. Smoke marijuana?
A. no - it's wrong
B. yes - but I think it's wrong
C. yes - it doesn't bother me

19. Use cocaine or crack?
A. no - it's wrong
B. yes - but I think it's wrong
C. yes - it doesn't bother me

20. Use hallucinogens (LSD, acid, mushrooms)?

A. no - it's wrong
B. yes - but I think it's wrong
C. yes - it doesn't bother me

if they want to?

21. Do you think drug use is a personal choice, or should it be a crime?

it should be a crime

p.05”?

THEEND

it should be a crime for children under 18 years old
it should be a minor violation, like a parking ticket
it should be a personal choice - people can do it if they want to

Thank you for participating in this survey.
Your questionnaire will be kept confidential.

APPENDIX C

65’ i”

E Factor Index o_f_ Social Positiog

August 3. Hollingshead
1965 Yale Station
Nev Haven, Connecticut

1957 by August a. Rollingshead. - ,, '-
Puhlished in United States of America.

I C
. s
a

I.

II.

66

THE TWO rm INDEX OF smIAL POSITION

Introduction.

The Two Factor Index of Social Position was developed to meet the
need for an objective, easily applicable procedure to estimate the
positions individuals occupy in the status structtme of our society.
Its development was dependent both upon detailed knowledge of the
social structure, and procedures social scientists have used to de-
lineate class position. It is premised upon three assumptions: (1)
the existence of a status structure in the society; (2) positions
in this structure are determined mainly by a few comonly accepted
symbolic characteristics; and (3) the characteristics symbolic of
status may be scaled and combined by the use of statistical pro-
cedures so that a researcher can quickly, reliably, and meaning-

fully stratify the population under study.

occupation and education are the two factors utilized to” deter-
mine social position. Occupation is presumed to reflect the skill
and power individuals possess as they perform the m maintenance
functions in the society. Education is believed to reflect not only
knowledge, but also cultural tastes. m proper culmination of these
factors by the use of statistical techniques enable a researcher to
determine within approximte limits the social position an individual
occupies in the status structure of our society.
The Scale Scores.

To determine the social position of an individual or of a house-
hbld two items are essential: (l) the 13551:: occupational role .the

head of the household performs in the econono'; and (2) the amount of

67'

formal schooling he has received.

Each of these factors are then scaled

according to the following system of scores.

A. The Occupational Scale.

1.

.. a. Highmcutis'es

Bank Presidents; Vice-Presidents

Judges (Superior Courts)

Large Business, e.g., Directors,
Presidents, Vice-Presidents,
Assistant Vice-Presidents,
Executive Secretary,
Treasurer.

Higher Dtecutives, Preprietors of Large Concerns, and Major Professionals.

Military, Comissioned Officers, war...
and above, Officials of the hectnmre
Branch of Government,
Federal, State, Local, e.g.,
Mayor, City Manager, City Plan
Director, Internal Revenue
Directors.
Research Directors, Large Pirrs

b.'Large Proprietors (Value over $100,0001).

Brokers
Contractors

c. Major Professionals
Account ts (C.P.A.)
Actuaries
Agronomists

Architects

Artists, Portrait

Astronomers

miditors

Bacteriologists

Chemical Engineers

Chemists

Clergyman (Professionally trained)

Dentists

2. Business Managers, Proprietors
Professional}.

Dairy Owners
Lumber Dealers

Economists -
Engineers (College Grad.)
.Foresters

Geologists

Lawyers

Metallurgists

Physicians

Physicists, Research
Psychologists, Practicing
Symphony Conductor

TEachers, University, College
Veterinarians (Veterinary Surgeons)

of Medium Sized Businesses, and Lester

a. Business hunger: in Large Concerns.

Advertising-Directors

Branch Managers

Brokerage Salesman

District Managers

hecutive Assistants

Dcecutive Managers, Govt. Officials,
minor, e.g., Internal Revenue Agents

Farm Managers

 

Office bhnagers

Personnel Managers

Police Chief; Sheriff

Postmaster

Production Managers

Sales Engineers

Sales lunagers, National Concerns

Sales Managers (Over $100,000)

I. The value of businesses is based upon the rating of financial strength in

Dun and Bradstreet's Manual.

68

b. Proprietors of Medium Businesses (Value $35,0004100,000)

Advertising Owners (41001000) Manufacturer's Representatives
Clothing Store Owners (4100:0C0) Poultry Business ($100,000)
Contractors ($100,000) Purchasing Managers

Express Company Owners (415100.000) Real Estate Brokers (4100.000)
Fruits, Wholesale ($100,000) Rug Business ($100,000)
Furniture Business (4100.000) Store Owners ($100,000)
Jewelers ($100,000) Theater Owners ($100,000)

Labor Relations Consultants

c . Lesser Professionals

 

Accountants (Nat C.P.A.) Military, Commissioned Officers,
Chiropodists Lts., Captains
Chiropractors yicians (Symphony Orchestra)
Correction Officers urses
Director of Commanity House Opticians
Engineers (Not College Grad.) Pharmacists

' Finance Writers Public Health Officers (M.P.H.)
Health Educators Research Assistants, University
Librarians (Pull-time)

Social Workers
Teachers (Elementary and High)

3. Administrative Personnel, Small Independent Businesses, and Minor

-Professionals. -
a. Administrative Personnel

 

Adjusters, Insurance Section Heads, Federal, State, and
Advertising Agents Local Government Offices

Chief Clerks Section Heads,.Large Businesses
Credit Managers and Industries

Insurance Agents Service manger-s

Managers, Department Stores Shop Managers

Passenger Agents--R.R. ' tore Managers (Chain)

Private Secretaries iraffic Managers

Puchasing Agents
Sales Representatives

b. Small Business Owners ($6,000~$35,000)

Art Gallery Cigarette Machines
Auto Accessories Cleaning Shops
Awnings Clothing

Bakery Coal Businesses
Beauty Shop . Convalescent Homes
Boatyard Decorating

Brokerage, Insurance Dog Supplies

Car Dealers . Dry Goods

Cattle Dealers Electrical Contractors

Engraving Business

69

b. Small Business Owners (Continued)

Feed

Finance Co., Local
Fire Extinguishers
S a 10

Florist

Food Equipment
Food Products
Foundry

Funeral Directors
Furniture

.Gmse

Gas Station
Glassware
Grocery-General
Hotel Proprietors
Inst. of Music
Jewelry

Machinery Brokers
Manufacturing

c . Semi -Professionals

Actors and snowmen
Army M/Sgt; Navy C.P.0.
Artists, Comercial
Appraisers (Estimators)
Clergymen (Not professionally
trained)
Concern Managers
Deputy Sheriffs
Dispatchers, R.R. Train
I.B.M. Programmers '
Interior Decorators
Interpreters, Court
Laboratory Assistants
Landscape Planners

d. Farmers

Farm Owners ($25,000-35: 000)

Monuments

Package Store (Liquor)
Painting Contracting
Plumbing

Poultry Producers
Publicity 3: Public Relations
Real EState

Records and Radios
Restaurant

Roofing Contractor
Shoe

Shoe Repairs

_ Signs

Tavern

Taxi Company

Tire Shop

Trucking

Trucks and kactors
Upholstery
wholesale mtlets
Window Shades

Morticians

Oral ngenists
Photographers
Physio-therapists
Piano Teachers

Radio, T.V. Announcers
Reporters, Court
Reporters, Newspaper
Surveyors

Title Searchers

Tool Designers

Travel Agents

Yard Dusters, R.R. . .

’5. Clerical and Sales Workers, Technicians, and Owners of Little Businesses.

 

(Vhlue'ummnrizSOOO)

a. Clerical and Sales Workers
Bank Clerks Te ers
.Bill Collectors
Bookkeepers
Business Machine Operators,
Offices
Claims Examiners
Clerical or Stenographic
Conductors, R.R.
mployment Interviewers

Factory Storekeeper

Factory Supervisor

Post Office Clerks

Route Managers (Salesmen)

Sales Clerks

Shipping Clerks

Super-visors, Utilities, Factories
Toll Station Supervisors
Warehouse Clerks

70

5. Skilled Manual enslave“ (Continued)

Printers

Radio, T.V., mintenance
Repairmen, Home Appliances
Rigger:

Rape Splicers

Sheetm m. “or-kers (ii-nines)
Shipsmiths

Shoe Repairmen (drained)
Stationary Engineers (Licensed)
Stewards, Club

Switchmen, R.R.

Small Farmers

Owners (under $10,000)
Tenants who. own farm: equipment

Tailors (Rained)
Teletype Operators
Toolmakers

track Supervisors. R.R.
Tractor-Trailer bans.
Wanner:
Upholsterers (Trained)
Watchmakers

Weavers

Welders
Yard Supervisors, R.R.

6. Machine Operators and Semi-Skilled Employees

Aides, Hospital

Apprentices, Electricians, Printers

Steamfitters, Toolnakers
Assembly Line Workers
Bartenders
Bingo Tenders
Building Superintendents (0131:.)
Bus Drivers
Checkers
Clay Cutters
Coin Machine Fillers

Dressmakers, Machine

Drill Press Operators
mplicator Machine Operators
Elevator Operators

Enlisted Men, Military Services
Filers, Benders, mm:
Foundry Workers

Garage and Gas Station Assistants
Greenhouse Workers

Guards, Doorkeepers, Watchmen.
Hairdressers

Bousekeepers

Meat Cutters and Packers

Meter Readers

Operators, Factory Machines
Oiler, R.R.

Paper Rolling Bbchine Operators

Farmers

,Photostat Machine. Operators
Practical tun-see
Pressers, Clothing

Pup Operators -
Receivers and Checkers

Roofers
Set-up Men, Factories

Shapers _

Signalmen, R.R.

Solderers, Factory
Sprayers, Paint
Steelworkers (Not Skilled)
Str anders, Wire Itchines

- Strippers, Rubber Factory

Taxi Drivers
Testers

Timers

Tire Moulders

bmn’ 3.3. ' .

Truck Drivers, General
Waiters-Waitresses ("Better Places')
Weighers

Welders, Spot

Winders, Machine

Wiredrawers, MacMne

Wine Battlers

Wood Workers, Machine
Wrappers, Stores and Factories

Smaller Tenants who own littleuequipment.

71

7 . Unskilled Enployees .

Amusement Park Workers (saunas
Alleys, Pool Rooms)

Ash Removers

Attendants, Parking Lots

Cafeteria Workers

Car Cleaners, R.R.

Car Helpers, R.R.

Carriers, Coal

Countermen

Dairy Workers

Deck Hands

Domestics

Farm Helpers

Fishermen (Clam Diggers)

Freight Handlers

Garbage Collectors

Grave Diggers

Hod Carriers

Hog Killers

Hospital Workers, Unspecified

Hostlers, R.R.

Farmers

Share Croppers

Janitors, Sweepers
Laborers, Construction
Laborers, Unspecified
Laundry Workers
Messengers

Platform Men, R.R.
Peddlers

Porters

Roofer's Helpers

Shirt Folders

Shoe Shiners

Sorters, Rag and Salvage
Stagehands

Stevedores

Stock Handlers

Street Cleaners
Unskilled Factory Workers
‘k'uckmen, R.R.
Waitresses --"Hash Houses”
Washers, Cars

Window Cleaners
WoodchOppers

Relief, Public, Private

Unemployed (No Occupation)

This scale is premised upon the assumption that occupations have

, different values attached to them by the members of our society. The

hierarchy ranges from the low evaluation of unskilled phySical labor

toward the more prestigeful use of skill, through. the creative talents

of ideas, and the manipulation ’of men.

The ranking of occupational

functions implies that some men exercise control over the occupational

pursuits of other men. Normally, a person who possesses highly trained

skills has control over several other people. This is exemplified in a.

highly developed form by an executive in a large business enterprise who

may be responsible for decisions affecting thousandfi of employees»

72

B. The Educational $9313

The educational scale is Premised upon the assumption that men and
women who posses similar educations will tend to have similar tastes and
similar attitudes, and they will also tend to exhibit similar behavior
patterns. The educational scale is divided into seven positions: (1) 9&-
ate Professional Training. (Persons who complete a recognized professional
course leading to a graduate degree are given scores of l). (2) Standard
College or University Graduation. (All individuals who complete It tom-year
college or university course leading to a recognized college degree are as-
signed the same scores. No differentiation is made between state universi-
ties, 'or private colleges.) (3) Partial College raining. (Individuals
who complete at least one year but not a full college course are assigned
this position. Most individuals in this category complete from one to three
years of college.) (1*) _H_i_gh_School Graduates. (All secondary school grad-
uates whether from a private preparatory school, a. public high school, a
trade school, or a parochial high school, are assigned the same scale value.)
(5) W- (Individuals-who complete the tenth or the eleventh
grades, but do not complete high school are given this score.) (6) J_u_ni£
Q h School. (Individuals who complete the seventh grade through the ninth
grade are given this position.) (7) Less Than Seven Years of School. (In-
dividuals who do not complete the seventh grade are given the same scores

irrespective of the amount of education they receive.)-

III. InteE-ation of Two Factors
The factors of Occupation and Erication are combined by weighing the

individual scores obtained from the scale positions. The weights for each
factor were determined by mltiple correlation techniques. The weight for

Factor .Factor Wegt
7

Occupation
Education It

each factor is :

73

To calculate the Index of Social Position score for an individual
the scale value for Occupation is multiplied by the factor weight for
Occupation, and the scale value for Education is multiplied by the factor
weight for Education. For example, John Smith is the manager iof a chain

supermarket. He completed high school and one year of business college.

.2113 Index of Social Position score is computed as follows:

 

Factor Scale Score Factor Weight Score X Weight
ficupation. § 7 2
Education 3 h

12
Index of Social Position Score '3'3'

Index of Social Position Scores.
The Two Factor Index of Social Position Scores may be arranged on
a continuum, or divided into groups of scores. The range of scores on a
continuum is from a low of 11 to a high 'of 77. For some purposes a re-
searcher may desire to work with a continuum of scores. For other pur-
poses he may desire to break the continuum into a hierarchy of score groups.
I have found the most meaningful breaks for the purpose of predicting

the social class position of an individual or of a nuclear family is as

 

follows:
Social Class Range of Computed Scores
I ll-l?
II 18-27
III 2843
Iv hit-60
V 61-77

When the Two Factor Index of Social Position is relied upon to
determine class status, differences in individual scores within a Speci-
fied range are ignored, and the scores within the range are treated as
a unit. This procedure assumes there are meaningful differences between
the scoregroups. Individuals and nuclear families (with scores that fall

into a given segment of the range of scores assigned to a particular class

74

are presumed to belong to the class the Two Factor Index of Social Position
score predicts for it.

The assumption of a meaningful correspondence between an estimated
class position of individuals and their social behavior has been validated
by the use of factor analysis.2 The validation study demonstrated the ex-
istence of classes when mass communication data are used as criteria of

social behavior .

2
See August B. Hollingshead and Frederick C. Redlich, Social Class and
Mental Illness, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1958, pp. 396407.

APPENDIX D

TIME LINE FOR WORK

September, 1995: Submitted research proposal to advisory
committee for approval

September, 1995: Received "unofficial" approval from high
school in which survey was going to be
administered

October, 1995: Received approval from advisory committee

October, 1995: Applied to UCRIHS at Michigan State

November, 1995: Received UCRIHS approval

November, 1995: Found out that school board had not yet

received materials from principle to be
reviewed (contrary to what I was told)

November, 1995: Was denied by school board to give survey
in public schools
December, 1995: Quickly decided to attempt to administer

survey at Michigan State in hopes of
making up for lost time

January, 1996: Met with professors of courses in which
survey was to be administered

February. 1996: Administered survey

February, 1996: Collected sample and entered data into
computer

March/April, 1996: Analyzed data

ApriUMay/June, 1996: Wrote thesis paper

August 1996: Submitted and defended thesis paper

75

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Bahr, S. (1995). Family educational, and peer influences on alcohol use of

female and male adolescents. JdumaLQLStudiaadnAlcondL 56, 457-
469

Bauman, K. (1994). Peer influence on adolescent drug use. Amancan
Esmhnlmist. 49. 820-822.

Baumrind. D. (1975). Eanxfiociaiizatinnandmmscinlinefiontmversv New

Jersey: General Learning Press.

Bronfenbrenner U (1979) Wm
- - - - Cambridge.

 

Mass; Harvard University Press, 1979.

Bubolz M. 8 Sontag. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. Sdumbddimi

 

NY: Plenium Press, 1993. ‘

Buri, J. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. JdumaLoLEacsdnaiitv
Assessment. 51. 110-119.

Burl, J. (1988). Effects of parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on
self esteem. Eersonalrbmndfiocralfisycmlogvaullem 15. 271-282

Dodge. K, et. al. (1994). Socialization mediators of the relation between
socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. thidQevaidpmam,
65, 649—655.

Eliot, D. 8: Ageton. S. (1985). WWW
California: Sage.

Eskilson, A, et. al. (1986). Parental pressure, self-esteem, and adolescent

reported deviance: Bending the twig too far. mum 2.1. 501-
515.

Fisher, W. (1987). . ' .
W. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Law and
Public Safety.

 

Flett. G. (1995). Perfectionism and parental authority styles. individual

 

76

77

Geisbrecht, N. (1995). Parenting style and adolescent religious commitment.
1.4.. 228-238.

Haskett, M. (1995). Parenting style as a mediating link between parental
emotional health and adjustment of maltreated children. Behavier
Iberaex. 26. 625-642.

Hoffman, J. (1995). The effects of family structure and family relations on

adolescent marijuana use. lntemetiernlieumaLoLflneAddictiens.
39. 1207-1241.

Honingshead. A (1957). WWW. USA.

Irvin, D. (1993). Substance abuse among adolescents: Implications for at-

risk Youth SeeeiaLSenLimeianeScbeels. L 39-64

Levine, EM. 8. Kozak, C. (1979). Drug and alcohol use, delinquency, and
vandalism among upper-middle class pre- and post-adolescents.
JeumaLoiloumendAdelescence. 8. 91-102.

Liska, A. 8 Reed, M. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and

delinquency: Estimating reciprocal effects. WW
Bevienr. 59. 547-560

Lorch, B. (1990). Social class and its relationship to youth substance use
and other delimuent activities. SecialJNorkBesearcnandAhstracts.

McFarlane, A. (1995). Family structure, family functioning. and adolescent
well being: The transcendence influence of parental style. Social
Wants. 28. 201-219.

Mounts, N. (1995). An ecological analysis of peer influence on adolescent
GPA and drug use. DevelopmentaLEsvcbeleoy. 3.1. 915-922.

National Research Council (1993). ' '
Blekfieninde Washington D. 0.: National Academy Press.

 

Paulson, S. (1994). Relations of parenting style and parental involvement

with ninth grade students' achievement. JeumaLeLEafllAdelesQenm.
15. 250-269.

Recio, A. (1995). The influence of family, school, and peers on adolescent
9W9 misuse. lntemetienaLJeumaleflbeAddiQiens. 39. 1407-1423

Search Institute (1990). WWW. Minneapolis, MN.

78

Shields, E. (1995). Sociodemographic analysis of drug use among adolescent
athletes: Observations-perceptions of athletic directors/coaches.
Adolescence. 39 839-961.

Shine, W. (1992). Affluent adolescents. QavaidnmaniaLandjanavidral
Eediatrim. 19. 50-53.

Shucksmith, J. (1995). Models of parenting: Implications for adolescent well-

being within different types of family contexts. MaLQLAddiasdanda,
19. 253-270.

Smart, R. (1994). Neighbourhood socio-economic factors in relation to
student drug use and programs. JenmaLoLQbildendAdelescent
Substaneeebuse. a. 37-46

WIlliams, J. R 8 Gold, M. (1972). From delinquent behavior to official
delinquency Socialfimblems. 29 209-229

"Illlllllllilllllllllllllllll“