)' ‘ . . ,. F . i. . r ”2. ‘ 12f».- . 4" W l"- 5’4'~-.:‘5"3'5~"’"5.: - 1,; - $1.5 " ."" 9935."; ' .‘I‘ ”‘5‘”, 'l I '5 ’5‘. - I5. ‘ 45:0 "."r."‘7‘ 15"", :‘I . 15' “ ' - m" “‘5 TV '5, ,=7-'?'3€:';~} 5535-? 3 -‘ 1- 5 k' 5' 5555\(.\ év‘h'lLI‘ v55 I""53”,. {'55 ‘5 l‘ 1' 57::."\."},§i‘.‘.5 :42“; .7 {'4}§!3.¥;;3.§C¥'?$n:: 4. ':' 51:41?» .658 3‘53” 3" . U .2 ‘ " 5.5:. " ?5‘.'§ 5M7”: '1.) "‘[5. v” ' 4 . 5-va 5.53335, Vii-5:43 3°95)", Hg 5' " ‘ £9§35 , 5 °" > ' K‘- ‘ . 4’48". - . _ C)“ ‘. ‘ 3—.5‘ Ink}! ,r«,.nvv .-' .‘-\, r'km. 1_;‘5‘ ‘ .‘ -. . —u- -- u . CF: ,5 < - .NW . ‘ “WW" - 5.! M” 0.5;!- W 5,5": “null ""5I ~ "MI '5. "555l fr" 0 --1 :lm‘. ? , LIBRARY nSum Illlll m ll ll 5; ‘1‘ ll will l Michiga University This is to certify that the thesis entitled COMMUNICATION INFLUENCES ON SELECTED SUBSTANCE ABUSE BEHAVIORS IN MEXICO CITY presented by Josep Rota has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ' '4‘; u: r 1'. ‘ 31.1.”)? “.14 L J ' I T! . h‘iibuiflah L. Susi-” - I}, \ .fi I...‘ I —'-v- —- - £0 Ph . D . degree inCommunicat ion \ Majorp essor M Datew 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to Book drop to remove this checkout from your record. 9r COMMUNICATION INFLUENCES ON SELECTED SUBSTANCE ABUSE BEHAVIOR IN MEXICO CITY BY Josep Rota A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1978 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doc r of Philosophy degree. Director Hf Disséitation Guidance Committee: f§LLHLKZ&7<:§<£LAtqyfi Chairman ///.1' l4 (I {/ \,_/ 4,1“ xSOt/c/WLQL ABSTRACT COMMUNICATION INFLUENCES ON SELECTED SUBSTANCE ABUSE BEHAVIOR IN MEXICO CITY BY Josep Rota The purpose of this dissertation is to submit to empirical test Linear Force Aggregation Theory in two dif- ferent areas of substance abuse. The dependent variables are attitudes and behaviors toward alcohol and marijuana. The central postulate of the theory proposes that any given attitude or behavior is determined by the simple linear aggregation of all the information and influence an individ— ual perceives to have received from all external forces of communication that reach him or her with messages relevant to the attitude for behavior. Thus, each message if con- strued as an incoming force that pulls the attitude or be- havior with some intensity and in some specific direction, although the end result will not depend on one single mes- sage or source but rather on the aggregation of all incoming forces. Messages can procede from the definers (what others say), either interpersonally or via media, or from models (the exemplary messages represented by what others do). Given the dependent substances, the set of relevant sources of communication for the population we studied was ascertained in an exploratory study done before the final survey. Thirteen sources were obtained, including five mass Josep Rota media definers (television, radio, popular songs, news- papers and magazines), five interpersonal definers (parents, siblings, other relatives, friends at school and friends outside of school), and three sources of exemplary messages (father, mother, and friends). Theoretically, it was hypothesized that the "aggregat- ed message intake" from (a) each set of sources of communica— tion and (b) from all sources combined would positively correlate with the respondents' attitude and behavior toward alcohol and marijuana. Differences between sets of sources were also predicted. Generally, practically all our research hypotheses were supported by the data, although the coefficient of multiple correlation were, for the most part, lower than expected on the basis of what the theory claims and of pre- vious tests of the theory. The coefficient ranged between .069 and .548. The result led us to conclude that this study provides only moderate support for the theory as developed so far and that an attenuation of the claim made by its principle populate (i.e., that attitudes and behaviors are determined by the aggregation of the information an individ- ual has received from all relevant sources of communication) should be considered. The comparison of the various sets of communication sources clearly indicates that the main correlate of the dependent attitudes and behaviors is the exemplary messages Josep Rota of some significant others (i.e., what the respondents perceive that others are doing). Mass media and inter— personal definers make only marginal contributions of the total variance explained in the dependent measures. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe my greatest debt of gratitude to Dr. Bradley S. Greenberg. As committee chairman, mentor and friend, he has greatly contributed not only to this dissertation, but also to my personal and intellectual growth. He has taught me many invaluable lessons about theory and research in communication. I have also received from him unusual support and guidance. I must also recognize him and other authori- ties at Michigan State for their patience: the preparation of this dissertation took four years more than it probably should have. To the other members of my committee, Drs. Charles Atkin, Lawrence Sarbaugh, and John Simpkins, I am indebted for the constructive way in which each one of them contrib- uted to an improvement of this dissertation. I am particu- larly grateful to Dr. John Simpkins for having traveled more than 500 miles only in order to be present in my oral exams. I also thank Dr. Joseph Woelfel for his help in the early stages of this study. One of the persons I owe most within and without academic circles is Dr. Verling P. Troldahl. His most un- timely and unfortunate death represented a great personal ii loss for me. He was a most influential mentor and a partic- ularly dear friend. I consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity of doing my graduate studies in the Department of Communication at Michigan State. While a student there, I received significant and long lasting influences from my professors and fellow students, whom collectively I want to thank. Particularly, however, and in addition to the persons mentioned above, I would like to thank Drs. David K. Berlo and Everett M. Rogers. My studies at Michigan State were in part made possible by an exchange program that existed be- tween that institution and Universidad Iberoamericana, my former alma mater in Mexico City. Initially, I also received some generous support from Universidad Iberoamericana. This dissertation was based on a larger study funded by the Centro Mexicano de Estudios en Farmacodetendencia (Mexican Center for Studies on Drug Dependents) through contract AS.03-73. The exploratory study and some of the final data were processed at the Institute for Research on Applied Mathematics and Systems at the National University of Mexico with the most competent help of Dr. Feverico O'Reilly. The remainder of the data were processed at Michigan State thanks to the facilities provided by the Department of Communication. Berta Diaz, my secretary at Universidad Anahuac in Meciao City, patiently and ably typed the first drafts of iii the manuscript. The final draft was competently and effi- ciently typed by Mrs. Ruth Langenbacher. She also got the dissertation printed and bound and solved for me many admin— istrative matters. I want to express my appreciation to her. To my parents, Josep and Julia, I also owe a great debt of gratitude for the educational goal they helped me attain through their constant support. The final and most affectionate word of thanks is reserved for my wife, Gilda. My indebtedness to her goes much beyond what is more usually owed to a spouse since she has also made some very substantial contributions to this study. She helped me obtain the contract with the funding institution that made the research financially possible. She closely supervised all aspects of field work (in the exploratory study, the pilot test, and the final survey), content analyses, and coding of the data. Finally, she also helped me considerably with the review of the substan- tive literature. In addition, she has provided me with a most supportive home environment and she nagged me just about enough about this dissertation when so many times there seemed to be some other and more urgent work to attend. iv Chapter I II III TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . Rationale for the Study . . Objectives of the Study . . . Communication and Drugs: Review of the Substantive Literature . . Level of Drug Use . . Correlates of Drug Attitudes and Use . . Sources of Drug Information and Influence . . . . Theoretical Antecedents . . . Theory. . . . . . . Hypotheses. . . . . . METHODS . . . . . Independent Variables . . . Selection of the Variables. Exploratory Study and Pre-test. Operationalization of the Independent Variables. . Descriptive Statistics for the Independent Variables. . . Dependent Variables . . . Description of the Sample . Methods for Data Gathering. . Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . Effects of the Mass Media . . Effects of Interpersonal Sources Effects of Significant Others' Exemplary Messages . . . Effects of All Sources of Communication Combined . . V 14 18 23 28 34 45 59 73 73 73 77 79 85 99 104 108 110 115 115 122 127 133 Chapter III (cont'd.) Page Differential Effects of Inter- personal and Mass Media Sources and Exemplary Messages. . . . 143 IV SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . 150 Summary and Empirical Conclusions . . 150 The Effects of the Mass Media . 156 Effects of Interpersonal Sources . . . . 157 Effects of Exemplary Messages . 158 Effects of All Sources of Communication Combined. . . 158 Differential Effects of Inter— personal Definers, Mass Media Definers, and Exemplary Messages . . . 160 Critical Assessment of Some Aspects of the Operationalization of the Theory. . . . 165 The Effect of the Degree of Trust Felt for Each Source. . 166 Comparison of the Message Intake Index with Mere Exposure . . . 171 Comparison of Our Results with Those of a Previous and Related Test of the Theory. . . . . 175 Discussion . . . . . . . 184 Theory . . . . . . . 184 Methodology. . . . 192 Policy Implications of the Study. . . 196 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Appendix A: Original Spanish Version of The Questionnaire Used in The Exploratory Study . . . . 200 B: Final Version of The Question- naire in the Original Spanish Presentation . . . . . 235 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . 254 vi Table 1. 10. LIST OF TABLES Correlates of alcohol, marijuana and "drug" attitudes and/or use among high school students . . . . . . . . . Range, mean and standard deviation for all the information flow variables in this study, as originally measured . . . . Mean and standard deviation for the Aggre- gated Message Intake indices . . . . Zero order correlation coefficients among the component items of the Message Intake indices for alocholic beverages . . Zero order correlation coefficients among the component items of the Message Intake indices of marijuana . . . . . . Reliability coefficients--a1pha coeffi- cients--for the Message Intake indices. . Intercorrelations among the mass media Message Intake (M.I.) indiceswfor alcoholic beverages . . . . . . Intercorrelations among the interpersonal Message Intake (M.I.) indices for alcoholic beverages . . . . . . Intercorrelations among the mass media Message Intake (M.I.) indices for marijuana . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelations among the interpersonal Message Intake (M.I.) indices for marijuana . . . . . . . . . vii Page 24 86 89 91 92 94 95 96 97 98 Table Page 11. Zero order correlation coefficients of the degree of use of alcoholic beverages by significant others (exemplary messages) . . . . . . .- . . 99 12. Relationship (#) between the respondents' frequency of use of alcohol and marijuana and (a) selected characteristics and (b) exposure to mass and interpersonal media . 105 13. Gamma coefficients expressing the rela- tionship between the frequency of use of alcohol and marijuana and the use of four other drugs . . . . . . . 106 14. Zero-order correlation coefficients among the independent and dependent variables used to test the main hypotheses pertain- ing to attitude and behavior about alcohol. . . . . . . . . . 113 15. Zero-order correlation coefficients among the independent and dependent variables used to test the main hypotheses pertain- ing to attitudes and behavior about marijuana . . . . . . . . . 114 16. Relationship between the respondents' AMI for the mass media and their attitude toward alcoholITHypothesis H1 and marijuana (Hypothesis Hlb) . a . . . . 117 17. Relationship between the respondents' AMI for mass media and their behavior about alcohol (Hypothesis H2a) and marijuana (Hypothesis HZb) . . . . . . . 119 18. Relationship between the respondents' AMI for interpersonal sources and their attitude toward alcohol (Hypothesis H ) and marijuana (Hypothesis H3b) . . 3a. . 123 19. Relationship between the respondents' AMI for interpersonal sources and their behavior about alcohol (Hypothesis H4a) and marijuana (Hypothesis H4b) . . . . 124 viii Table Page 20. Relationship between the significant others‘ exemplarypmessages and the respondents' attitude (Hypothesis H5) and behavior (Hypothesis H6 ) about alcohol. . . . . . . . . . 129 21 Relationship between the respondents' total aggregate value of all sources of information and influence and their attitude toward alcohol (Hypothesis H9a ) and marijpana (Hypothesis H9b) . . . . 137 22. Relationship between the respondents' total aggregate value of all sources of information and influence and their behavior about alcohol (Hypothesis HlOa) and marijuana (Hypothesis HlOb)' . . . 138 23. Difference between the multiple correla- tion coefficient of all sources combined and the R obtained by each subset of sources for each dependent variable. . . 141 24. Differential contribution to R2 by each medium of communication for all sources combined . . . . . . . . . 144 25. Significance of R2 differences between sets of communication sources . . . . 146 26. Summary of findings: partial regression coefficients which are significant be- yond the .05 level . . . . . . . 162 27. Comparison of partial and multiple regression coefficients for all vari- ables, with and without inclusion of the variable "trust," regressed on the four dependent variables. . . . . . . 169 28. Comparison of partial and multiple regression coefficients between the message intake indices and exposure variables alone regressed on the four dependent variables. . . . . . . 173 29. Comparison of partial and multiple regression coefficients between the Rota and Woelfel studies with attitude and behavior toward marijuana as the dependent variab1e(s). . . . . . . . . 179 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is a well known fact that the use and abuse of drugs has become an important social problem, particularly among youth, during the past several years. It is also true that the concept of social problem tends to be rather ambi— guous and quite dependent upon subjective evaluations in defining and Operationalizing it (see, for example, Becker, 1966, and Rainwater, 1974). In fact, one of the classical and still widely used definitions of social problem states that it "is a condition which is defined by a considerable number of persons as a deviation from some social norm which they cherish. Every social problem thus consists of an objective condition and a subjective definition. The objec- tive condition is a verifiable situation which can be checked as to existence and magnitude (proportions) by impartial and trained observers, e.g., the state of our national defense, trends in the birth rate, unemployment, etc. The subjective definition is the awareness of certain individuals that the condition is a threat to certain cherished values" (Fuller and Myers, 1941). Further ahead in their paper, the authors (9p, cit., p. 320) emphasize that "social problems are what 1 people think they are." The behavioral phenomenon of drug use and abuse would certainly seem to fit very well with such a conceptualiza- tion of a social problem. The objective condition; namely, the consumption of legal and illegal drugs, undoubtedly exists. Its magnitude has been investigated and, even though it can vary markedly among various population subgroups, par- ticularly for the less dangerous drugs such as tobacco, alcohol and marijuana, it has been found to be important and to occasionally reach substantial levels in the various countries where it has been analyzed.* In addition to the magnitude of various substance abuse behaviors, other objec- tive conditions have been established, such as the physical and psychological effects of drug consumption (e.g., Chafetz, 1974) which contribute to the definition of drug abuse as a social problem. Needless to say, a variety of subjective definitions of the problem are equally present, ranging from a vehement opposition to their use to an equally strong stance in their favor. Subjective definitions about the nature of drugs as social problems can be very strongly held and lead to con- flict situations like the ones that can be found between those actively in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana * A review of the substantive literature is presented in one of the following sections. 3 and those opposed to it. Drug abuse behaviors can be clas- sified as "moral problems" according to Fuller and Myers' (op. cit.) categorization of social problems* (see also Rainwater, 1974, pp. 1-13). Moral problems are the most difficult to deal with; they generally are value laden and frequently there is not even agreement regarding the proble- matic condition itself as undesirable. Moral problems are subject to value judgments and conflict. While recognizing the significance of drugs as a social problem as well as the important moral and value con- siderations involved, this dissertation does not start from an evaluation of drugs as "good" or as "bad." No such value judgments shall be made. Rather, the purpose of this study is to relate attitudes and behavior about two pOpular drugs to a set of sources of communication, postulated as signifi- cant predictors of the dependent attitudes and behavior, and chosen for theoretical reasons. In this regard, the goal of this study is to test a theory of communication. That there is a relationship between communication influences and attitudes and behavior about drugs appears to * The authors include two additional categories: (1) physical problems, which tend to be value-free in terms of their definition and where generalized consensus can be reached (e.g., earthquakes, floods, etc.), and (2) amelio- rative problems, where there is consensus about the objec— tive condition but disagreement about actions to be taken or prtgrams for the amelioration of the condition (e.g., crime and prisons, mental disease, etc.) 4 be 2 priori evident. However, although such relationship seems to be assumed by much of the substance abuse behaviors literature, it has not been adequately investigated. As a result, we still do not know much about the relationship be- tween communication and drugs on data derived from empirical research and supported by theoretical foundations. In general, a search of the substantive literature shows that even though the number of drug related publications is impressive (cf. National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information, 1972; Nellis, 1972), very little is derived from empirical research and even less from theory-based research. Therefore, this dissertation will analyze, within a communication theory framework, what relationship exists be- tween a set of sources of information and influence and the attitude and behavior that adolescent and young students in Mexico City have towards two selected drugs, based on the perception of the respondents. The theoretical framework that guides the research for this study is Linear Force Aggregation Theory, as developed by Joseph Woelfel and others.* This theory enables us to examine the comparative and aggregated impact of selected mass media and interpersonal sources of information, as well as other sources of informa- tion and influence, on specific attitudes and behaviors of their receivers. *Woelfel, 1970; Woelfel and Haller, 1970; Woelfel et a1., 1972; Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973; Woelfel et a1., 1974; and ‘Woelfel and Saltiel, 1974. 5 The two drugs that have been chosen as dependent at- titudinal and behavioral phenomena are alcoholic beverages and marijuana. This will enable us to do a replicated test of Linear Force Aggregation Theory with the same respondents 'in two different areas of drug abuse. Additionally, mari- juana has also been previously used in a related test of Linear Force Aggregation Theory by Woelfel and Hernandez (1973) with a sample of college students from four American and one Canadian universities. This will permit further theoretical as well as cross-cultural comparisons. As is well known, of the two drugs, alcohol is of legal use for adults and extremely easily available to all, including minors to whom wine, beer and liquor cannot be legally sold (in Mexico as in the United States). Marijuana, on the other hand, is an illegal drug for minors and adults alike, but easily available and inexpensive. As previously indicated, the locus of the empirical study is Mexico City. The drug scene there, as well as in the rest of the country, is a very old one, although until recently it was very limited in terms of the variety of drugs used, the magnitude of use and the number of peOple and population subgroups involved (see Urdapilleta, 1970, and Belsasso, 1970). Hallucinogens, derived from the inges- tion of psychotrOpic plants, were well known and used in pre- (flalumbian cultures, although exclusively as part of religious or'nwstical experiences. Some Indian population groups 6 living in relatively isolated areas still use psychotropic plants for the same purpose; however, hallucinogens also have recently been incorporated to the modern urban drug culture, both in the form of natural plants and as chemical products such as LSD. Alcohol has long been a popular drug in Mexico, widely used by most sectors of the population and a common part of the content of some mass media, like popular songs (Donneaud, 1975) and the cinema. Inhalants are much more recent; however, they have already become one of the most common drugs in Mexico, its use being circumscribed to the lower socioeconomic classes and, in those classes, mainly to children and adolescents. Marijuana is also a pOpular drug. During the last decade and a half it has climbed the social ladder and is now a relatively frequently used intoxicant among members of some upper class groups, mainly university students, intel- lectuals and in some professions (Urdapilleta, pp. 213.). Prior to its present high status, marijuana was identified with soldiers and other low class groups. During the Mexican Revolution, at the beginning of this century, marijuana was a particularly popular drug, frequently extolled in the songs of the time (including "La Cucaracha" - "The Cock- roach" - a still popular song, especially outside of Mexico where it is accepted as a prototype of Mexican folk songs. This song has the recurrent line: "The cockroach can no 7 longer walk, because it has no marijuana to smoke"). Milder intoxicants, like tobacco and caffeine, are of course very widely used throughout the country. Stronger drugs, like heroine, morphine and cocaine, are extremely rare in the country except as part of an increasingly heavy traffic of drugs from production centers in Mexico and in foreign countries, through Mexico, to the United States, which is by far the world's richest drug market. The present panormama of drug use in Mexico clearly seems to be on the rise. Data at the Centro Mexicano de Estudios en Farmacodependencia, CEMEF, (Mexican Center of Studies on Drug Dependence) indicate an increase in the volume of drug used, in the number of persons and population subgroups experimenting with or regularly using drugs, and in the variety of drugs used. This trend is consonant with William McGlothlin's generalization that one of the consistent historical observa- tions about drug using behavior is that excessive use flourishes during periods of social upheaval. Where family, community, and cultural structure are strong, abuse is low; when wars, massive migrations from rural to urban settings, unemployment, and breakdown of family influence occur, abuse tends to be high. In short, lack of struc- ture, discipline, and involvement are con- ducive to patterns of excessive drug use. If one projects a future society in which large segments of the pOpulation are unem- ployed or otherwise alienated and uninvolved, then a high rate of drug abuse can be an- ticipated (McGlothlin, 1971, p. 4). McGlothlin's observation seems to be particularly appdicable to Mexico City. A city that along with undeniable 8 virtues and positive qualities also has the inherent prob— lems of one of the world's three largest and most crowded cities. It has a population of approximately 14 million people concentrated in a relatively small area. Between 400 and 500 thousand impoverished peOple from rural areas immigrate each year to the city, which in addition has a natural pOpulation growth of about an equal size. Accord- ing to official estimates, unemployment and underemployment may be as high as 40% of the labor force. It also has ex- cedingly high mean levels of anomie for the population as a whole,* in addition to experiencing social, economic, family, and other changes that constantly and rapidly are taking place. This study was done among Mexico City high school students enrolled in 7th, 9th and 12th grades in public and private schools in February and March, 1974. A usable sample of 1,928 students was obtained by means of probabil- ity sampling methods. * Two separate studies in progress by this writer, both with random samples of the Mexico City adult population where the respondents were interviewed in their homes, one analyzing patterns and correlates of mass media use with a sample of about 700, the second one studying the comparative diffusion of three news events on a sample of about 1,000, have yielded a mean level of anomie of close to four, on Srole's five point scale. 9 Rationale for the Study A fundamental motivation behind the present study is a consideration about the extant research on the effects of communication. Unquestionnably, the quantity of research published in this area is very impressive. In the case of the effects of television on human behavior, for example, Comstock and Fisher (1975) list over 2,300 studies; a number similar to the one reported by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) for communication of innovations. Other fields of inquiry have also been very active, such as those that study commun- ication influences on political behavior, processes of at- titude formation and change, national modernization and de- velopment, consumer socialization, and organizational communication, among others. Substantive fields of research on the effects of com- munication like the ones mentioned above can be considered as instances of study of complex attitudinal and behavioral phenomena. Such phenomena usually result from a process of socialization where not one, nor a few, but many antecedent variables—-including communication variables--are needed in order to adequately explain the resultant effects. What makes a child aggressive, or a user of marijuana, or a con- sumer of a given brand of chocolate, is not the omnipotent effect of only one relevant message or even of one source of communication advocating the resultant behavior. Rather, those behaviors are the outcome of an aggregate of messages, 10 some in favor and some against, some strong and some weak, that the focal child has received over a period of time. Therefore, multivariate approaches to the study of complex attitudes and behaviors which can be construed as the resultant effect of multiple and disparate sources of information and influence through a process of socialization should be the norm, rather than almost an exception, in the study of communication. However, a search of the literature shows that the analysis of the effects of communication has mostly been limited to the study of the relationship between only one medium of communication as an antecedent variable, or a limited set of antecedent variables, and a dependent measure. In this regard, Comstock and Lindsey (1975, p. 39) explicity state that "in the kind of theory-oriented cause- and-effect research under discussion (on television and human behavior), it is the custom to control all variables except one and measure the effects on a single other variable, thereby controlling all the varied complex real-world inter- actions out of existence in the data." This situation has led these authors to call for research that reflects the complex interactions of real-life events (at least for the particular case of the effects of television on human be- havior). In a more general way, Kerlinger and Pedhazur (1973) similarly emphasize the complexity of natural phenomena and the need for multivariate analysis. They state that "the 11 phenomena and constructs of the behavioral sciences . . . are especially complex. "Complex" in this context means that a phenomenon has many facets and many causes. In a research-analytic context, "complex" means that a phenomenon has several sources of variation" (pp. pip., p. 3). Certainly, research designed to study whether or not one medium is significantly associated with a given effect is needed, both for theory construction and as a contribution to our state of knowledge. However, it is also of obvious great importance to analyze the combined effect of an aggre- gate of relevant sources of communication in order to be able to arrive at better explanations of the dependent phenomenon, as well as to allow us to formulate better communication pre- dictor models of attitudes and behavior. Furthermore, if we are interested in the study of the relationship between only one medium of communication and a dependent attitude or be- havior, we can better achieve that purpose if we analyze the effect of that medium in the presence of other relevant sources of information and influence whose effect is statis- tically controlled or cancelled out or, at least, compared. Specifically, the case of drugs such as alcohol and marijuana constitutes a clear example of attitudes and be- haviors developed over time, as a result of the combined differential effects of repeated exposure to multiple sources of information and influence. Hanneman, for example, has shown that young peOple (college students in his case) do 12 utilize a diversity of sources of information about drugs (Hanneman, 1973). In order to be able to explain a very high percentage of the total variance in the use of mari- juana, Woelfel and Hernandez (1973) also had to take into account multiple sources of information and influence, to- gether with other factors, as predictor variables. Fejer gtpgl., (1971) and Johnston (1973) have shown that young people do seek information about drugs from many different sources of communication. Smart and Fejer (1972) also found multiple media use, both mass and interpersonal, as sources of information about drugs. However, and in spite of examples such as these, very little communication research has been done in the area of attitudes and behavior about drugs (cf, Blumberg, 1975, and Kinder, 1975a and 1975b). Additionally, practically no research can be found in the literature analyzing the com- bined and/or aggregated effect of multiple communication pre- dictors, including mass media and interpersonal channels, on substance abuse behaviors. This is precisely what the present study pretends to do. We shall examine, within the framework of Linear Force Aggregation Theory (the empirical test of which is the main goal of this study), the relation- ship between a set of mass media and interpersonal sources of communication and attitudes and behaviors that high school students in Mexico City have towards alcoholic beverages and marijuana, as perceived by those students. 13 Objectives of the Study The objectives of this dissertation are: (1) To do a replicated test of Linear Force Aggre- gation Theory with the same respondents in two different substance abuse areas; namely, alcoholic beverages and mari- juana. (2) To make some modifications to previous and related tests of Linear Force Aggregation Theory that exist (mainly Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973), particularly regarding (a) the addition of key interpersonal sources of information and salient sources of exemplary messages (represented by how frequently the respondent perceived his friends and family to consume selected intoxicants), (b) the elimination of the main source of circularity that was present in previous tests of the theory and which, as we shall argue, tended to boost the amount of explained variance, and (c) the test of the theory solely as a communication theory; that is, one which is concerned mainly with the analysis of the effects of selected sources of communication and not so much with the effects of other contributory variables. (3) To test the theory in a different cultural setting and thereby to enable us to make cross-cultural comparisons with previous and related applications of the theory. Cross- cultural replications have the added dimension of allowing us to test factors such as the universality of propositions and theories (Marsh, 1967; Durkheim, 1965). 14 Communication and Drugs: Review of the Substantive Literature In reviewing the substantive literature on drug use and abuse, three things immediately strike the social sci— ence and particularly, the communication researcher. In the first place, there is an impressive amount of litera- ture accumulated in this area. The National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information (1972), for example, cites a total of 4,367 titles in a bibliography of drug abuse literature. Secondly, only a relatively small minority of the published studies that can be found on drug use and abuse are based on empirical social science research. The major- ity of the empirical studies come from the medical and bio- logical fields (both with human and animal subjects). Many other publications deal with aspects such as moral and sub- jective evaluations of substance abuse behaviors, law and public policy, approaches to drug use as a criminal activity, treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts, guidelines for drug education, community action about drugs and drug abuse, and others. Thirdly, of the relatively limited number of studies that can be classified as empirical social science research, only a few are written from a communication (theory) per- spective based on knowledge derived from empirical studies. lflost of the communication publications concerning drug- related behaviors deal with aspects such as proposed 15 communication strategies to deliver drug prevention mes- sages to adolescent and young audiences. These publications tend to be based on past experiences or pr0posed guidelines for message dissemination strategies, usually not checked against data derived from quantitative social science analy- sis. Furthermore, it is apparent that these publications generally do not utilize scientific knowledge accumulated in theoretically based communication studies published in the social science literature. Many of the studies that can be classified as empir- ical social science research have been summarized in recent literature reviews. Berg (1971) summarized more than 50 sur- veys done among American high school and college students until the late nineteen sixties and dealing with patterns and correlates of drug use. Blumberg (1975) continued Berg's work summarizing American, Canadian and British surveys of drug use among secondary and college students that were pub- lished between 1968 and 1972. Kinder (1975a and 1975b) con- centrated on attitudes toward drugs. He analyzed and synthesized data published between the mid sixties and the early seventies regarding attitudes toward the use and abuse of alcohol and other drugs and attitudinal correlates. McGlothlin (1975) reviewed the use and abuse of various drugs, including prevalence and trends of use of each of several drugs (Opiates, marijuana, hallucinogens, stimulants and de- pressants); frequency, amount and duration of use; etiology 16 and methods of spread; effects of marijuana and hallucino- gen use; prevention, and treatment. Blum (1970) reports cross-cultural data. Braucht e£_gl. (1973) have reviewed the psychosocial correlates of drug abuse among adolescents. Einstein and Allen (1973) edited a book that collects a number of studies on drug use among students. In general, the studies included in these reviews, as well as other studies that can be found in the literature, indicate that (l) the level of use of the various drugs varies so widely, not only between different popu- lations but also within relatively similar ones, that no generalizations can be made in this respect except that at least some level of drug use will always be found in any pop- ulation studied. In a more general way, how- ever, Blumberg (1975) indicates that "users in most secondary schools still constituted* a minority group who (more often than non- users in some samples) were regarded as troublemakers at school and given lower grades, whereas users in some colleges and universities were close to becoming a major- ity and were doing comparatively well in * In the early n1neteen sevent1es. (2) (3) (4) 17 their studies"; even though a number of presumed correlates of drug attitudes and use has generally been incorporated in empirical studies--inc1uding age, grade, sex, racial and ethnic background, religion, socioeconomic status, place of residence, personality correlates, and others, --there has not emerged any single or con- sistent pattern of correlates; a more consistent pattern can be found regard- ing sources of information and influence about drugs. In general, the mass media have had little effect on attitudes and behavior about drugs, although they have been more important in creating awareness about those substances and in affecting other cognitive dimensions. Interpersonal sources of commun- ication, on the other hand, have generally been found to be significantly associated with knowledge about drugs, as well as with attitudes and behavior; almost the totality of the studies have been done on two types of populations: (a) high school and other secondary students, and (b) college students. Most of the studies also come from only one country, the United States, 18 and relatively little is known about sub- stance abuse behaviors in other cultures. (For a short, selected list of non-American drug surveys see Blumberg, 1975, p. 700). In this review, we shall concentrate on high school populations surveys since the present study was done among high school students in Mexico City. For the same reason, we will also limit our review to two substances: alcohol and marijuana (including a third category, "drugs," for those studies that refer to the generic term instead of a specific substance). We will divide this review in three sections: (a) level of drug use, (b) correlates of drug use and attitudes, and (c) sources of drug information and influence. Level of Drug Use Research into the use of drugs constitutes a relative- ly recent research tradition. It started in the nineteen sixties as a response by the research community to the sudden popularity that the use of drugs acquired among certain seg- ments of the U.S. pOpulation, mainly the middle class, youth- ful ones. The first studies on the use of drugs centered on college p0pulations "where drug use appeared to be more overt and received a large amount of publicity. However, as indications of drug abuse were found among adolescents in junior and senior high schools, surveys began to focus on 19 these specific, younger populations" (Frenkel §p_gl., 1974, p. 179). Consequently, whatever knowledge we may have about the level of drug use among high school students is based almost exclusively upon relatively recent surveys. These studies, furthermore, present the additional and serious problem of being very inconsistent and controversial from a methodological perspective. Quoting from Adler and Lotecka: One of the few facts almost universally agreed upon in the currently prominent, always con- troversial, and frequently hazy area of drug use and drug abuse is that there is real absence of solid data about prevalence in the nation as a whole and in most communities. There is much speculation in the news media--usually in the form of vague and undiscriminating estimates of drug usage among students ranging as high as 75%, in which the one-time marijuana smoker and the habitual heroin user are lumped together in one frightening statistic. Reports in the scientific literature are sparse and often found only in obscure sources. . . . Those reports which do exist of surveys of college or high school students . . . often reflect the general lack of discrimination about drug usage patterns. The most commonly reported statistic is percent- age of subjects reporting that they have 'ever used' or that they currently 'use' one or another substance. Again, figures from 0 to 75% are reported. Relatively few studies are even con- cerned with frequency of use or dosage, and even these may report vaguely defined categories of 'abuser' or 'regular use'. . . . An additional factor in the confusion is that changing drug- use patterns make surveys obsolete (Adler and Lotecka, 1973, pp. 537-538). Against such current state of research on drug use, «especially for the adolescent population, the most precise statement about the level of drug use that can safely be made at this time is that it is probably fairly high, particularly 20 for alcohol. At best, the precise level of use can be placed anywhere in a fairly broad range that can be constructed from the data currently available. In any case, and according to these data, the level of alcohol use has consistently been much higher than that of marijuana. The percentage of high school students who reported having ever used alcoholic bever- ages was higher than 50% in all studies reviewed and which presented this type of data, with the highest figure being 95.8% (Nelson and Schmitz, 1969; Gossett g£_§l., 1971; Jackson e£_gl., 1972; Fejer and Smart, 1973; Johnston, 1973; Adler and Lotecka, 1973; Lerner ep_§l., 1974; Galli, 1974; Morales g; agr,l975;and.Single gp_al., 1975). By comparison, most studies reporting levels of marijuana use presented figures typically ranging between 10 and 33 percent of adolescents having ever used the substance (Hager gp_al., 1969; Nelson and Schmitz, 1969; Gossett gp_al., 1971; Jackson §£_al., 1972; Tec, 1972; Fejer and Smart, 1973; Johnston, 1973; Adler and Lotecka, 1973; Frenkel §£_gl., 1974; Kandel, 1974; Galli, 1974; National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1975; Morales §E_al., 1975; and Single g£_31., 1975); however, some studies reported figures between 38 and 48% for senior high school students or students with some special characteristics (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1975; Kandel, 1974), and one study (Lerner pp .31., 1974) reports a high figure of 71.9%. Furthermore, by plcmting the percentage of high school students who have ever used alcohol or marijuana, according to the studies reviewed, 21 over time, we can observe a marked increase in the percentage of users of alcohol and a slight but consistent increase for marijuana. The problem of determining the actual level of drug use is further obscured by the implicit or explicit classifi- cation of usage categories employed by most published surveys. The most common classification dichotomizes the pOpulation into "users" and "non-users." Typically, "users" is defined as anyone who answers affirmatively to a question such as "have you ever tried or used substance X?". As Adler and Lotecka state (3. gppgg), this kind of classification lumps together the one-time marijuana experimenter with the chronic heroine abuser. This results in a very serious measurement deficiency. Another common classification divides the respond- ents into "nonusers," "experimenters," and "users," the latter category being frequently sub-divided into "occasional" and "habitual" users. The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (1973, pp. 30-32 and 93-98) has proposed the following typ- ology of drug using behavior: 1. Experimental use, the most common type of drug using behavior, defined as 'a short- term, non-patterned trial of one or more drugs, motivated primarily by curiosity or a desire to experience an altered mood state.‘ 2. Recreational use, the most common non- experimental drug using behavior, defined by the Commission as that 'which occurs in social settings among friends or acquaint- ances who desire to share an experience 22 which they define as both acceptable and pleasurable. Generally, recrea- tional use is both voluntary and patterned and tends not to escalate to more frequent or intense use patterns. . . . Reinforcement for continued use is strengthened by non-drug factors.’ 3. Circumstantial use, which is 'generally motivated by the user's perceived need or desire to achieve a new and anticipated effect in order to c0pe with a specific problem, situation or condition of a per- sonal or vocational nature' such as the use of stimulants by students to prepare for exams. 4. Intensified use, a much less common type of use according to the Commission 'which occurs at least daily and is motivated by an individual's perceived need to achieve relief from a persistent problem or stress- ful situation, or his desire to maintain a certain self-prescribed level of perform- ance.‘ 5. Compulsive use, 'the most disturbing pattern of drug using behavior, encompassing the smallest number of drug users . . . which consists of a patterned behavior at a high frequency and high level of intensity, characterized by a high degree of psycho- logical dependence and perhaps physical dependence as well. The distingushing feature of this behavior is that drug use dominates the individual's existence, and preoccupation with drug taking precludes other social functioning.‘ The typology proposed by the National Commission on ‘Marijuana and Drug Abuse seems to constitute a very adequate classification of drug using behavior. Its generalized use vwould have the added advantage of standardizing empirical <31assifications of levels of drug use and, therefore, making comparisons (among drugs, among studies, and over time) 23 possible and realistic. Unfortunately, this typology (or a similar one) has not yet appeared in any published study. In any case, and comparing the data on level of drug, use among high school and college populations (cf. Blumberg, 1975; Kinder, 1975a; Knight et;31., 1974; DeFleur and Garrett, 1970; Greenwald and Luetgert, 1971; Bowker, 1974; Spevack and Pihl, 1976, for college students' surveys) it is quite clear that the high school years are the critical and high risk years when attitudes toward drugs and patterns of drug using behavior are formed.* Correlates of Drug Attitudes and Use Table 1 synthesizes the relationship between the atti- tude toward and/or use of alcohol (ALC), marijuana (MAR), and "drugs" (when only the generic term was used by the authors of the studies) and the five correlates that have most frequently been analyzed in the literature under review. As we indicated above, the most consistent relation- ship is that between agg or gpade on the one hand, and drug attitudes and use on the other. Table 1 shows that only two studies failed to find a statistically significant relation- ship between age/grade and the dependent variables. The other *It could also be observed that the motives imputed to (irug use and nonuse by both users and nonusers vary quite ex- tensively. (See Weinstein, 1976, for data and a summary of previous studies with statistical and nonstatistical data on motives for marijuana behavior.) .mmdme E om: H952 .3th 89533 «5.338 mun: mound? cofimamuuoo gflflmom m .mnofifimfi no u wamfiwm “Om Tn .I.. came now 851.53 .8533 8.30% mom. 05%.“?QO #9053 £38.56 93 3 Shop 65 mo mm: 0?ng on» 8 muommu gonna: k. .coudmmma no: mm3 cognac (Dunc mg umfi mop—865 Mzcam 6:50.“ mm3 @2903 + .28 “encased >380 o :3: umunm :3: . .8 pm 638 umnfium 0: umfi 80.885 c + + :8: Am um ummmm .GoflmHonuoo + o + 85m: .883» «$368: w wound. 5 I . 658 was coflflmmmB + + o 38: . am no means: gflflmonm m. umfi 83835 + “g + o Gmmd c8930.... + + $33 Hmocmx 4 + + 33.3 H93 2 + o o + 38: 85 + + + $35 .363 o o + + + + 33.3 3.30 + + + o + o 8th 3.033 £03 0 o + 83.3 .Am um goam + +3 + + a2: .1 m3: flmam among 895 ~22 Q2 moan ~22 Q2 80mm ~22 0.2 @095 ~22 Q2 825 ~22 34 "Emmom H0854 5% gm mm: mama mmmm .m .m .m «tam mommo \ Hum "HEB mucmcsum Hoocom swan mCOEm mm: H0\ocm mocsufluum e=msuc= can mcoDnflHmE .Hocoon mo mmumHmHHoo .H manna 25 six studies found significant positive correlations between these variables. In addition, other studies that did not specifically test this relationship (and not shown in Table 1) present data which are consistent with this pattern; that is, as the age or grade level of the students increases throughout the high school years, so does the percentage of students who have used each substance. Sex has also frequently been analyzed in relation to drug use and attitudes. Six of the eleven relationships summarized in Table 1 indicate that boys have significantly more positive attitudes toward alcohol, marijuana, and drugs in general, and also use these substances significantly more than girls do. The remaining five correlations did not show any statistically significant differences between the sexes. A similar pattern of association was found between the dependent variables and the socioeconomic status of the students' families. Six of the ten studies that assessed the relationship between these variables found a significant positive correlation; that is, as the socioeconomic status increases so tends to do the level of alcohol and marijuana consumption and the favorability of attitudes toward these substances among adolescents. The remaining four associations failed to find any significant differences. A clearer general pattern has been found between the dependent variables and (1) drug use pyppeers and (2) general parental behavior, which refers to the parents' own behavior 26 about drugs (mostly alcohol, tobacco and medicines). Even though in both cases one out of five relationships reported in the literature under review was not statistically sig- nificant, the remaining four allow us to generalize that (1) as the number of peers who use alcohol and marijuana in- creases, so does one's own use and favorability of attitude, and (2) students whose parents manifest a behavior more favorable to drugs (including legal ones) exhibit greater use of drugs and a more positive attitude toward those sub- stances than students whose parents behave less favorably to drugs. In addition to the correlates summarized in Table 1, others can be found in the drug abuse literature that we shall briefly synthesize. Racial and ethnic characteristics have generally been found not to correlate significantly with drug use and attitudes (Greenwald and Luetgert, 1971, Frenkel gp_gl., 1974; Johnston, 1966), (although Johnston found that blacks use significantly more alcohol than whites during high school, but this difference disappears afterward). However, Cockerham g£_gl., (1976) found American Indian youths to have a more favorable attitude toward marijuana and other drugs than white youths; they were also more likely to try using marijuana and other drugs but no more likely than whites to continue use after trying them. Two studies report data on the relationship between drugs and religion in high school. Cowan and Roth (1972) 27 and Blumenfield gp_gl. (1972) both found a negative correla- tion between religiosity and drug use. Drug users attend services less and are less devout than non-users. There also appears to be some relationship between place of residence and drug use. Bowker (1974) reports a positive correlation between community size and use of drugs in general. Johnston (1966) found significantly different levels of marijuana use in different regions of the United States, but no differences in the level of alcohol use. Several variables pertaining to "home atmosphere" have also been found to correlate with drug use and attitudes in several surveys. Adler and Lotecka (1973) in the United States, and Morales gp_gl. (1975) and Marin (1974) in Colombia report a negative correlation between home atmosphere and drug use. Morales gp_gl. (0p. cit.) also found that those adolescents who live with their family or with relatives use drugs significantly less than those who live elsewhere. Kandel (1974) found a positive correlation between parental attitude toward drug use and parental use of drugs (mainly legal ones) with their children's use of marijuana. Regard— ing the number of parents, Blechman gp_gl. (1976) did not find any difference in the level of drug use between adoles- cents from one- and two-parent families; nor did Johnston (1966) for alcohol. However, Johnston (ipig.) did find that adolescents from broken homes, either by death or divorce, use more marijuana than their counterparts from intact homes. 28 Academic performance has consistently shown to be negatively related to drug use (Cowan and Roth, 1972; Fejer §E_gl., 1972; Smart and Fejer, 1971; Galli, 1974; and Frenkel gp_gl. 1974), except in Blumenfield et al.'s study (1972) where no statistically significant relationship was found. School absenteeism has also been reported to be related to drug use (Galli, 1974). The use of drugs has also been found to correlate with the use of other drugs. Frenkel et a1. (1974) and Vincent (1972) report positive correlations between the drinking of alcohol and the use of other drugs. Single gp_gl. (1974) document patterns of multiple drug use in high school; all intercorrelations among adolescent use of fifteen legal and illegal drugs were significant at the .001 level. The above correlates refer mostly to demographic and other structural variables. Unfortunately, no studies were found in the pertinent literature reporting personality and psychosocial correlates of drug use among high school and other adolescent pOpulations. (For personality correlates of drug using behavior among college students see Stokes, 1974, who also cites other studies). Sources of Drpg Information and Influence Studies devoted to the analysis of sources of informa— tion.and influence about alcohol, marijuana and other drugs among high school and other adolescent populations are not 29 very abundant. Those that can be found in a search of the pertinent literature, however, are quite consistent in their results. They can be synthesized in the following general- izations: Friends in the first place, and the mass media, are clearly the two most important sources of information about drugs, including alcohol and marijuana, for young people. However, their respective role may vary depending on the sub- stance and the specific population (Hanneman, 1972 and 1973; Linsky, 1970; Fejer g£_§l., 1971; Kowitz and Clark, 1973; and Morrison, Kline and Miller, 1976). Hanneman (op. cit.), for example, found significantly different patterns of information seeking between drug users and nonusers. Dembo gp_gl. (1977), on the other hand, report a less important role for the mass media. These authors found that interpersonal sources, in general, are significantly more credible than the mass media for information about drugs; additionally, they also found that the more a person is involved with a substance, the less credible he or she perceives the media to be. Furthermore, it should be indicated here that the data pertaining to friends are consistent across studies, while some published reports present contradictory data for the mass media (Kinder, 1975b; and Pollock, 1972). It is possible that individuals who do not use drugs rely on the mass media for information, while users rely more heavily on other sources (Kinder, 1975b; and Fejer et a1., 1971). 30 Generally, the literature shows that the mass media are par- ticularly important in affecting cognitive dimensions about drugs (Linsky, 1970; Fejer gp_gl., 1971; Smart and Fejer, 1972; Kinder, 1975b; Kline, Miller and Morrison, 1976; and Atkin, 1978b). The media have also been reported to affect cognitions and perceptions about proprietary drugs; particu- larly, it has been shown that the more a person is exposed to commercials about proprietary drugs, the more he or she be- lieves that medicines are effective, likes them, and tends to use them slightly more often. However, drug commercials do not appear to produce more favorable attitudes toward illicit substances (Milavsky gp_gl., 1975; and Atkin, 1978b). In point of fact, Milavsky gp_gl. (op. cit.) even found a nega- tive relationship between exposure to drug commercials on television and illicit drug use, including marijuana. This finding contradicts many critics' concern (e.g., Louria, 1968) that this type of commercials will lead to increased illicit drug use. In this regard, it should also be observed that commercials about proprietary drugs on TV occur about once per hour in the United States (Barcus, 1976). In Mexico, it appears to be perhaps only slightly less frequently, al- though no data could be found on this point. The mass media appear to be one of the initial sources of awareness about drugs for many adolescents. They are also important as a source of additional information for the same audience (Hanneman, 1972 and 1973; and Fejer et a1., 1971); 31 although Hanneman (op. cit.) reports that young people do not seek additional information about drugs in the mass media in general, but rather in specialized media, such as certain mag- azines and radio stations. Finally, regarding the role of the mass media, it has been found that different media exhibit a different role or level of importance as sources of drug information depending on the study, the population surveyed, or the specific sub- stance (Smart and Fejer, 1972; Milavsky §p_gl., 1975; Kline, Miller, and Morrison, 1976; and Dembo gp_gl., 1977). More generally, the electronic media appear to be more important sources of information than print media. Friends clearly emerge as the most important source of awareness, information and influence about drugs for the major- ity of adolescents. Their importance increases sharply as sources of post-awareness information about those substances. In general, the influence of friends appears to be greater among drug users than nonusers; for the latter, friends, even though still an important source, lose some of their prepon- derance in favor of family, doctors and other clinical sources, and, occasionally, other institutional sources like teachers at school and the church (Hanneman, 1972 and 1973; Lipp gp_gl., 1971; Grant, 1971; Adler and Lotecka, 1973; National Committee on Marijuana and Drug Use, 1974; Kandel, 1974; and Tolone and Mermott, 1975). 32 Parents seem to be particularly influential through their exemplary behavior, their manifest attitudes toward drugs, and their lifestyles. Parents' exemplary behavior is usually not expressed toward illegal drugs but rather toward legal substances, including alcohol, tobacco, and prescrip- tion and over-the-counter medicines (Adler and Lotecka, 1973; Kandel, 1974; Frenkel gp_gl., 1974; National Committee on Marijuana and Drug Use, 1974; Tolone and Dermott, 1975). Regarding the role of peers and parents in general, Tolone and Dermott (1975, p. 776), emphasizing the dominant role of these two interpersonal sources of drug information and influence, state that "in support of previous research, we conclude that drug use is a form of behavior learned through peer and parent socialization." As specific sources of information and intended influ- ence, public service announcements (PSA), mainly on television, and educational programs at school, appear to have rather limited importance. A fundamental reason for this might be a relatively low credibility that the target audience prob— ably has for these two sources, according to some of the studies reviewed (Hanneman, 1972 and 1973; and Morrison, Kline and Miller, 1976). PSA's have their potential influence further reduced because of the time of the day when they are usually broadcast. Content analyses done by Hanneman, McEwen and Coyne, (1972); and Hanneman, McEwen, Isbell and Durham, (1972), indicate that most PSA's about drugs are presented 33 between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m., a time when most members of the intended youthful audience are not watching TV. Furthermore, some studies show that anti-drug PSA's are ineffective and have even led to some boomerang effects by stimulating interest in drugs (Smart and Fejer, 1974; Ray and Ward, 1976; and Feingold and Knapp, 1977). Additionally, Smith §£_gl. (1972) have found that proprietary drug adver- tising on television is ten times greater than anti-drug abuse PSA's, a ratio which is probably even larger in Mexico. This, of course, raises an empirical question about the real possibility that PSA's may have of affecting their audiences in the intended way. Furthermore, exemplary behaviors ex- hibited by TV heroes and other program characters about drugs, even though usually licit ones, may exert an additional in- fluence in favor of substance use. Barcus (1976) and Kinder (1975b) also observe that commercial drug advertising on television promises attractive and specific benefits of the proprietary drugs advertised. This might represent still another factor that neutralizes the potential effects of PSA's, and, through some generalization process in the mind of young receivers, may even become one of the stimuli that favor the use of licit and illicit drugs. Finally, drug education programs at school have also been found to have very limited effects as factors in the pre- vention of substance abuse behaviors. As Kinder (1975b, p. 1043) has stated: "It is, perhaps, significant to note that 34 drug education programs are mentioned as possible deterrents in only one study (and), in that study, less than 2% of the over 10,000 high school students sampled mentioned a recent drug education course as a reason for nonusage. However, al- most 50% stated that these educational programs were either 'good' or 'excellent'." Generally, as we can see, the results of the relative- ly few studies on sources of information and influence on attitudes and behavior toward drugs are quite consistent with the current state of knowledge about the effects of mass and interpersonal sources of communication in other substantive areas (see, for example, Weiss, 1969 and 1971; and Rogers and Shoemaker, (1971). Theoretical Antecedents Before formally presenting the theory in the next sec- tion, we shall here review previous studies that have been done based on Linear Force Aggregation Theory. Of particular relevance among them is Woelfel and Hernandez's (1973) appli- cation of the theory to the study of attitudes and behavior toward marijuana, which is one of the two substances defined as dependent measures in the dissertation. We will first analyze their study in some detail before more briefly review- ing the others. Based on the original formulation of the theory pre- sented by Woelfel and Haller (1970), Woelfel and Hernandez 35 (op. cit.) assume that "an individual's attitude or behavior rate may be construed as a vector, the magnitude of which may be assumed to be changed, however minutely, by every message relevant to the attitude, from whatever source" (pp. 1-2). According to these authors, the theory "assumes behavior to be controlled wholly and only by the information an individual has about his relationship to a potential behavior (self- conception) (and) controlling for physical circumstances which might prevent a behavior" (op. cit., p. 6). In their paper, Woelfel and Haller (op. cit., pp. 2-3) synthesize the theory in four basic assumptions: 1. That some behaviors may be appropriately expressed as a continuous rate. 2. That the rate of behavior is governed by the accumulated information the individ- ual has relevant to that behavior control- ling the physical circumstances of the behavior. 3. That at any point in time, and controlling for previously gathered information, sources of such relevant information are wholly and only comprised of (a) self- reflexive activity, or direct personal observation, and (b) personal influence. Both sources may be direct or via media. 4. The resultant rate of behavior equals a linear aggregate of all information received from all sources relevant to the behavior in question, controlling for physical circum- stances. Accordingly, the principal theoretical predictors of attitudes and behavior about marijuana in Woelfel and Hernandez‘s study are the communication variables, divided 36 into interpersonal influences and mass media. Following Kelly's (1952) original classification of the functions of reference groups, the authors distinguish between two types of interpersonal sources of influence: definers and models. Definers are those significant others who exert influence by verbally communicating with a person. Models influence a person by what they do. Operationally, Woelfel and Hernandez defined "models" by the single question "How many of your friends smoke marijuana?," where the possible answers were (a) none, (b) few, (c) some, (d) many, and (e) all or nearly all. Under "definers" the authors classified only one source of interpersonal influence; namely, friends. Opera- tionally, friends' influence was measured by three items: one consisting of a measurement of exposure to friends ("How frequently do you talk to your friends?"), a second item measuring coverage of marijuana ("How frequently do your conversations with friends involve marijuana use?"), and a third one measuring the bias of the coverage ("How would you characterize the Opinions of the friends you talk with?"). The multiplication of the scale values of the three items yields a zero-centered index ranging from -32 (nearly continu- ous intense negative significant other influence) to + 32 (nearly continuous intense positive significant other influ- ence). Regarding the mass media, and according to the theory advanced by Woelfel and Hernandez, "the media are construed 37 as extensions of the process of interpersonal influence and relevant phenomenal reality, since media exposure persons to the words and acts of people otherwise outside the circle of their family, friends, and acquaintances, and to aspects of phenomenal reality otherwise outside their purview" (op. cit., p. 14). The media analyzed by these authors were newspapers, magazines, radio, television, movies, and records or tapes. Each medium was measured by a three item index identical to the one used for assessing friends' interpersonal influence. In addition to the influence of significant others and the mass media, Woelfel and Hernandez include other theo- retical variables which are assumed to be relevant to the formation of attitudes and behavior. These variables are (l) structural factors, (2) relevant phenomenal reality, and (3) other related attitudes. Structural factors refer to those variables which identify an individual's location in the larger social structure. The variables which Woelfel and Hernandez included were sex, age, region of the country where the respondent was raised, size of the city where he spent his childhood and socioeconomic status. Relevant phe- nomenal reality refers to specific aspects of concrete situ- ations which one observes that influence him to smoke or avoid marijuana. Such aSpects are, according to the authors' Operationalization of the theoretical variable, (1) college where the respondent studies, (2) year in school, (3) type of residence where respondent lives, and (4) number of 38 friends who smoke marijuana (which is also defined by the authors as a model-type influence by significant others). In general, the authors do not clearly distinguish between relevant phenomenal reality variables and structural factors and, as a matter of fact, both are classified as "structural variables" in the tables where the results of the study are presented. Finally, other related attitudes were defined as judgments about attitudes other than those specifically mentioning marijuana and which are related to its use. The attitudes included in the study were (1) attitudes toward individual rights, (2) attitudes toward armed revolution, (3) political position, (4) attitude toward harmfulness or helpfulness of marijuana, (5) attitude toward hippie dress styles, and (6) religious affiliation. When behavior about marijuana (operationalized as the self reported frequency of marijuana use) was the dependent variable in the study, Woelfel and Hernandez introducted one additional independent variable: attitude toward marijuana, operationalized as the respondent's self-conception as a marijuana user.* Following previous formulations of the theory, Woelfel and Hernandez argue that the other independ- ent variables exercise strong causal influence over the * The specific question that the authors asked was "To what extent do you consider yourself a marijuana user?," followed by the response alternatives (a) not at all; (b) very little; (c) somewhat; (d) to a large extent; and (e) to a very large extent. 39 formation of attitudes, and that once formed, these attitudes exert independent causal influence over behavior. This may be a plausible line of reasoning, even though many authors, since the early work of LaPiere (1934), claim that there is no causal relationship between attitudes and behavior, and that attitudes and actions may even be inconsistent (see, for example, Berkowitz, 1975). The problem with the inclusion of attitude as a predictor of behavior in Woelfel and Hernandez's research appears to be rather methodological. Since behavior is measured as the self reported frequency of marijuana use and attitude is operationalized as the respond— ent's self-consception as a marijuana user, circularity can be assumed to exist between the two measures. Circularity, of course, tends to artificially increase the amount of ex- plained variance in the dependent variable. Indeed, the authors report a correlation of .84 between attitude and be- havior. In the multiple regression equation, the attitude measure yielded a beta weight of .75 (the second highest beta weight was .15). Nevertheless, the research model appears to have good predictive power. The regression of rate of marijuana use on all the independent variables (a 39th order regression equa- tion) reached a multiple correlation coefficient of .893. Removing the self-conception or attitude measure from the equation, the multiple correlation coefficient was still a fairly high .74 (although the amount of explained variance 40 decreased 31%, from 79.7% to 54.7%). The results of this analysis showed the effects of the communication variables to be almost completely mediated by the attitude variables (in- cluding the self-conception variable). When the self-con- ception variable was taken as the dependent measure, the effect of the communication variables improved substantially, although most of the effect came from the interpersonal vari- ables. The mass media showed no significant effect, the magazines being the only medium that reached a significant beta. The multiple regression equation with the attitudinal variable (self-conception as a marijuana user) as the depend- ent measure yielded a multiple correlation coefficient of .74 (R2 = .55). The comparative analysis of the two multiple regres- sion equations shows a markedly different structure of the beta weights of the independent variables when behavior is the dependent variable (with self-conception as one of the predictors) as compared to when the dependent variables is self-conception (the attitude variable). This would seem to indicate that in addition to the redundancy between the atti- tude and behavior measures, there is also a strong inter- action between the attitude variable and all the other independent variables which alters their statistical relation- ship with the behavioral dependent variable. If, for com- parative purposes, we arbitrarily choose those variables with a beta weight of .10 or better, we will see that, in 41 addition to the self-conception measure, six variables reach such weight when behavior (self-reported frequency of drug use) is the dependent measure: whether the respondent studies at campus number 3 or not (.14), whether he lives at home or not (-.10), whether he is Catholic or not (.13), and whether he was raised in the East of the U.S. or not (.15), the respondent's attitude toward religion (.11), and his index (the combination of exposure, coverage and bias) for the movies (.10). Not even one of these six variables reach- ed a beta weight of .10 when self-conception became the de- pendent variable, and three of them even changed the sign of the b and beta coefficients. With self-conception as the de- pendent measure, seven variables reached a beta of .10 or better: whether the respondent is Jewish or not (.10), his friends' marijuana use (.29), his friends' political position (.12), his perceived harmfulness of marijuana (.29), his attitude toward dress (-.16), the magazine index (-.12), and his friends' index (.16). These seven beta weights average .177, while the former set of beta weights average .121. When behavior is the dependent variable, and according to the theoretical classification of the variables, three of the variables with beta weights of at least .10 are classified as "structural factors," two as "other related attitudes," zero as "significant others' influence," and one as "mass media influence." With attitude as the dependent measure, zero variables belong to the "structural factors" category, three 42 to "other related attitudes," three to "significant others' influence," and one to "mass media influence.“ These dif- ferences suggest that self-conception should not be included as a predictor of behavior (at least as operationalized by Woelfel and Hernandez), and also that, from a communication theory standpoint, the communication variables should be analyzed in terms of their relationship with dependent vari- ables such as attitudes and behavior about drugs in isolation of other contributory variables because of their observed interaction with other variables, mainly attitudinal ones. The remaining studies that have been published based on Linear Force Aggregation Theory apply basically the same research model that we have just reviewed in Woelfel and Hernandez's marijuana study. Of certain substantial rele- vance to the present study is Mettlin's application of the theory of cigarette smoking behavior among college students. Mettlin (1973) included 25 independent variables as predictors of rate of smoking. Rate of smoking was Opera- tionalized by means of three items: "(1) how many cigarettes the respondent smoked the day before the questionnaire admin- istration; (2) how many cigarettes the individual estimated he would smoke by the end of the day; and (3) the respondent's estimate of his average daily cigarette consumption. The dependent variable used in (the) investigation is the average of all three of these questions" (op. cit., p. 148). The average rate of smoking reported for the 97 respondents was 43 4.8 cigarettes per day. The independent variables with statistically signifi- cant beta weights in the multiple regression analysis were (1) the focal individual's smoking attitude (beta = .19), which was measured as the individual's projected rate of be- havior; (2) the frequency with which he experienced respira- tory problems (.36); (3) his age (.24); (4) the frequency with which the respondent engages in athletic sports (-.12); (5) his models' smoking rate (.17) as determined by the models themselves; (6) his models' related attitude about health (.21); and (7) his definers' related expectation about health (-.17). The significant others' data were obtained directly from them by sending questionnaires directly to the individ- uals identified as significant others by the respondent by means of the Wisconsin Significant Other Battery (cf. Haller and Woelfel, 1969). The 25 independent variables are grouped into six theoretical index variables. The theoretical indices, with their respective beta weights when the dependent behavior was regressed on them, were (1) the focal individual's smoking attitude, a one-item index, .19; (2) the focal individual's related attitudes, .14; (3) the significant other influence, .40; (4) the mass media influence, .07; (5) structural fac- tors, .24; and (6) relevant phenomenal reality, .39. All indices, except the mass media index, had beta weights Sig- nificant at the .05 level or better. The multiple correlation 44 coefficient was .81, which explains 66% of the total variance. In terms of communication variables as predictors of smoking behavior, it is important to state that Mettlin's study shows the mass media to have no significant effect on the dependent behavior, while the interpersonal sources of influence assume great predictive importance. Other studies have been done based on Linear Force Aggregation Theory and have supported the main contention of the theOry which argues that attitudes, other cognitive states of individuals, and patterns of overt behavior can be explained as quantitative aggregates of all units of rele- vant information received by those individuals from various sources of information. One of the earliest studies was done in 1969 by Woelfel and Haller (1971) on a sample of 100 high school students and their significant others. They were able to explain 64% of the variance in educational aspi- rations and 59% in occupational aspirations when these two variables were regressed on the respondents' academic per- formance, their mental ability, their significant others' educational and occupational expectations and their father's occupational prestige level. Woelfel and Haller's study was replicated by Mettlin (1970), arriving at similar results. Reeves (1974) analyzed the perceived reality or fantasy of television content in a sample of elementary school children. He was able to account for almost half the total variance in the dependent variable by means of a weighted average of the 45 opinions of a subset of significant others that the children had identified. Roloff (1975) also arrived at similarly good results in his study of the relationship between the amount of change advocated in a message and the amount of attitude change obtained (see also Woelfel and Saltiel, 1974). Woelfel, Woelfel, Gillham and McPhail (1974) studied attitude toward French Canadian separatism, and two types of separatist behaviors: assisting a separatist candidate and attending separatist rallies among a sample (n = 412) of adult undergraduate students enrolled in two universities in Montreal. Kramer (1975) applied the theory to the explana- tion and prediction of attitude toward and use of the "com- petency-based approach" to instruction among a sample of 217 university professors, accounting for 68% of the variance in the attitude variable. Kramer also concluded that "there was substantial evidence that attitude toward the use of the competency-based approach is the principal predictor of sub- sequent behavior." Theory We have previously indicated that the main purpose of this dissertation is to submit to empirical test Linear Force Aggregation Theory (as it applies to the explanation of attitudes and behavior about alcoholic beverages and mari- juana among high school students in Mexico City). A basic assumption underlying Linear Force Aggregation Theory is that 46 we generally cannot validly study the effects of communica- tion sources, or their relationship with highly salient and relatively permanent attitudes and behaviors, when only one medium is analyzed, isolated from other media or sources of information and influence. Rather, the effects of communica- tion on attitudes and behavior might better be understood as the combined effect of diverse information inputs from vari- ous sources over time. This notion is consistent with the generally accepted position in the behavioral sciences today. Kerlinger and Pedhazur (1973, p. 154), for example, state that "the complex phenomena studied by behavioral scientists can rarely be ex- plained adequately with one independent variable. In order to explain a substantial prOportion of the variance of the dependent variable, it is almost always necessary to study the independent and combined effects of several independent variables." More specifically, the theory derives some of its basic assumptions from Newtonian physics. It conceives the various sources of communication, with their respective mes- sages or advocated positions, as separate forces coinciding upon the same point--the receiver,--each contributing differ- entially to the resultant force or vector, which we may identify with the attitude or behavior that the receiver sub- sequently exhibits. The resultant vector is not assumed to 47 be caused by any single incoming force,* but rather by the combination of all forces. Linear Force Aggregation Theory, then, proposes that any given attitude or any given relative frequency of en- gaging in some behavior can be explained by the aggregation of the influence proceeding from all sources of information and influence external to the individual and relevant to that attitude or behavior. Furthermore, the theory assumes that no information relevant to an attitude or behavior, proceeding from any source, is ever totally discounted. Consequently, the resultant attitude or behavior that an individual will exhibit is a simple linear aggregate of all relevant information the individual has received. Assuming that both the dependent attitude or behavior and the incoming information (e.g., number of messages) are expressed at least at an interval level of measurement, this basic postulate can symbolically be expressed as: xi (1) 1 K: II II Md 1 the resultant attitude or behavior after receipt of all messages, and where Y Xi each position advocated to the focal individual *Unless if it is absolutely the only incoming force and it encounters absolutely no resistance (zero cognitive, attitudinal or behavioral mass) in the receiver, which is very unlikely. 48 An alternative but equivalent representation of this basic postulate divides expression (1) by N; that is, by the total number of messages or positions advocated to the focal individual: M3 xi Y = 1 (2) N H. II Expression (2) equates the resultant attitude or behavior with the arithmetic mean of all attitudes or be- haviors prOposed to the focal individual from all sources. If we conceive an attitude or a behavior (the rela- tive frequency of engaging in some act) as in expression (2) above, then it follows that the theory, as expressed the well known property that the sum of the deviations from a mean always equal zero. Symbolically: (Xi - SE) = o (3) Given expressions (2) and (3), we can conceptualize the resulting attitude or behavior as the point at which all incoming forces (i.e., messages or positions advocated to the focal individual) balance. As Woelfel and Saltiel (1974, pp. 3-4) have stated it, "if each message xi is construed as a "force" which "pulls" the attitude one way or another, (expression (3)) shows that 49 the mean constitutes that point at which such forces sum to zero or "balance." Simple though it is, this theory sug- gests a continuously-scaled least-squares balance point, which is a considerably more powerful mathematical model than the discrete graph-theoretic representations of many balance formulations (Newcomb, Heider, Osgood, Tannenbaum & Suci, gp_gl.)." As stated, the theory assumes that attitudes and behavior are some linear aggregate of some finite set of variables. As such, it naturally follows the general linear model which takes the form of the linear regression poly- nomial: Y = a + b1 x1 + bzx2 + . . . + bn xn (4) the dependent attitude or behavior, where Y a = a constant which is the y intercept for the vector of the polynomial, b = coefficients or weights indicating the relative net effectiveness of each of the variables (messages) x. in effecting changes in the attitude or behévior Y, and x.= the variables (usually information-flow variables) assumed to exert causal influ- ence over attitude formation and change and over the behavior. In addition to the widespread use of the general linear model in the behavioral sciences, Woelfel and Saltiel (0p. cit., pp. 1-3) offer three substantial reasons in its favor as the basis for Linear Force Aggregation Theory: First, although expressly curvilinear models show theoretical promise, none has shown 50 impressively better empirical results overall than simple linear models. . . . In general, empirical results show that statistically significant curvilinear effects are not fre- quently noted. . . . When found, curvilinear relationships between change advocated and change effected are found usually for messages sent by low or medium credibility sources. . . . Under special circumstances, however, clearcut curvilinear and even non-monotone relations of some substance ('boomerang effect') are noted. . . . In spite of their infrequent appearance, these negative effects remain troublesome, and most investigators would probably agree that fully satisfactory explanations have not yet been made. A second reason for closer scrutiny of the general linear model is the fact that linear‘ aggregation models, even in their simplest form, are frequently very successful empirically, particularly in real life (non-experimental) settings. . . . Even though there may be situ- ations in which the linear model fails, nonethe— less its general utility in everyday life is clear from these findings. Still a third reason for examination of the linear model is the fact that it implies a theoretical model which is very parsimonious in its basic form, yet which can be expanded easily to encompass very complex empirical phenomena. The theory further assumes that the dependent attitude or behavior is measured at an interval or ratio level of measurement, or that at least it approximates intervality. This position must necessarily follow from the conception of the attitudinal or behavioral dependent variable as a vector that results from the aggregation of all the forces that coincide upon the focal individual. The preceding argument can be exemplified and synthe- sized in the following quote from Woelfel §E_§l. (1972, pp. 1-2): 51 The main contention of (the theory) is that a large part of the difficulty in— volved in the problem of multiple and disparate influence has been forced on theorists by discrete classifications of the behaviors with which they must deal. If an individual child, 1, is told by his mother, that he should not smoke, yet his falher,s does in fact smoke, the question seefis to be one of which message--his mother' s verbal or his father's exemplary message--he will accept. When cigarette smoking is expressed as a continuous variable, however-~for example, as a rate over time--then the situation ceases to be a dilemma of dis- crete choice wherein the individual is pre- sented with two contradictory expectations from which he must choose, but with two values of the continuous variable, rate of expected smoking;x (mother) = 0, X (father) = 20 (aSsuming the father smokes 20 cigarettes per day). Seen in this light, and specifically for those attitudes and behaviors which mayibe expressed as rates or pseudo rates, the question need not be phrased in terms of acceptance or rejection of influence presented by opposing sources. We thus hypothesize that an individual attitude, expressed as a proposed rate of engagipg_in a given behavior, equals the aggregate of all rates of that behavior proposed to that individual from all sources. Woelfel et a1.'s explanation can further be clarified if we consider the behavioral dependent measures of this dissertation; namely, frequency of use of alcohol and mari- juana. An individual's behavior about those substances can be expressed better, in terms of measurement, than in the discrete choice of 'he uses' or 'he does not use' the intox- icant, which has probably been the most common method of measuring substance abuse behaviors (cf. the review of the 52 substantive literature above). For example, this type of behavior can be expressed operationally as 'frequency of use of the substance.‘ Furthermore, if we try to identify the sources of information and influence that determine an individual's frequency of use of alcohol and marijuana, as Opposed to another individual's specific rate Of consumption of those substances, we will find that: (l) The number of sources present to him, both mass and interpersonal, is very large. (2) For each source, the number of messages transmitted regarding alcohol and marijuana --as well as other related substance abuse behaviors--can range from 'many' to 'none,’ thus implying differential amounts Of force or intensity. (3) The perceived position or direction of each source-~i.e., the position advocated to the focal individual—-can go from 'very much in favor' to 'very much against' the use of either substance. Given a diversity Of sources of information and influ- ence, each with a certain (and probably different) intensity and direction regarding the intended behavior, the question Of which behavior about alcohol and marijuana will an individ- ual finally exhibit cannot be phrased in terms of a discrete 53 choice. It is postulated that an individual's relative frequency of use Of an intoxicant, as well as his attitude toward it, will equal the aggregate Of all rates Of proposed frequency of consumption from all sources of information and influence reaching him. Indeed, the formation Of attitudes and behavior about alcohol and marijuana--as well as a myriad of other subjects-~can be considered as the development of relatively permanent and stable behavioral patterns. These are formed through a process Of socialization that could hardly depend upon one single source of information and influence. Rather, such processes can be explained only from a set of multiple contributing sources of information and influence. It must be noted at this point, however, that the preceding argument does pg; imply that one given source Of communication cannot influence, by itself, a receiver's attitude or behavior. What is implied is that any one single source is not a sufficient condition of a receiver's attitude or behavior but only a contributing variable to the aggregate Of forces that determine the resultant vector. Furthermore, each contributing variable Operates in the presence Of the other relevant variables; in this case, the other sources of communication. Consequently, in order to be able to determine the actual effect of an independent variable, X on the dependent attitude or behavior, the 1! interactive effect of X1 with the other contributing 54 variables must be considered and the effect Of the remain- ing variables must be controlled or canceled out. At least, the net effect of X1 may be determined by comparative means such as by the inspection Of the ratio between the regres- sion coefficients of X1 and the other predictor variables, instead Of by its independent association with the criterion variable. Regarding the sources of information and, particularly, influence, the theory distinguishes between influence exerted by those who verbally communicate with a person and those who serve as models for a person's attitudes and behavior. The former are called definers and the latter models. In this, the theory clearly follows Kelly's (1952) conceptualization of the two functions of reference groups. Quoting from Kelly's original statement (Op. cit., pp. 412-413): The first (function) is that Of setting and enforcing standards for the person. Such standards are usually labeled group norms, so we shall call this the normative function of reference groups. A group can assume this function of norm-setting and norm-enforcement whenever it is in a position to deliver rewards or punishments for conformity or nonconformity. A group functions as a normative reference group for a person to the extent that its eval- uations of him are based upon the degree of his conformity to certain standards of behavior or attitude and to the extent that the delivery of rewards or punishments is conditional upon these evaluations. . . . The second Of these functions is that Of serving as or being a standard or comparison point against which the person can evaluate him- self and others. We shall refer to this as the comparison function of reference groups. A group functions as a comparison reference group for an individual to the extent that the behavior, 55 attitude, circumstances, or other character- istics of its members represent standards or comparison points which he uses in making judgments and evaluations. In their initial application of Kelly's conceptualiza- tion of the functions Of reference groups of Linear Force Aggregation, Woelfel and Haller (1971, p. 76) state that the theory "assumes that others are significant in direct propor- tion to the amount of information they convey to an ego about the-categories he uses to define objects and self, either by word (definers) or examples (models), affective factors notwithstanding." Definers, then, are those who communicate information and exert influence through the mediation Of some symbol system. Models exert influence through their exemplary behavior. Both definers and models are identified as "signifi- cant others"; that is, "those persons who, by word or ex- ample, convey substantial information to an individual about the filter categories thatzniindividual uses to define himself and/or the objects Of his experience" (Woelfel and Haller, Op. cit., p. 77). It is important to state that this defi- nition does not separate the influence received by an in- dividual from other individuals communicating with him inter- personally from the influence received from the mass media. Indeed, the media are explicitly construed as extensions of the process of interpersonal influence which expose persons to the words ("definers") and acts ("models") Of people 56 otherwise outside the circle of their family, friends, and acquaintances (see Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973; Woelfel pp 31., 1974; Mettlin, 1973; and Woelfel, 1970). (Nevertheless, it is still necessary to distinguish between the influence proceeding from interpersonal and mass media sources, as well as the influence proceeding from definer-type and model- type sources, especially if we consider the results of pre- vious tests of the theory and particularly the findings from communication research in general). Linear Force Aggregation Theory makes the additional assumption that the perception Of the receiver is important in determining how communication affects him (Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973; Woelfel §E_gl., 1974; Serota, 1976. See also, for example, Weiss, 1969, pp. 114-116). Stated brief- ly, we can say that in terms of the effects Of communication what matters is not so much the intention of the source or the "Objective" content of the message. Rather, what counts is the perception that the receiver has the information in— put.* For example, if an adolescent perceives his friends or his television heroes as very much in favor of the con- sumption of alcoholic beverages, he will probably feel "pushed" in a direction favorable to the Consumption of * See also Klapper, 1960; Bauer, 1971; Hyman and Sheatsley, 1947; Roberts, 1971; Woelfel and Haller, 1970; and Berlo, 1960. 57 alcohol, even if his friends or television heroes are Eggp- glly Opposed to the drinking Of alcohol. The previous assumption is further extended by con- ceiving attitudes as conceptual relationships between a person and an object or set of objects,* (see also Green, 1951; and DeFleur and Westie, 1963). According to Kuhn's (1964) postulate that man's perception of Objects is always mediated by some symbolic structure, the notion Of a concep- tual relationship implies that it is the relationship a person sees between his conception of himself and his con- ception Of the Objects in question. The process of forming a conception is seen as a process of categorization (cf. Bruner, 1958); that is, a concept is formed by placing its related object into a series of categories. These are term- ed "filter categories" by Woelfel and Haller (Op. cit., p. 75) insofar as they exert a "filtering" effect of one's per- ception of the objects classed within them. Following from these premises, Woelfel and Haller (393g.) define "attitude" as "a person's conception of the relationship between the filter categories of which he sees himself to be a member and the filter categories of which he sees the Object to be a member." Consequently, the pro- cess where by attitudes are formed and changed is the same * The concept Of "Object" is defined here as anything that can be designated or referred to, either in physical or psychological terms. 58 as the process by which filter categories are formed and changed, and classification is thus a cognitive act based on the information one has about objects and self. The theory therefore assumes information to be the basis of filter categories and hence attitudes as they have been de- fined here (cf. Woelfel and Haller, Op. cit.). Equally, the theory "assumes behavior* to be controlled wholly and only by the information an individual has about his rela- tionship to a potential behavior (self conception), control- ling for physical circumstances which might prevent a behavior" (Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973, p. 6). In summary, Linear Force Aggregation Theory proposes that any attitude or behavior that an individual, 81’ ex- hibits is a simple linear aggregate Of all the information and influence S perceives to have received from all sources 1 of communication that have reached him with messages rele- vant to his attitude or behavior. The messages can come either from definers (what others say) or from models (what others do), and those messages can be transmitted either interpersonally or via the mass media. Each message is con- strued as an incoming force which pulls the attitude or be- havior in some specific direction and with some measurable magnitude. The aggregation Of all such forces produces the * Behavior is defined as the relative frequency Of engaging in some act. 59 resultant vector which we equate with the subject's atti— tude or behavior, operationally represented as a rate or pseudo-rate (e.g., frequency of engaging in some behavior). Attitudes and behaviors are assumed to be wholly determined by the aggregated information that each focal individual per- ceives to have received relevant to those attitudes and be- haviors. In order for a source Of communication to have an effect, three conditions must be met: (1) the receiver must be exposed to the source, at least to some minimum degree; (2) the receiver must perceive that the source does trans- mit messages about the Object of the attitude or behavior, at least with some minimum frequency; and (3) the receiver must perceive what is the position advocated by the source (see also Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973; and Woelfel §E_gl., 1974). Hypotheses The theory outlined above proposes that any given attitude or any given relative frequency of engaging in some behavior can be explained by the aggregation of the influence proceeding from all sources external to the indi- vidual. Consequently, Linear Force Aggregation Theory hypothesizes that as the value of the aggregate force that reaches an individual increases, its effect on the individ- ual's attitude and behavior will also increase. 60 As we have stated, the force that reaches an individ- ual may come either from the flow of information originating in each of multiple sources Of communication (definer-type influences), or from the exemplary behaviors Of significant others (model-type influences). The sources that originate the flow of messages can be either mass media or interperson- al. We have also argued that the actual effect Of communica- tion will be filtered by the perception Of each individual receiver. Consistent with this formulation, as well as with previous research based on Linear Force Aggregation Theory (Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973; Mettlin, 1973; Woelfel §£_al., 1974), the aggregate force that reaches each individual receiver has been operationalized (1) in what we call the aggregated message intake (AMI) of (a) the mass media and (b) interpersonal sources, and (2) the exemplary messages Of some significant others' behavior, as perceived by the respondents to this study. We shall next conceptually de- fine each term. The aggregated message intake constitutes the aggre- gation across all relevant sources of communication of the perceived orientation towards the attitudinal and behavioral referent that each source of communication has. The per- ceived orientation of each source towards each referent* * As we have previously indicated, this study is con- cerned with two attitudinal and behavioral referents: alcoholic beverages and marijuana. 61 constitutes in itself an index which, as we shall explicate more elaborately in the next chapter, results from the multi- plication of the scale values of three constitutive items: frequency of exposure to each medium (range of scale values: 0 - 5); amount of coverage of the substance by each medium (range: 0 - 3); and bias of the coverage (range: -2 to +2). The multiplication Of the scale values yields an index ranging from -30 to +30. In this index, the size of the value indicates the magnitude of the influence exercised by the medium. The sign indicates the direction of the influ- ence. A positive sign implies an influence favorable to the use of the substance, while a negative sign represents an influence Opposed to its use. We thus have an index for each source Of communication. The aggregation of the indi— vidual indices for the five mass media (television, radio, pOpular songs, newspapers and magazines) yields the respec- tive mass media AMI. Likewise, the five interpersonal indices (parents, siblings, other relatives, friends at school and friends outside of school) yield the interpersonal AMI. The concept Of exemplary messages is straightforward- ly defined as the influence exercised on the focal individ- ual by the modeling behavior that his significant others exhibit toward the relevant attitudinal and behavior refer- ents. 62 The basic theoretical formulation immediately sug- gests a set of research hypotheses for each one of the three groups of sources Of information and influence; namely, mass media, interpersonal sources, and exemplary behaviors. We shall first present the research hypotheses pertaining to the mass media: Hla: The respondents' aggregated message intake for the mass media will positively corre- late with their attitude toward alcohol, expressed as their degree of approval of occasional use of alcohol by 'people of their own age.‘ Hlb: The respondents' aggregated message intake for the mass media will positively corre- late with their attitude toward marijuana, expressed as their degree Of approvaI Off occasional use of marijuana by 'people Of their own age.‘ And for behavior: H The respondents' aggregated message intake for the mass media will positively corre- late with their behavior about alcohol, expressed as their frequency Of use of it. 2a: HZb: The respondents' aggregated message intake for the mass media will positively correlate with their behavior about marijuana, expressed as their frequency Of use Of it. The same hypotheses that were formulated for the mass media apply also for interpersonal sources of communication. We shall first state the hypotheses pertaining to attitudes (expressed as the degree Of approval Of occasional use Of the substance): 63 H3a: The respondents' aggregated message intake for interpersonal source of communication will positively correlate with their attitude toward alcohol. The respondents' aggregated message intake for interpersonal sources Of communication will positively correlate with their attitude toward marijuana. 3b: And for the behavioral dependent measure (frequency of use Of the substance): H4a: The respondents' aggregated message intake for interpersonal sources of communication will positively correlate with their behavior about alcohol. The respondents' aggregated message intake for interpersonal sources Of communication will positively correlate with their behavior about marijuana. 4b: The set Of hypotheses stated thus far pertain to the predicted relationship between the sources Of mass and inter- personal communication, or definer-type variables, and the dependent measures. As we have previously indicated, the theory also predicts a significant, positive relationship between attitude and behavior, and the model-type influences expressed the exemplary behavior of a set Of significant others. On the basis of the substantive literature on drug abuse behaviors among adolescent populations (reviewed above), and an exploratory study that was done prior to the research on which this dissertation is based (cf. Chapter II), three sources of exemplary messages about alcoholic 64 beverages and marijuana can be identified: (1) father, (2) mother, and (3) friends. According to Linear Force Aggre- gation Theory, we can predict that the aggregate value of these three component sources of information and influence will be significantly and positively associated with the values of the dependent variables. (The values of the three sources of exemplary messages will be aggregated in stand- ardized form since their range of scale values differ.) The following hypotheses can thus be advanced about the relationship between exemplary messages and attitudes and behavior about alcohol: H5: The exemplary messages transmitted by the degree of use of alcohol (aggregate value) of three significant others: father, mother, and friends, will positively cor- relate with the respondents' attitude toward alcohol. H6: The exemplary messages transmitted by the degree of use of alcohol (aggregate value) of three significant others: father, mother, and friends, will positively cor- relate with the respondents' behavior about alcohol. The sources Of exemplary messages about marijuana will have to be reduced to only one: friends. Data gathered at CEMEF (Mexican Center of Studies on Drug Dependence) sug- gest that there is practically no detectable use of mari- juana among the segment of the population that comprises the parents of the adolescent population that would be 65 sampled for the present study.* ‘This generalization was substantiated by the results Of the exploratory investiga- tion we did prior to this study (see Chapter II). This in- vestigation confirmed that parents either do not smoke marijuana or their children--the respondents to the explor- atory study--failed to perceive (or refused to report) any use. The exclusion of parents as predictors Of attitudes and use of marijuana through their exemplary behavior is thus justified on methodological grounds. (Their inclusion would imply adding two constants--perceived use Of marijuana by (l) father and (2) mother,--each with a value Of zero, to the value represented by the perceived frequency Of mari— juana use by friends). We thus can hypothesize the following relationships: H7: The exemplary messages transmitted by the degree of use Of marijuana by friends will positively correlate with the respondents' attitude toward marijuana. H8: The exemplary messages transmitted by the degree Of use of marijuana by friends will positively correlate with the respondents' behavior about marijuana. Evidently, and according to Linear Force Aggregation Theory, since the force exercised upon the respondents' attitude and behavior about alcohol is greater than the one * Olga Salinas, coordinator Of Social Science Research at CEMEF; personal communication. 66 for marijuana because a greater number Of sources of influ- ence is present, we will expect the amount of explained variance to be significantly greater for the former depend- ent measure than for the latter one. This prediction will be tested during the analyses of the data. The hypotheses stated thus far will allow us to establish the direct effect of each group of predictors on the dependent measures. Linear Force Aggregation Theory, however, is equally interested in the pgpai aggregate value Of all sources of information and influence that reach an individual with a message relevant to a given attitude or behavior. Indeed, the theory construes attitudes and be- haviors as the resultant vector Of the linear aggregate Of all forces that coincide upon an individual with a relevant message. Thus, the main theoretical hypothesis proposed by the theory states that as the value Of the total aggregate force that reaches an individual is greater, its effect on the individual's attitude and behavior will also be greater. This hypothesis we shall also submit to empirical test. In relation to the dependent measures that are being analyzed in the present study, this theoretical hypothesis can be expressed in the following research hypotheses: (a) for attitude toward alcohol: H9 : The respondents' total aggregate value a D l Of all sources of 1nformat1on and 67 influence* will positively correlate with their attitude toward alcohol, (b) for attitude toward marijuana: H The respondents' total aggregate value of all sources Of information and influence will positively correlate with their atti- tude toward marijuana, 9b: (c) for behavior about alcohol: Hloa: The respondents' total aggregate value of all sources of information and influence will positively correlate with their behavior about alcohol, and (d) for behavior about marijuana: Hlob: The respondents' total aggregate value Of all sources of information and influence will positively correlate with their behavior about marijuana. It is important to recognize here that Hypotheses H9a to H10b above are not totally independent from the hy- potheses that were previously formulated (H to H8). 1a Therefore, Hypotheses H9a to H10b will have to be further tested by checking whether they do explain a significantly greater percentage Of the total variance in the dependent * The sources are (l) the five mass media that consti- tute the component variables for the aggregated message in- take for the mass media (television, radio, popular songs, newspapers and magazines), (2) the five interpersonal sources that constitute the corresponding AMI (parents, siblings, other relatives, friends at school and friends outside of school), and (3) the three sources of exemplary messages: father, mother and friends. 68 variables than the partly corresponding hypotheses among Hla to H8. For example, Hypothe31s H9a a significantly greater percentage of the variance in atti- will have to explain tude towards alcohol than either H , H or H as would 1a 3a 5' be predicted from Linear Force Aggregation Theory. Regarding the contribution of each one of the thir- teen communication variables tO the total explained var- iance in the dependent attitudes and behaviors, we certainly cannot expect each source to contribute equally. Kandel (1973), for example, found that among sources of exemplary messages, peer group influence was significantly greater than parental influence regarding marijuana use. Woelfel and Hernandez (1973) and Woelfel gp_ai. (1974) also found significant differences among mass media and among inter— personal sources Of communication. Differential levels Of effects among the various communication variables will con- sequently also be explored in this study. (In the stand- ardized multiple regression equation these comparisons can readily be made by dividing the respective beta weights of the various pairs Of variables.) In addition to analyzing the comparative effect of the various individual sources of communication, we will also compare the three groups of sources among themselves (mass media, interpersonal, and exemplary behavior). Thus, we will be able to establish which type Of sources of com- munication exert an aggregate force of greater intensity on 69 the respondents' attitudes and behavior. There seems to be ample data in communication research (see, for example, Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971) to warrant the tentative general— ization that while the mass media tend to be more effective in affecting the receivers' knowledge about an issue, inter- personal sources are more important in affecting attitudes and behavior. Additionally, Woelfel and Hernandez (1973) also found that most of the effect of communication vari- ables on students' marijuana usage came from interpersonal variables, as Opposed to the mass media variables. An equivalent result was reported by Mettlin (1973) regarding smoking behavior. Similarly, the review of the substantive literature presented above also gives some support to this claim. Therefore, we can hypothesize that: Hlla: Interpersonal sources of communication will be more strongly associated than mass media sources with the respondents' attitude toward alcohol, and Hllb: Interpersonal sources of communication will be more strongly associated than mass media sources with the respondents' attitude toward marijuana. And equally for behavior about those substances: H Interpersonal sources of communication will be more strongly associated than mass media sources with the respondents' behavior about alcohol, 12a: 70 and H12b: Interpersonal sources of communication will be more strongly associated than mass media sources with the respondents' behavior about marijuana. Similarly, regarding the comparative effect of the mass media and exemplary messages transmitted by some sig- nificant others, we may hypothesize that: H Exemplary messages by significant others will be more strongly associated than mass media sources with the respondents' attitude toward alcohol. 13a: Exemplary messages by significant others will be more strongly associated than mass media sources with the respondents' attitude toward marijuana. 1313‘ Exemplary messages by significant others will be more strongly associated than mass media sources with the respondents' behavior about alcohol. 14a: Exemplary messages by significant others will be more strongly associated than mass media sources with the respondents' behavior about marijuana. 14b: There is very scant data from previous empirical studies, as well as an inadequate theoretical foundation, to justify a set of hypotheses predicting a significantly stronger association between exemplary messages and the de- pendent variables than between the latter and interpersonal sources Of information and influence. What little data is available though tends to support such a prediction, which also seems to be supported on intuitive grounds. Certainly, we would expect model-type influence from significant Others 71 (what people g9) to exert greater influence on the dependent variables than definer—type messages (what people say). On these bases, we also propose the following working hypotheses: H 15a 15b 16a 16b Exemplary messages by will be more strongly interpersonal sources with the respondents' alcohol. Exemplary messages by will be more strongly interpersonal sources with the respondents' marijuana. Exemplary messages by will be more strongly interpersonal sources with the respondents' alcohol. Exemplary messages by will be more strongly interpersonal sources with the respondents' marijuana. significant others associated than of communication attitude toward significant others associated than Of communication 2:11.219: toward significant others associated than of communication behavior about significant others associated than of communication behavior about Finally, we also propose to do cross-cultural com- parisons Of the results Of this dissertation with related results of other studies done in the United States, and one in Canada, making use Of Linear Force Aggregation Theory. In particular, we will compare the results of this study with Woelfel and Hernandez's (1973) analysis of marijuana use. In this regard, we must consider that communication theory and research has been developed, to a very large extent, mostly in only one cultural setting in the world: the United States, and may therefore be rather limited as 72 a universal explanatory scheme. "A science strives to formulate universal propositions. Once a proposition has been tentatively formulated, the task of research is to replicate it, attempt to state limiting conditions and intervening variables, and analyze 'exceptional' cases. In this process, inter-societal comparative analysis is but a necessary extension of intra-societal comparative analysis" (Marsh, 1967, p. 11). The need for cross- cultural comparisons Of theory-based research should be obvious. CHAPTER II METHODS The presentation of this chapter is divided into the following sections: 1. independent variables; 2. dependent variables; 3. description Of the sample; 4. methods for data gathering; and 5. data analysis and hypothesis testing. Independent Variables Selection of the Variables The independent variables are the relevant sources of communication, external to an individual, that reach him and may affect his attitude and behavior about intoxicants. As the theory states, such an effect of communication sources can be exercised in two ways: (1) by the messages trans- mitted over the mass media and by some significant others, and (2) by the exemplary messages represented in the behavior of significant others (i.e., their relative frequency of alcohol and marijuana usage, as perceived by the individual).* * Even though we can conceptually postulate that the :mass media also transmit model-type (exemplary) behaviors, respondents to an exploratory study we conducted prior to the actual survey, and which we explain below, did not appear to be able to differentiate between definer-type and 73 74 Accordingly, the independent variables are grouped in three categories: 1. The mass media (definers). 2. Interpersonal sources of communication (definers). 3. The exemplary messages of some significant others. These three categories in turn include a total of thirteen sources Of communication and influence, as inde- pendent variables. The mass media comprise five sources: a. television b. radio c. popular songs d. newspapers, and e. magazines. The inteppersonal sources include: a. parents b. siblings c. other relatives d. friends at school, and e. friends outside of school. model-type messages in the mass media; rather, they seem to conceive mass media messages as all belonging in one broad «:ategory. The classification Of mass media messages into different categories is something the researcher does, not ‘the general adolescent public; or at least not in a way 'that could reliably be measured with the kind of measure- ment instruments we utilized in our survey. 75 Finally, the significant Others that are sources of ax- emplary messages include: a. father b. mother, and c. friends. Originally, the total number of communication sources was larger. There were seven mass media: television, radio, popular songs, cinema, newspapers, magazines, and books. there were also six interpersonal sources: parents, siblings, relatives, friends, teachers, and priests. (Educational pro- grams at school were not included since we knew that these are practically non-existent in Mexico). In addition, each one Of these thirteen media was also considered as a source of exemplary messages. These variables were tested in an exploratory and pilot study that we conducted on a sample of 220 high school students four months before the actual sur- vey (see below). The results of the exploratory study indicated that the level of exposure to drug related content in cinema and books among the mass media, and to teachers and priests among the interpersonal channels, was extremely low. The degree of influence exercised by these sources was about zero; therefore they were eliminated from the final instrument. frelevision, radio, newspapers, magazines, parents, siblings, (and.friends all appeared to be very influential: both the rmean level Of exposure and the perceived frequency of mention 76 Of alcohol and other drugs for each variable were quite high. The mean values for these two variables for pOpular songs (on radio and in records and tapes) were slightly lower but also quite substantial.* The same thing also applied to relatives. (It should be noted here that relatives, other than parents and siblings, are particularly important in Mexico, where there is a notion of "extended family," with less geographical mobility than in countries like the United States, and in which grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins are present to an individual more constantly than what would be common in other cultures.) Finally, the re- sponses and comments in the exploratory study indicated the convenience Of dividing "friends" into two variables: friends at school and friends outside Of school. As we indicated above, we considered that the sources of exemplary influence should be the same ones identified as "information flow" variables. However, the results of the exploratory study showed that it was preferable to reduce such exemplary sources to only three: father, mother, and friends, since the remaining sources of communication in the information flow variables list were not identified as sig- nificant sources of exemplary messages or were not * Moreover, other research has shown that popular inusic is an important and heavily used medium by adoles- cents--e.g., Clarke, 1973, and Robinson et al., 1976 in ‘the United States, and Donneaud, 1975 in Mex1co--with an important drug related content. 77 differentiated as sources of information on the one hand and sources of exemplary messages on the other (cf. the first footnote in this chapter) by the respondents to that study. It must also be noted that it was found preferable to divide "parents" into "father" and "mother" since data were obtain- ed for both which showed markedly different levels and patterns of substance used by them. This decision is further strengthened by the fact that in the exploratory study the students were found to have a very strong orientation toward their parents. Exploratory Study and Pre-test As we have already indicated, an exploratory study was previously done on the basis of which the final selection of variables was made and the measurement instrument was design- ed. This study was based On a purposive sample of 220 high school students of both sexes, in the various grades, and from schools chosen from different socioeconomic areas in Mexico City. Collectively, they were thought to be indica- tive Of the various pOpulation characteristics that would be found in the study. Care was taken to choose schools not included in the final sample. The exploratory study consisted of (a) a questionnaire administered to all students in the purposive sample (see .Appendix A for the original Spanish version of the question- naire) and (b) personal interviews with some of those students. The questionnaire comprised both structured questions 78 (including questions worded in alternative ways in differ- ent versions of the questionnaire when doubts existed as to the better formulation), and Open questions which were later content analyzed and converted into structured questions in the final instrument. The personal interviews were done by this author and by psychologists from the funding institu- tion (the Mexican Center for Studies on Drug Dependence, CEMEF) with experience in this kind of studies. These interviews were designed to probe more deeply into the kinds of questions asked in the questionnaire, to Obtain comple- mentary information, and also to Obtain original information that could not be asked in the questionnaire. The quantitative data were processed at the National University Of Mexico and analyzed with the assistance of some members of the Center for Research on Applied Mathe- matics and Systems. These results, as well as the qualita- tive data, were analyzed and interpreted by this author and trained researchers at CEMEF. On the basis Of these anal- yses and interpretations, the final questionnaire was designed. The instrument thus Obtained was pre-tested on a small and different sample of high school students and some corrections and adjustments were made before final adminis- -tration Of the questionnaire. 79 Operationalization Of the Independent Variables* Considering the description of Linear Force Aggre- gation Theory that was presented in Chapter I, and consider- ing also previous Operationalizations of the theory by Woelfel and others (see Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973; and Woelfel gp_ai., 1974), the Operationalization of all the in— formation flow variables has to take into account the three component variables that have been mentioned before: £33- quency of use of each medium, perceived frequency of mention of the substance, and perceivedjposition of the source about the substance (or bias of the coverage). Those three vari- ables need to be integrated into an index value which con- stitutes the fgpgg that reaches an individual and influences his attitude and behavior (along with other causal variables). This value shall give us the two components of force that have been explained above: intensity and direction. For every individual we need to Obtain one such index value for each one of the "information flow" variables, which will thus constitute the specific Message Intake for the individ- ual. Operationally (see also Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973; and Woelfel et al., 1974), frequency of use of a medium is measured by six alternative answers (from "never" to "more than three hours a day") to a question such as "How frequently * See Appendix B for the original Spanish version Of ‘the questionnaire. 80 do you watch television?". Scale values range from zero to five. Perceived frequency of mention of the substance by the source is measured by a 4—point scale, ranging from "never" to "many times." The question that was asked (e.g., for television) is "When you watch television, how many times is something about alcoholic beverages mentioned?". (A similar question was also asked for marijuana.) Scale values range from zero to three. Perceived position of the source about alcohol and marijuana is operationalized by a zero-centered 5-point scale, ranging from "very much against" (scale value = -2) to "very much in favor" (scale value = +2). A very liberal translation of the question into English would be "In general, how do you think (e.g. television) in Mexico thinks about and portrays (alcoholic beverages) (marijuana)?". The product of the scale values of the three variables give us the index that we have called Message Intake (MI) above. Symbolically, for any given medium of communication: MI = (f . fM. . P.) s 1 1 where fi stands for frequency Of use Of medium.i; fMi repre- sents perceived frequency Of mention of substance by medium “i, and Pi stands for perceived position Of i_toward the substance. The subscript s’in MI stands for "substance" of ‘which, as we know, we have two: alcoholic beverages and marijuana . 81 Since the maximum scale values are 5 for frequency of use of the medium, 3 for perceived frequency of mention, and i2 for perceived position, then the MI index can range from -30 to +30 for each one Of the ten sources of communi- cation or "information flow" variables. The index Obtained by means of the operation out- lined above (MI) will give us an indication of (1) the strength or intensity of MI, by how far it deviates from zero, and (2) its direction, expressed by its sign, where a positive sign indicates a position favorable to the sub- stance, and a negative sign one against it. Because of the multiplication, if the scale value of any of the three com- ponent variables equals zero, the entire index equals zero. This makes sense because, for example, if a person never watches television (scale value = 0), the perceived frequen- cy of mention should also be zero, there could be no direct perception of the position of the source and, consequently, there could be no (perceived direct) effect. Likewise, a high user of a medium who perceives that it frequently men- tions a substance but with a position neither in favor nor against it, would have a scale value of zero since the advo- cated position would be neutral. As previously stated, the Operationalization just described applies identically to each of the five mass media and each Of the five inter— personal sources of communication that we have already identified. 82 According to Linear Force Aggregation Theory, the relevant force from which an individual's attitude or be- havior can be predicted is not determined by the isolated Message Intake Of any given source of communication, but rather by the aggregation Of the influence proceeding from all sources that reach him. This aggregate was referred to in the hypotheses stated in Chapter I as the Aggregated Mes- sage Intake (AMI). The aggregated Message Intake for the five mass media (MM) can readily be obtained by the summation of the product of the scale values for each mass medium. Symbolically, and following the notation identified above: IIM U1 AMI = M m (f . fM . Pm) (5) l m m The Operationalization of the AMI index for the five interpersonal sources (IP) is accomplished in exactly the same way as the one described for mass media sources. Sym- bolically: f . fM . P ) (6) ( P We can also Obtain an aggregate index of all sources of information and influence simply by adding together the individual MIs of all the component indices. Certainly, equations (5) and (6) above can--and in the empirical test of the hypotheses they will be--re—formulated as linear regression equations (see equation (4) in Chapter I), 83 which, as is well known, represent linearly additive models. Thus, for example, the Aggregated Message Intake for the mass media can be represented, in terms of its hypothesized ef— fects on the dependent variables, in the following equation: Y = a + Btvxtv + Brxr + BsxX + ann + Bmxm (7) where Y the dependent attitude or behavior about alcohol or marijuana, a = the constant in the multiple regression equation, 8 = beta, or the standardized partial regression coefficient, x = the Message Intake for each individual corresponding to the mass medium repre- sented in the subscript, and the subscripts which respectively represent, form left to right, television, radio, popular songs, newspapers, and magazines. Obviously an identical multiple regression equation represents the Aggregated Message Intake for the interper- sonal sources (IP) Of communication. In addition to the two sets of information flow vari- ables: mass media and interpersonal sources of communication, we have also theoretically defined a third group of predictor variables: the exemplapy messages of three significant others; namely, father, mother and friends. The Operationalization Of the exemplary messages about alcoholic beverages was achieved thusly: (a) for "father," the question presented to each respondent was "How frequently does your father drink 84 alcoholic beverages?". The alternative answers were "never, rarely, every now and then, frequently, and every day," with scale values ranging from 0 to 4. (b) The Operational- ization for "mother" was identical to the one for "father," with appropriate question wording. (c) The question asked for friends (in a different section of the questionnaire) was "Now please tell us how many Of your friends and peers do you think use each one of the following substances, even if it is only occasionally." Next, each of several sub- stances was listed, including alcoholic beverages. The al- ternative answers provided for each drug were "none of them, a few, most of them, and all of them," with scale values ranging from zero to three. The question asked to friends differed from the one asked to father and mother because for friends we also asked about the perception of use of other drugs. This was decided on the basis of the results to the exploratory study which indicated that the respondents per- ceived a wider variety of substance use by them than by father and mother. Knowledge about the use of other drugs by the respondents and their friends was mostly of interest to the funding institution. Measurement of exemplary messages about marijuana was obtained for friends only, with exactly the same question as the one used for alcohol. A similar question was not asked for father and mother since practically the totality of the respondents to the exploratory study declared no marijuana 85 use at all by father and mother. Because of the difference in index values, the ex- emplary message Of significant others cannot be directly summed with mass media and interpersonal indices. However, standardized partial regression equations will enable us to relate the entire set of predictor variables with the de- pendent measures, overcoming the difficulty posed by the different index values Of the last three variables in rela- tion to the other ten variables. (Certainly, if we wanted to aggregate all the indices we could overcome the problem Of the differences by means of z transformations.) Descriptive Statistics for the Independent Variables Table 2 presents the basic descriptive statistics for each constitutive variable of the ten Message Intake indices. Equivalent data for each constructed index are presented in Table 3. Generally, Table 2 shows that the level of exposure to each source of communication is fairly substantial, thus satisfying the pre-condition of exposure for an effect of communication to take place. The means for the perceived frequency of mention of both substances by the ten sources are relatively low, although sufficiently removed from zero to indicate that even though alcohol and marijuana appear not to be subjects of great salience for our respondents, they do constitute content elements of some importance in their relationship with the various mass and interpersonal media. Furthermore, the variance about the means is rather large, 86 Table 2. Range, mean and standard deviation for all the information flow variables in this study, as originally measured* Rapgg Mean Standard Deviation TELEVISION Exposure to television 0-5 2.90 1.32 Mention of alcohol 0—3 1.85 0.95 Position about alcohol -2,+2 0.04 1.38 Mention of marijuana 0-3 1.09 0.89 Position about marijuana -2,+2 -l.15 1.01 RADIO Exposure to radio 0-5 3.25 1.36 Mention of alcohol 0—3 1.52 0.96 Position about alcohol -2,+2 -0.23 1.27 Mention of marijuana 0-3 0.91 0.88 Position about marijuana -2,+2 -l.04 1.02 POPULAR SONGS Exposure to popular songs 0—5 2.57 1.44 Mention of alcohol 0-3 1.13 1.00 Position about alcohol —2,+2 -0.15 1.25 Mention Of marijuana 0-3 0.56 0.79 Position about marijuana -2,+2 -0.66 1.07 NEWSPAPEIB Exposure to newspapers 0-5 2.07 1.04 Mention of alcohol 0-3 1.81 0.91 Position about alcohol -2,+2 -0.59 1.26 Mention Of marijuana 0—3 1.78 0.99 Position about marijuana —2,+2 -l.20 1.02 MAGAZINES Exposure to magazines 0-5 1.81 1.07 Mention of alcohol 0-3 1.29 0.95 Position about alcohol -2,+2 -0.65 1.14 Mention of marijuana 0-3 1.37 0.98 Position about marijuana —2,+2 —1.09 1.01 PARENTS Exposure to parents 0-5 2.90 1.44 Mention of alcohol 0-3 1.06 0.91 Position about alcohol -2,+2 -l.22 0.95 Mention Of marijuana 0-3 1.07 0.93 Position about marijuana -2,+2 -l.67 0.75 7kn = 1,928 minus missing cases, which range between 10 and 68 per variable. Table 2 (cont'd.) SIBLINGS Exposure to siblings Mention of alcohol Position about alcohol Mention of marijuana Position about marijuana OTHER.RELATIVES Exposure to relatives Mention of alcohol Position about alcohol Mention of marijuana Position about marijuana FRIENDS AT SCHOOL Ebcposure to friends at school Mention of alcohol Position about alcohol Mention of marijuana Position about marijuana FRIENDS OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL Exposure to friends outside of school Mention of alcohol Position about alcohol Mention of marijuana Position about marijuana 87 @953 0-5 0-3 -2,+2 0-3 -2,+2 0-5 0-3 -2,+2 0-3 -2,+2 0-5 0-3 -2,+2 0-3 -2,+2 0-5 0-3 -2,+2 0-3 -2,+2 @ 3.04 0.83 -l.13 0.89 -l.46 1.64 0.84 -0.98 0.76 -1.44 3.46 1.15 -0.63 1.29 -0.97 2.06 0.95 -0.64 1.01 -0.98 Standard Deviation 1.16 0.79 0.98 0.79 0.89 Table 2A. Range , mean and standard deviation for the exemplary message variables ALCOHOL Friends Father Mother Friends Range 0-3 0-3 0-3 0-3 Standard Deviation 88 which points to an adequate distribution of responses along the values of the variables for analytical purposes. The means Of the perceived position of the sources about the consumption of alcohol and marijuana reflect a somewhat un- favorable attitude, although a fairly large variability Of responses is also observed. The Message Intake indices--the product of exposure to the medium by perceived frequency of mention of the sub- stance by perceived position about it--for all sources of communication present means that indicate the absence of extreme values. An extreme MI mean value might represent a force of overriding magnitude that by itself could determine the resultant vector or dependent attitude and behavior. The MI index values can range between :30. As the data in Table 3 show, the Observed means range between -5.93 and +1.03 with substantial standard deviations due to a large variability of responses. All but three of the values repre- sent forces (mean vector values for the pOpulation we are studying) slightly opposed to the use of the substances. Only television, radio and popular songs have a mean MI index a bit in favor of alcoholic beverages. Consistently, the force exercised against the use of marijuana is stronger than for alcohol. Interpersonal sources tend to be less favorable about substance use than the mass media. Among the former, family members have MI index values more Opposed to substance use than friends, while the print media are 89 .xoocfl mom «m can mm cmm3umo mmcmu nown3 .mmmmo mcammwe mscflfi mmm.a u c {.1 .om+ Op cm: H mmcmm« mm.m om.HI om.m vo.¢l oo.¢ oN.NI vm.o m¢.¢l HH.> mm.mt «H.m mm.NI om.o ¢m.vl No.v mm.0I om.m mN.mI mH.m mm.ml .Q.m COOS dzmahHmflz Hh.¢ 00.0) HH.> om.HI mm.m H5.HI mm.m om.~l mm.m mo.vl om.v NN.HI $0.5 ho.NI ¢F.m mw.o mm.m 0H.o ov.m mo.H .D.m cmmz domoodd Hoocom mo onawuco mocoflum Hoocom um mocmwuh mw>flumamm macaanam mucmumm mocaumomz mummcmmSOZ mocom Hmasmom owOmm :oflmfl>mama ««mmoacca oxoucH mommmoz omummoummm mnu How :0auma>wo cucoccum com «com: .m manna 90 more Opposed to it than electronic media. Tables 4 and 5 present (a) the inter-item correla- tions of the component MI variables for alcoholic beverages and marijuana, respectively, and (b) the item-to-total cor- relation coefficients. Most inter-item correlations are quite small, even though generally they are significant at the .05 level (given an p_of 1,928, a coefficient Of .045 is significant at that level). The item-to-total correlations present different patterns depending on the substance and whether we look at the mass media or the interpersonal sources. Most of the variance in the mass media MI indices for alcoholic beverages is explained by the single component variable "perceived position of the source about the sub- stance" (or bias of the coverage). The same is true for friends. The item-to-total correlations of the three com- ponent variables of the indices corresponding to parents, siblings, and other relatives, however, are Of approximately the same magnitude, with "frequency of mention" showing the larger coefficients. The corresponding correlations for the five mass media and the two friends' indices for mari- juana indicate that the perceived position is the variable with the highest item-to-total coefficients; however, the other two variables, particularly perceived frequency of mention, also show substantial coefficients. Finally, parents, siblings, and other relatives present a different pattern, where frequency of mention of marijuana Obtains the 91 Table 4 . Zero order correlation coefficients among the component items cfifthelkxaageIntake1hxfices:fixrahxmplflztawenxxs Memfimalhuakezkfiax 1y Imauion Uaeby tsetw' by Mention Position Position Use Mention Position l. Nassbkxfla Television 01 -09 31 00 24 83 Radio 08 00 34 00 22 80 Popular songs -05 -12 38 -00 24 67 NEwspapers 21 05 10 -15 -12 79 Magazines 16 01 21 -15 -08 67 2. Inflamensxad Sources Parents 17 -06 —01 -37 -55 52 Siblings 14 -08 13 -30 -47 46 Other relatives 22 -09 00 -44 -49 44 Friends at school 18 04 32 -08 02 69 FriamkiouUHde of sOhool 32 ll 30 -06 -01 59 most substantial correlations, followed by exposure and per- ceived position. In conclusion, Tables 4 and 5 indicate that perceived position of the source is the item that correlates most strongly with the MI indices for the mass media and friends, while perceived frequency of mention and frequency of use Of the medium generally show weaker item-to-total correlations. The pattern is somewhat reversed for parents, siblings, and 92 Table 5 . Zero order correlation coefficients among the ccmponent items of the Message Intake indices of marijuana Nbssmnelnflflaaindex by Manjcn Usaby tselnr by .Mention Position Position Use Mention Position 1. mass MEdia Television 14 09 -02 00 -45 59 Radio 12 00 01 -23 -39 59 Popular songs 11 -01 22 -09 -08 50 Newspapers 13 -02 -08 -36 -43 67 Magazines 11 -02 -02 -30 -38 61 2. Incamarsmrfl. Smmxas Parents 16 -09 -13 -49 -74 37 Siblings 18 -08 -04 -38 -66 42 Other relatives 20 -08 -11 -49 -63 35 Friends at sdhool 19 -04 18 -25 -29 65 Erhafismama mmcflummmz muwmcmmBOZ mocom oflomm coama>oam9 .H .2 mMUHOZH mM¢BZH m0mn OHHOSOOHM How mw0floca A.H.zv mxcucH omcmmmz canoe mmme may cacao mcoflumamuuoououcH .s magma 96 Hoonom mo mcwmuso mccmflnm em I Hoocom um mccmflum «a ha I mm>aumamm om AH cm I mmcaanflm NH ma am we I muconmm Hoosom mo Hoonom um mo>wumamm mmcflanflm mucoumm mcwmuso mncoflum mccowum .H .2 WMUHDZH mM¢BZH mwdmmmz momWHo>on OHHocooam How mmoaocfl A.H.Sv oxmusH mmcmmmz accomnmmuwucw ccu OGOEM mGOMDMHOHHOOHmucH .m canoe 97 mocaumomz mm I Hmmwmmzmz 0H Ha I mmcom ha am am I cacmm ea Hm ma mv I >9 mmcaucmmz mummmmm3oz mmcom OHomm >8 OH .2 mmUHDZH mMaumamm mm am ow I mmaaanam mm mm mm mm I mucmumm Hoonom mo Hoocom um mm>wumaom mmcaanam mucoumm mnemuco mocmaum moccwnm .H .2 mmuHozH mxcezH mudmmmz OGMSflHHmE How mmowocfl A.H.zv mxcucH mommmmz anaemnmmmmucfl on» macaw mcoflumHmuuoouwucH .oa canoe 99 Table 11. Zero order correlation coefficients Of the degree Of use of alcoholic beverages by significant others (exemplary messages) Alcohol use by Father Mother Friends Father - 32 19 Mother - 24 Friends - conceptual problems due to redundancy between or among different media or statistical problems Of multicollinearity and other analytical limitations. Dependent Variables The dependent measures for this study are (a) atti- tude and behavior toward alcoholic beverages, and (b) atti- and behavior toward marijuana. Following the previous related studies by Woelfel and coauthors that have been re- viewed above, both attitude and behavior are construed very straightforwardly as, respectively, the respondents' position, expressed as the degree of approval of occasional use of each substance by people Of their own age, and the respondents' manifest frequency of use Of each drug. The specific Operationalizations were as follows.* For attitude, each respondent was presented with this * Appendix B presents the questionnaire in Spanish. 100 question: "Different people feel in a different way about the use of drugs by other persons. Next, please tell us how do you feel about the occasional use of each of the following drugs by peOpie Of your own age." Next to each substance, the respondents had to answer a Likert-type scale ranging from "totally approve," through "neutral or don't know," to "totally disapprove." The distribution of the 1,928 answers to this question for each substance with their respective scale values, was: ALCOHOL MARIJUANA (% ) (% ) Totally disapprove (0) 31.9 61.6 More or less disapprove (1) 23.7 13.5 Neutral or don't know (2) 15.5 17.2 More or less approve (3) 20.5 5.7 Totally approve (4) 8.3 2.1 Mean 1.50 0.73 s.d. 1.34 1.06 Behavior was measured as the relative frequency of use of the intoxicant, with the possible alternative answers bein;"never" (scale value of zero), "I have tried it 2 or 3 times only," "I use it a few times a month," "I use it a few times a week," and "I use it every day" (scale value Of 4). The distribution Of reSponses for each of the two intoxicants was: 101 ALCOHOL MARIJUANA (is) (25) Never (0) 42.7 89.1 Tried 2 or 3 times (1) 41.3 8.4 A few times a month (2) 13.2 1.0 A few times a week (3) 2.3 0.8 Every day (4) 0.5 0.7 Mean 0.77 0.16 s.d. 0.80 0.54 It must be recognized here that these skewed dis- tributions, particularly the ones for attitude and behavior about marijuana, may affect further correlation and regres- sion analyses. Considering these measurements, a positive correla- tion between the Aggregated Message Intake index and atti- tude toward each substance implies that the values for the two variables will be in the same direction. In other words, a negative AMI index will correspond to an attitude unfavor- able to the use of the intoxicant (negative sign), while a positive AMI index will correspond to a favorable attitude. The relationship between AMI and behavior has a similar meaning, although a negative sign for behavior can- not occur--either there is some variable amount of use of the substance or there is not. Consequently, a positive correlation between AMI and behavior implies that the higher the AMI index value for a given respondent, the greater his frequency of use alcohol or marijuana. A negative correlation between these two variables means that as the index value for AMI increases, the frequency of use of a substance decreases, 102 tending towards a zero amount of use. In terms of forces being exercised upon a focal individual, a positive correla— tion implies that the (favorable) orientation the individual perceives his sources of communication to have toward alcohol or marijuana "pushes" him to the use of the substance; the force being greater as the magnitude of the multiple correla- tion coefficient increases. Conversely, a negative correla- tion indicates a resultant force that "pushes" the individual toward not using the intoxicant. Finally, it must also be noted here that a review of the substance literature on drug attitudes and use indi- cates that our Operationalization of the dependent variables, in addition to necessarily replicating previous and related tests of the theory, is quite similar to that of many other substance abuse studies, particularly as far as the self- report on frequency of substance use is concerned. Published studies with similar measurements of drug attitudes and, particularly, behavior include Fejer and Smart (1973), Single gt_§1. (1974), Galli (1974), Adler and Lotecka (1973), Greenwald and Luetgert (1971), DeFleur and Garrett (1970), Church gt_al.(l974), Vincent (1972), Kandel (1974), and many of the studies reviewed by Blumberg (1975) and Kinder (1975a and 1975b). Based on such measurements, Whitehead and Smart (1972) confirmed the validity of adolescents' self-reported prevalence of use of thirteen different drugs, including a fictitious one and, particularly, alcohol and 103 marijuana. They also checked the test-retest reliability of those measures, reaching coefficients that ranged between .65 and .95. Single and Kandel (1974, reported in Kandel, 1974) also found "high reliability and validity for self- reported adolescent illegal drug use." Although generally, however, face validity is assumed for such measurements as ours. In our own study we obtained an indication of the validity of our data by the expert judgment of the officials of the Mexican Center for Studies on Drug Dependence who failed to detect any significant difference between our rates of reported drug use and theirs. Perhaps more importantly, we can infer the validity of our data by checking whether they do in fact correlate with other measures with which they are supposed to. In this regard, and on the basis of previous studies on pat- terns and correlates of drug use (of. literature review above), we should expect our respondents to exhibit signif- icantly different characteristics depending on their fre- quency of substance use. Specifically, we would expect them to differ in (a) socioeconomic and demographic char- acteristics and (b) in their frequency of exposure to var- ious mass and interpersonal media of communication. As the data in Table 12 show, we can indeed discriminate among our respondents depending on their frequency of use of both alcoholic beverages and, even more clearly, marijuana. 104 An additional indication would be the finding of a high intercorrelation between the use of alcoholic bever— ages and marijuana and the use of other drugs, since pre- vious studies have found a clear pattern of multiple drug use among substance users (see, particularly, Single, Kandel and Faust, 1974). As part of the same study upon which this dissertation is based, we also collected data on the fre- quency of use of four other substances: inhalants, amphet- amines, barbiturates and hallucinogens. Therefore, we are able to correlate the frequency of use among various intox- icants. The results, which are presented in Table 13, are indeed supportive of the predicted multiple drug use pattern among substance users and, consequently, they are also indicative of validity. The values in Tables 12 and 13 are gamma coefficients, which we decided to use instead of Pearson correlations be- cause many of the variables could be more accurately de- scribed as ordinal level scales. The gamma coefficients are measures of association between ordinally scaled variables, equivalent to, and with a similar interpretation as, zero- order or Pearson correlations. Description of the Sample The data base for this study was provided by a probabilistic sample of 1,928 high school students from Mexico City, chosen proportionately from the 7th, 9th and 105 Table 12. Relationship (#) between the respondents' frequency of use of alcohol and marijuana and (a) selected characteristics and (b) exposure to mass and interperscnal nedia. ALCOHOL MARIJUANA Age .53*** .42*** Year in school .60*** .39*** Type of school (1) .45*** -.01 Grade average -.02 -.15** Educational aspiration .27*** .15** Number of siblings -.02 -.12** Sex (2) —.20*** -.42*** Religiosity -.21*** -.34*** Father occupation .20*** .l7** Mother occupation (3) -.06* -.33*** Do parents live together? (4) -.06* -.28*** Perceived availability of drug .44*** .51*** Exposure to television -.07* -.1l** Exposure to radio .05 .06* Exposure to popular songs -.12** -.06* Exposure to newspapers .04 .07* Exposure to magazines .03 .05* Exposure to parents -.08* -.19** Exposure to siblings -.00 -.16** Exposure to relatives -.12** -.19** Exposure to friends at school .l6** .09* Exposure to friends outside of school .22*** .32*** #The relationships are expressed as gamma coefficients. * p < .05 ** p < .001 tide p < .001 (1)1 = private; 0 = public (2)1 = female; 0 = male (”Coded as a dummy variable: 1 = housewife; 0 = works outside the home 1=yes;0=no (4) 106 Table 13. Gamma coefficients expressing the relationship between the frequency of use of alcohol and marijuana and the use of four other drugs* ALCOHOL MARIJUANA Alcohol - .69 Marijuana .69 - Inhalants .54 .27 Amphetamines .68 .72- Barbiturates .61 .63 Hallucinogens .61 .91 * All coefficients are significant at p < .001. 12th grades.* They came from a total of 55 different schools distributed thusly: 19 schools where 7th graders were chosen (n = 664); 19 schools with 9th graders (n = 663); and 17 schools with 12 graders (n = 601). Their mean age is 16.06 years** (s.d. = 2.7). Eighty-five percent attend * Formal education in Mexico is divided into three consecutive periods. The first one, "primaria," covers grades 1-6; the second one, "secundaria," includes grades 7-9; the final one, "preparatoria," includes grades 10-12. "Primaria" constitutes the basic and mandatory level of edu- cation for all children. The latter two together represent the intermediate level (college is the higher level), not yet legally mandatory for all children, and usually consider- ed as a rough equivalent of the American high school. ** The mean age is older from what we would normally expect, at least on the basis of what would be common in the United States. For example, if all 7th graders had an ex- pected age of 12.5 years; all 9th graders 14.5 years; and all 12th graders 17.5 years, then the expected mean age would be 14.7 years. The older average we found is, however, very normal for a Mexican high school population where, particu- larly in public schools, it is quite common to find students who are a few years older than what would be considered "normal’I for any given grade. 107 public schools, 9% private religious schools and 6% private lay schools. Regarding their sex, 66% are males and 34% females. The mothers of 14% of the respondents work in various occupations; the remaining 86% are housewives. Finally, their fathers' occupation can be classified as 22% high occupational status, 50% medium, and 28% low status. These distributions do not significantly differ from known population parameters (of adolescents studying high school in Mexico City). The sampling method called for selection of schools with probabilities proportional to the size of each school (see, for example, Kish, 1965). We chose a quota of 35 students for each grade and type of school. (All schools finally chosen had more than 35 students enrolled in the selected grades. The most common class size in Mexico City high school classrooms is between 50 and 60 students.) We had also decided on a sample size of about 2,000 students. This was about the largest number that we could obtain given our resources and time limitations. The main reason for preferringa large sample was that we knew in advance that only a small percentage of respondents could be ex- pected to be users of drugs such as marijuana and we wanted to optimize the final number of drug users in the sample. Given these two parameters (sample and quota sizes), we decided to select 19 schools from each one of the three grades. (This would mean 57 schools with 35 students each, which equals 1,995). At the last minute, two 12th grade 108 schools who had first accepted to cooperate refused to do so, thereby loosing 70 students. For various reasons, how- ever, 73 additional questionnaires were collected, for a total of 1,998. In order to select the schools, they were listed and their respective student enrollment was entered and cumu- latively summed. A random starting point was chosen and thereafter the schools that corresponded to fixed interval points were selected. This process was repeated three times, one for each one of the three different grades. For any given school, if there was more than one classroom of the corresponding grade, one was randomly chosen. Like- wise, the 35 students that comprised the quota were also randomly chosen within the classroom. Methods for Data Gathering The data were collected by twelve previously trained and experienced psychologists from the Social Science Division of the Mexican Center for Studies on Drug Depend- ence (CEMEF, the institution that funded the study), during the months of February and March, 1974. They worked under the direction of this author and were supervised by the director and general coordinator of the division.* * Olga Salinas and Guillermina Natera, respectively, to whom the author is indebted. 109 The interviewers took the questionnaires to the assigned schools after permission had been granted by the principal. The students were given the questionnaires to fill out in their own classrooms without any teacher or school official being present; only the interviewer who introduced himself or herself and gave a standard intro- duction and general explanation about the study and the procedure to be followed. During the introduction the respondents were particularly assured about their anominity. As a matter of fact, the interviewer brought with him or her a sealed box with only a groove on tOp of it where the re- spondents would slide their questionnaires once they were completed. (The convenience of using those sealed boxes to increase the students' confidence was detected during the personal interviews with the respondents to the exploratory study and confirmed during the pilot study. It seems to have been quite helpful.) In addition, the tOp page of the questionnaire had the following text: Do not write your name on this questionnaire. This questionnaire is strictly confidential. Your cooperation is of great importance because it will help us understand what young peOple like you think about various sources of communication and about various substances. This is part of a scientific study. Please answer the questionnaire in full by circling the alternative answer to each question that most closely resembles your opinion. This is not an exam; there are no right or wrong answers. We are only interested in what you think. We sincerely thank you for your most valu- able contribution to this study. 110 After the questionnaires were in, they were coded by college students especially hired for this job. The coders were first trained and were closely supervised while they worked in the CEMEF offices. Incomplete questionnaires (except those with only a few missing answers) and question- naires that presented obvious problems of reliability (which were very few) were discarded during the coding process. In total, 70 questionnaires out of 1,998 that were collected were discarded; a completion rate of 96.5%. Thus, the final valid sample of 1,928 was obtained. Keypunching and data preparation were done at the Institute for Applied Mathe- matics and Systems of the National University of Mexico.* Data Analysis and Hypothesis Testing There are sixteen main hypotheses to be tested, as presented in the last section of Chapter I. Hypotheses l to 6, 9 and 10 predict a significant correlation between either a set of mass or interpersonal media of communication and the attitude and behavior that students have toward alcohol and marijuana. In other words, we are interested in determining the strength of the association between a set of predictor variables and a dependent variable, and the net and comparative weight and direction (either positive or * The author is particularly grateful to Dr. Federico O'Reilly for all the generous and most competent assistance he provided, particularly during data analysis. lll negative) of each variable in the predictor set. Therefore, multiple regression analysis appears to be the most appro- priate analytical tool (cf. Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1973). (This has more precisely been argued before, during the presentation of the theory in Chapter I and in the section dealing with the Operationalization of the independent var- iables in this chapter.) Hypotheses 7 and 8 are identical in nature to the previously mentioned ones except that only one independent variable is involved in the prediction; con- sequently, Pearson product moment correlations will be used to test the hypotheses. Hypotheses 11 to 16 involve each a comparison between two different sets of independent variables (e.g.: "inter— personal media will be more strongly associated with the respondents' behavior about a substance than the mass media"). These hypotheses will be tested by means of overall multiple regression analyses and F-tests for the significance of differences. At this stage it may also be important to indicate that the type of multiple regression analysis that was thought to be most appropriate to test our particular hy- potheses was stepwise multiple regression. Therefore, the various statistics reported in the results chapter (particu- larly the F-values and the beta weights) were taken from the last step of the analysis where a statistically signifi- cant variable was added to the equation, instead of the step 112 where a given variable originally entered the equation. This is necessary because, even though we do have an interest in the net and comparative predictive weight of each medium of communication, our hypotheses predict a relationship be- tween a set of independent variables and a given dependent variable. Consequently, we have to take into consideration the variance shared by each independent variable with the other independent variables present in the multiple regres- sion equation (see Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1973; and Cohen and Cohen, 1975). Finally, and before proceeding to the presentation of the results of the empirical test of the hypotheses, we will present in Tables 14 and 15 the zero-order correlation co- efficients among all the independent and dependent variables used to test the main hypotheses pertaining to attitudes and behavior about, respectively, alcohol and marijuana. This will give us an indication of the degree of relationship that exists between each pair of variables. The data were processed and all the analyses were conducted in the CDC 6500 computer system of Michigan State University by means of the programs of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (Nie et al., 1975). .80. u a .00. u H “Ho. u a .b0. u u «mo. u m 63. n H .muflm mam—Em Golfing .898 gamma: .8 8038 madam: 80% 684 u a a. 113 .. 8 3 R om S 2 we no- .8- mo 8 E S on Bum E m8 and u M: mm 8 S 5 mo 8.. 3.. Z 2 mm m: 2 Sum B BEBE 3: u S 2 8.. so 3- 3- 8. mo 8 8 S 8 .858 3 mm: as u em 8. 8 3.. 8.. mo 8 8 8 8 3 hand 3 mm: as .. S 3 no No: 8.. S 3 on 3 am 8.80m E 8: 2: u a” S S 2 mm 3 3 mo 8 828 .8 88 .95 magnum :2 8: u fl 2 3 S 3 S S 2 89? um means :2 as u mm em 2 S 8 8 mo 85.33% H24 2: u S 3 B 8 8 mo mafiafim :2 E u S we 8.. 8 mo- ficmnmm E as u 2. 2 mm D 85332 HE E . mm om R 089.9152 :2 E I am mm macaw mom :2 E n 3 08mm :2 E u Z. :2 3 Ed 35 And 85 3d 8d 3v 8V At a: $4 E A8 A8 Ad 18326 350nm 2008 «40500.? ”Bonn Mgr/QB pom 333.5 3 Egon 38509»: 5.9: may ummu 0.... com: moanmflmkr “swamp 98 #59285 on... 0:95 qufioflmmmoo gnamuuoo ”smog . 3 3nt So. .I. a .8. u 8. u a .8. H “mo. u m .25. u H 63.8 mam—5mm 52.5 .838 gmmfl: mo c0528 wmfiflmfl Hmumm 6mm...” u c... 114 I mm mm 3 .3 3 mo 8 mo 8 mo 8 .8 gamma: Ed I mm 3 3 SI mo SI 8 8 mo 8 mo Bum 3 mega a: I 3 3 SI moI SI moI 8 3 mo 8 flawed 3 mm: :3 I 3 om 3 3 S cm mo mo 8 38:8 no 6338 meant Ea 8: I 3 3 R «N 3 8 so 8 38:8 um menus HE E I we 3 cm 3 mo 3 3 $>33wm :2 a: I 3 mm 3 3 3 8 manna HE E I 3 3 SI 3 3 358m :2 Go I S 3 3 3 833mm: :2 so I 3 on om mama; :2 3 I 3 3 mmcom mom H24 5 . I Q 383 H24 as I 2. H24 E 35 3...: 3.3 8d Amy :3 at 6V Amy A3 Amv Amy Ad 68.6.26 356m 1.3.389 «6:33.35 uconm Honk/mama QB 8533 3 magnum $35083 FEE on» #93 on poms 933mg uswcawmmp can nagged.” 05 macaw 3503.308 Sflmamhfloo ummfiolpnmu .mH magma. CHAPTER III RESULTS This chapter presents the results of the empirical tests of the hypotheses formulated in the last section of Chapter I. The 28 hypotheses will be grouped in the fol— lowing five blocks: (1) effects of the mass media; (2) effects of interpersonal sources; (3) effects of signifi- cant others' exemplary messages; (4) effects of all of com- munication combined; and (5) differential effects of interpersonal and mass media sources and exemplary messages. Effects of the Mass Media The predicted effects of the mass media are stated in Hypotheses H and H the first two dealing la’ Hlb’ H2a 2b; with attitude toward, respectively, alcohol and marijuana, and the latter two being similarly concerned with behavior. We shall first present the results corresponding to hypothes- es H1a and Hlb' which were formulated thusly: Hla: The respondents' Aggregated Message Intake (AMI) for the mass media will positively correlate with their attitude toward alcohol. 115 116 H The respondents' AMI for the mass media will positively correlate with their attitude toward marijuana. lb: From a statistical point of view, and according to the results presented in Table 16, both hypotheses are sup- ported by the data. The linear combination of the set of five mass media predictors reaches a multiple correlation of .271 (p < .001) with attitude toward alcohol and .069 (p < .05) with attitude toward marijuana, which explain, respectively, 7.3% and .05% of the variance in the depend- ent variables.* The multiple correlation reached by the five mass media and attitude toward alcohol is due to the significant regression coefficients of three variables: popular songs (8 = .172), magazines (8 = .113), and television (8 = .108). These beta coefficients tell us how much change, in standard units, will experience the respondents' attitude about alcohol for each standard unit of change in the independent variable after partialling out the effect of the remaining variables. Therefore, even though the three betas reached a high level of statistical significance ( p < .001), they *The reader should be reminded that this chapter is concerned with the presentation of the quantitative results and, therefore, with the statistical significance of the analyses. We are aware that the amount of variance explain— ed in these, as well as in many other analyses, is very small; however, this is an issue that will be dealt with in Chapter IV. 117 Hoe. v m ««« Ho.vm «% mo.vm .4. «o.o u vmmH.Hm «««o.mm u Noma.mm moo. H mm moo. H mm moo. u m mamfluasz Hum. u m mamfluasz .m.c «IIm.mH mad. whoo. Hmo. mmcnummmz .m.: .m.: muwmmmmBmz .m.c II.H.H¢ NEH. Hoes. mmo. mmcom “masmom Io.m moo. mvoo. Hao. .m.c Owcmm .m.c «««H.oa mod. mmoo. mHo. :oflmfl>oame m mama Q mo 9 m mumn a mo n moanmflum> .m.m .m.m unmocmmmocH mams m much a m0 o m mumo a no a mmHQMHHm> .m.m .m.m usmoawmmocH ¢z«Don¢z qomOUQ¢ Ann m mammnuoawmv mamswflume can Am m mammnuomwmv Hosooam usonm H0w>mnmn Hams» can mecca mmmE onu Mom Hz¢ .mucmpcommmn ms» cmmzumn magmGOwumHmm .ha manna 120 mass media and behavior about alcohol reaches an R of .251 (R2 = .063; p < .001); while with behavior about marijuana, R = .087 (R2 = .008; p < .01). The degree of relationship between the mass media variables and behavior is remarkably similar to the one found between the mass media and attitude. The multiple correlation coefficients compare thusly:* ALCOHOL MARIJUANA ATTITUDE .271 .069 BEHAVIOR .251 .087 *A note should be made regarding the stability of the multiple correlation coefficients reported thus far, which applies equally to the remaining regression analyses. Fol- lowing Kerlinger and Pedhazur (1973; esp. pp. 282—283), we can say that there are at least three factors which may affect R and , biasing these coefficients upwards. The first one is the certain amount of capitalization on chance that is always present in the calculation of R due to the treatment of the zero-order correlation coefficients between pairs of variables as if they were error-free. The second one is the size of the ratio between the number of independ- ent variables and the size of the sample; the larger the ratio, the greater the overestimation of R. The third fac- tor is the greater capitalization on chance due to the application of selection procedurestx>the independent vari- ables, such as in our case where a stepwise solution was utilized. These three problems tend to be readily overcome simply by working with large sample sizes. This practice is specifically advised by Kerlinger and Pedhazur who recommend the utilization of samples of at least 500 elements. This suggested minimum was amply satisfied in the present study since in testing our hypotheses we have worked with an n of at least 1,386, after listwise deletion of missing cases. In addition to letting a large sample size increase the stability of the results, it is also possible to calcu- late the amount of overestimation of R2; that is, the amount of shrinkage that it should have, by applying the following formula (cf. Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1973; p. 283): N - 1 N - k - l 2 ’b Where R = the estimated squared multiple correlation, or 32 = 1 - (1 - R2) 121 These coefficients indicate that, at least for our sample, the mass media are related with about the same strength with both attitude and behavior toward each substance. Two of the five media reached a significant regres- sion coefficient with behavior toward alcohol (Hypothesis H2a): television (8 = .165) and popular songs (8 = .156). The multiple correlation of .087 reached between the AMI for the mass media and behavior about marijuana (Hypothesis H2b) is due to the contribution of only one variable, television (8 = .087). In conclusion, the results pertaining to the mass media hypotheses indicate that (1) all the relationships are statistically significant, even though the amount of variance explained is very small, (2) the media relate much better with attitude and behavior toward alcohol than to- ward marijuana, and (3) in general, and among specific media, the message intake of popular songs and television shrunken R2; R2 = the obtained squared multiple correlation; N = sample size, and k = number of independent variables. Applying this formula to Hypotheses Hla to H2b we have obtained the following comparative results (which are also applicable to the remaining analyses): Hla Hlb H2a H26 2 5 : .073 .005 .063 .008 R2 .0710 .0043 .0616 .0073 Clearly, our large sample size and the very low ratio be— tween our N and the number of independent variables has resulted in very stable results for the present study. 122 appear to be the better predictors. Effects of Interpersonal Sources A similar and related set of hypotheses to the ones used for the mass media were formulated to test the rela- tionship between interpersonal sources of communication and the respondents' attitude and frequency of use of alcoholic beverages and marijuana. The four hypotheses were worded as follows: H : The respondents' AMI for interpersonal 3a sources of communication will positively correlate with their attitude toward alcohol. H3b: The respondents' AMI for interpersonal sources of communication will positively correlate with their attitude toward marijuana. H4a: The respondents' AMI for interpersonal sources of communication will positively correlate with their behavior about alcohol. H4b: The respondents' AMI for interpersonal sources of communication will positively correlate with their behavior about marijuana. Statistically, all four hypotheses are supported by the data as can be seen in Tables 18 and 19. It is inter- esting to observe that the four coefficients of multiple correlation are of about the same magnitude, ranging only between .196 and .215. The relationship between the AMI for the five inter- personal sources of communication and attitude toward alcohol 123 Hoe. v m *«x ao.vm «* mo. v m .1 «««o.HH H omma.mm «3*M.mH H Nmma.mm ovo. H mm omo. H mm Hem. n m 0333035: oma. n m 03338322 8m.o who. mmoo. mao. *«h.o who. vooo. mmo. Hoonom mo moflmuso mocoflnm «««m.ma ooa. ovoo. vHo. «¥«m.am mmH. vmoo. Hmo. Hoonom um mocofium «o.m moo. omoo. mHo. .m.c mm>flumaom 8o.v moo. Hmoo. Hao. «8m.h «no.1 nooo. mao.l mmcwanwm «xeo.oa bNH.I ovoo. mHo.I .m.c mucoumm m moon a m0 o m mama a m0 D moanmwum> .m.m .m.m ucmocwmmch ¢Z¢Donmz QOmOUA¢ 16mm mflmonuommmv momsflwume pom AMmm memosuomhmv Hocooam oumzou oosufiuum uwmcu pom mmoHSOm HMCOmHomuoucH How Hz¢ .mucoocommmn on» somzuon mflnmcoHumamm .oa mamas 124 3oo. v a mo. v m «««m.mm u ~om3.mm 3.mm n mmm3.mm ovo. H mm mmo. H mm m3m. u m 03330352 hm3. u m 0333335: 3*«o.om oo3. omoo. o3o. .m.c 3oocom mo moflmuso mocmwum «8m.33 oo3. m3oo. ooo. a««h.mm oo3. omoo. mmo. 3oosom um moco3um .m.c .m.: mo>33830m .m.c 33.3 omo.I mmoo. soo.I 66:33n3m «o.v ooo.: omoo. ooo.: .m.c mucmumm m 8303 a m0 o m mama a m0 n mo3QM3um> .m.m .m.m acmocmmoocH dzooondz qomouqfl 163m m3mo£uom>mv mcmsmmumfi cam Anvm mfiwmnuomamv 30:003m usonm 303>mnon 33m£u cam mmUHDOm 38c0m3wmumDC3 How 32¢ .mucmocommon 0:3 com3umo mflsmc03383mm .o3 mHQMB 125 (Hypothesis H3a) reaches an R of .196 (p < .001). Most of the variance explained is accounted for by friends at school (.030 of the total R2 of .038), with a beta of .159 (p‘<.001). Siblings and friends outside of school also reach signifi- cant regression weights, splitting about equally between the two the remainder of the variance explained in the dependent variable. The other two interpersonal sources (parents and relatives) failed to reach a statistically significant co- efficient. Of the three significant variables, siblings is the only one with a negative regression weight, which ex- plains an influence unfavorable to alcohol exerted on the respondents by their brothers and sisters. The second hypothesis of this set (H ), relating the 3b five interpersonal sources with attitude toward marijuana, is also supported by the data: R = .201; R2 = .04; p < .001. In this analysis, all the independent variables reach sta- tistically significant regression weights. As compared with the previous analysis, siblings change from a negative to a positive beta. The only interpersonal source negatively in- fluencing the respondents' attitude toward marijuana is parents (8 = -.127; p < .001), which is also the variable with the largest regression weight (significantly greater than the largest of the remaining regression coefficients, friends at school; t = -5.28; p < .001). It must be noted, however, that the first variable to enter the equation by the stepwise procedure was friends at school (with an initial 126 B = .146, eventually reduced to a final 8 = .109 due to the variance shared with the other variables); this is also the variable that makes the largest contribution to R2 (.021 out of a total of .04). Parents were the third variable to enter the equation with an initial 3 = -.076. After parents, relatives and siblings, in that order, were added to the equation, interacting with parents in such a way as to in- crease their beta to the final value of -.127. Hypothesis H relates the same group of sources with 4a behavior about alcoholic beverages. The multiple correlation of .197 is significant at p < .001. As compared with Hy- pothesis H friends at school continue to account for most 3a’ of the explained variance (3.67% of 3.90%); its absolute beta weight (.199) being larger than that of siblings (-.056), the only other significant variable in the equation, which was entered with a negative coefficient. The last hypothesis in the set of interpersonal sources (H4b) equally has a statistically significant R (R = .215; R2 = .046; p < .001). Friends outside of school exhibit here the largest beta (.164), followed by friends at school (.100), both positive. Parents constitute the last significant predictor (B = -.059); in this case, and compared to Hypothesis H3b’ with a smaller beta and without presenting any interaction with other variables. These analyses allow us to conclude that (1) all the hypotheses pertaining to interpersonal sources of 127 communication are supported by the data even though the amount of variance explained in the four dependent vari- ables ranges only between 3.8% and 4.6%; (2) as opposed to the relationship found for the mass media, that correlated most strongly with attitude and behavior toward alcohol, interpersonal sources reach the largest multiple correlations with attitude and behavior toward marijuana, although the Rs do not differ substantially among themselves; (3) parents exert a statistically significant influence unfavorable to attitude and behavior about marijuana only, they do not cor- relate significantly with alcohol; siblings correlate neg- atively with attitude and behavior about alcohol, and posi- tively with attitude about marijuana; however, in the latter relationship they contribute to an increase of the negative regression weight of the respondents' parents. All other significant coefficients are positive. Finally, and in general, (4) friends at school appear to be the better cor- relate, followed by friends outside of school, and siblings. Effects of Significant Others' Exemplary Messages The two preceding sets of hypotheses related the aggregated message intake proceeding from the respondents' definers with their attitude and behavior about the two selected substances. We shall now look at the influence ex- erted by the model-type behaviors of the respondents' sig- nificant others. As we have previously explained, three sources of exemplary messages about alcoholic beverages 128 could be identified: father, mother, and friends; but these were reduced to only one: friends, with marijuana as the criterion measure. In the latter case, and as we have already explained, data gathered at the Mexican Center for Studies on Drug Dependence and the results of the explora- tory study we did prior to this research indicate that the parents of the adolescent pOpulation sampled for this study either do not consume marijuana or their children fail to perceive any use. Accordingly, we will first test the hy- potheses pertaining to attitudes and behavior about alcohol. These hypotheses were worded as follows: H ' The exemplary message scores transmitted 5 by the degree of use of alcohol of three significant others: father, mother, and friends, will positively correlate with the respondents' attitude toward alcohol. H6: The exemplary message scores transmitted by the degree of use of alcohol of three significant others: father, mother, and friends, will positively correlate with the respondents' behavior about alcohol. The results of the test of these two hypotheses are presented in Table 20. Clearly, both are supported by the data and at much higher levels of significance than the ones reached by any of the eight previous hypotheses. The exemplary messages of father, mother and friends reach a multiple correlation with the respondents' attitude toward alcohol (H5) of .444 (p < .0001). Friends are the 2 (.157 out source that makes the largest contribution to R of a total of .197); mothers add. 029 more, and fathers the remaining .011. Comparing their respective betas, we can 9 2 .1. «st 8 . v o «a mo. v a k. «««h.mhfl H NmMH.mm «ssm.NHH H Nmma.mh Hmm. H mm hmH. H mm omm. n m mamwuasz vvv. n m mamfluasz ssh.oa who. hmao. Hmo. «sso.ow mma. mama. mmm. Hmsuoz «xsm.mm oma. mmmo. omH. sss.ama moa. ammo. mva. monumm ssso.mhm mmv. mmmo. mvv. «««.Hma mom. omvo. Hmm. mwcmflum ... wn mm: Honooad m mumn n m0 n m moon a mo 9 moanmwum> .m.m .m.m ucmvcwmmccH WDDBHBBAN Honooam usonm Am: mammnuomhmv H0w>msmn paw Amm mwmwnuomhmv mpsuwuum .mucopcommmu on» was mwmmmmwfi hHmHmexm .mnmnuo unmoflmwcmflm map :mmBuwn mfinmcoHumHmm .om magma 130 see that friends exert an influence more than twice as large as mothers (.345/.159) and more than three times as large as fathers, while the mothers' beta is 47% larger than the fathers'. The relationship between the same set of exemplary messages and behavior about alcohol (H6) yields an even higher multiple correlation: R = .530; R2 = .281; p (.001. Friends are again the source that accounts for most of the total explained variance in the dependent variable (.250 of .281). Compared to the previous relationship, friends are even more influential on the dependent variable than father and mother. In the present instance, the friends' beta is three times as large as the fathers' and six times larger than the mothers'. Also, friends correlate better with the respondents' behavior than with their attitude, the respec- tive beta being about one third larger. The ranking of the regression weights of the respondents' parents for behavior reverses the corresponding one found for attitude; the fathers' beta is now about twice as large as the mothers'. The other two hypotheses in this set refer to the relationship between the perceived use of marijuana by friends and the adolescents' attitude and behavior about this substance. The first hypothesis was stated thusly: H : The exemplary message scores transmitted by the degree of use of marijuana by friends will positively correlate with the respondents' attitude toward marijuana. .7 131 The data support this hypothesis. The simple linear regression of friends' use of marijuana on attitude yields a beta = .341 (b = .289; standard error of b = .02; F1; 1547 = 203.9; p < .001). This observed beta coefficient is of the same magnitude as the one found between friends and at- titude toward alcohol (8 = .345) with the effects of mother and father partialled out. The related hypothesis pertaining to behavior pre- dicts that H The exemplary message scores transmitted by the degree of use of marijuana by friends will positively correlate with the respond- ents' behavior about marijuana. 8: .237; H is also supported by the data: beta 8 b = .406; standard error of b = .042; = 91.8; F1; 1547 p < .001. This beta is of almost half the magnitude of the corresponding one between friends and behavior about alcohol. This relationship also differs significantly from the one found in H7 (E = 3.88; d.f. = 1546; p < .001, for the sig- nificance of difference between two zero-order correlations). The test of the four hypotheses corresponding to the effects of significant others' exemplary messages allows us to arrive at these conclusions: (1) all the hypothesized relationships are supported by the data; (2) perceived sub- stance use by friends is a very good predictor of related attitudes and behavior by the adolescents we surveyed; (3) friends correlate significantly better with the dependent 132 attitudes and behavior than father or mother; and (4) ex- emplary messages correlate significantly better with the dependent variables than the definer-type messages proceed- ing from either the mass media or interpersonal sources of communication, although the specific differences will be analyzed more fully in subsequent hypotheses. The preceding twelve hypotheses Hla to H8 constitute partial tests of the theory where the sources of communica- tion are divided into three differentiated sets (mass media, interpersonal sources--these two representing the definer- type messages,--and exemplary messages-~or model-type influ- ences--). In summary, we can say that all the predicted relationships have been sustained by our data, even though generally the amount of variance explained in the dependent variables is rather small. The squared multiple correlation coefficients (R2) found in the twelve analyses compare as follows: ALCOHOL MARIJUANA ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR (‘3) (M (‘35) Hi) MASS MEDIA 7.3 6.3 0.5 0.8 INTERPERSONAL SOURCES 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.6 EXEMPLARY MESSAGES 19.7 28.1 5.6* 11.6* * From friends only 133 Effects of All Sources of Communication Combined In this section we shall analyze the relationships between all the thirteen sources of communication and influ- ence combined (five mass media, five interpersonal, and three exemplary messages) and the four dependent variables. Therefore, these analyses represent a more direct test of Linear Force Aggregation Theory since all the sources of communication that were confirmed as plausible correlates in the exploratory study have been aggregated in one general analysis. However, the hypotheses pertaining to the present set cannot be directly tested by means of multiple regres- sion analysis alone, as the previous hypotheses were. This is due to a methodological problem we already observed in the hypotheses section in Chapter I. As we stated then, the present hypotheses are not totally independent from the previous twelve; indeed, each one of the preceding sets of variables are included in some of the four multiple regres- sions that will be used to test the effects of all sources of communication combined. Therefore, in addition to the direct test of the present hypotheses via multiple regres- sion, a second test will have to be done in order to deter- mine if the obtained multiple correlation is significantly larger than that of each one of the three sets of variables included in the general equation. If it is not, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected because the aggregation of all the variables would not add anything to the amount of variance 134 already explained by a given subset. Accordingly, for the test of each one of the four hypotheses in this set, we will first present the results of the respective multiple regression analysis and then the result of the test for the significance of differences between multiple correlations. We shall test for the significance of the difference between two multiple correlation coefficient by converting the observed difference to a z-value (an ordinate of the normal curve having probability a). This is obtained through the following formula: R2 - R*2 /16 ( (n-p>2 + (n*-p)2 ) ‘ 27 (n2 - l) (n + 3) (n*2 - l) (n* + 3) where R2 = the squared multiple correlation coefficients; n = sample size; p = number of independent variables, for all sources of communication combined. The asterisk refers the same symbols to a second multiple regression analysis (one of the communication sources subsets) against which the previous one is compared. The null hypothesis of no difference between the two R32 will be rejected if the ob- tained z-value is equal to or greater than a predetermined alpha level for a one-tailed test.* * This test yields results analogous to, but more con- servative than, those obtained by another test derived by the present author based on the z-test for the difference of 135 This test was developed by David Seibold (1975; pp. l72-l74)--based on a procedure suggested by Professor James H. Stapleton of the Department of Statistics and Probability at Michigan State University to him and also to this author--since such a test is apparently not available in the statistics literature. It should be noted, as Seibold indi- cates, that this is a conservative test in the sense that, in cases where the two sample sizes are large, if the null hypothesis is true, the probability of exceeding 1.645 (the critical value of z for alpha = .05, in the one-tailed case) is less than .05. The first hypothesis to be tested regarding the rela- tionship between all sources of communication combined and the dependent variables was worded as follows: H The respondents' total aggregate value of all sources of information and in- fluence will positively correlate with their attitude toward alcohol. 9a: The results of the multiple regression analysis (see Table 21) allow us to conclude that there is a statistically significant relationship between the linear combination of proportions (see Blalock, pp. 228 ff.), and which is ex- pressed as 2 2 l 2 2 2) 2 2 1 2 136 all sources of communication combined and attitude toward alcohol (R = .459; R2 = .211; p < .0001). As can be seen in Table 23, this multiple correlation is significantly larger than the one reached by the linear combinations of the mass media (R = .271; Z 4.805; p < .001) and the inter- personal sources (R = .196; Z = 6.032; p < .001); but it does not significantly differ from the coefficient of .444 reached by the exemplary messages of some significant others (Z = 0.474; p = .63 = n.s.). Therefore, the null hypothesis can- not be rejected. In other words, even though the multiple regression analysis by which Hypothesis H9a was tested reached a highly significant multiple correlation, this ob- tained R does not differ significantly from--it fails to improve significantly upon-—the R yielded by one of the three component subsets alone; namely, the linear combination of the model-type, exemplary behaviors of three significant others: father, mother, and, very especially, friends. Indeed, an inspection of the seven statistically significant regression weights reveals that "use by friends" reaches the largest beta (.300) by far. The second largest is "use by mother" (.121), which is in turn significantly larger than the next regression coefficient, popular songs (t = 4.41; p < .001). Furthermore, the linear combination of the seven statistically significant regression weights explains 21.1% of the variance in attitude toward alcohol, of which 17.81% (84.36% of the total explained variance) is due to the maco Honooam Hon omnsmmmzo Hoo. v or so. v o «« mo.vm k. «« s..o.m~ u moma.om ss.o.em u HoeH.em ooo. H mm Ham. H mm oom. u m meoeuesz ems. u m meoeuesz eseo.m~ HNH. some. new. lee nonuse so moo u ssm.o Heo. memo. hoe. Ase noses“ so was sssm.oo mam. omvo. mum. s««¢.mva oom. oHoo. mom. mocwflum an mm: «o.v mmo. «moo. HHo. .m.c Hoocom mo moemuoo mocwfium «5.x Hmo. mmoo. oHo. «so.oa who. ovoo. mao. Hoocvm um mpcmwum s~.m moo. vooo. amo. .m.: mm>wumamm so.e ooo. eeoo. ooo. .m.s moseeoem «sv.oa ooo.: mvoo. vHo.I .m.: mucmnmm .m.s «so.o moo. oooo. omo. moseummsz .m.s .m.c mummwmmzwz .m.s seso.me ooo. omoo. emo. mmsom Hoesoom .m.s «m.m ooo. omoo. boo. oaomm .m.: .m.: , cowmw>mam9 m mama a mo Q m upon a m0 n moanmeum> .m.w .m.w ucmccwmmUGH czmsonmz gomguda Ana: mammnuomhmv mcmoflflume cam AMmm mammnuomwmv Honooam onmsop mogufluum news“ can mocmsawcw paw scam—503 mo mmousom dam mo 81.5 mummwhmmm H30» . 3:098me 05 smegma QEmcoflmaflm .HN manna mono Honooam How gnaw: * Hoo. v m «it. Ho. v d «a mo. v m fl 3.93 n 23mm .3563 u 334m o3”. H mm oom. H mm mom . n m 633?: oem . u m 3&3: u «a.m.? 2:. some. EH. 2: 858 3 won - .....s 2. s25 so 445 34¢.va mmm. Homo. mom. iswomm mmv. ammo. m3. 8:0me .5 who u» «ssodm mma. mmoo. mao. .mé Hoonow mo moflmuso gash l .m.: «35.5 ooo. mmoo. do. Hoonom um mpcoflfim .mé .mé moi/33mm .m.: .m.: mgaflm .mé .mé magnum .mé .mé mmfiwmmmz «m .m moo . .. Hmoo . voo .1 3m . N. moo ... omoo . boo .I mug: .m.: 33%.: 5o. Hmoo. m3. modem Magma .m.: .m.: 06mm .23 . m ooo . Hmoo . ooo . «gm . ma moo . mHoo . moo . 53?ng m Son 3 m0 a .m 38 a m0 a 033.49 .m.m .m.m uswoqoomofi gag 4038.2 nod IIIIII. mod IIIII Ill 1 m memsnoosa sesame? oso A m 38585 8281.. egos... 85min fimfi oss mossefifi can scum—snows.“ mo 3958 do mo on? mummmnmmm H30» . 35:9.” 9.3 dogma mflmcoflmamm . mm 3an 139 contribution of the three sources of exemplary behaviors. The following hypothesis to be tested predicts that H The respondents' total aggregated value of all sources of information and influ- ence will positively correlate with their attitude toward marijuana. 9b: Although the multiple regression is statistically significant (R = .290; R2 = .084; p < .001--see Table 21-—), the results of the analyses presented in Table 23 clearly do not support the hypothesis, and therefore the null cannot be rejected. The R obtained in this analysis not only does not differ significantly from the R obtained by the interpersonal sources alone (Z = 1.53; n.s.), but it is even smaller than the correlation* observed between exemplary messages and the criterion variable. This latter fact alone means that it is not even necessary to do a statistical test in order to dis— prove the research hypotheses. The next two hypotheses deal with behavior as the criterion measure. The first one states that The respondents' total aggregate value of all sources of information and influ- ence will positively correlate with their behavior about alcohol. Hloa‘ * It should be reminded that the only source of ex- emplary messages about marijuana is friends. Therefore, the correlation is a zero-order g (and r = B = R in this case). 140 The corresponding regression presents the largest multiple correlation thus far (R = .548; R2 = .300; p<:.001; see Table 22). Nevertheless, it is not significantly dif- ferent from the multiple correlation obtained by the exemp- lary messages alone, as Table 23 shows (Z = 0.629; p = .53 = n.s.). Therefore, Hypothesis H is not supported by the 10a data since the aggregation of all the sources of communica- tion fails to significantly improve the amount of variance explained in behavior about alcohol by the exemplary mes- sages alone. In fact, 91% of the total variance explained by the regression (.273 out of .300) is due to the contribu- tion of the exemplary behaviors of friends and, to a lesser extent, mothers. The last hypothesized relationship in the present set was worded thusly: H10b: The respondents' total aggregate value of all sources of information and influ- ence will positively correlate with their behavior about marijuana. This is the only hypothesis of the four in this set that is supported by the data. As can be seen in Table 22, the regression analysis results in a statistically signifi- cant R (R = .383; R2 = .147; p < .0001). More importantly, the obtained R is significantly larger than the ones reached by any of the three subsets of variables (see Table 23). In any case, the only source of exemplary behaviors present in this analysis, use of marijuana by friends, is also the main 141 Table 23. Difference between the multiple correlation coefficient of all sources combined and the R obtained by each subset of sources for each dependent variable R for all Z-value for P sources difference (one- combined R between Rs tail) ATTITUDE TOWARD ALCOHOL .459 Mass media .271 4.805 .0001 Interpersonal sources .196 6.032 .0001 Exemplary messages .444 0.474 n.s. ATTITUDE TOWARD MARIJUANA .290 Mass media .069 2.778 .01 Interpersonal sources .201 1.530 n.s. Exemplary messages .341 -1.127 n.s. BEHAVIOR ABOUT ALCOHOL .548 Mass media .251 8.309 .0001 Interpersonal sources .197 9.156 .0001 Exemplary messages .530 0.629 n.s. BEHAVIOR ABOUT MARIJUANA .383 Mass media .087 4.871 .0001 Interpersonal sources .215 3.518 .001 Exemplary messages .237 3.169 .01 142 correlate of the dependent measure, contributing 80% of the total amount of explained variance (.116 of .147). The conclusions that can be derived from the present set of analyses are: (1) the aggregation of all sources of communication correlates significantly and positively with the four dependent variables, their Rs2 ranging between .084 and .300; however, (2) except for behavior about marijuana as the dependent variable, none of the other three multiple correlation coefficients differs significantly from the Rs reached by some subsets of media, particularly exemplary and H are 9b' 10a (4) The exemplary behaviors of messages. Therefore, (3) Hypotheses H9a’ H not supported; only H10b is. some significant others, especially friends, emerge as the main communication correlates of attitude and behavior toward alcohol and marijuana. Thus, we have presented the results derived from the empirical test of the main hypotheses of this study. The other hypotheses that were formulated in Chapter I (H11a to H16b) refer to the predicted differential effects of the three sets of communication sources among themselves. In- directly, those differential effects can be inferred from the results of the preceding analyses. Indeed, we have already seen that the exemplary behaviors of some significant others are the most important correlate of the four depend- ent variables, and we have also detected differences between interpersonal sources and the mass media which vary depending 143 on the criterion measure. Nevertheless, these differences have to be made explicit by directly testing them. This is the purpose of the final set of hypotheses. Differential Effects of Interpersonal and Mass Media Sources and ExempIary Messages All these hypotheses take the form "Communication Source X will be more strongly associated with (each one of the four dependent variables) than Source Y." This type of predicted difference can readily be tested by comparing the aggregated squared multiple correlations across subsets of communication sources. The data for these comparisons are taken from the overall multiple regression analyses with all thirteen sources of communication regressed on each depend- ent variable and are presented in Table 24.* The statistical significance of the differential contribution of each subset of sources can be tested by the F ratio for proportions of variance which is commonly used in multiple regression analy- sis to determine the significance of a variable or a set of variables added to or deleted from an equation. (See Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1973, equation 3.15: p. 71, and * Instead of utilizing the results of an overall regres- sion analysis, we could also do a multiple regression of only the variables comprising the two sets being compared regressed on the dependent variable. The results, however, and as we checked, would be the same with the exception that the pro- ceedure that we chose is somewhat more conservative and allows for the comparison of two subsets of variables in the presence of the third subset. .Ammva "29 .mo. .mcmsnmumeluou omusmmmenuoz * u m an ummma um unmoflmwcmflm mammoflumflumum .1 ova. moo. moo. ooo. Hoo. ooo. Hoo. Hoo. ooo. Hoo. «ooo. Hoo. ooo. moo. «vmo. «moo. Hoo. «mac. 4. ooo. «moo. M ooo . «moo . ooo. «moo. mmo. omo. «oHH. «mmo. mHH. mmo. .IIIIII. .IIIIMH. mm 0» mm on mm on N& u coflusn coflusn coausn coflusn Iwuucoo Iflnucou Imuusoo Iwuucou noumm ©0000 Imnmm< ImHmmd mOH>mmmm mapafifidm dszmemz mam. ooo. «moo. «moo. Hoe. «moo. «mHo. ooo. «moo. «moo. Hoo. mac. omo. ooo. ooo. «Mao. «moo. ooo. ooo. ooo. moo. ooo. ooo. Hao. moo. «mNo. «vac. Hoo. «ooo. «mom. «oma. vow. aha. 0 NmOu NmOU NMOU mm H cofluon coflusn somusn c0wusn Ifluucoo Ifluucoo IflHucoo Iwnucoo owumm comma Imumm< nmhmmm mOH>mmmm mdDBHfiUm AOEQHBE mm AflHDF mmcflnmmmz . mummommzmz mmcom.HMd2me Odflflm c0mmw>0ama fiHomz mmmz Hoonom 00 030050 8:05 Hoofim on 885 83038 85.33 wage mMUMDOm AflzommmmmMBZH va Honeys va Monumm mccmflflm mmwémmmz.mm¢qmzmxm 005980 000.900 ado How :03ng m0 .5805 £000 3 mm Cu Smugsoo 33550me .vm manna 145 discussed in various parts of their book.)* Since the analyses are very straightforward and the results very clear, we will rather present the results of the empirical tests of Hypothes H11a to H16b by integrated blocks of hypotheses and without further elaboration. The data for all the hypotheses are presented in Tables 24 and 25. The first block of hypothesized differential rela- tionships predicts that the interpersonal sources of com- munication will be more strongly associated with the four criterion measures than the mass media. The data support only the two hypotheses pertaining to marijuana as the cri- terion substance. For attitude toward marijuana as the de- pendent variable (H ), and as can be seen in Table 24, the llb aggregated contribution to the total squared multiple cor- relation by the five interpersonal sources equals .027, com- pared to .003 for the mass media. This difference trans- lates into an F = 7.3 which is significant beyond the .0001 level (see Table 25). An analogous result is obtained for behavior about marijuana (H1 ): interpersonal sources 2b * The formula is: (Rzy .12 ... kl — Rzy. 12 ... k2) / (kl — k2) (1 - R y .12 ... kl) / (N - kl - 1) F: Since we have three subsets of variables, R2 y .122... kl is redefined in the present case by subtracting the R value of the subset not included in a given comparison. 146 .80000Hm m0 000300 mm: 0:0 m 9.0: 30H 0% :a 00305 m H23 ....0000Hm 05 0000500 no: 0:0 m 0>0£ 30.: 0.30 :H 00:? .m SEW flan—m: mmflz .250. 5.5 H25. MK. .80. 06 .800. m.m .0> ««§~Om g flow: mg Hooo . m .mo 88 . v . N 88 . m .voa Hooo . m .03.. .0> «mag 5% mmumDOm gmnEMB—AH Hooo . m .om Hooo . N .om Hooo . h . mod 88 . N .moa .0> «mmgmmmmz Egan m 00:83.30 0 00:0:0mmflo m 00:83.me m 00:0H0mmflo M Na How Nm 0% Na MOM Nm MOM 03dm> .m 05.23 .m 05.10.» .m 0305. .m moggm ”mm—BE ”Bum/gm §E< 35% 40mg 000.300 :oflumoflSEEoo 05 0000 :003009 000:0H0mmfio m m0 005003230 .mN 3:09 N 147 contribute .025 to R2 versus .007 for the mass media, re- sulting in an F value of 7.7 (p < .0001). However, with attitude (Hlla) and behavior (H ) toward alcohol, a re- 12a versed pattern is observed and the mass media account for a significantly larger percentage of explained variance than the interpersonal sources (see Tables 24 and 25). In this regard we can conclude that the comparative relationship of mass and interpersonal media with substance abuse behaviors depends on the specific substance, without presenting a generalized pattern. The general hypothesis of the second block (H 0 13a t H14b) states that the exemplary messages transmitted by the model-type behavior of some significant others will be more strongly associated with attitude and behavior toward the two substances than the definer-type messages transmitted by the mass media. Table 24 shows that, in all cases, the dif— ference in the respective contribution to the total R2 by the two sets of media is substantial. Table 25 confirms that the four differences are statistically highly significant. Consequently, the four hypotheses are supported. Finally, the third block compares the interpersonal sources with the exemplary messages. The general hypothesis predicts that the exemplary messages will be more strongly associated with the dependent measures than the interpersonal sources (H15a to Hl6b)' Clearly, the results presented in Tables 24 and 25 support all four hypotheses. 148 Even in spite of these results, an important observa- tion should be made here regarding the test of the preceding hypotheses and the data in Tables 24 and 25. Some of the statistically significant results are rather inconsequential from a social perspective and any contribution to knowledge that could be derived would also be insignificant. For ex- ample, the difference in R2 between the mass media and inter— personal sources for behavior about alcohol as the dependent variable, .016 and .011 respectively, is statistically sig- nificant (F = 3.9; d.f. = 5 and 1485; p < .001). This dif- ference, however, which can be detected only at the third decimal place, should be considered as inconsequential from a more substantial point of view. We must recognize that this small difference reaches statistical significance be- cause of the large sample size. Obviously, if our sample were of an infinite size, any observed difference, no matter how small, would be statistically significant. Mathematically, our large sample begins to approach infinity, at least for the present test. If our sample had comprised 400 elements, for example, the above difference between the mass media and interpersonal sources would have yielded an F = 1.28, which is not significant. In conclusion, we can state that (l) the model-type, exemplary messages transmitted by significant others are significantly more strongly associated with attitude and be- havior about alcohol and marijuana than the definer-type 149 messages transmitted by either the mass media or inter- personal sources of communication. Furthermore, the differ- ences are very substantial. In other words, the adolescent population we surveyed is much more affected by what they believe others are doing than by what they believe that others say. (2) The comparative effect of mass and inter- personal media depends on each specific substance. The mass media are more strongly associated with attitude and be- havior toward alcoholic beverages, while interpersonal sources relate more strongly with attitude and behavior to- ward marijuana. In any case, (3) the aggregated contribu- tion of both mass and interpersonal media to R2 is only marginal, even though statistically significant; while the respective contribution of exemplary messages is more sub- stantial. Finally, (4) some of the observed differences are statistically confirmed as significant because of the large sample size. Substantial differences are extremely small. From a social perspective, and in spite of the sta- tistical test, we are inclined to conclude that there are no important differences between the mass media and the interpersonal sources of communication for all cases, and between exemplary messages and interpersonal sources for attitude toward marijuana. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This chapter is organized around six sections which deal, respectively, with (l) a succinct summary and empir- ical conclusions of the study; (2) a critical assessment of some aspects of the Operationalization of the theory; (3) a comparison of our results with those of a previous and relat- ed test of the theory; (4) a discussion of (a) the theory, on the basis of the results of our study, and (b) the method- ology, and (5) policy implications of the study. Summary and Empirical Conclusions The goal of this dissertation has been to subject to empirical test Linear Force Aggregation Theory solely as a communication theory. Specifically, and within that theo- retical framework, we have analyzed the relationship between a set of relevant sources of communication and attitudes and behavior of young Mexicans toward two intoxicants: alcoholic beverages and marijuana, thus allowing for an internal rep- lication of the study with the same respondents in two different areas of substance use. 150 151 The theoretical antecedents of this study were de- scribed in Chapter I (pp. 34-45), where the theory was also presented (pp. 45-59). At this stage, it may be more con- venient to summarize the theory simply by listing its main postulates. These can be expressed as follows. 1. The central postulate of Linear Force Aggregation Theory is that attitudes and behavior are a simple linear aggregate of all relevant information that an individual has received from a finite set of sources of communication. From this notion it logically and necessarily follows that attitudes and behavior are the result of the accumulated in- formation from all sources of communication that an individ- ual has received. Thus, attitudes and behavior are assumed to be determined by a process of communication since they are conceived as being wholly controlled by the flow of information. 2. Each relevant message an individual receives from a source of communication constitutes a driving force that "pushes" its related attitude and behavior with a certain intensity and in a given direction. However, since other sources of communication are also present--each originating messages of varying magnitude and direction and thus con- tributing differentially to the resultant attitude and be- havior,--it is the aggregation of all messages proceeding from all sources that will determine the resultant vector which is the attitude and behavior that the focal individual 152 will finally exhibit. This vector is the point at which all incoming forces balance. 3. The previous notion rules out the conception of communication effects as those that result from the action of a single source, and much less from a single message, un- less if it is absolutely the only incoming force that reaches an individual and encounters absolutely no resistance, which is rather unlikely. (In this, the theory diverges from a great deal of studies about the effects of communication which have analyzed the consequences--e.g., aggression-- brought about by a single medium or message--e.g., tele- vision or a violent program on TV,--without at the same time taking into consideration the concurrent effects of other sources of information and influence.) 4. Mere exposure to communication sources or messages is not assumed to be enough to determine the resultant at- titudinal and behavioral effects. Rather, the intensity and direction of effect of any given source is assumed to depend on three related factors. First, it depends on the frequen- cy of exposure to the source (which explains how salient the source is for an individual). Secondly, it depends on how frequently the attitudinal and behavioral object is mentioned in the interactions between the source and the individual (which is related to the reciprocal relevance of the object). Thirdly, it depends on the position taken by the source about the object, or the bias of the coverage. 153 5. Also implied in the previous point, and a basic element of the theory, is the assumption that the perception of the receiver (e.g., his perception of the importance of the source, the amount of coverage, or the bias of the cover- age) is a crucial element in determining how communication affects him. (In this, the theory does not differ from much established thought in the social sciences which argues like- wise. Authors like Berlo (1960, 1972, 1977) and Weick (1969) argue that reality is a construct, it is not discovered or reacted to, but rather it is enacted or created. A similar conception underlies the work of many communication theorists, like Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967.) In relation to social science research, authors like Shepherd (1964) agree with Kurt Lewin that a researcher should direct his attention to what an individual subjectively perceives, not what he perceives as the "objective reality.") 6. Finally, the theory also considers that the mes- sages that reach an individual can proceed from two types of sources; namely, definers, or those who verbally communicate with him and who, therefore, affect his behavior by what they say, and models, or those whose exemplary behavior serves as a model for the individual, thus affecting him by what they do. Definers are further divided into interperson- al and mass media sources. Both definers and models will affect an individual depending on the extent to which they constitute "true" significant others for that individual; 154 that is, depending on the extent to which, by word or ex- ample, they convey substantial information and influence to him about the filter categories that he uses to define himself and/or the objects of his experience. In previous tests of the theory (e.g., Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973), it has also been postulated that attitudes are the direct causal antecedents of behavior. Even though this theoretical claim does deserve greater empirical at- tention, it does not seem that the type of survey method- ology that has typically been used in Linear Force Aggrega- tion Theory studies, including the present one, is an appropriate method to study such a postulated relationship. Neither can previous operationalizations of attitude and be- havior be considered as a methodologically satisfactory ap- proach. Typically, behavior has been defined as the fre- quency of engaging in some act and attitude has been defined as an individual's self-conception of himself as some one who engages in that act, which clearly constitutes a circular definition. Indeed, such a definition of attitude and be- havior toward marijuana in Woelfel and Hernandez's (1973) study translated into a zero-order correlation of .84, which exemplifies an instance of circularity. Circularity between an independent and a dependent variable not only substantially--and artificially-~increases the amount of variance explained in the dependent variable, but it also presents the additional problem of mediating the relationship 155 between other independent variables and the dependent one in such a way that the structure of significant correlates is changed, as we saw (pp. 31-34) that happened in Woelfel and Hernandez's study. These considerations have led us to dismiss the notion of a causal relationship between attitude and behavior as a valid postulate for the present test of the theory; instead, we have treated these two dimensions as separate dependent variables. In order to test the theory, the first step was to identify the relevant sources of information and influence. This was done through an exploratory study which produced thirteen such sources. These included five mass media de- finers: television, radio, popular songs, newspapers, and magazines; five interpersonal definers: parents, siblings, relatives, friends at school, and friends outside of school; and three models: friends, father, and mother. The ex- ploratory study also indicated that the levels of alcohol and marijuana use were sufficiently high to warrant their selection as dependent measures. This was also corroborated by data previously collected by the funding institution, the Mexican Center for Studies on Drug Dependence. The three exemplary message variables were measured straightfor- wardly. The value for each one of the ten definer-type variables was obtained from the multiplicative integration of the frequency of exposure to each source by the amount of coverage of each substance by the bias of the coverage, all 156 according to the perception of the respondents to the survey. The index thus obtained has been referred to as the Message Intake from each source. The respondents were 1,928 high school students en- rolled in 7th, 9th and 12th grades in private and public schools in Mexico City. They were chosen by probability sampling methods. The interviewing was done by means of self-administered questionnaires in the students' own class- rooms without their teachers or other school officials being present; only the interviewers were present. The interviewers were all professional psychologists who ap— parently succeeded in guaranteeing respondents their anonimity (which would appear to be quite important in sur- veys tapping illegal or otherwise threatening behaviors such as the use of drugs). The empirical test of the theory was organized around five blocks of hypotheses which we shall next pre- sent in the same sequential order that was used in the re- sults chapter, along with a brief summary of the respective results, before proceeding to a discussion of this study. a. The Effects of the Mass Media. It was general- ly hypothesized that the aggregated message intake from the mass media will positively correlate with the respondents' attitude and behavior toward alcohol and marijuana (Hy- potheses Hla’ Hlb' H2a' and H2b)' Statistically, all four hypotheses were supported by the data although the amount 157 of variance explained was rather small, particularly for attitude and behavior about marijuana (0.5% and 0.8% re- spectively. See Tables 16 and 17). It was found that the media relate significantly better with attitude and be- havior about alcohol than about marijuana. Among the five specific media, the message intake of popular songs and television were the better correlates. All significant regression weights were positive, indicating that the mass media exert an influence favorable to alcohol and marijuana, although of a very small magnitude. b. Effects of Interpersonal Sources. The general hypothesis predicts that the aggregated message intake from interpersonal sources will positively correlate with the respondents' attitude and behavior toward alcohol and mari- 3a' H3b’ H4a and H4b)' Similarly to the previous case, all four hypotheses were statistically sup- juana (Hypotheses H ported but with small multiple correlation coefficients. The four squared multiple correlations range only between .038 and .046 (see Tables 18 and 19). The larger correla- tions were observed with attitude and behavior toward marijuana, which is the reverse of what was found for the mass media. In general, friends at school appear to be the better correlates, followed by friends outside of school, and siblings. Regarding the direction of the influence, parents exert an influence opposed to drugs; siblings also have a negative influence except in the presence of a 158 statistically significant negative relationship by parents, in which case their relationship turns positive. Friends at school and outside of school, and relatives have an in- fluence favorable to the two intoxicants in all the cases where they reach a statistically significant regression coefficient. c. Effects of Exemplary Messages. The general hy- pothesis pertaining to the effect of model-type behaviors (of. Hypotheses H5, H6’ H7, and H8) predicts that the ex- emplary messages transmitted by the degree of substance use by three significant others: father, mother, and friends, will positively correlate with the respondents' attitude and behavior about alcohol and marijuana. All four hy- potheses were supported by the data as predicted and at much higher levels of variance accounted for than inter- personal and mass media sources. The exemplary messages of friends clearly emerged as the strongest predictor of the respondents' attitude and behavior toward either substance. Comparing father and mother, the former correlates better with behavior about alcohol while the latter is more strongly associated with attitude toward alcohol (see Table 20). d. Effects of All Sources of Communication Combined. The general hypothesis (referring to the specific working , H , and H hypotheses H 0b) states that the re- 9a 9b' H10a 1 spondents' total aggregate value of all sources of information 159 and influence will positively correlate with their attitude and behavior toward alcohol and marijuana. This predicted general relationship, as the reader will recall, is not independent from the more specific relationships represented by the three preceding sets of communication sources. Therefore, in addition to the direct test of the relation- ship between all the thirteen sources and each dependent variable by means of multiple regression analyses, a second test was necessary. It consisted in a comparison of the coefficient of determination due to the aggregation of all sources of communication with the respective coefficient of each subset of sources comprising the aggregate. If the coefficient of determination of the aggregate is not sig- nificantly greater than that of any of the three component subsets, then the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. In this case, it would be the subset, and not the total aggre- gate, what would most parsimoniously explain the variance in the criterion measure. The data supported only one of the four specific hy- potheses. The aggregation of all the thirteen sources ex- plained a greater percentage of the variance in behavior about marijuana than any of the component subsets. In the other three instances, however, the total aggregate failed to differ significantly from the exemplary messages alone. (See Tables 21, 22, and 23). We can thus conclude that even though all the regression analyses pertaining to the 160 relationship between the total aggregate and each depend- ent variable are significant and with rather substantial multiple correlation coefficients, these coefficients are generally due only to the contribution of the exemplary message variables. e. Differential Effects of Interpersonal Definers, Mass Media Definers, and Exemplary Messages. The final set of hypotheses (H11a to Hl6b) concerned the differential effects among the various subsets of communication sources. (The results are presented in Tables 24 and 25.) The first block of hypothesized differential relationships predicts that interpersonal sources of communication will be more strongly associated with attitudes and behavior toward alco- hol and marijuana than the mass media. Only two of the hypotheses were supported. Interpersonal sources were found to relate more strongly with attitude and behavior about marijuana, but not about alcohol. The other two blocks of hypothesized differences predict that exemplary messages will be more strongly associated with attitudes and behavior toward alcohol and marijuana than either (a) the mass media definers or (b) interpersonal definers. All the hypothesized differences were clearly and consis- tently supported by the data. This also corroborates the finding from some of the preceding analyses that the ex- emplary messages of some significant others, particularly friends, are the main correlate of the attitudes and 161 behaviors that we studied. A summary of our empirical findings is presented in Table 26. What we indicate there is whether each source of communication produced or failed to produce a regression coefficient significant at or beyond the .05 level in an overall multiple regression analysis. In conclusion, the present test of Linear Force Aggregation Theory allows us to make the following state- ments: 1. When the aggregated message intake from both the mass media and the interpersonal definers is analyzed separately in relation to the dependent attitudes and be- havior, statistically significant but substantially weak correlations are detected. If we visually conceive an in- dividual as an object in a multidimensional space and each mass and interpersonal medium as an arrow converging on the individual, with its tip pointing the direction of the influence and its length and thickness symbolizing the mag- nitude of its independent effect, we will then see a col- lection of narrow and short arrows, together producing a vector (i.e., the resultant attitude or behavior) of rather modest proportions. 2. On the other hand, the exemplary behaviors of some significant others, particularly friends, produce more substantial effects. However even those effects are not of such a magnitude as to wholly determine the dependent 162 Table 26. Sumnary of findings: partial regression coefficients which are significant beyond the .05 level* ALCOHOL MARIJUANA Independent variables Attitude Behavior Attitude Behavior EXEMPIARY MEISSACES Use by friends x x x x Use by father** Use by mother“ x x INTERPEIBONAL DEFINEIS Parents x Siblings x Relatives x Friends at school x x x Friends outside of school x x MASS MEDIA DEFINERS Television X X Radio Popular songs x x Newspapers x x Magazines x R : .459 .548 .290 .383 R2: .211 .300 .084 .147 * m the basis of the overall regression analysis with all thirteen variables regressed on the dependent variables. ** - Not measured for marijuana. 163 attitudes or behaviors. For example, the combined effect of exemplary behaviors by friends, father, and mother reach the largest coefficient of determination with be- havior about alcohol, and it is of only .281. 3. The aggregation of all sources of information and influence shows that practically all the variance ex- plained in the dependent variables is accounted for by ex- emplary messages. The contribution to the total R2 by the mass and interpersonal definers is only marginal. It is particularly noteworthy that in three of the four analyses the aggregation of all the message intake indices (includ- ing the five mass media, the five interpersonal, and the three sources of model—type behaviors) fails to produce a multiple correlation significantly greater than the one reached by the subset of exemplary messages alone. Stated differently, our study shows that, at least for the adoles- cents we studied, the relationship between communication sources--conceived along the lines set forth by Linear Force Aggregation Theory--and attitudes and behavior about two different substance abuse areas is only moderate. Furthermore, this relationship is mostly due to model-type messages rather than definer-type, verbally transmitted information via mass or interpersonal media; i.e., the population we studied seems to be more influenced by what they believe their significant others do, than byywhat they believe that the others say. Most of the effect, however, 164 appearsto be due to factors not measured in this study and presumably not to communication influences since an effort was made to identify and incorporate into the study all relevant sources of communication about drugs. 4. The preceding conclusion is particularly salient also for the main contention of Linear Force Aggre- gation Theory which postulates that attitudes and behavior are a simple linear aggregate of all relevant information that an individual has received from a finite set of sources of communication. Given this theoretical claim on the one hand, and on the other hand the moderate to weak relationships that we have found, we can conclude that this particular study confers only a limited support to the theory. 5. The rather limited theoretical support accorded by this particular test of the theory contrasts with pre- vious tests that reached substantially higher coefficients of multiple correlation (of. the review of the theoretical antecedents in Chapter I). This may be due to many differ- ent causes; however, two plausible explanations seem worth mentioning (even if they are not better than mere guesses). The first one, as we have already argued, might be the elim- ination of the main source of circularity that was present in previous tests of the theory. The second one might be due to cross-cultural differences since the present research was conducted in Mexico, a country which differs in many respects for to be from the locale of previous applications of 165 the theory; namely, the United States and Canada. (A more detailed comparison between our results and those of Woelfel and Hernandez (1973) where marijuana constitutes the de- pendent variable is the subject of a latter section of this chapter.) 6. The comparison of the patterns of relationship that we found between the mass and the interpersonal aggre- gated message intake indices with the dependent measures, however reduced, permits us to conclude that there is no generalized pattern of association between those media and attitudes and behavior toward drugs. The internal replica- tion that we did shows that the comparative importance of mass and interpersonal definers varies with each specific drug. (The mass media related better with alcohol while interpersonal sources showed higher correlations for marijuana.) Other conclusions will be presented in subsequent sections, particularly as we next assess two specific as- pects of the Operationalization of the theory. Critical Assessment of Some Aspects of the Operationaliza- tion of the Theory There are two aspects of this and previous tests of the theory which we believe deserve an evaluation. The first one concerns the orientation of the respondents to their communication sources which until now has not included affective factors such as trustworthiness. The second one 166 refers to the measurement of the message intake index. Each will be first defined, then presented and discussed, and finally a conclusion will be reached. a. The Effect of the Degree of Trust Felt for Each Source. Linear Force Aggregation Theory assumes that attitudes and behavior are the result of the accumulated information an individual has received from all relevant sources of communication. Even though a subjective cri- terion such as the perception of each individual is con- sidered to play a central role in determining how commun- ication affects him, no other subjective or affective measures have been incorporated in the various operation- alizations of the theory. The implicit assumption behind this and other tests of the theory has been that the simple reception of information will by itself produce effects without any additional influence from the receiver's affec- tive orientation toward his source having to be necessarily considered. However, communication research in general tells us that this type of orientation can be of great importance in determining the effects of communication. Examples of these orientations would include identification with the source (e.g., Weiss, 1969, pp. 98ff; Kelman, 1961), attrac- tiveness (McGuire, 1969), and, particularly, trustworthiness or credibility (McGuire, 1969. See also Westley and Severin, 1964; and Greenberg, 1966). 167 Therefore, we have decided to replicate some of our principal analyses with the inclusion of the variable g3- gree of trust for each medium of communication. Trust or credibility* is one of the most well established constructs in communication theory and research pertaining to the rela- tionship between a source and a receiver, which is what led to its selection for the present test. We recognize, of course, that other constructs could also be chosen instead of, or in addition to, trust; however, our limitations force us to include only one. What we want to determine is whether the relationships that we have found between the predictor and the criterion variables are indeed due only to the flow of information--as the theory predicts and as it has been operationalized until now,--or whether at least some of the relationship is explained by the more subjective and generalized affective orientation of each subject to his sources of information and influence, as expressed by the degree of trust felt. "Trust" was measured in a different section of the questionnaire. Respondents were asked: "Now please tell us, in general how much trust do you have in the following pe0ple and in the fol- lowing sources of information." Next, each source was sequentially presented with four * The word we used in Spanish was confianza, which can be translated as either trust, credibility, or confi- dence. 168 alternative answers being provided; namely, "none, little, somewhat, and much," with scale values ranging from zero to three. Even though an assessment of the degree of trust felt in general for each source was the purpose of this question, it is recognized that the general content of the questionnaire--alcohol and drugs--was very likely in the respondents' minds when answering these questions, thereby probably influencing their responses. In order to test for the possible effects of the variable "trust," we incorporated it in the Message Intake index. Following the established procedure (cf. Chapter II) we multiplied the scale values of the variable "trust" for each source of communication by the other three component variables of the index: frequency of exposure to the source, perceived frequency of mention of the substance, and per- ceived position of the source about the substance. The in- dices thus obtained (one for each source) were then regressed on each of the four dependent variables. In this manner, we can now compare the results of the multiple regression an— alyses with inclusion of the variable "trust" with the re- sults previously obtained in the test of our hypotheses. The data are presented in Table 27. An inspection of the results clearly indicates that the inclusion of the variable "trust" has not improved the relationship between the mass and interpersonal media predictors and the four criterion variables. Quite the contrary: the four 169 .8. u o 0.s 0080 no 050000500 .1 0 ms.- sm.- 8.:- msA- mm 9:. zmmzfim EH9 m8 wig-m smo. mso. oso. smo. smo. oso. moo. mmo. Hmm .mmm. «mom. ..oom. ..sos. Lom. «0mm. .08. somm. " m 00000:: ..om. «s0. «so. «mo. mo. 0o. mo. mo. 088.0 05 03008 8800.0 mo. so. no. see. ..ss. ..ms. «ms. .2. 08:8 on 880.0 8r mo. «mo. no. Br Br 0o. 8. 090300: so. me. soo. «so. mor mo.- «8.- «mo.- nofisflm «oer moi smsr «Sr so.- 8. mo.- oo.- 00803 mo. so. mo.- mor so. Sr «so. ..mo. 00:08am: ..mof ..mof 8f mo.- .8.- 8. Br Br 00080002 oo. smo. oo.- so. ..ms. .8. ..ss. soo. nosom 0038.: so. mo. mo. mo. so. «mo. so. me. anm no. mo. mo. mo. ..ms. .00. ..os. to. 8830000. 00500 005.00 00500 00500 00500 0050 0050.0 005.00 000000H0> 08503 503 059003 503 050503 5.03 085.03 503 0:08.885 38 8.00 08 003 38 8.00 BB 38 mogg "HERE/s. mot/fig m§E< 250.3% 50802 000000090 0:00:0000 0500 0:0 :0 000009me .. .0030: 0000000> 0:0 .00 :000500:0 05000003 0:0 £003 .00000000> 000 000 00500000000 5000000000 00000055 0:0 0000.000 .00 80000900 KN 0000.0. 170 coefficients of multiple correlation are lower when "trust" is included in the index; the differences, however, are not statistically significant although they do approach signif— icance for attitude and behavior toward alcohol (a z-value of 1.645 is needed for p = .05, one-tailed test). Comparing the two sets of regression analyses, we can further see that neither the magnitude of the regression weights nor the structure of significant correlates appreciably differs. Hence, we can conclude that the affective orienta- tion of our respondents to their sources of communication, as expressed by our Specific operationalization of trust, does not have an influence on the relationship between mass and interpersonal sources of communication and attitudes and behavior toward the two selected substances. This is also an indication that the relationships found and reported in Chapter III are indeed due to the flow of information (as perceived by the receiver), which is what the theory claims, and not to affective factors. A similar conclusion was also reached by Saltiel and Woelfel (1975) with different types of data and analytical methods. However, we must recognize here that the lack of effect of the trust variable might also be due to our specific operationalization of this con- struct. Our measurement of trust refers to the medium of communication in general and it is not specifically related to substance use or to some other precise content. Admit- tedly, trust might not depend on the medium or source of 171 communication in general but rather on specific messages or content categories it transmits. If that were the case, different results could have been reached. b. Comparison of the Message Intake Index with Mere Exposure. As we have repeatedly stated, the Message Intake index, which indicates the intensity and direction of the effect of a source of communication, is created through the multiplicative combination of (a) frequency of exposure to the source, (b) frequency of mention of substance X, or coverage, and (c) position of the source, or bias of the coverage. This contrasts with the more common practice in communication effects studies of measuring only frequency of exposure to the presumed source or sources of effects. Naturally, in order to be of practical and theoretical value, the index should relate significantly better with the attitudinal and behavioral measures than the exposure variables alone. The purpose of this section is precisely to test this.* The test can readily be made by regressing the ex- posure variables on the four dependent measures and then * This is the reason why we only compare the results obtained by the index with those of the exposure variable alone. We recognize that a similar comparison could also be made with the other two components of the index; namely, coverage and bias of the coverage, and perhaps similar re- sults would also be arrived at. However, we believe that these other two possible comparisons would be of much less conceptual interest in the present context. 172 comparing the results with those obtained by the Message Intake indices. The results of the test are presented in Table 28. The data in this table allow us to arrive at several im- portant conclusions. In the first place, we can see that the four pairs of multiple correlation coefficients do not differ significantly; in fact, they are practically ident- ical and the corresponding z-values to test for the sig- nificance of the difference between two coefficients of determination are extremely close to zero. This finding means that if we are interested in the theory only to assess the strength of association between a set of commun- ication predictors and attitudes and behavior, a considera- tion of economy or pragmatics would dictate the selection of the exposure variables alone. The addition of the other two measures, coverage and bias of the coverage, fails to improve the strength of the relationship. (Even though it should be noted that the comparative strength of association between these two indices and the dependent variables is not the only criterion by which they can be compared. Other criteria, which we explain below, did reflect some differences.) Regarding the regression weights, and as one should expect, no changes at all can be appreciated between the pairs of regression weights for the three sources of exemp- lary messages. However, a very different picture emerges 173 0:05.300: :00 0000000.: 00250 .mo. u a 00 00000 :0 0:800:30 ¥ 0 8r SE SE o N: 9:. 2003000 €00 :0: 080,-: omH. osH. omo. ooo. oom. mom. mam. 00m. "N: «mom. «mam. ...oom. ..soo. ..smm. ..osm. ..sos. «sos. u 0 00:00:: - - - - «fl. :3. «m0. «m0. 2: 8:08 3 $5 - - - - mo. mo. «oo. to. 2: 8:000 B 85 ..sm. .om. 3:. ..mm. «ms. «ms. «on. .om. 00:00.0 3 005 ...S. .3. :2. :8. .00. oo.- «oo. oo. 08:8 06 803:0 00:00:: «of mo. 0o.- «oo. «oo. ..oH. «o0. .05. 08.0... 00 00:00:: mo.- 0o.- «oo.- «oo. “oo.- 0o. :o0.- No. 00:00:00: Eor mo. mo.- «oo. mo. Sr No. so.- 00:00:00 .oo.- mo.- 0o.- «o0.- «oo.- 0o.- mo.- 0o.- 00:0:m: «mo. so. 8f 8f No. 0o. so.- «oo. 8:00.000: mo. «mor ...mo. 8f mo. «oor mo. so.- 80000062 .8.- mo.- oo. mo.- ..oor ..mo. oo.- «oo. 00:8 .3030: No. 0o. mo. mo. mo. 0o. :8. so. 0000: so.- ..oo. .50.- mo. mo.- .mo. ..mor mo. 80006000 0:00 0000.0:0 0:000 8005 0:000 00000:0 0:000 00000:0 000000005. 833:9 33:0 003003, 003:0 833:9 900:0 833:0, 000:0 0:005:005 00000900. 0000002 00000900 000000: 00000900 0000002 00000900 0000002 000000H0> 0:00:0000 0:00 000 :0 000000000 0:000 00000000> 00000900 0:0 00000000 0000000 000000: 000 :003000 00:000000000 800000000 0000005.: 0:0 000.0000 .00 000000950 .mm 0000.0. 174 when we analyze the mass media and interpersonal correlates. In this latter case, important differences can be observed between the Message Intake indices and the exposure vari- ables taken alone. First, we can see many differences in the respective magnitudes of the regression coefficients. Secondly, the structure of statistically significant betas changes. For example, in attitude toward marijuana the re- gression analysis with the Message Intake indices shows that all the interpersonal indices are significant and none of the mass media; however, when the exposure measures are re- gressed alone, two of the mass media and only two inter- personal sources are significant. Thirdly, some of the variables change their sign and therefore the interpretation of the nature of their relationship with the dependent vari- ables. For example, the mere exposure to television relates negatively with the four dependent variables, indicating that as the frequency of exposure to television increases, the approval and the frequency of use of alcohol and mari- juana tends to decrease, keeping all other factors constant. However, when exposure is combined with the other two variables to create the Message Intake index, the sign of television changes to positive for all criterion variables. This gives some evidence that the respondents' perception of the coverage that a source accords a given substance and its bias is a very important element in helping us under- stand how that source relates with the respondents's 175 attitude and behavior. In conclusion, we can say that even though the crea- tion of the Message Intake indices does not improve the strength of the aggregated relationship between the inter— personal and mass media variables with attitudes and behavior, it does affect in an important way the nature, structure, and magnitude of the relationship of individual correlates. However, on the basis of this study alone, we cannot deter- mine which one of the two measures is better. This could be the subject of a future study aimed at specifically com- paring the effect of exposure alone to a communication source with the effect of the intervening influence of the receivers' perception. Comparison of Our Results with Those of a Previous and Related Test of the Theory In Chapter I we presented a review of studies based on Linear Force Aggregation Theory. Of particular interest among them is Woelfel and Hernandez's (1973) application of the theory to attitude and behavior about marijuana, one of our two dependent substances (see pp. 35-46). In this section, we will compare the results obtained by Woelfel and Hernandez and by our study. We should stress that the comparison is more indicative than conclusive since there are some differences between the two studies that should be kept in mind. In the first place, the national setting of the two studies differs. This, of course, will give us 176 some clues as to possible cross-cultural differences and to the possible comparative effects of the respective cul— tures on the phenomenon being studied. However, the com— parison should not be regarded as a direct test of cross- cultural differences since no direct and controlled replica- tion was involved. Secondly, the variables included in the two studies differ somewhat, even though by grouping them into categories (see below) the comparison is facilitated. Thirdly, our respective attitude measures are not equal; Woelfel measured attitude as the individual's self—concep- tion as a marijuana user, while our measure was the respon- dents' degree of approval of occasional use of marijuana by people of their own age. Finally, the respondents also differ in age and educational level; our respondents are high school students with ages ranging mostly between 12 and 19 years,* while Woelfel and Hernandez's respondents are college students. Naturally, these differences have to be kept in mind while comparing our results with Woelfel's since, * This age range was chosen because this is the period when most pe0ple deve10p and establish fairly stable attitudes and behaviors toward phenomena such as alcohol and drugs. (Furthermore, the few possible changes that may occur in college would be qualitatively very unimportant with our sample since the number of Mexican students who enter college is still very reduced.) Consequently, the effects of external sources of information and influence such as the media of communication would principally occur during this period, which should then be more appropriate to study. 177 precisely because of them, our study can be considered only a partial replication of Woelfel and Hernandez's earlier research. It is also important to state that the comparison will have to involve a larger number of variables than the ones we presented in the test of our hypotheses, otherwise the comparison would not be feasible. This is due to how Woelfel and his associates have worked with the theory until now. In addition to the communication variables, they have also included other predictors such as structural factors and elements of the relevant phenomenal reality. Since many of these other variables were also measured in our questionnaire, we will include them in a new regression analysis for the present purpose. The comparison between the two sets of variables will be made by grouping them into categories that Woelfel and his coauthors have defined. These are (1) Significant Others Influence, divided into Mass Media Definers, Inter- personal Definers, and Models; (2) Other Related Attitudes; i.e., attitudes or the pool of relevant information pre- viously accumulated by the individual and which can be assumed to be related with the object of the attitude or behavior being investigated; (3) Relevant Phenomenal Reality; i.e., the specific aspects of concrete situations that may be directly related to a given behavior, thereby affecting it; and (4) Structural variables that define the 178 location of the individual in the social structure. In addition to these groups of variables, and for behavior (frequency of use of marijuana) as the dependent variable, Woelfel and Hernandez also included the respond- ents' self-conception as a marijuana user as a predictor variable. As we have already argued, this creates a problem of circularity which renders the reliable interpretation of the data difficult. Therefore, we will concentrate our com- parison mostly in the attitude variable. The comparative data are presented in Table 29. The coefficients are standardized partial regression coefficients (betas); Woelfel's based on n = 341 and Rota's on n = 1,143. (This corresponds to a ratio between sample size and number of independent variables of 1:9 for Woelfel and 1:38 for Rota, which should make the latter's coefficients more stable). Looking first at the multiple correlations, we can see that Woelfel and Hernandez reached a coefficient of .74 (R2 = .55), compared to ours of .371 (R2 = .138), although the former is based on a sample only about one third the size of the latter and also with a much higher ratio of in- dependent variables to sample size, which should by itself produce a higher multiple correlation, everything else being equal. In any case, it is clear that the amount of variance we explain in attitude toward marijuana among Mexican adoles- cents is much smaller than Woelfel's. Also large differences 179 Table 29. Comparison of partial and multiple regression coefficients between the Rota and Woelfel studies with attitude and be- havior toward marijuana as the dependent variable (s)* Independent“ ATTITUDE variables Woelfel Rota .MASS MEDIA.DEFINERS Television . 00 Radio . 01 P0pu1ar songs . 07 Newspapers . 03 Magazines - . 12 Movies . 00 INTERPERSONAL DEFINERS Parents - Siblings - Relatives - Friends . 16 Friends at school - Friends outside of school - MODELS Friends' marijuana use .29 Friends' alcohol use - thher use of alcohol - Father use of alcohol - Mother use of medicines - Father use of medicines - Friends' political position .12 Friends' attitude toward dress -.04 Friends' attitude toward individual rights .03 .03 .02 -.05 -.02 .02 -.O9 .09 .07 .07 .08 .11 .08 .03 .05 .07 .01 BEHAVIOR Woelfel Kata -.08 .01 -.02 .05 .10 .04 -.04 .00 .05 -.01 -.05 -.04 .03 -.06 .06 .03 .04 .15 .27 .02 .09 .03 -.03 .03 180 Table 29 (cont' d.) BEHAVIOR Woelfel Rota Independent** variables ATI‘I'IUDE Woelfel Rata OTHERREIATED ATI'ITUDE‘S Religicsity - -.07 - -.11 Catholic -.03 - .13 - Protestant - . O3 - . 05 - Jew .10 - .06 - Atheist/Agnostic - . 05 - . 08 - Educational aspiration - . 00 - - . Ol Attitude toward religion -. 05 - . ll - Philosophy of life .09 - -.05 - Political position .02 - -.07 - Perceived harmfulness of marijuana .29 - -.01 - Attitude toward dress -. l6 - .09 - RELEVANT PHENOMENAL REALITY Availability of marijuana — -.O6 - -.09 Campus 1 .05 - .08 - Campus 2 .03 - .04 - Campus 3 .09 - .14 - ‘Iype of school - .00 - .00 Year in school .02 .04 .02 -.05 Residence: parents' home .01 - -.10 - lbsidence: private apartment .00 - -.09 - Residence: faternity -.Ol - -.03 - Residence: dormitory -.08 - -.02 - Residence: commune -.07 - -.07 - Parents live together? - -.03 - -.04 181 Table 29 (cont'd.) Independent** variables STRUCTURAL VARIABLES Sex Age Place of birth Student raised in East Student raised in South Student raised in Midwest Student raised in West City size NUmber of siblings Placetamcng siblings Father occupation .Mother occupation Grade point average ATTITUDE Self-conception as a munijuana user(***) .Multiple R.: R2: AHHTTUDE Wbelfel Rota -.02 -.06 -.05 .03 - .00 .07 - -.07 - .05 - .09 - .03 — - .04 - .00 -.06 -.01 -.05 .01 - -.06 .740 .371 .550 .138 BEHAVIOR Wbelfel Rota -.00 -.07 -.01 .08 - -.03 .15 - -.00 - -.O4 - .01 - -.02 .. - -.Ol - .02 .04 -.02 -.00 -.05 - -.01 .75 - .893 .467 .800 .218 ** .A dash indicates that the corresponding independent variable was not:measured.in the respective study. ** * N fOr Wbelfel study = 341; N fOr Rota study = 1143; in both cases, after deleting missing data. * Circularity with behavior as the dependent variable; refer to text. 182 are observed with behavior as the criterion measure. Regarding the independent variables, the comparison should be made by looking at the relative importance of each variable and not at the magnitude of the coefficients since differences such as in sample size do not make the coeffi- cients directly comparable. One practical way to accomplish this would be to contrast the variables with the largest-- e.g., the ten largest--regression weights in the two studies (provided that they are statistically significant, which is the present case). This approach provides the following two parallel lists for attitude toward marijuana (where circu- larity is not present in the Woelfel study) which are hier— archically arranged: Woelfel Rota Friends' use of marijuana Friends' use of marijuana Perceived harmfulness of marijuana Parents' MI index Attitude toward dress Siblings' MI index Friends' MI index Friends outside school MI index Friends' use of alcohol Friends' political position Magazine MI index . , . Jew Relatives MI index Friends at school MI PhilOSOphy of life index Campus NO- 3 Mother use of medicines Student raised in West . . . ReligiOSity These two lists present very different pictures. In the Rota list, all but one of the nine largest betas belong to communication variables, compared with only four in the Woelfel list. (In the Rota list three variables tied for 183 tenth place: perceived availability of marijuana, part of the relevant phenomenal reality, and two structural vari- ables: sex and grade point average). The Woelfel list is structured thusly: four Other Related Attitude variables (perceived harmfulness of marijuana, attitude toward dress, whether the subject is Jewish, and philosophy of life); two Exemplary Messages (friends' use of marijuana, and the per- ceived political position of friends); one Interpersonal Definer (friends); one Mass media Definer (magazines); one variable of the Relevant Phenomenal Reality (whether the respondent resides at Campus 3); and one Structural variable (whether the respondent was raised in the West of the U.S.). By contrast, the Rota list includes three sources of Exem- plary Messages (use of marijuana and alcohol by friends, and use of medicines by mother); five Interpersonal Definers (the message intake indices of parents, siblings, friends at school and outside of school, and relatives); and one Other Related Attitude (religiosity), in addition to the three variables tied in tenth place. Stated differently, not only is the structure of the main significant correlates different in the two studies, but it is also noticeable that the theory produces more com- munication correlates in the Mexican adolescent sample than in the American college sample. It is also apparent that, even though no sweeping conclusions about the generalizabil- ity of a theory can be made on the basis of only two empirical 184 tests, the lack of consistency between the two studies may be an indication that the theory, in its present form, does not constitute a satisfactory scheme for a cross-cultural (universal) explanation of communication and other behavior- al phenomena. These conclusions are further reinforced if we analyze the structure of significant correlates of be- havior about marijuana in the two studies, since a similar pattern as the one observed for attitude emerges, although the problem of circularity in the Woelfel study limits the interpretation of his data. However, and as we have already stated, the differ- ences between the two studies may be due, at least in part, to the fact that our study constitutes only a partial repli- cation of Woelfel's. As indicated above, the two studies are different in (a) national setting, (b) some of the independent variables included, (c) the measurement of at- titude, and, particularly, (d) the age and grade level of the respondents. Discussion This section will be divided into two parts: (a) dis- cussion of the theory by virtue of our results, and (b) discussion of the methodology. a. Theory. A very simple way to synthesize the re- sults of this study would be to state that the expectations we had when we began were greater than the results we have obtained. Even though almost all our hypotheses have been 185 statistically supported, the substantial or social signif- icance of tfliose results has been more limited than we would have liked. Coefficients of determination that never exceeded .30 are substantially rather limited, particularly for a theory that implicitly makes a much more optimistic claim and which in earlier applications had allowed for the explanation of usually more than 50% of the variance in the dependent variables (even in cases where circularity was not present either because attitude was the dependent vari- able or, if behavior was the criterion variable, no circular predictors, such as the individual's self-conception as some- one who engages in that behavior, were included in the sta- tistical analyses). In this regard, it might be pertinent to remind that the central postulate of Linear Force Aggregation Theory states that attitudes and behavior are a simple linear ag- gregate of all relevant information an individual has re- ceived from a finite set of sources of communication. Attitudes and behavior are thus assumed to be the outcome of the accumulated information received through a process of communication. If that were indeed the case, one would log- ically expect very large correlation coefficients, and ours ranged from a high of .548 (R2 = .30) to a low of only .069 (R2 = .005; statistically significant at the .05 level but substantially inconsequential). These results are below our initial expectations. 186 Considering these findings, an important theoretical implication of the present study is that, at least for the Mexican sample, attitudes and behavior are not mainly the result of the linear aggregation of the information received from communication sources, as the principal postulate of the theory claims. It is quite clear that these sources do ex- hibit significant associations with attitude and behavior about drugs, but not with such a strength as to become the principal predictors of the attitudes and behaviors in ques- tion. On the basis of our data, it would seem appropriate to suggest a modification of the main postulate of the theory, so that it state that the simple linear aggregation of all relevant information an individual has received from his sources of communication is an important correlate of atti- tude and behavior, but not a dominant cause by any means. Stated differently, we can say that communication influences are an important contributing factor in shaping attitudes and behaviors, at least about drugs, but not the only, nor a dominant, cause of the resultant effects. At the beginning of this dissertation we indicated that an important advantage of the theory and its attendant method, as compared to most other studies on the effects of communciation, is that it calls for multivariate approaches to the study of human phenomena. We certainly do not pro- pose to adopt a different perspective now. But it clearly seems that the notion of a multivariate approach should not 187 refer to the specific operational variables but to general constructs. Thus, communication would constitute one of the general constructs, operationally comprising a number of specific mass and interpersonal media, and other general constructs would similarly have to be identified and entered into both the empirical and the theoretical models. Just as we affirmed with regard to specific variables, the "true" effects of communication on attitudes and behavior would better be ascertained by comparing it with, and/or statis- tically controlling the effects of, other causal constructs. Naturally, the preceding argument raises an issue which cannot be dealt with:h1the present study: What are the causes of human behavior? Which ever they may be, they sure- ly are more than just communication influences, unless we define communication so broadly as to render the construct meaningless. In any case, even if that question cannot be answered, at least some other presumed causes of behavior have been posited which should perhaps be included in future tests of Linear Force Aggregation Theory. For example, Rosenblith, Allinsmith and Williams (1972) offer several causal categories of human behavior, including biological bases, learning, interpersonal experiences, the individual's setting and specific stimuli, group membership, age or de- velopmental stage, sex, cognitive determinants, motivational determinants, the educational setting, and teachers and teaching. Haller and Woelfel (1971) themselves have 188 identified self-reflexive activity as an important independ- ent predictor of attitudes and behavior. Many authors have been concerned with personality factors. In fact, the number of presumed causes of behavior that can be identified in the literature is too large to be amenable to its inte- gration into a single, parsimonious model. But at least some of the more promising constructs should be incorporated in future applications of the theory. Regarding the present test of the theory solely as a communication theory, and with the preceding observations notwithstanding, it is clear that the exemplary messages of significant others have proven to be the main correlate of attitude toward, and frequency of use of, intoxicants. Among them, friends are perceived to be more influential than parents. The obvious implication is that we, or at least the Mexican adolescents we surveyed, are significantly more affected by what we perceive that others do (i.e., their exemplary behaviors) than by what we believe that others say, either interpersonally or via mass media channels. However, the specific nature and process of significant others' ef- fects through exemplary messages is not clear from the pre- sent research and should be the subject of future studies. We do not know, for example, whether the effect is due only to modeling behaviors or whether processes such as group pressure, need to conform, and affiliation needs are present. Also we do not know whether or not some limited degree of 189 circularity influenced our measure of significant others' exemplary behaviors, since the corresponding measures were not obtained directly from them but from our respondents' perception of their significant others' frequency of sub- stance use, in addition to also giving their own, self- reported frequency of substance use. Interpersonal and mass media definers; i.e., informa- tion verbally transmitted, are much less influential accord- ing to our data. This finding is also at some variance with a central prediction of the theory that as the amount of accumulated information increases, the effect on the depend- ent attitudes and behavior will also be greater. In our study, the measures of frequency of exposure to each source and amount of coverage about each substance by each source provide a clear indication of the comparative accumulated amount of information that our respondents may have received; the descriptive statistics show, in this respect, that both the mean frequency of exposure to the various media and the mean frequency with which substances are mentioned by those media are substantial. Generally, most of those sources have a positive sign when the perceived bias of the coverage is also considered; that is, they exert an influence favorable to the use of the two substances. We can say that once all the media are aggregated, the resultant vector represents an attitudinal and behavioral force favorable to substance use, even though not of an overriding intensity or mass. Even in 190 spite of a majority of messages, including the more influ— ential exemplary ones, that are in favor of alcohol and marijuana, the resultant attitudes and behaviors of our sub— jects are not strongly influenced. On the one hand, we have seen that the multiple correlation coefficients are rather low. On the other hand, the descriptive statistics show (see p. 94) that neither is the attitude toward either sub- stance too favorable, especially for marijuana whose use is disapproved by 75% of the respondents, nor is the frequency of use of either substance very noticeable. These results suggest that the use of drugs and attitudes favorable toward them are principally due to factors other than the accumu- lated information an individual has received. If we accept this conclusion (and our data clearly support it), we will then have to accept, particularly for the mass media, that our test of the theory yields results that do not differ so radically from established theories of communication ef- fects as Woelfel and his associates have affirmed that it does. That would be the case even for the "null-effects" theory of Klapper (1960). According to Klapper, the mass media should be considered only one of many determinants in the formation and change of attitudes and behaviors, and their influence would be furthermore subordinated to other non-mediated communication determinants. Basically, this is what our data have shown. Thus, we would have further evi- dence to call for an attenuation of the claims made by the 191 central postulates of the theory. Furthermore, and also regarding the reduced effect of accumulated information, we should observe that if the ac- cumulation of information over time had a strong effect, then "age" should also be strongly correlated with the de- pendent variables, particularly for adolescents whose age range covers most of the period when fairly permanent orien- tations toward drugs are established and during which the accumulation of information would crystallize into attitudes and behaviors. However, this is not the case. Table 28 shows that age does not reach a significant regression co- efficient with attitude toward marijuana; it does with be- havior, but the size of the beta (.08) is not very large. With the Woelfel and Hernandez college respondents, age failed to reach significant regression weights for both at- titude and behavior, and, furthermore, the two coefficients have a negative sign. Differential effects between mass and interpersonal media, as well as within the media that comprise a given set, have also been observed. One factor that determined the variable patterns of association between the various media and the criterion variables is the nature of the dependent variables themselves. Our results indicate, first, that the structure of significant communication influences is different for attitudes and behavior. Secondly, they also differ depending on the specific object of those attitudes 192 and behavior. This also implies that there is no general- ized pattern of communication influences. b. Methodology. The methodological design of this study was made in accordance with earlier tests of the theory (see particularly Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973; Woelfel §t_al., 1974; and Mettlin, 1973), which this study replicates in part. Some comments would now seem to be in order. Most studies of Linear Force Aggregation Theory, in- cluding the present one, have taken data only at one point in time. It is true that the message intake index, which includes data on frequency of exposure to a source and amount of coverage, should correlate highly with the actual amount of information received from a given source over time, and as such it constitutes a reliable indicator which is quite economical to measure. However, it would seem very desirable to design a future test of the theory with re- peated, over time measurements, covering the span ranging from before the develOpment of an attitude can be assumed to have begun until such attitude and the related behavioral patterns have crystallized. The limitation would of course be that for most attitudes and behaviors this time span would be prohibitingly long. Related to the preceding point, and for those studies that could not afford over time measurements, it would seem to be very desirable to increase the age range, particularly — 193 at the low end. Most of our youngest respondents were 12 years old, with a few 11 year olds. At these ages, some knowledge about alcohol and drugs, and possibly very ex- tensive knowledge (whether "objectively" accurate or in- accurate should be of little relevance), has already been formed. Attitudes can also be assumed to have been devel- Oped, even if their mass is logically still reduced. There- fore, the study should ideally include children as young as possible. The age problem for attitudes and behaviors which begin to develop during childhood should possibly apply to a greater extent for adult samples analyzed in relation to objects like marijuana (Woelfel and Hernandez, 1973), cig- arette smoking (Mettlin, 1973), and French Canadian separa— tism (Woelfel gt_§l., 1974). Also related to the previous problem is the assumption of the theory that the perception of the receiver plays an active role in determining how communication affects his or her attitudes and behavior. On the basis of the principle of selectivity it would certainly be possible to posit a reverse direction of the arrows that in our theoretical model went from the independent to the dependent variables. It could be argued that those individuals who already have an attitude or behavior favorable to substance use will seek those media and messages that correspond to their orientation and to their expectations. This issue should be dealt with in future studies. Methodologically, it would be possible 194 to do this by means of panel studies or studies utilizing successive samples. The important element to control in those studies would be the time factor. It has also been postulated, in earlier formulations of the theory, that attitudes are the main causal determin- ant of the related behavior (the attitudes being in turn determined by a finite set of communication influences and other causal factors). This proposition, however, still remains to be satisfactorily tested; at least in a way that avoids the circular definitions we have repeatedly criti- cized. In this regard, it should be recognized here that our own test of the theory would have been more complete if, for comparative purposes, we had also included Woelfel gt fills measurement of attitude as the individuals' self-con- ception as alcohol and marijuana users. Regarding the multiplicative procedure by which the Aggregated Message Intake indices were created, it should be noted that, because of the multiplication, the component variable with the largest standard deviation will tend to contribute most to the total explained variance in the index. In our own case, we preferred to multiply the observed scale values of the component variables mainly in order to make our indices directly comparable with those of Woelfel and his associates. However, future tests of the theory should consider standardizing the component variables before multi- plying their respective values. 195 Another methodological observation should be made re- garding the measurement of the dependent variables. Follow- ing Woelfel et_al., we measured attitude and behavior very straightforwardly by means of a single-item question. Even though this operationalization produced satisfactory results, it would seem to be more desirable to extend those single items into scales, increasing the range and variability of values. This should increase the quality and reliability of measurements. Data about the influence of the various communication sources were obtained by means of self-reports by the survey respondents. As we have argued, this provides a satisfactory approach since this is probably the only way whereby we can incorporate the all-important effects of the respondents' perceptual and selective filters. Nevertheless, it would also appear desirable to include data directly taken from all the sources of communication in future studies. These data would be obtained through content analysis of the mass media and from personal interviews of interpersonal sources after they had been identified by the survey respondents. (Data have been directly obtained from significant others by Haller and Woelfel, 1971, and Mettlin, 1973). Finally, and regarding the exemplary messages, two observations should be made. In the first place, we should recognize that at least some of the strong effect of exem- plary behaviors that we have found may actually be due to 196 the access to drugs that the drug-using exemplars provide for others, and not--or not exclusively--to the presumed effect of the exemplary messages they transmit by their be- havior about drugs. Secondly, it would seem desirable to increase the number and nature of sources of exemplary messages in future studies. Just as we asked our respond- ents for their perception of the frequency of substance use by father, mother, and friends, we could also ask in future studies for their perception of similar behaviors by other likely sources of influence. Examples of such sources might include rock singers, sports figures, actors, other public figures which adolescents or other populations may identify with, television and other media characters, and, in general, specific types of content categories transmitted by the mass media. In this regard, social learning theory (Bandura, 1971) would appear to naturally suggest itself as a logical angle of theoretical approach to the definition and develop- ment of the problem. Policy Implications of the Study Given the moderate to weak coefficients of determina- tion we have generally reached and other characteristics of the present study, the implications of the research are more theoretical than policy-oriented. Nevertheless, some policy recommendations can be made. 197 In the first place, this study suggests that drug education and other drug-related campaigns via the mass media may not be as effective as one might desire. Our data show that definer-type messages transmitted by the mass media exert a socially relatively insignificant effect on drug attitudes and behavior, especially when compared with exemplary messages transmitted by significant others.* (This conclusion is furthermore consistent with the results of other studies specifically designed to measure and eval- uate the effects of mass media mediated drug education campaigns and public service announcements.) When the mass media are used, and also according to our data, it would seem preferable to not only transmit definer-type, verbal information, but also to attempt some approaches to exem- plary messages. Testimonials by figures whom the target audience will identify with would probably be a good altern- ative. A better alternative might be to present exemplary drug-related behaviors, unobtrusively, and without the mani- fest intention of affecting the receivers' attitudes and behaviors, through regular media content. * This statement refers to the specific, overt, definer- type messages such as those represented by public service announcements. On the basis of our data we cannot generalize this result to other types of messages, like those included in entertainment programs. We believe that it should be considered to conduct future experiments designed to assess the effect on substance attitude and use by "hidden messages" like cigarette-smoking and alcohol—drinking in pleasurable settings by television heroes which adolescents identify with. 198 Among external factors related to communication influ- ences, exemplary behaviors by significant others are par- ticularly important. Explanations of drug using behaviors, drug education and other drug programs would have to take into account the influence of the examples set by friends, parents, and possibly other significant others. These ex— amples can also be set by the consumption of legal drugs, such as alcohol and medicines. Additionally, these examples can be strong enough to neutralize the effects of definer- type messages. Thus, if these exemplary messages are not taken into account in the design, implementation and evalua- tion of drug education programs, the probability of failure is increased. Also, given the impact of exemplary messages, it would seem that drug education and related messages should not only be directed to the intended focal individuals, but to their significant others as well, with appropriate message re-definition and strategies. Regarding the concern for drugs as a social problem and the possible causes of that problem, it would seem that rather than blaming the mass media (which have very little effect) or the bad examples and influences of friends and peers (who are more influential but not too strong a force), it would be preferable to look for individual characteristics of each person, such as personality factors, anxiety, aliena- tion, lack of gratifying affective relationships, frustration, and other dysfunctional ego-centered characteristics which, 199 in absence of adequate coping mechanisms, may originate a need to escape. It is quite possible that better predic- tors of substance abuse behaviors might be found if factors such as these were analyzed. If these personality and other related factors were indeed confirmed as the dominant predictors of attitudes and use of intoxicants, then a different strategy for deal- ing with these behaviors could perhaps be considered. Rather than devoting much time and effort to media campaigns and public service announcements, officers responsible for drug prevention and education proqrams could then give some (preliminary) consideration, subject, of course, to appro- priate empirical confirmation, to the deve10pment of a pro- gram that would periodically (a) check the personality make-up, unfulfilled needs, etc., of children and adolescents, and identify those that might present characteristics more commonly associated with drug abuse, and (b) seek to provide functional solutions to their problems. APPENDIX A Original Spanish Version of The Questionnaire Used in The Exploratory Study 200 APPENDIX A ORIGINAL SPANISH VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE EXPLORATORY STUDY In this appendix we present the questionnaire we used in the exploratory study in its original Spanish version. A few questions have been deleted because they are of no interest for this dissertation. This questionnaire is based in part on the results of personal, free-response interviews we conducted with a number of adolescents. Additional personal interviews were done after the administration of this instrument with some of its respondents. Some of the questions that follow were worded in an alternative way in another questionnaire, when doubts existed as to the better wording. Both instruments were administered simultaneously. 201 No escribas tu nombre en este cuestionario. Estamos altamente interesados en tus sinceras y honestas respuestas a preguntas delicadas y personales. Queremos garantizarte que tus respuestas seran total mente andnimas y secretas. No existe forma alguna en que vaya a ser posible conectarte a ti o a tu nombre con este cuestionario 6 con tus respuestas. Por ello, insistimos, no escibas tu nombre. Tus respuestas a este cuestionario son de una impog tancia muy grande. Muchas preguntas son sobre drogas. Como tfi sabes, actualmente se habla mucho sobre 1as drogas pero se sabe muy poco. Esto es parte de un estudio cientifico de mucha importancia sobre drogas y sobre los medics de cg municacion entre los jovenes de la Ciudad de México. Por lo mismo tus respuestas sinceras son necesarias. Insistimos esto es un estudio cientIfico y no esta conectado de manera alguna con autoridades. Por favor, procura contestar todo el cuestionario, encerrando dentro de un circulo la alternativa a cada prg gunta que mejor exprese tu opinion. Esto no es un examen; no hay respuestas correctas ni falsas. Lo finico que cuenta es lo que tfi piensas. Procura contestar lo mas rapidamente posible. Te agradecemos muchisimo tu colaboracidn a esta investigacidn cientifica. Verdaderamente es importante. 202 SECCION I Primeramente, te haremos unas preguntas sobre la forma en que utilizas diversos medics de comunicaci6n. Aqui, como en todo el cuestionario, encierra claramente dentro de un circulo el nfimero de la respuesta que mejor exprese tfi opini6n. l.- Empecemos por la televisi6n. aCon qué frecuencia ves televisi6n? U'IRNNH O O O O U aaqcnthuamhdm 3.- En menos de un dia por semana uno 6 dos dIas por semana tres 6 cuatro dias por semana cinco 6 seis dIas por semana a diario un dia normal acomo cuantas horas de televisi6n ves? cero menos de media hora de media hora a una hora de una a dos horas de dos a tres horas de tres a cuatro horas de cuatro a cinco horas mas de cinco horas un dIa normal, aCuantos programas de televisi6n ves? Nfimero 4.- Normalmente, aa qué horas del dia ves televisi6n? \IO‘U'IDLUNH O O O por la mafiana por la tarde por la noche por la tarde y por la noche s6lo sabados y domingos solo ocasionalmente nunca o casi nunca 5.- aCuales son tus programas favoritos de televisi6n? 6.- 10.- 11. 203 Normalmente, aqué tanta atenci6n le prestas a los comerciales de la televisi6n? . ninguna atenci6n poca atenci6n regular atenci6n mucha atenci6n ubUNH Pasemos ahora al radio, econ qué frecuencia oyes e1 radio? 1. menos de un dIa por semana 2. uno 6 dos dIas por semana 3. tres 6 cuatro dIas por semana 4. cinco o seis dias por semana 5. a diario :1 un dia normal, ac6mo cuantas horas de radio oyes? cero menos de media hora de media hora a una hora de una a dos horas de dos a tres horas de tres a cuatro horas de cuatro a cinco horas mas de cinco horas‘ m~JOHflJbO3NFJN O O Normalmente, aa qué horas del dIa oyes el radio? por la mafiana por la tarde por la noche a diversas horas del dia casi todo el dIa s6lo ocasionalmente nunca 6 casi nunca \lmU'l-bWNH O O O O O aCuales son tus programas favoritos de radio? aCuales son tus estaciones de radio favoritas? 204 Normalmente, aqué tanta atenci6n le prestas a los anuncios o comerciales de radio? 13.- 14.- 15.- 16c- 17.- 18.- 1. ninguna atenci6n 2. poca atenci6n 3. regular atenci6n 4. mucha atenci6n En cuanto a la mfisica en particular, aCual es tu tipo de musica favorita? aCon que frecuencia oyes los siguientes tipos de mfisica? CLASICA l. nunca 2. poco 3. frecuentemente 4. casi siempre INSTRUMENTAL 1. nunca 2. poco 3. frecuentemente 4. casi siempre MODERNA, ROCK l. nunca 2. poco 3. frecuentemente 4. casi siempre MEXICANA, RANCHERA l. nunca 2. poco 3. frecuentemente 4. casi siempre ROMANTICA l. nunca 2. poco 3. frecuentemente 4. casi siempre 19.- 20.- 21.- 22.- 23.- 24.- 25.- 205 Pasemos ahora a los peri6dicos. aCon qué frecuencia lees peri6dicos? l. menos de un dia por semana 2. uno 6 dos dIas por semana 3. tres 6 cuatro dias por semana 4. 5. cinco 6 seis dias por semana a diario En un dia normal, acuanto tiempo dedicas a leer algfin peri6dico? 1. cero horas . menos de un cuarto de hora de un cuarto de hora a media hora de media hora a una hora mas de una hora (’1wa o a zone tipo de contenido es el que mas te interesa del peri6dico que lees? aCual es el peri6dico que mas frecuentemente lees? Normalmente, aqué tanto lees del peri6dico? l. 5610 lo hojeo 2. leo poco 3. leo unas pocas secciones que me interesan 4. leo la mayor parte Normalmente, aqué tanta atenci6n 1e prestas a los anuncios en el peri6dico? l. ninguna atenci6n . poca atenci6n regular atenci6n 2 3 4 mucha atenci6n Por ultimo, en cuanto a revistas, acuantas revistas acostumbras leer a1 mes? Nfimero 26.- 27.- 28.- 29.- 206 aCuales son las revistas que mas frecuentemente lees? aQué tipo de contenido es el que mas te interesa de las revistas que lees? Normalmente, aQué tanto lees de las revistas? 1. S610 1as hojeo 2. leo poco 3. leo unas pocas secciones que me interesan 4. leo la mayor parte Normalmente, aqué tanta atenci6n le prestas a los anuncios en 1as revistas? . ninguna atenci6n . poca atenci6n . regular atenci6n . mucha atenci6n bWNH SECCION IV Las preguntas de esta Secci6n del cuestionario se refieren a la forma c6mo t6 adquieres informaci6n sobre diversas drogas (c6mo marihuana, alcohol, alucin6genos, anfetaminas, barbitfiricos e inhalantes). Por favor, encierra en un circu lo el numero de la respuesta que mejor exprese qué tan importante es cada una de las siguientes personas o medics COIRO fuente de informaci6n y conocimiento sobre diversas drogas y sus efectos: 207 61.- AMIGOS DE LA ESCUELA 4. muy importante 3. regularmente importante 2. poco importante 1. nada importante 62.- AMIGOS FUERA DE LA ESCUELA 4. muy importante 3. regularmente importante 2. poco importante l. nada importante 63.- REVISTAS 4. muy importante 3. regularmente importante 2. poco importante l. nada importante 64.- PERIODICOS 4. muy importante 3. regularmente importante 2. poco importante l. nada importante 65.- TELEVISION 4. muy importante 3. regularmente importante 2. poco importante l. nada importante 66.- CANCIONES . muy importante . regularmente importante . poco importante . nada importante 67.- RADIO 4. muy importante 3. regularmente importante 2. poco importante 1. nada importante 68.- HERMANOS 4. muy importante 3. regularmente importante 2. poco importante 1. nada importante 208 69.- PADRES muy importante regularmente importante poco importante nada importante HNWb 70.— OTROS FAMILIARES muy importante regularmente importante poco importante nada importante kue I O C veamos ahora cual es tu fuente de informaci6n favorita para cada una de las siguientes drogas. Para cada una de las drogas, pon en un circulo aquella fuente de informaci6n a la que acudirias primero si necesitaras tener informaci6n sobre la droga (marca s6lo una para cada droga). 7l.- MARIHUANA amigos de la escuela amigos fuera de la escuela padres hermanos otros familiares canciones radio televisi6n peri6dicos revistas oxoooxlmmnwwh- H 72.- ALCOHOL (como vino, cerveza, licor) amigos de la escuela amigos fuera de la escuela padres hermanos otros familiares canciones radio televisi6n peri6dicos revistas OGmQO‘U'l-hWNH ...: 209 73.- ALUCINOGENOS (como LSD) l. amigos de la escuela 2. amigos fuera de la escuela 3. padres 4. hermanos 5. otros familiares 6. canciones 7. radio 8. televisi6n 9. peri6dicos 10. revistas 74.- BARBITURICOS (como pastas, pastillas) l. amigos de la escuela 2. amigos fuera de la escuela 3. padres 4. hermanos . otros familiares . canciones . radio . televisi6n . peri6dicos 10. revistas QQQO‘U‘I 75.- ANFETAMINAS (como chochos y pastas) amigos de la escuela amigos fuera de la escuela padres hermanos otros familiares canciones radio televisi6n peri6dicos revistas owmflmmanNH O H 76.- INHALANTES (como glu y resistol 500) l. amigos de la escuela 2. amigos fuera de la escuela 3. padres . hermanos otros familiares canciones radio televisi6n peri6dicos revistas OSOCDQGUInb 210 Como sabemos, informaci6n y conducta con respecto a drogas constituyen cosas muy personales y muy delicadas. Diversas fuentes de informaci6n sobre drogas merecen diversos grados de confianza para cada uno de nosotros. Dinos, por favor, qué tanta confianza tienes sobre cada una de las siguientes personas 6 lugares, como fuentes de informaci6n sobre drogas 77.— PADRES mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza HBOUJfi 78.- HERMANOS mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza HNDJ-b 79.- OTROS FAMILIARES mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza HNUb 80.- TELEVISION mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza wan 81.- RADIO mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza HNWIfi .000 82.- CANCIONES mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza . ninguna confianza #4wa 211 83.- REVISTAS HNUQ o o o 84.- PERIODICOS HNWIB can. 85.- AMIGOS DE LA ESCUELA mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza 86.- AMIGOS FUERA DE LA ESCUELA 4. 3. 2. 1. En parte debido a la confianza mucha confianza regular confianza poca confianza ninguna confianza que le tengamos a una fuente de informaci6n sobre drogas y en parte debido a otras razones, a veces podemos sentir una gran necesidad de verificar la in- formaci6n que recibimos sobre alguna droga. 87.- Suponte que recibiste informaci6n sobre alguna droga y que es de importancia para ti, pero sientes la necesidad de verificar la informaci6n. aA cual de las siguientes fuentes irias primero para verificar la informaci6n 0 para obtener informaci6n adicional? (Marca con un circu- lo s6lo una fuente). oxoooxxmmfiri-t I O H amigos de la escuela amigos fuera de la escuela padres hermanos otros familiares peri6dicos revistas canciones radio televisi6n 212 88.- For ultimo en esta Secci6n, dinos por favor si tuvieras un roblema con alguna droga, aA quién acudirias prime- ro en Busca de ayuda? 1. un maestro u otro personal de la escuela 2. un amigo de la escuela un amigo fuera de la escuela un hermano 6 hermana mis papas otro familiar médico 6 enfermera hospital 6 clinica algfin centro de informaci6n 6 tratamiento de drogas alguno otra persona 6 centro, y en este caso, 5a quién? \qua‘mhw coco... H O O SECCION VI Para todos nosotros existen diversas personas, personajes de los medics de comunicaci6n, etc., que nos sirven de modelo. Es decir que en mayor o menor grado imitamos e influyen en nuestras opiniones, en nuestras actitudes, y en nuestra con- ducta. En esta parte del cuestionario queremos preguntarte hasta qué grado tfi crees que las siguientes personas o medics sirven de modelo para ti o te influyen en tus opiniones, ac- titudes o conducta, en general. 98.- PERSONAJES DE LA TELEVISION 4. influyen mucho 3. influyen regular 2. influyen poco 1. no influyen nada 99.- PERSONAJES DEL RADIO influyen mucho influyen regular influyen poco no influyen nada HNWfi o o o 213 100.- PERSONAJES DE LAS CANCIONES Y CANTANTES 4. influyen mucho 3. influyen regular 2. influyen poco 1. no influyen nada 101.- TUS PADRES influyen mucho influyen regular influyen poco no influyen nada I—‘qub 102.- TUS HERMANOS O HERMANAS 4. influyen mucho 3. influyen regular 2. influyen poco 1. no influyen nada 103.- OTROS FAMILIARES influyen mucho influyen regular influyen poco no influyen nada HNWOb 0.0. 104.- EL CONTENIDO DE LOS PERIODICOS QUE LEES . influyen mucho influyen regular influyen poco no influyen nada HNNb 105.- EL CONTENIDO DE LAS REVISTAS QUE LEES . influyen mucho influyen regular influyen poco no influyen nada HMO-3:5 106.- TUS AMIGOS DE LA ESCUELA 4. influyen mucho 3. influyen regular 2. influyen poco 1. no influyen nada 214 107.- TUS AMIGOS FUERA DE LA ESCUELA . influyen mucho . influyen regular . influyen poco . no influyen nada (drown SECCION VII En esta secci6n hay una serie relativamente larga de pregug tas. A través de ellas necesitamos saber la frecuencia con que usas diversos medics de informaci6n, y tu frecuencia de comunicaci6n con diversas personas, as! como el tipo de informaci6n sobre drogas que tfi percibes en estos medics y en esas personas. Por favor marca claramente 1a respuesta que exprese mejor tfi opini6n para cada pregunta. En estas preguntas hemos separado e1 acohol de otras substancias t6xicas, que aquI llamaremos "drogas". Dentro de "drogas" incluimos a la marihuana (mota, café, hierba, pasto, 1a verde), los inhalantes(mencho, flexo, resistol 500, glu, flan),las anfetaminas (pastas, pastillas, diablillos, chochos),los barbitfiricos (pastas, pastillas, chochos), y los alucin6genos (LSD, hongos, peyote, mezcalina 6 algas). 108.- aCon qué frecuencia lees peri6dicos? 1. nunca 2. raramente 3. unas pocas horas al mes 4. unas pocas horas a la semana 5. como una hora a1 dia 6. unas pocas horas al dia 7. casi todo el tiempo 109.- aCon qué frecuencia ves referencias en los peri6dicos qué lees sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? . nunca . con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente U‘I-waH 215 110.- En general, aC6mo calificarias 1as referencias sobre bebidas alcoh6licas que ves en los peri6dicos que lees? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo del alcohol 1. mas o menos a favor del consumo del alcohol 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo del alcohol -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo del alcohol -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo del alcohol (0. no lees peri6dicos o nunca ves referencias al alcohol en ellos). 111.- Con qué frecuencia ves referencias sobre drogas en los peri6dicos que lees? 1. nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente U'lubUJN O O O 112.- En general, ac6mo calificarias 1as referemfias sobre 1as dro as que ves en los peri6dicos que lees? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo de drogas 1. mas o menos a favor del consumo de drogas 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas (0. no lees peri6dicos o nunca ves referencias sobre drogas en ellos). ll3.- aCon qué frecuencia lees revistas? 1. nunca . raramente . unas pocas horas al mes unas pocas horas a la semana como una hora a1 dia unas pocas horas al dIa casi todo el tiempo gonna-um I O O 114.- aCon qué frecuencia ves referencias sobre bebidas alcoh6licas en las revistas que lees? 1. nunca 2. con poca frecuencia 3. de vez en cuando 4. con bastante frecuencia 5. muy frecuentemente 216 115.- En general, aC6mo calificarias las referencias sobre bebidas alcoh6licas que ves en las revistas que lees? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo de alcohol 1. mas o menos a favor del consumo de alcohol 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol —2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de alcohol (0. no lees revistas o nunca ves referencias del alcohol en ellas). 116.- aCon qué frecuencia ves referencias sobre drogas en las revistas que lees? 1. nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente U'I-bUN 117.- En general, ac6mo calificarias las referencias sobre 1as drogas que ves en 1as revistas que lees? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo de drogas l. mas o menos a favor del consumo de drogas 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas -l. mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas (0. no lees revistas o nunca ves referencias sobre drogas en ellas). 118.- aCon qué frecuencia platicas con tus amigos de la escuela? . nunca . con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente Ul-bWNH O O 119.- aCon qué frecuencia platicas sobre bebidas alcoh6li- cas con tus amigos de la escuela? . nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente UlnwaH 217 120.- En general, ac6mo calificarias la posici6n de tus 121.- 122.- 123.- 1240- amigos de la escuela con respecto a1 consumo de bebidas alcoh6licas? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo de alcohol 1. mas o menos a favor del consumo de alcohol 0. hi a favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de alcohol aCon qué frecuencia platicas sobre drogas con tus amigos de la escuela? 1. nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente wow» 0 I 0 En general, ac6mo calificarias la posici6n de tus amigos de la escuela con respecto a1 consumo de drogas? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo de drogas l. mas o menos a favor del consumo de drogas 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas -l. mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas 5Con qué frecuencia platicas con tus amigos de fuera de la escuela? (0 sea, amigos tuyos que no van a la escuela contigo) . nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente U'lobWNH aCon qué frecuencia platicas sobre bebidas alcoh6licas con tus amigos de fuera de la escuela? . nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente UinwaH 218 125.- En general, aC6mo calificarias la posici6n de tus amigos de fuera de la escuela con respecto a1 consumo de bebidas alcoh6licas? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo de alcohol 1. mas o menos a favor del consumo de alcohol 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol —1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de alcohol 126.- aCon qué frecuencia platicas sobre drogas con tus amigos de fuera de la escuela? 1. nunca . con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente 01an O I 127.- En general, gc6mo calificarfas la posici6n de tus amigos de fuera de la escuela con respecto al consumo de drogas? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo de drogas 1. mas o menos a favor del consumo de drogas 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas 128.- aCon qué frecuencia oyes el radio? 1. nunca . con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente WhUN o o 129.- aCon qué frecuencia oyes referencias sobre bebidas alcoh6licas en el radio? 1. nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente U1u>bJN 130.- 131.- 1320- 133.- 134.- 135.- 219 En general, aC6mo calificarias las referencias sobre bebidas alcoh6licas que oyes en el radio? 2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de alcohol 1. mas o menos en favor del consumo de alcohol 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de alcohol aCon qué frecuencia oyes referencias sobre drogas en el radio? 1. nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente UI-bWN En general, 5c6mo calificarias 1as referencias sobre drogas que oyes en el radio? 2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de drogas 1. mas o menos en favor del consumo de drogas 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas -l. mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas aCon qué frecuencia ves televisi6n? . nunca . con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente 01wa|" aCon qué frecuencia ves referencias sobre bebidas alcoh6licas en la televisi6n? . nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente UluwaH En general acomo calificarfas 1as referencias sobre bebidas alcoh6licas que ves en la televisi6n? 2. definitivamente a favor del consumo de alcohol 1. mas o menos a favor del consumo del alcohol 0. ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo del alcohol 136.- 137.- 138.- 1390- 140.- 141.- 220 aCon qué frecuencia ves referencias sobre drogas en la televisi6n? 1. 01wa nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente En general ac6mo calificarfas 1as referencias sobre drogas que ves en la televisi6n? 2. 1. 0. -1. -2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de drogas mas o menos en favor del consumo de drogas ni a favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas definitivamente en contra del consumo de dorgas aCon qué frecuencia oyes canciones populares? UI-waH o nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente aCon qué frecuencia oyes referencias sobre bebidas alcoh6licas en las canciones populares? (fink-UMP nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente En general ac6mo calificarias las referencias sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas que oyes en las canciones populares? 1. 0. -l. —2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de alcohol mas o menos en favor del consumo de alcohol ni en favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol definitivamente en contra del consumo de alcohol aCon qué frecuencia oyes referencias sobre drogas en las canciones populares? UIDUJNH nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente 142.- 143.- 144.- 145.- 146.- 221 En general ac6mo calificarias 1as referencias sobre drogas que oyes en las canciones populares? 2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de drogas 1. mas o menos en favor del consumo de drogas 0. ni en favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas aCon qué frecuencia platicas con tus papas? 1. nunca 2. con poca frecuencia 3. de vez en cuando 4. con bastante frecuencia 5. muy frecuentemente aCon qué frecuencia platicas con tus papas sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? 1. nunca . con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente U‘l-hWN O 0 En general ac6mo calificarias la posici6n de tus papas con respecto a1 consumo de bebidas alcoh6licas? 2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de alcohol 1. mas o menos en favor del consumo de alcohol 0. ni en favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol *2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de alcohol aCon qué frecuencia platicas sobre drogas con tus papas? . nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente UlvbWNH 1470- 148.- 149.- 150.- 1510- 222 En general, ac6mo calificarias la posici6n de tus papas con respecto a1 consumo de drogas? 2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de drogas 1. mas o menos en favor del consumo de drogas 0. ni en favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas aCon qué frecuencia platicas con tus hermanos o hermanas? . nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente UluwaH aCon qué frecuencia platicas sobre bebidas alcoh6licas con tus hermanos o hermanas? 1. nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente U'lIbUJN En general, ac6mo calificarfas la posici6n de tus hermanos o hermanas con respecto a1 consumo de bebidas alcoh6licas? 2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de alcohol 1. mas o menos en favor del consumo de alcohol 0. ni en favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol —1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de alcohol aCon qué frecuencia platicas sobre drogas con tus hermanos o hermanas? . nunca . con poca frecuencia . de vez en cuando . con bastante frecuencia . muy frecuentemente UlubUNH 223 152.- En general, ac6mo calificarias la posici6n de tus hermanos o hermanas con respecto a drogas? 153.- 154.- 155.- 156.- 2. 1. 0. -1. -2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de drogas mas o menos en favor del consumo de drogas ni en favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas aCon qué frecuencia platicas con "otros familiares"? (c6mo en tu 1. UIDWN O C tics, primos y otros parientes que no vivan casa). nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente aCon qué frecuencia platicas sobre bebidas alcoh6licas con "otros familiares"? 01.5me nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente En general, ac6mo calificarias la posici6n de tus "otros familiares" con respecto a1 consumo de bebidas alcoh6licas? 2. 1. 0. ‘1. -2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de alcohol mas o menos en favor del consumo de alcohol ni en favor ni en contra del consumo de alcohol mas o menos en contra del consumo de alcohol definitivamente en contra del consumo de alcohol aCon que frecuencia platicas sobre drogas con "otros familiares"? WQWNH o o nunca con poca frecuencia de vez en cuando con bastante frecuencia muy frecuentemente 224 157.- En general, ac6mo calificarias la posici6n de tus "otros familiares" con respecto al consumo de drogas? 2. definitivamente en favor del consumo de drogas 1. mas o menos en favor del consumo de drogas 0. ni en favor ni en contra del consumo de drogas -1. mas o menos en contra del consumo de drogas -2. definitivamente en contra del consumo de drogas SECCION VIII Las preguntas de esta Secci6n hacen referencia especifica a tu conducta y actitud con respecto a diversas drogas. Tu total sinceridad en las respuestas es de vital importancia. Queremos recordarte que tus respuestas son estrictamente an6nimas y confidenciales y que no existe forma alguna en que te podamos conectar a ti con estas respuestas. Tanto S! has usado jamas cualquiera de las drogas siguientes o no, quisiéramos saber que tan facil serIa para tI consg guir cada una de esas drogas. Veamos cuanto tiempo te tomaria conseguirla, sI empezaras a buscarla cuando sales de la escuelagpor la tarde: 158.- MARIHUANA menos de una hora de una a tres horas de tres a seis horas de seis a doce horas de doce a 24 horas entre uno y siete dias mas de una semana imposible ooqcxunuwwl-I O 159.- INHALANTES menos de una hora de una a tres horas de tres a seis horas de seis a doce horas de doce a 24 horas entre uno y siete dIas mas de una semana imposible QOU‘I-hUNH C 225 160.- BARBITURICOS menos de una hora de una atres horas de tres a seis horas de seis a doce horas de doce a 24 horas entre uno y siete dIas mas de una semana imposible mqmthNH ooo.-coo 161.- ANFETAMINAS menos de una hora de una a tres horas de tres a seis horas de seis a doce horas de doce a 24 horas entre uno y siete dias mas de una semana imposible (DQO‘U'IubbJNH 162.- ALUCINOGENOS menos de una hora de una a tres horas de tres a seis horas de seis a doce horas de doce a 24 horas entre uno y siete dias mas de una semana imposible mqu‘bNNH o o o o o o o Ahora dinos por favor a qué tipo de persona o a qué tipo de lugar irias para conseguir cada una defilas siguientes drogas (no nos des nombres de personas o lugares especIficos): 163.- MARIHUANA 164.- INHALANTES 165.- BARBITURICOS 166.- ANFETAMINAS 226 167.- ALUCINOGENOS Si consumes alguna de las siguientes drogas, nos podrias decir en qué tipo de lugar la consumes (de nuevo, no nos des nombres ni lugares especIficos): 168.- MARIHUANA 169.- INHALANTES 170.- BARBITURICOS 171.- ANFETAMINAS 172.- ALUCINOGENOS SI consumes alguna substancia como marihuana, inhalantes barbitfiricos, anfetaminas o alucin6genos, dinos por favor (para cada substancia) en qué tipo de lugar y a qué tipo de persona se la compras (sin mencionar nombres ni lugares especificos): 173.- LUGAR 174.- PERSONA 227 A continuaci6n, quisiéramos saber con qué frecuencia consu mes cada una de las siguientes drogas: l75.- MARIHUANA l76.- INHALANTES 177.- ALCOHOL 178.- BARBITURICOS CDQO‘U'IQWNH (DQO‘UIobUJNH QOUIubUJNl-d ooqcxunwaI-I nunca 3610 la he probado una o dos veces la he probado muy pocas veces menos de una vez a1 mes, en promedio una o dos veces a1 mes una o dos veces por semana mas de dos veces por semana a diario nunca 5610 1a he probado una o dos veces la he probado muy pocas veces menos de una vez a1 mes, en promedio una o dos veces a1 mes una o dos veces por semana mas de dos veces por semana a diario nunca 5610 lo he probado una o dos veces lo he probado muy pocas veces menos de una vez a1 mes, en promedio una o dos veces al mes una o dos veces por semana mas de dos veces por semana a diario nunca s6lo lo he probado una o dos veces lo he probado muy pocas veces menos de una vez a1 mes, en promedio una o dos veces a1 mes una o dos veces por semana mas de dos veces por semana a diario 179.- ANFETAMINAS 180.- ALUCINOGENOS mummwaI-d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 aCuantos de tus amigos, siguientes substancias, aunque sea ocasionalmente? (marca un cuadro con una cruz para cada substancia). 228 nunca s6lo lo he probado una o dos veces la he probado muy pocas veces menos de una vez a1 mes,en promedio una o dos veces a1 mes una o dos veces por semana mas de dos veces por semana a diario nunca s6lo lo he probado una o dos veces lo he probado muy pocas veces menos de una vez al mes, en promedio una o dos veces a1 mes una o dos veces por semana mas de dos veces por semana a diario crees tfi, consumen cada una de las m H H o m 0 >10 r: m m c m a O E S 0 13 m o : OMv-IOH 9.44:0.2 64.6.4.1 181.- Marihuana 182.- Alcohol 183.- Inhalantes 184.- Barbitfiricos 185.- Anfetaminas 186.- Alucin6genos 229 187.- En una semana normal, acomo cuanto dinero gastas en alcohol? $ 188.- Y en substancias como marihuana, inhalantes, barbitfiri cos, anfetaminas y alucin6genos, acomo cuanto dinero gastas en una semana normal? $ SI consumes c has consumido alguna de las substancias que acabamos de mencionar, dinos por favor, en el espacio a continuaci6n,quién te inici6, cuando fué la primera vez, en que tipo de lugar y por qué. 189.- aQuién te inici6 (tipo de persona, no citar nombres) con qué substancia? 190.- aCuando fue la primera vez? (para cada substancia) l91.— aEn qué tipo de lugar u ocasi6n? (para cada substancia) 192.- aPor qué? Si no has probado ninguna substancia dinos también por qué?. 230 En lo personal, ahas iniciado tfi a alguna persona a1 uso de alguna de las anteriores substancias? si no l93.- aPor qué? 194.- aA qué tipo de personas? (cita 1a substancia) l95.- aEn qué tipo de lugar u ocasi6n? (cita la substancia) Diversas personas sienten u opinan de manera diferente ace; ca del consumo de las siguientes substancias por otras personas. A continuaci6n indicanos como sientes t6 sobre el consumo ocasional o habitual de cada una de las siguientes substancias por personas de tu edad. Marca con una cruz la alternativa que mejor exprese tu opini6n. 231 HI m 4.) o o C) m 44 0.2.044 o a: c o o H o o a) n .o m u L: E 01¢ a: HKD a. cu.a :44 o urn m m to L1G H o m m +J CLO o. a)o m a) o ntE‘tZZQDE-i u; 4.; al.: 196.- Fumar marihuana ocasig nalmente o probarla l97.- Fumar marihuana habitual mente l98.- Tomar bebidas alcoh6licas ocasionalmente o probar 1as 199.— Tomar bebidas alcoh6licas habitualmente 200.- Usar inhalantes ocasional mente o probarlos 201.- Usar inhalantes habitual mente 202.- Usar barbitfiricos ocasig nalmente o probarlos 203.- Tomar barbitfiricos habitual mente 204.- Tomar anfetaminas ocasig . nalmente o probarlas 205.- Tomar anfetaminas habitual mente 206.- Ingerir alucin6genos ocasionalmente o probarlos 207.- Ingerir alucin6genos habitualmente 232 SECCION IX Por ultimo quisiéramos que nos contestaras unas pocas pero muy importantes preguntas: 208.- 209.- 210.- 211.- 213.- 214.- aQué afio escolar estas cursando? aCual es tu promedio? aproximadamente. de 9 a 10 de 8 a de 7 a 8 de 6 a menos de 6 HNWbU'I o o o o o aTienes planeado estudiar alguna carrera en la unl versidad? . definitivamente si probablemente sf probablemente no definitivamente no no se 0»;an O O O O aCual es tu edad? l. menos de once afios ll afios 12 afios 13 afios l4 afios 15 afios l6 afios l7 afios 18 afios 6 mas \oooqmmbww o o o o o o o o aCuantos hermoanos tienes? aCual es tu posicién entre tus hermanos? . hijo finico . e1 mayor en medic, familia grande en medic, familia chica e1 menor mbUNH 214.- 215.- 216.- 217.- 218.- 219.- 233 En cuanto a religi6n, ac6mo te consideras? cat6lico practicante habitualmente cat6lico practicante ocasionalmente cat6lico no practicante indiferente; sin religi6n particular protestante judio ateo, agn6stico otra religi6n mummwaH o o aCual es tu origen? Distrito Federal Ciudad grande de provincia Ciudad chica de provincia poblaci6n pequefia o zona rural extranjero U'Iuwal-J coco. aEn que colonia vives? aCual es la ocupaci6n de tu papa? Es decir, 5a qué se dedica tu papa cuando trabaja? (procura ser un poco detallado). 5A qué se dedica tu mama? aViven juntos tus papas? 1. SI 2. no, por defunci6n 3. no, por separaci6n o divorcio 234 220.- En general, ac6mo te consideras? 1. muy conservador 2. conservador 3. ni conservador ni liberal 4. liberal 5. muy liberal 221.- Desde un punto de vista politico, ac6mo te consideras? 222.- aCual es tu sexo? 1. hombre 2. mujer APPENDIX B Final Version of The Questionnaire in the Original Spanish Presentation 235 APPENDIX B In this appendix we present the origianl Spanish version of the questionnaire. The missing questions were excluded because they are not utilized in this dissertation. They are questions of interest to this author or to the funding institution. For easy reference, we indicate next to each question or block of questions the page(s) number(s) where it appears defined in the text. 236 APENDIX B FINAL VERSION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ORIGINAL SPANISH PRESENTATION N0 escribas tu nombre en este cuestionario. Este cuestionario es estrictamente confiden cial. Tu colaboraci6n es de mucha importancia porque nos- ayudara a comprender lo que la gente joven como tfi piensa sobre diversas fuentes de comunicaci6n y sobre diversas substancias. Esto es parte de un estudio cientifico. Por favor, contesta todo el cuestionario encerrando dentro de un circulo la respuesta a cada pregunta que mejor exprese tu opiniEn. Esto no es un examen; no hay respuestas buenas ni malas, lo que nos importa es lo que tu piensas y opinas. Sinceramente te agradecemos tu valiosa colaboraci6n a este estudio. (see page 103) 237 SECCION I (see p.52; pp. 71-73; pp. 78-79). Encierra con un circulo el nfimero de la respuesta que mas se parezca a tu personal cpini6n. 1.- aCon qué frecuencia ves televisi6n? 0. nunca l. unas pocas horas a1 mes . unas pocas horas a la semana . hasta una hora a1 dia de una a tres horas a1 dIa mas de tres horas a1 dIa UlobWN Cuando ves televisi6n, acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas que tiene la televisi6n en México? . muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas . un poco en contra de las bebdidas alcoh6licas ni a favor ni en contra, a nunca se menciona un poco a faVor de las bebidas alcoh6licas muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas bWNI—‘O O Cuando ves televisi6n, acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre mariguana? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que es la forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana que tiene la televisi6n en México? . muy en contra de la mariguana . un poco en contra de la mariguana . ni a favor ni en contra, o nunca se menciona . un poco a favor de la mariguana . muy a favor de la mariguana bWNI-‘O 6.- 10.- 11.- 238 aCon que frecuencia oyes radio? . nunca unas pocas horas a1 mes unas pocas horas a la semana hasta una hora al dia de una a tres horas a1 dIa mas de tres horas a1 dia U'l-wai-‘O Cuando oyes radio acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre bebidas alcoEBlicas? radio en Mexico? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas que tiene la . muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas . un poco en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas ni a favor ni en contra, o nunca se menciona . un poco a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas DWNHO O Cuando oyes radio, acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre mariguana? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea 1a forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana que tiene la radio? 0. muy en contra de la mariguana . un poco en contra de la mariguana ni a favor ni en contra, o nunca se menciona un poco a favor de la mariguana muy a favor de la mariguana huh)!" I O aCon qué frecuencia escuchas canciones populares? O. nunca 1. unas pocas horas a1 mes 2. unas pocas horas a la semana 3. hasta una hora al dIa 4. de una a tres horas a1 dIa 5. mas de tres horas a1 dIa 12.- 13.- 14.- 15.- 16.- 17.- 239 Cuando escuchas canciones populares, acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas que tienen las canciones pgpulares? 0} muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas . un poco en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas . ni a favor ni en contra, o nunca se menciona . un poco a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas . muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas DWNH Cuando escuchas canciones populares acuantas veces se menciona algo soBre mariguana? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana que tienen 1as canciones populares? . muy en contra de la mariguana . un poco en contra de la mariguana . ni a favor ni en contra de la mariguana un poco a favor de la mariguana muy a favor de la mariguana hWNi—‘O aCon qué frecuencia platicas con tus papas? 0. nunca l. unas pocas horas al mes . unas pocas horas a la semana . hasta una hora al dia . de una a tres horas a1 dIa . mas de tres horas a1 dia £110th Cuando platicas con tus padres acuantas veces hablan algo sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? 0. nunca l. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces 180- 19.- 20.- 21.- 22.- 23.- 240 En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas de tus padres? . muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas un poco en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona un poco a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas thHO 0 o o o Cuando platicas con tus padres, acuantas veces se habla algo sobre mariguana? nunca muy pocas veces algunas veces muchas veces WNHO En general, acual crees que sea 1a forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana que tienen tus padres O. muy en contra de la mariguana 1. un poco en contra de la mariguana 2. ni a favor ni en contra de la mariguana 3. 4. un poco a favor de la mariguana muy a favor de la mariguana Con qué frecuencia platicas con tus hermanos? . nunca . unas pocas horas a1 mes . unas pocas horas a la semana . hasta una hora a1 dIa . de una a tres horas a1 dia . mas de tres horas al dIa Cuando platicas con tus hermanos, acuantas veces hablan algo sobre bebidas alcohalicas? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea 1a forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas de tus hermanos? 0. muy en contra de 1as bebidas alcoh6licas . un poco en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona A un poco a favor de 1as bebidas alcoh6licas muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas waH 241 24.- Cuando platicas con tus hermanos, acuantas veces se habla algo sobre mariguana? . nunca . muy pocas veces . algunas veces . muchas veces (AND-‘0 25.- En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana que tienen tus hermanos? O. muy en contra déula mariguana . un poco en contra de la mariguana . ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona un poco a favor de la mariguana muy a favor de la mariguana hWNH 26.- Con qué frecuencia platicas con otros familiares? nunca unas pocas horas a1 mes a 0. 1. 2. hasta una hora a la semana 3. 4 5 hasta una hora a1 dIa de una a tres horas al dIa mas de tres horas al dia 27.- Cuando platicas con otros familiares acuantas veces hablan algo sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? . nunca . muy pocas veces . algunas veces . muchas veces WNl-‘O 28.- En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas de tus otros familiares? . muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas un poco en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona un poco a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas muy a favor de 1as bebidas alcoh6licas obWNl-‘d 29.- Cuando platicas con tus otros familiares acuantas veces se habla algo sobre mariguana? . nunca . muy pocas veces . algunas veces . muchas veces UNHC 30.- 31.- 32.- 33.- 34.- 35.- 242 En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana que tienen tus otros familiares? 0. muy en contra de la mariguana un poco en contra de la mariguana ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona . un poco a favor de la mariguana muy a favor de la mariguana hWNH o o aCon qué frecuencia platicas con tus amigos de la escuela? . nunca . unas pocas horas a1 mes . unas pocas horas a la semana . hasta una hora al dIa de una a tres horas al dIa mas de tres horas a1 dIa Ul-wal-‘O Cuando platicas con tus amigos de la escuela acuantas veces hablan algo sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? . nunca muy pocas veces algunas veces muchas veces WNHO En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas de tus amigos de la escuela? 0. muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas 1. un poco en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas 2. ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona 3. un poco a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas 4. muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas Cuando platicas con tus amigos de la escuela acuantas veces se habla algo sobre mariguana? nunca muy pocas veces algunas veces muchas veces (JUMP-‘0 O O 0 En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana que tienen tus amigos de la escuela? 0. muy en contra de la mariguana 1. un poco en contra de la mariguana 2. ni a favor ni en contra de la mariguana 3. un poco a favor de la mariguana 4. muy a favor de la mariguana 36.- 37.- 38.- 39.- 40.- 243 aCon qué frecuencia platicas con tus amigos de fuera de la escuela? . nunca . unas pocas horas al mes unas pocas horas a la semana hasta una hora a1 dia de una a tres horas a1 dia mas de tres horas a1 dfa UithNi-‘O Cuando platicas con tus amigos fuera de la escuela acuap tas veces hablan algo sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea 1a forma de pensar y ac- tuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas de tus amgios de fuera de la escuela? O. muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas 1. un poco en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas 2. ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona 3. un poco a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas 4. muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas Cuando platicas con tus amigos de fuera de la escuela, {cuantas veces se habla algo sobre mariguana? O. nunca l. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y ac- tuar sobre la mariguana que tienen tus amigos de fuera de la escuela? 0. muy en contra de la mariguana . un poco en contra de la mariguana . ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona . un poco a favor de la mariguana . muy a favor de la mariguana pump 41. aCon qué frecuencia lees peri6dicos? 0. nunca l. unas pocas horas a1 mes 2. unas pocas horas a la semana 3. hasta una hora a1 dfa 4. de una a tres horas a1 dia 5. mas de tres horas al dfa 42.- 43.- 44.- 45.- 46.- 47.- 244 Cuando lees peri6dicos acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre bebidas alcoh6licas? 0. nunca l. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas que tienen los peri6dicos? . muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas . un poco en contra de 1as bebidas alcoh6licas . ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona un poco a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas bUNI—‘d Cuando lees peri6dicos, acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre mariguana? 0. nunca l. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces En general, acual crees que sea 1a forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana que tienen los peri6dicos? 0. muy en contra de la mariguana un poco en contra de la mariguana ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona un poco a favor de la mariguana muy a favor de la mariguana waH Con qué frecuencia lees revistas? nunca unas pocas horas al mes unas pocas horas a la semana hasta una hora a1 dIa de una a tres horas a1 dIa mas de tres horas Ultwal-‘OO- O O Cuando lees revistas,acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre bebidas alcofialicas? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces 245 48.- En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre 1as bebidas alcoh6licas que tienen 1as revistas? 0. muy en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas . un poco en contra de las bebidas alcoh6licas ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona un poco a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas muy a favor de las bebidas alcoh6licas QWNH o o 49.- Cuando lees revistas, acuantas veces se menciona algo sobre mariguana? 0. nunca 1. muy pocas veces 2. algunas veces 3. muchas veces 50.- En general, acual crees que sea la forma de pensar y actuar sobre la mariguana en las revistas? 0. muy en contra de la mariguana . un poco en contra de la mariguana ni a favor ni en contra o nunca se menciona un poco a favor de la mariguana muy a favor de la mariguana waH SECCION III aCuanto tiempo crees que te tomaria conseguir cualquiera de las drogas que se mencionan a continuaci6n si empezaras a buscarlas al salir de la escuela? (pp. 168 - 170). 76.- Mariguana UT’menos de una hora . de una a tres horas . entre tres horas y un dia mas de un dia imposible hWNH 246 77.- Bebidas alcoh6licas (cervezas, licores, vinos, etc.) 0: menos de una hora . de una a tres horas entre tres horas y un dIa mas de un dia imposible ubUJNH Ahora por favor, dinos cuantos de tus amigos y compafieros crees tfi que consumen cada una de las siguientes drOgas, aunque sea 3610 de vez en cuando. 82.- Mariguana . ninguno . muy pocos . la mayoria p. . todos 76 LAND-‘0 83.- Bebidas alcoh6licas . ninguno . muy pocos la mayorIa p. todos 76 UNI-‘0 En caso que hayas probado o usado alguna de las drogas ya mencionadas, quisiéramos saber con qué frecuencia has usado cada una de ellas: (see pp. 94; 99), 88.- Mariguana 02 nunca 3610 la he probado muy pocas veces la uso unas pocas veces al mes la uso unas pocas veces por semana 1a uso diariamente bMNH 89.- 90.- 91.- 92,- 93.- 247 Bebidas alcoh6licas 0. nunca 1. 3610 1as he probado muy pocas 2. unas pocas veces a1 mes 3. unas pocas veces por semana 4. a diario Inhalantes 0. nunca l. 5610 los he probado muy pocas 2. unas pocas veces a1 mes 3. unas pocas veces por semana 4. a diario Anfetaminas 0. nunca 1. S610 1as he probado muy pocas 2. unas pocas veces a1 mes 3. unas pocas veces por semana 4. a diario Barbitfiricos 0} nunca 1. S610 los he probado muy pocas 2. unas pocas veces a1 mes 3. unas pocas veces por semana 4. a diario Alucin6genos 0. nunca 1. S610 los he probado muy pocas 2. unas pocas veces a1 mes 3. unas pocas veces a la semana 4. a diario veces veces veces veces veces 248 Diversas personas sienten u opinan de manera diferente sobre el uso de drogas por otras personas. A continuaci6n indicg nos por favor como sientes tfi sobre el uso ocasional de cada una de las siguientes drogas por personas de tu edad. (see pp. 93-94) 97.- Fumar mariguana ocasionalmente o probarla 0. desapruebo totalmente mas o menos desapruebo neutral 0 no 56 . mas o menos apruebo . apruebo totalmente IbWNH o o 99.- omar bebidas alcoh6licas ocasionalmente o probarlas desapruebo totalmente mas o menos desapruebo neutral 0 no 56 mas o menos apruebo apruebo totalmente T 0 1 2 3 4 SECCION IV Dinos por favor, qué tanta confianza tienes en las siguientes personas, asi como en las diferentes formas (fuentes) de 1nformac16n en general. (pp. 158-159) 111.-Amigos de la escuela 0. ninguna confianza 1. poca confianza 2. regular confianza 3. mucha confianza 249 112.- Amigos de fuera de la escuela 0f ninguna confianza poca confianza regular confianza mucha confianza WNH o o 113.- Televisi6n 0. ninguna confianza 1. poca confianza 2. regular confianza 3. mucha confianza 114.- Radio 0. ninguna confianza l. poca confianza 2. regular confianza 3. mucha confianza 115.- Canciones populares . ninguna confianza . poca confianza . regular confianza . mucha confianza NNI-‘O 116.- Padres 0. ninguna confianza 1. poca confianza 2. regular confianza 3. mucha confianza 117.- Hermanos 0. ninguna confianza 1. poca confianza 2. regular confianza 3. mucha confianza 118.- Demas familiares . ninguna confianza . poca confianza regular confianza mucha confianza WNI-‘d 1190- 120.- En esta secci6n quisiéramos que contestaras unas cuantas preguntas personales. Por favor encierra en un circulo e1 Peri6dicos 0. ninguna confianza l. poca confianza 2. regular confianza 3. mucha confianza Revistas 0. ninguna confianza l. poca confianza 2. regular confianza 3. mucha confianza 250 SECCION V nfimero de la respuesta correcta. 124.- 125.- aCual es tu promedio aproximadamente? 126. aEn qué afio vas? 0. menos de 6 1. de 6 a 7 2. de 7 a 8 3. de 8 a 9 4. de 9 a 10 aTienes planeado estudiar alguna carrera universitaria, politécnica o cualquier otra superior? 0. definitivamente no 1. probablemente no 2. probablemente si 3. definitivamente 31 (pp. 167-170) 251 127.- aCual es tu edad? p. 100 ‘afios 128.- aCuantos hermanos y hermanas tienes? nfimero 129.- aQué lugar ocupas entre tus hermanos y hermanas? 0. hijo finico . e1 mayor de los de en medic e1 menor WNH 130.- cuanto a la religi6n, ac6mo te consideras? cat6lico practicante habitualmente cat6lico practicante ocasionalmente cat6lico no practicante indiferente, sin religi6n particular protestante judio ateo, agn6stico otra religi6n :3 qw D6nde naciste? Distrito Federal ciudad grande provincia ciudad chica de provincia poblaci6n pequefia o zona rural extranjero 131.- a 0 1 2 3 4 132.- aEn qué trabaja tu papa? describe brevemente qué es lo que hace. p. 100 252 133.- 5A qué se dedica tu mama?; describe brevemente su ocupaci6n. p. 100 134.- aViven juntos tus papas? 0. si . no, por fallecimiento . no, por separaci6n o divorcio NH 135.— A qué tipo de escuela vas? p. 100 . del gobierno . privada religiosa privada no religiosa nchom 136.- aCual es tu sexo? p. 100 0. masculino l. femenino l37.- Con qué frecuencia toma tu papa bebidas alcoh6licas? . nunca toma raramente toma toma de vez en cuando toma frecuentemente p. 76 a 0 1 2 3 4 toma diariamente 138.- aCon qué frecuencia toma tu mama bebidas alcoh6licas? . nunca toma raramente toma toma de vez en cuando toma frecuentemente p. 76 toma diariamente bWNI—‘O l39.- aCon qué frecuencia toma tu papa medicinas de cualquier tipo? nunca toma raramente toma toma de vez en cuando toma frecuentemente toma todos los dias bUNI—‘o ooo.. 253 140.- aPara qué son? l4l.- aCon qué frecuencia toma tu mama medicinas de cualquier tipo? 0. nunca toma . raramente toma toma de vez en cuando toma frecuentemente toma todos los dIas hUNH l42.- aPara qué son? MUCHAS GRACIAS POR TU COLABORACION REFERENCES 254 REFERENCES Adler, P.T., and L. Lotecka, "Drug Use Among High School Students: Patterns and Correlates," in The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 8:3, 537-548, 1973. Anastasi, A., Psychological Testing (4th ed.) New York: Mcmillan, 1976. Atkin, C.K., "Effects of Drug Commercials on Young Viewers," Journal of Communication, 28:4, 48-56, 1976. Atkin, C.K, "Research Evidence on Mass Mediated Health Communication Campaigns." Paper presented at National Academy of Sciences conference on "Adoles- cent Behavior and Health," Washington, D.C. June 2, 1978. Bandura, A., Social Learning Theory. New York, General Learning Press, 1971. Barcus, E.F., "Over-The-Counter and Propietary Drug Adver— tising on Television," in D.E. Ostman, ed.,Communica- tion Research and Drug Education. Sage Publications, 1976. Barker, S.J., "Political Views of High School and College Students and Attitudes About Legalization of Mari- juana." Proc. Ann. Convention Amer. Psychol. Assoc., 6: 337-338, 1971. Bauer, R., "The Obstinate Audience: The Influence Process from the Point of View of Social Communication," in P. Hollander and R. Hunt, eds., Current Perspectives in Social Psychology. Oxford U. Press, 1971. Becker, H.S., ed., Social Problems: A Modern Approach. John Wiley, 1966. Belsasso, G., "Some General Observations on the Drug Problem in Mexico" Neurologia - Neurocirugia - Psiquiatria, 11:3, 307-311, 1970. 255 Berg, S.F., "Illicit Use of Dangerous Drugs in the United States: A Compilation of Studies, Surveys, and Polls." September 1970, Alleged Drug Abuse in the Armed Services, 1152-1192. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. Berkowitz, L., A Survey of Social Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975. Berlo, D.K., "Communication As Process: Review and Commen- tary," in B. Ruben, ed., Communication Yearbook 1. International Communication Association/Transaction Books, 1977. Berlo, D.K., "Essays on Communication." Mimeo, Dept. of Communication, Michigan State University, 1972. Berlo, D.K., The Process of Communication. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Blechman, E.A., R.M. Berberian, and D. Thompson, "How Well Does Number of Parents Explain Unique Variance in Self-Reported Adolescent Drug Use?" Paper read at the Eastern Psychological Association Convention, 1976. Blum, R.H., and Associates Students and Drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. Blumberg, H.H., "Surveys of Drug Use Among Young People," in The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 10:4, 699-719, 1975. Bowker, L.H. "Student Drug Use and the Perceived Peer Drug Environment," in The Int'l J. of the Addictions. 9:6, 851-861, 1974. Braucht, G.N., S. Brakarsh, S. Follingstad, and K.L. Berry, "Deviant Drug Use in Adolescence: A Review of Psy- chosocial Correlates," Psychol. Bull., 79:3, 92-106, 1973. Bruner, J., "Social Psychology and Perception," in E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb, and E. Hartley, eds., Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958. Carlson, R., "Personality," in M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter, eds., Annual Review of Psychology, 393-414. Annual Reviews, 1975. 256 Chafetz, M.E., ed., Research Treatment and Prevention: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Alcoholism Confer- ence of The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1974. Church, M.A., C.V. Truss, and F.R. Martino, "Trends in Psy- choactive Drug Use and in Attitudes Toward Marijuana at a Large Metropolitan University," in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21:4, 228-231, 1974. Clarke, P., "Teenagers' Coorientation and Information- Seeking about Pop Music," in American Behavioral Scientist, 16:4, 551-566, 1973. Cockerham, W.C., M.A. Forslund, and R.M. Raboin, "Drug Use Among White and American Indian High School Youth," The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 11:3, 209-220, 1976. Cohen, J. and P. Cohen, Applied Multiple Regression/Correla- tion for the Behavioral Sciences. Halfted Press (John Wiley). 1975. Comstock, G., and M. Fisher, Television and Human Behavior: A Guide to the Pertinent Scientific Literature. The Rand Corporation, 1975. Comstock, G., and G. Lindsey, Television and Human Behavior: The Research Horizon, Future and Present. The Rand Corporation, 1975. Cowan, R., and R. Roth, "The Turned on Generation: Where Will They Turn to?", J. Drug Educ., 2:29-47, 1972. Cueli, J., and L. Reidl, Teorias de la Personalidad. Trillas (Mexico City). 1972. Dahlberg, C.C., R. Mechaneck, and S. Feldstein, "LSD Research: The Impact of Lay Publicity," in the Amer. J. of Psychiat., 125:4, 137-141, November, 1968. De Fleur, L.B., and G. Garret, "Dimensions of Marijuana Usage in a Land Grant University," in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, l7:§, 468-476, 1970. De Fleur, M.L., and F.R. Westie, "Attitude as a Scientific Concept," Social Forces, 42:l, 17-31, 1963. Dembo, R., M. Miram, D. Babst, and J. Schmeidler, "The Believalibility of the Media as Source of Information on Drugs," The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 12:1, 959-969, 1977. 257 Donneaud, G., "Analisis de Contenido de 1as Canciones Mas Populares y Vendidas en Mexico, D. F., de Junio de 1973 a Junio de 1974, en Base a su Tematica, 1a Intensidad de su Contenido Emocional y a los Valores que Proyectan Referidos a la Teoria del Caracter de Erich Fromm. Unpublished "Licenciatura" Thesis. Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, 1975. Durkheim, E., Las Reglas del Método Sociologico, Shapire, 1965. Einstein, 8., and S. Allen, (eds.), Student Drug Surveys. New York: Baywood, 1973. Feingold, P., and M. Knapp, "Anti-Drug Abuse Commercials," Journal of Communication, 27:l, 20-28. Fejer, D., and R.D. Smart, "The Knowledge About Drugs, Attitudes Toward them and Drug Use Rates of High School Students," in J. Drug Educ., 3:4, 377-388, 1973. Fejer D. et al., "Sources of Information about Drugs Among High School Students," Public Opinion Quarterly, 35: 236- 241, 1971. Frenkel, S.I., J.A. Robinson, and 8.6. Fiman, "Drug Use: Demography and Attitudes in A Junior and Senior High School Population," in J. Drug Educ., 4:4, 237-248, 1974. Fuller, C., and R.R. Myers, "The Natural History of a Social Problem," in American Sociological Review, Vol. 6, 1941. Galli, N., "Patterns of Student Drug Use," in J. Drug Educ., 4:4, 237-248, 1974. Gossett, J., M. Lewis, and V.A. Phillips, "Extent and Pre- valence of Illicit Drug Use as Reported by 56,745 Students," in J. American Med. Assoc., 216:1464-1470, 1971. Grant, J.A., "Drug Education Based on a Knowledge Attitude, and Experience Study," Journal of School Health, 41:1, 383-386, 1971. Green, E.F., "Attitude Measurement," in G. Lindzey, ed., Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, Addison- Wesley, 1954. Greenberg, B. 8., "Media Use and Believability: Some Mul- tiple Correlates," in Journalism Quart., 43: 4, 665-670,1966. 258 Greenwald, B.S., and M.J. Luetgert, "A Comparison of Drug Users and Non Users on an Urban Commuter College Campus," in The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 6:l, 63-78, March 1971. Hager, D.L., A.M. Vencer, and C.S. Stewart, "Patterns of Adolescent Drug Use in Middle America," in 4. Counseling Psych., 18:292-297, 1971. Hall, C.S., and G. Lindzey, "The Relevance of Freudian Psychology and Related Viewpoints for the Social Sciences," in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds., IE2 Handbook of Social Psychology: 1:245-319. Addison-Wesley, 1969. Hanneman, G., "Communicating Drug Abuse Information Among College Students," in Public Opinion Quarterly, 37:4, 171-191, 1973. Hanneman, G.J., W.J. McEwen, and S.A. Coyne, An Analysis of Televised Public Service Advertising (Drug Abuse Information Research Project,3Report No. 9). Com- munication Research Program, The University of Connecticut, 1972. Hanneman, G.J., W.J. McEwen, G.F. Isbell, and D.M. Durham, Televised Drug Appeals: A Content Analysis (Drug Abuse Information Research Project, Report No. 1). Communication Research Program, The University of Connecticut, 1972. Hanneman, G.J., and W.J. McEwen, "Televised Drug Appeals: A Content Analysis," Journalism Quarterly, 50:4, 329-333, Summer, 1973. Hanneman, G.J., and M.L. Pet, The Search for Drug Abuse Information (Drug Abuse Information Research Project, Report No. 4). Communication Research Program, The University of Connecticut, 1972. Hetherington, E.M., and C.W. McIntyre, "Developmental Psy- chology," in M.R. Rosenweig and L.W. Porter, eds., Annual Review of Psychology, pp. 97-136. Annual Reviews, 1975. Hoffman, M.L., "Personality and Social Development," in M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter, eds., Annual Review of Psychology, pp. 295-322. Annual Reviews, 1977. Holzman, P.S., "Personaliity," in M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter, eds., Annual Review of Psychology, pp. 247-276. Annual Reviews, 1974. 259 Hyman, H., and P. Sheatsley, "Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Fail," Public Opinion Quarterly, 11:413- 423, 1947. Jackson, B., W.R. Large and R.P. Lehmann, "Teenage Drug Use in Middle Class Milwaukee," in Wisconsin Medical J., 71:210-222, 1972. Johnston, L., Drugs and American Youth. U. of Mich., Inst. for Social Research, 1973. Kandel, D., "Inter and Intragenerational Influences on Adolescent Marijuana Use," in J. of Social Issues, 30:4, 107-135, 1974. Kelly, H.H., "Two Functions of Reference Groups," in G. Swanson, T. Newcomb, and E. Hartley, eds., Readings in Social Psychology. Henry Holt & Co., 1952. Kelman, H.C., "Processes of Opinion Change," in Public Opinion Quarterly, 25:l, 57-78, 1961. Kerlinger, F., and E. Pedhazur, Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973. Kinder, B.N., "Attitudes Toward Alcohol and Drug Abuse. I. Demographic and Correlational Data," in The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 10:4, 737-760, 1975a. Kinder, B.N., "Attitudes Toward Alcohol and Drug Abuse. II. Experimental Data, Mass Media Research and Methodo- logical Considerations," in The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 10:4, 1035-1054, 1975b. Kish, L., Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965. Klapper, J., The Effects of Mass Communication. The Free Press, 1960. Kline, F., P. Miller, and A. Morrison, "Communication Issues in Different Public Health Areas," Advances in Consumer Research, 3:290-294, 1976. Knight, R.C., J.P., Sheposh, and J.B. Bryson, "College Students Marijuana Use and Societal Alienation," in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, pp. 28-35, March, 1974. 260 Kowitz, A.C., and R.C. Clark, "Ways Youth Receive Infor- mation About Marijuana," Unpublished Manuscript. California State University, Sacramento, 1973. Krakowiak, P.A., "Morality and Marijuana Use," Presented at the Eastern Psychological Association Convention, April 22-24. Kramer, F., Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1975. Kuhn, M., "The Reference Group Reconsidered," in Socio- logical Quart., 5:l, 5-12, 1964. La Piere, R.T., "Attitudes vs. Action," in Social Forces, 13:230-237, 1934. Lerner, S., R.L. Linder, and J.C. Drolet, "Drugs in the High School," in J. Drug Educ., 4:4, 187-196, 1974. Linsky, A.S., "The Changing Public Views of Alcoholism," Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcoholism, 31: 692-704, 1970. LiPP. M., S. Benson, and Z. Taintor, "Marijuana Use by Medical Students," Amer. J. of Psyghiat., 128:4, 99-104, August 1971. Louria, D.B., The Drug Science, McGraw-Hill, 1968. Marin, G., "Correlatos Psicosociales del Uso de Farmacos Legales e Ilegales en Colombia," in Cuadernos Cientificos de CEMEF, 3:63-78, 1975. Marsh, R.M., Comparative Sociology. Harcourt, Brace and World, 1967. /McEwen, W.J., and G.J. Hanneman, "The Depiction of Drug Use in Television Programming," J. Drug Educ., 4:4, Fall, 1974. McEwen, W., with G.H. Wittbold, Dimensions of Response to Public Service Drug Abuse Information (Drug Abuse Information Research Project, Report No. 2). Com- munication Research Program, The University of Connecticut, 1972. McGlothlin, W.H., "Introduction: Chemical Comforts of Man: The Future," in The Journal of Social Issues, 27:4, 1-7, 1971. 261 McGuire, W.J., "The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change," in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds., The Handbook of Psychology. Add1son-Wesley, 1969. Mettlin, C., "Assessing the Effects of Interpersonal Influ- ence in the Attitude Formation Process." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, 1970. Mettlin, C., "Smoking as Behavior: Applying a Social Psy- chological Theory," in J. of Health and Social Behavior, 14:144-152, June 1973. Milavsky, R., B. Pekowsky, and H. Stipp, "TV Drug Advertis- ing and Proprietary and Illicit Drug Use Among Teen- age Boys," Public Opinionguarterly, 39:4, 457-481, 1975. Morales, E.A., A. Suarez and H.E. de Restrepo, "Estudio Sobre Farmacodependencia en la Poblaci6n Escolar de Medellin," in Cuadernos Cientificos de CEMEF, 3: 24-61, 1975. Morrison, A.J., F.G. Kline and P. Miller, "Aspects of Adolescence Information Acquisition About Drugs and Alcohol Topics," in D.E. Ostman, ed., Communication Research and Drug Education. Sage Publications, 1976. National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information, A Bibli- ography of Drungbuse Literature. Rockville, NatIonal Institute of Drug Abuse, 1972. National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Abuse in America: Problem in Perspective. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973. National Committee on Marijuana and Drug Use, "Marijuana Use in American Society," in Lee Rainwater, ed., Deviance and Liberty. Aldine, 1974. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana and Health: Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress From the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. Nellis, M., Resource Book for Drug Abuse Education, 2d ed. National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information. Washington, D.C., 1972. Nelson, 8., and T. Schmitz, "Drug Abuse in Michigan," in Mich. Mental Health Res. Bull., 3:4, 34-39, 1969. 262 Nie, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Strinbrenner, and D.H. Bent, SPSS: Statistical Packgge for the Social Sciences, 2d ed. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1975. Ostman, D.E., ed., Communication Research and Drug Educa- tion. Sage Publications, 1976. ’ Phares, E.J., and J.T. Lamiell, "Personality," in M.R. Rosenzweig and L.W. Porter, eds., Annual Review of Psychology, 113-140. Annual Reviews, 1977. Pollock, S.H., "Attitudes of Medical Students Toward Marijuana," Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 5:l, 56-61, 1972. Rainwater, L., ed., Social Problems and Public Policy. Aldine, 1974. Ray, M., and S. Ward, "Experimentation for Pretesting Public Health Programs: The Case of the Anti-Drug Abuse Campaigns," Advances in Consumer Research, 3:278-286, 1976. Reeves, B., "Predicting the Perceived Reality of Television Among Elementary School Children," Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Dept. of Communication, Michigan State University, 1974. Roberts, D., "The Nature of Communication Effects," in W. Schramm and D. Roberts, eds., The Process and Effects of Mass Communication. U. of IlIinois Press, 1971. Robinson, J., P. Pilskaln, and P. Hirsch, "Protest Rock and Drugs," Journal of Communication, 26:4, 125-136, 1976. Rogers, E.M., and F.F. Shoemaker, Communication of Innova- tions. The Free Press, 1971. Roloff, M., "An Application of Linear Force Aggregation Theory to the Relationship Between the Amount of Change Advocated in a Message and the Amount of Change Obtained," Unpublished Thesis, Dept. of Communication, Michigan State University, 1974. Rosenblith, J.F., W. Allinsmith, and J.P. Williams, 222 Causes of Behavlgr: Readings in Child Development and Educational Psychology, 3d ed. Allyn and Bacon, 1972. 263 Saltiel, J., and J. Woelfel, "Inertia in Cognitive Pro- cesses: The Role of Accumulated Information in Attitude Change," in Human Comm. Res., 1:4, 333- 344, 1975. — Sarason, I.G., and C.D. Spielberg, Stress and Anxiety. Hemisphere, 1975. Serota, K., "Communicative Influence and the Analysis of Changing Candidate Imates." Paper presented at the Southwestern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Dallas, 1976. Shepherd, C.R., Small Groups: Some Sociological Pergpec- tives. Chandler Publishing, 1964. Single, E., D. Kandel and R. Faust, "Patterns of Multiple Drug Use in High School," in J. of Health and Social Behavior, 15:344-357, 1974. Smart R., D. Fejer, "Credibility of Sources of Drug Infor- mation for High School Students," in J. of Drug Issues, 2:4, 8-18, 1972. Smart, R.G., and D. Fejer, "The Effects if High and Low Fear Messages About Drugs," Journal of Drug Educa- tion, 4:225-235, 1974. Smith, P.A., G. Trivay. D.A. Zuehlke, P. Lowinger, and T.L. Nghiem, "Health Information During a Week of Television," New England Journal of Medicine, 286: 516-520, March 9, 1972. Spevack, M., and R.O. Pihl, "Nonmedical Drug Use by High School Students: A Three-Year Survey Study," The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 11:4, 755-792, 1976. Spielberger, C.D., and I.G. Sarason, Stress and Anxiety. Hemisphere, 1975. Srole, L., "Social Integration and Certain Corollaries," in American Sociological Review, 21:709-716, 1956. Stetler, J.C., "Patterns of Prescription Drug Use: The Role of Promotion," in the J. of Drug Educ., 3:4, 389-402, Winter 1973. Stokes, J.P., "Personality Traits and Attitudes and Their Relationship to Student Drug Using Behavior," in The Int'l J. of the Additictions, 9:4, 267-287, 1974. 264 Streit, F., "The Importance of Significant Others in Youth's Decision Making About Drug Use and Other Deviant Acts," in J. Drug Educ., 4:409-419, 1974. Tec, N., "Some Aspects of High School Status and Differen- tial Involvement with Marijuana: A Study of Subur- ban Teenagers," in Adolescence, 6:44, 1-28, 1972. Thorndike, R.L., and E. Hagen, Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education, 2d ed. New York: John Wiley, 1961. Tolone, W., and S.D. Dermott, "Some Correlates of Drug Use Among High School Youth in a Midwestern Rural Com- munity," The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 10:4, 761- 777, 1975. Urdapilleta B.D., "The Problem of Drug Addiction in Mexico," in Advances in Mental Science II: Drug Dependence, eds., R. Harris, W. McIsaac and C. Schuster. The University of Texas Press, 1970. Vincent, M.L., "A Comparison of the Drug Habits and Attitudes of Alcohol and Marijuana Users," in J. Drug Educ., 2:4, 149-170, June 1972. Weick, K.E., "The Social Psychology of Organizing." Addison-Wesley, 1969. Weinstein, R.M., "The Imputation of Motivatives for Marijuana Behavior," The Int'l J. of the Addictions, 11:4, 571- 595, 1976. Weiss, W., "Effects of the Mass Media of Communication," in G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, eds., The Handbook of Social Psychology, V:77-l94. Addison-Wesley, 1969. Weiss, W., "Mass Communication," in Annual Review of Psy- chology, 22:309-336, 1971. Westley, B.H., and W.J. Severin, "Some Correlates of Media Credibility," in Journalism Quarterly, 41:4, 325- 331, 1964. Whitehead, P.C., and R. Smart, "Validity and Reliability of Self-Reported Drug Use," in S. Einstein and S. Allen, eds., Student Drug Surveys. Baywood, 1972. Wiener, R.S.P., Drugs and School Children. London: Longman, 1970 265 Wittenborn, J.R., J.P. Smith, and S.A. Wittenborn, Communication and Drqubuse. Charles C. Thomas, Publishers, 1970. Woelfel, J.,"Sociology and Science." Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Communication, Michigan State University, 1970. Woelfel, J., and A.O. Haller, "Significant Others, The Self-Reflective Act, and the Attitude Formation Process," in American Sociological Review, 36:l, 74-87, 1971. Woelfel, J., and D. Hernandez, "A Theory of Linear Force Aggregation in Attitude Formation and Change." Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Sociology. Univers- ity of Illinois, 1972. Woelfel, J., and D. Hernandez, "Media and Interpersonal Influence on Attitude Formation and Behavior." Unpublished manuscript, Dept. of Communication, Michigan State University, 1973. Woelfel, J., D. Hernandez, G. Wisan, and C. Mettlin, "A Theory of Force Aggregation in Attitude Formation and Change." Working paper, 1972. Woelfel, J., and J. Saltiel, "Cognitive Process as Motions in a Multidimensional Space." Unpublished manuscript. Dept. of Communication, Michigan State University, 1974. Woelfel, J., J. Woelfel, J. Gillham, and T. McPhail, "Political Radicalization as a Communication Pro- cess," in Comm. Research, 1:4, 243-263, 1974. Zimbardo, P.G., E.B. Ebbesen, and C. Maslach, Influencipg Attitudes and Changing Behavior, 2d ed. Addison- Wesley, 1977. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES WI ”MI W VllHll UNI NH ll WWI IWNNIHIWHII 31293103300889