Modeling the Etiology of Adolescent Substance Use: A Test of the Social Development Model

Abstract

The social development model is a general theory of human behavior that seeks to explain antisocial behaviors through specification of predictive developmental relationships. It incorporates the effects of empirical predictors ("risk factors" and "protective factors") for antisocial behavior and attempts to synthesize the most strongly supported propositions of control theory, social learning theory, and differential association theory. This article examines the power of social development model constructs measured at ages 9 to 10 and 13 to 14 to predict drug use at ages 17 to 18. The sample of 590 is from the longitudinal panel of the Seattle Social Development Project, which in 1985 sampled fifth grade students from high crime neighborhoods in Seattle, Washington. Structural equation modeling techniques were used to examine the fit of the model to the data. Although all but one path coefficient were significant and in the expected direction, the model did not fit the data as well as expected (CFI=.87). We next specified second-order factors for each path to capture the substantial common variance in the constructs' opportunities, involvement, and rewards. This model fit the data well (CFI=.90). We conclude that the social development model provides an acceptable fit to predict drug use at ages 17 to 18. Implications for the temporal nature of key constructs and for prevention are discussed.The social development model is a general theory of human behavior that hypothesizes similar developmental processes leading to either prosocial or antisocial outcomes (Catalano and Hawkins 1996;Hawkins and Weis 1985). The model takes a developmental life course perspective (Elliott 1994), specifying four submodels for specific periods in childhood and adolescence.The model is grounded in criminological theory and incorporates research on the etiology of different forms of antisocial behavior. It seeks to explain a broad range of distinct antisocial behaviors through specification of predictive developmental relationships. Antisocial behavior is defined here as the violation of legal codes, including those relative to age. This definition thus includes both violent and nonviolent offending and the illegal use of drugs.This article presents a test of the social development model in the context of drug abuse. In the analyses reported here, the model was tested for its fit in predicting adolescent substance use. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptData from a panel of the Seattle Social Development Project were utilized in the test. Drug use measured when youth were 17 to 18 years old was predicted by social development model constructs measured when subjects were 9 to 10 and 13 to 14 years old. Overview of the TheoryThe social development model incorporates a growing body of knowledge regarding the effects of empirical predictors, or "risk factors," in the development of antisocial behavior. It is clear empirically that multiple biological, psychological, and social factors at mult...

The dynamics of alcohol and marijuana initiation: patterns and predictors of first use in adolescence

“…[36][37][38] This model integrates key features of control, 39 social learning, 40 and differential association 41 theories to specify the roles of parental and peer influences, social bonding, normative beliefs, and other factors predictive of children's behavior. In brief, the model hypothesizes that children learn patterns of behavior, whether prosocial or antisocial, from socializing agents such as family members, peers, and others.…”

The Role of Risk and Protective Factors in Substance Use Across Adolescence

“…A common feature of these studies is the use of combined indicators from the domains (community, school, family, and peers) into a single cross-domain composite factor. Although this methodology offers certain advantages [14], it obviates the ability to explore some central questions.First, there is ambiguity about the interrelations among risk and protective factors and, more precisely, the relations between different risk factors and specific adolescent outcomes [18,19]. Research indicates variation in the magnitude of relations and that generally, risk factors are more influential than protective factors [20,21].…”

“…The SDM proposes that development of attachments depends on perceived opportunities for involvement in either prosocial or antisocial activities as well as the level of perceived rewards for involvement in the activities. Support for the SDM has been shown for a variety of adolescent outcomes [14,15] and across gender and income groups as well as developmental periods [16,17]. A common feature of these studies is the use of combined indicators from the domains (community, school, family, and peers) into a single cross-domain composite factor.…”

“…A common feature of these studies is the use of combined indicators from the domains (community, school, family, and peers) into a single cross-domain composite factor. Although this methodology offers certain advantages [14], it obviates the ability to explore some central questions.…”

Personal Control and Responsibility Measure: A Psychometric Evaluation

“…Consistently, the PYD literature has found that participation in activities that provide these opportunities for youth (e.g., after school programs) play a role in healthy adolescent development and resilience (Catalano et al, 1996;Furstenberg & Hughes, 1995;Ramirez-Valles, Zimmerman, & Juarez, 2000;Zimmerman & Maton, 1992). As suggested by Marsh (1992) and highlighted by Zimmerman and colleagues (2011), participation in out-ofschool programs leads to the development of a positive self-concept and an increased sense of control, allowing youths to develop social and cognitive skills, competency, socio-environmental mastery and establish connections with positive adult role models, pro-social peers, and community institutions.…”