Young adult social development as a mediator of alcohol use disorder symptoms from age 21 to 30.

Abstract

Little research has examined social development in the young adult years relative to childhood and adolescence. This study tested the hypothesized pathways of the social development model (SDM) in young adulthood for predicting symptoms of alcohol use disorder (AUD) and positive functioning at age 30. A longitudinal panel study originally drawn from Seattle, Washington, elementary schools was examined. The sample included 808 participants with high retention and was gender balanced and ethnically diverse. Analyses focused on ages 21, 27, and 30. SDM constructs were assessed with self-reports of past-year behavior and combined multiple life domains. AUD symptoms corresponding to DSM-IV criteria were assessed using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Positive functioning combined measures of constructive engagement in work and school, civic engagement, physical exercise, and lack of depressive symptoms. The study found that AUD symptoms were moderately stable from age 21 to 30; however, developmental pathways hypothesized by the SDM at age 27 played a significant role in partially mediating this association. Alcohol-specific factors were key mediating mechanisms, whereas prosocial factors played little role. Conversely, prosocial factors had an important role in predicting positive functioning at age 30, while there were no significant pathways involving alcohol-specific factors. Findings suggest that age 27 is not too late for interventions targeting adult social development to help diminish alcohol use disorder symptoms by age 30. Alcohol-specific factors such as reducing perceived opportunities or rewards for heavy alcohol use or challenging beliefs accepting of drunkenness are likely to be key ingredients of effective adult interventions.

Developmental pathways of youth gang membership: a structural test of the social development model

“…However, sensitivity analyses exploring the issue of temporality in the current analyses suggested little to no differences in model fit and path estimates as a result of excluding youth who joined a gang during the SDM construct measurement period. Furthermore, prior SDM tests where model constructs (predictor variables) explicitly temporally preceded outcomes related to gang membership (e.g., violence, alcohol use, substance use) yielded results highly consistent with the present study (see for example, Catalano et al, 1996; Huang et al, 2001; Kosterman et al, 2014; and Longzak et al, 2001). Additional tests of the SDM’s prediction of gang membership with clear temporal ordering are warranted to support the present findings.…”

“…These include substance use, misuse, and dependence (Brown, Catalano, Fleming, Haggerty, & Abbott, 2005; Catalano, Kosterman, Hawkins, Newcomb, & Abbott, 1996; Catalano et al, 2005; Fleming, Brewer, Gainey, Haggerty, & Catalano, 1997; Kosterman, Hill, Lee, Meacham, Abbott, Catalano, & Hawkins, 2014; Lonczak, Huang, Catalano, Hawkins, Hill, Abbott, Ryan, & Kosterman, 2001; O’Donnell, Hawkins, & Abbott, 1995; Sullivan & Hirschfield, 2011); delinquency and antisocial behavior (Brown, Catalano, Fleming, Haggerty, & Abbott, 2005; Catalano et al, 2005; Kosterman, Haggerty, Spoth, & Redmond, 2004; Sullivan & Hirschfield, 2011); violence (Catalano et al, 2005; Herrenkohl et al, 2001; Huang et al, 2001; Kim, 2009); school problems (Catalano et al, 2005); and other child problem behavior (Catalano, Oxford, Harachi, Abbott, & Haggerty, 1999; Fleming, Catalano, Oxford, & Harachi, 2002; Sullivan & Hirschfield, 2011). Partial tests of the SDM have also provided empirical support for the model’s predictive ability to identify causes of school problems (Kim, 2000); substance use (Choi, Harachi, Gillmore, & Catalano, 2005; Kim, 2000); delinquency and antisocial behavior (Deng & Roosa, 2007; Kim, 2000); aggression (Deng & Roosa, 2007; Kim, 2000); externalizing behavior (Roosa, Zeiders, Knight, Gonzalez, Tein, Saenz, O’Donnell, & Berkel, 2011); and violence (Choi et al, 2005) in diverse samples.…”

Adolescent predictors of alcohol use in adulthood: A 22-year longitudinal study

“…35 In this study by Kosterman and colleagues, 35 the findings supported the social development model which specifies the etiological pathways to antisocial and prosocial outcomes. An individual who uses alcohol may socialize more easily with drinkers and consequently is more likely to bond to alcohol-using peers.…”

Trajectories of marijuana use from adolescence into adulthood: Environmental and individual correlates.

“…Average Cronbach’s alpha for the two types of bonding was .61. Constructive engagement was a 12-item index that measured how much time participants spent on activities that promote positive functioning, such as at work, at home (raising children), or in school (for details on the measure construction, see Hawkins, Kosterman, Catalano, Hill, & Abbott, 2005; Kosterman et al, 2014; Kosterman et al, 2011). …”