For research on 1) Abstinence-Oriented vs. More Permissive Religions; 2) Studies of Children of Alcoholics; 3) Studies of Children of Parents Abusing Other Substances; 4) Heredity Factors; 5) Parental Approval or Disapproval of Underage Drinking; 6) Drinking At Home; 7) Other Parental Factors see below:

Abstinence-Oriented vs. More Permissive Religions

Fourteen studies below looked at the impact of religion, especially religion advocating abstinence, on drinking and alcohol-related problems. Religions advocating abstinence have been repeatedly faulted by some academics who claim that this advocating of abstinence is causing more people to become abusive drinkers. However, in study after study, religions advocating abstinence do better than those not encouraging abstinence in having fewer of their followers develop alcohol problems. One minor exception to this in some studies is that Jewish people also do fairly well. No study has analyzed within the Jewish religion for parental drinking levels, i.e. whether light and very light drinking Jewish parents have fewer offspring with alcohol problems than moderate or heavy drinking parents. In a couple more recent, albeit small studies, Jewish offspring actually faired rather poorly, especially in the area of other drugs. It could be that Jewish people have an inherited partial resistance to alcoholism and/or that their traditional tightly controlled religious use of alcohol explains their lower overall rate of alcoholism.

Skolnick (1958) looked at the religious affiliation of 387 college students chosen at random from Jewish, Episcopalian, Methodist, and "NAAB's" (agnostics with parents from denominations preaching abstinence) background drawn from the 1949-51 survey of Straus and Bacon from 15,747 students from 27 colleges. Why such a small sample was chosen is not explained. The Methodists were noted to favor total abstinence although Skolnick notes their stand had softened considerably emphasizing only that children shouldn't drink. Episcopal church was more permissive though opposing drunkenness while the Jewish were strongly against drunkenness but incorporated drinking into ritual practices. The study looked at only the drinking students of the various religions although abstinence was higher by the Methodists (30%), than the Episcopalians (11%). It was noted that by age 11 92% of Jewish students drank, 58% of Episcopalian, 28% of Methodist and 32% of NAAB's had begun alcohol usage. Skolnick noted that when the Methodist and NAAB's did have their first drink, it was much more likely in a commercial place (75% vs. 45% for the other two.) The implication is that this is a sign of undesirable behavior although it is more likely a sign simply of a later age of drinking initiation. Of the drinkers, 31% of Episcopalians were heavy drinkers drinking more than once a week, 21% of Methodist, 22% of NAAB's and 9% of Jewish were in this category. However, if the 30% of Methodist abstainers were included, only 14% of Methodists were heavy drinkers, probably not statistically different from the Jewish population and much less than the Episcopalians.

Jews were actually the strongest represented in the lightest drinking group. Skolnick uses a chi-square analysis of a table of lifetime frequencies of intoxication which he notes is highly significant, although this is due only to the inclusion of Jewish data. 55% of the Jewish drinkers were never intoxicated vs. 20% of Episcopalians, 17% of Methodists, and 18% of NAAB's. Skolnick stresses that fewer Episcopalian drinkers got intoxicated, however this difference is the difference of three individuals because of the very small size of the study and certainly not statistically significant. Also, four more Methodists fall into the category of getting intoxicated one to five times while the drinking Episcopalians lead in the frequent intoxication group by one percent. If abstainers are also included then 55% of Episcopalians vs. 42% of Methodists were intoxicated five or more times. A somewhat higher percent of Episcopalian drinkers report never having complications (61% vs. 50%), but this difference again disappears if all are included. Since 66% of Episcopalians and only 42% of Methodists reported they were tolerant of drunkenness, it is even possible that Methodists were more likely to note and recall complications of their own drinking behavior. Skolnick concludes, "Abstinence teachings, by associating drinking with intemperance, inadvertently encourage intemperance in those students of abstinence background who disregard the injunction not to drink." Skolnick's conclusion is not at all supported by his own data in this very small study. He does note that Methodist students who were more active in church had lower rates of social complications than those who were less active. The marked differences for the Jewish population could well be related to genetic differences rather than ritualistic family drinking behavior. Skolnick did not look at the actual drinking by parents. Skolnick's erroneous conclusions are repeated by others including Globetti.

Cahalan (1968) did a national face-to-face survey of 2746 persons in 1965 with a 90% completion rate. He did note that heavy drinkers were almost twice as likely to initially refuse to cooperate and needed repeated visits in order to be interviewed. Abstainers made up 32% of his survey with very light 15%, light 28%, moderate drinkers at 13% and heavy at 12%. Drinking was lowest in the East South Central states (35%) vs. highest for the Mid-Atlantic (83%) and for New England (79%). Males were 28% heavy drinkers vs. 8% for females. Drinking tended to be somewhat more common with higher status although heavy drinking was more evenly spread.

The percentage of heavy drinking very closely paralleled the percentage of drinkers in each region with the East South Central having by a large margin the lowest percent of drinkers and heavy drinkers (5.2%). Heavy drinking was highest in the Mid-Atlantic (19%) and New England (15.8%) with the other six regions intermediate with the heavier drinking Pacific (15.3%) and East North Central (12.7%) also the regions with a higher percentage of drinkers.

College grads had the highest proportion of drinking and a slightly higher rate of heavy drinking although not of escape drinking. While Cahalan claims that the escape drinking group contains the large majority of alcoholics, he provides no evidence for this. Escape drinkers answered positively to questions of drinking to relax, forget, forget worries, cheer up, and relieve tension and nervousness.

Interestingly, farmers had the lowest frequency of drinking (44%) and by far the lowest frequency of heavy drinking (5.8%) and escape drinking (2%). Unfortunately, like Skolnick, Cahalan reports his heavy and escape drinking categories only as the percentage of drinkers instead of the percentage of the population as a whole. Thus, professionals with 81% drinking, appear to have the lowest percentage of heavy drinkers (11% of professionals who drink vs. 14% of farmers who drink). However, actually 8.9% of all professionals are heavy drinkers, significantly higher than for farmers (5.8%). Similarly, adults with a grammar school education appear to have the highest percentage of escape drinking (11%) by educational level but this is of the 53% of grammar school adults who drink at all. Overall, those who completed high school or some college, of whom 74% drank, had the highest percentage of escape drinkers (7.4%) with college grads (4.9% escape drinkers and 82% overall drinkers) the only group doing better than the grammar school adults (5.8% of all grammar school adults were escape drinkers).

By religion, it is reported that although Jews (92%) and Episcopalians (91%) had the highest percentage of drinkers, that they had a "lower proportion of heavy and escape drinkers" than Methodist and Baptists of whom 66% and 47% drank at all. Again, this distorts the true findings since the proportion of heavy and escape drinking is calculated by excluding the non-drinkers. If the non-drinkers are included, then the Methodists and even more so Baptists, have the lower percentages of heavy and escape drinkers overall for these four religions (Jews 10.1% heavy and 7.4% escape; Episcopalians 11.8% and 5.5%; Methodists 9.9% and 4.6%; Baptists 8.0% and 4.7%). "Other conservative Protestants" actually had still better figures of 36% drinkers, 2.3% heavy drinkers, and 1.8% escape drinkers. These figures demonstrate the opposite of what Cahalan's technique of displaying the data appears to show. The actual figures show that religions that promote abstinence and practice relatively higher rates of abstinence will have the fewest individuals with drinking problems. Catholics with the next highest proportion of drinkers (83%) did most poorly in the heavy drinking (19.1%) and escape drinking (9.1%) categories. Jews may be somewhat protected by genetics and Episcopalian figures may have benefited from the general downward drift socioeconomically of families of alcoholics who would then have tended to drop out of the traditionally higher class Episcopalian church. The relatively more frequent drinking Lutherans (81%) also faired poorly in the heavy drinking category (15.3%) although not so badly in the escape drinking (5.7%). Catholic men had the highest proportion of heavy drinkers (27.4%).

The trends by nationalities were more mixed and there was only a small general trend for nationalities where drinking was less common to manifest less heavy and escape drinking as well. Drinking by women was noted to be on the upturn with 47% of women 60 and older never drinking vs. 25% of those aged 21-29. Gallup polls found that drinking decreased in the U.S. from 1947 (63%) to 1958 (55%) and turned upward again (65% in 1966). Overall, Cahalan's study supports the concept that the advocating of abstinence is in general accompanied not only by an increased frequency of abstinence, but also be a decreased frequency of heavy and problem drinking, although he interprets the data quite differently.

In Cahalan's study he also uses a category of heavy-escape drinkers with the unproven suggestion that these are more serious problem drinkers. The percentages of heavy-escape drinkers tends to closely parallel the trends in heavy drinking overall with a few minor exceptions, e.g. college grads had the lowest percent of heavy escape drinking.

Globetti (1973) sampled only 132 students in rural Mississippi in 10th to 12th grades, a very small sample.  He interviewed them in groups of 25 with a written survey, not a very sensitive method. The community had a strongly Protestant religious orientation against alcohol. Only 25% of the students drank alcohol which the author says compares to 60% to 90% reported in other studies of teenagers. He notes that 30% of the drinkers or 7.5% of the total sample reported drinking at least once a week. The same percentage were classified as excessive drinkers, i.e. those who had been inebriated once or twice during the month immediately preceding the survey. These two groups largely overlapped. Abstainers were significantly more active in church. Globetti claims that his studies show that when young people in abstinence cultures drink, that there are more drinking problems. He speculates that abstinence cultures actually foster an inebriate pattern of drinking. He says, "the prohibitionist's voice is out of date" and claims that "applying the costs-benefits criterion to an analysis of teenage drinking in an abstinence setting would suggest an over-balance on the cost side."

Unfortunately, Globetti did not have a control group from a drinking culture nor did he report on parental drinking habits. He published no figures on a cost-benefit analysis. A study by Botvin (1984) from New York City of 8th graders allows some comparison since a very similar percentage of young people were drinkers. A total of 26% of these much younger children drank alcohol with 14% reported getting drunk at least once a month. This is twice the frequency of inebriate behavior as in Globetti's survey suggesting that children in an abstinence society, when they do drink, may actually drink more moderately than in a more heavy drinking society that condones adult consumption. This latter relationship is compatible with the findings of several larger, more recent studies which directly sample the necessary data to make such comparisons.

In a study by Linsky (1986) he makes a bizarre interpretation of his results that alcohol problems appear to be a response to strong cultural disapproval of drinking. He had calculated the amount of proscriptive norm by state based upon populations living in legally dry areas, controls on sale, and percentage of Mormons and Fundamentalists. He drew his conclusion because DUI arrests are higher in proscriptive states compared to moderate or permissive states. However, a survey of 21,000 adults shows 50% more self-report DUI driving in permissive states, suggesting that DUI enforcement was much more strict in proscriptive states but that there was less drunk driving in proscriptive states. Alcohol consumption and death from cirrhosis were also strongly linked to proscriptive states.

A more recent religious study by Lorch (1988) makes the same mistake of reporting heavy beer, tobacco, marijuana, amphetamine, and cocaine use as a percentage of only the users, not of all members of a faith. With this type of reporting, a church could have 1 member out of 10,000 that drank alcohol and if that member were an alcoholic drinker, these researchers would conclude that 100% of the drinkers of that church were alcoholic and suggest that that church was creating alcoholics. In the end, even when looking only at church members who used substances, for every substance there was a trend for churches in which a smaller percentage of its members used a substance, that those that did use were somewhat less likely to be heavy users than for churches where a higher percentage of members used. For instance, the Latter Day Saints had the fewest members who ever tried alcohol (52%) and of those only 13% were heavy users, also the smallest percentage. But of all Latter Day Saints, only 6.7% were heavy users.

In Lorch's study, Jewish students faired poorly having the highest percentages of heavy alcohol, heavy tobacco, heavy amphetamine, heavy marijuana, and heavy cocaine use of any religion. 87% of Jews drank beer and 23% of these were heavy users or 20% for all Jewish students. Although Lorch's study doesn't include attendance, when studies look and attendance and religiosity, these factors are always have a much more powerful impact than denomination membership per se. Thus, those who reject the abstinence message are not more likely to drink heavily and those who are most exposed to the abstinence message do best.

Engs (1980) compared 3719 Canadian and 1428 American college students. The Americans drank more and had more alcohol related problems. Protestants from churches opposed to alcohol had less consumption than Roman Catholics and Protestants not opposed to alcohol (9.98 vs 13.2 drinks per week). Canadian Roman Catholics (2.61 problems) and Protestants from churches not opposed to alcohol (2.56) suffer more problems than did Protestants not allowed to drink (2.25) and Jewish students (1.72). These figures paralleled the levels of drinking. American Jews (3.90 problems), by contrast, drank as much as Catholics and Protestants from drinking churches and had the most problems while Protestants from non-drinking churches (2.80) had the least drinking and fewest problems. The analysis included only drinking students. Abstaining was likely higher from churches opposed to alcohol and would have made the figures even more favorable for students from those churches if the abstaining students were included in the analysis.

African-American students who were drinkers were noted to be less likely to be moderate or heavy drinkers when compared to European-Americans (Rachal, 1975). This is consistent with the concept that drinkers from most families, cultures or subcultures with a larger percentage of abstainers are less likely to be heavy drinkers. Nationality examples of this would be Singapore (Isralowitz) and Sri Lanka (Samarasinghe, 1987). However, in the case of American Indians and the Irish (O'Connor) there exists both a large percentage of abstainers and a large percentage of heavy and abusive drinkers. In such cultures, the high level of abstaining is almost certainly a reaction to the heavy damage of alcohol to the culture rather than the cause of the damage. Perhaps there is an hereditary predisposition for these nationalities.

Rachel (1975) also found in a survey of 13,122 high school students that highly religious students were much more likely to be abstainers and much less likely to be heavy drinking. The South had the highest level of abstaining and lowest of drinking in all categories except "infrequent."

Kane (1972) studied 19,929 high school students in Kentucky. Catholic boys were more likely to be heavy drinkers (41% vs 32%) and less likely to be non-drinkers (16% vs 57%) when compared to Protestants.

Biggs (1974) gave a questionnaire to 465 University of Minnesota undergrads. Atheists, agnostics, and Jews were the most numerous and heaviest users of marihuana. Conservative Protestants used alcohol less and fewer had been intoxicated. Catholics, liberal Protestants, and atheists were the most likely to have been intoxicated at least 12 times in the year. Negative attitudes towards parents correlated with marijuana, but not alcohol use.

Schlegel (1979) looked at 1750 high school students in Ontario. Those from "proscriptive" Protestant backgrounds, i.e. Baptists, Mennonites, and members of the Salvation Army, were least likely to drink (60% vs. 95%) and least likely to be heavy drinkers (5% vs. 20%). Schlegel says his research rejects the hypothesis that proscriptive Protestants who drink have a high rate of heavy drinking. This was true even of proscriptive Protestants who attended church only five times a year. Still less active or inactive proscriptive Protestant students were similar to nonattenders of other religions in having considerably higher heavy drinking rates (25%-30%).

Hawks (1992) looked at the alcohol consumption of children of Mormons and other other religions in Utah. While age of initiation was latest for Mormons, all other religions except Jews had a lower percentage of Utahns using alcohol than their national counterparts. This at least suggests a positive rather than negative impact by Mormons on others in their state either through modelling or legal systems or both.

Studies of Children of Alcoholics

Harburg reports in his prospective study of 420 youths, that the children of problem drinkers drank less heavily than the children of heavy drinkers who were not problem drinkers. Many other studies, however, do show an increase in substance abuse problems in the children of alcoholics, although these studies don't make a comparison to the offspring of heavy drinking parents who aren't recognized as having an alcohol problem by the offspring.

While some studies of children of alcoholics have found an increase in drinking problems, a number have not. Callan (1986) found that a higher percentage of 35 children of alcoholics reported abstinence from alcohol (57%) than did the control group with non-alcoholic parents (37%). Schulsinger (1986) study of 134 children of alcoholics at age 19-20, no subjects were alcoholic and had drinking patterns similar to their peers. In a small study, Alterman (1986) reported college-age children of alcoholics were drinking somewhat less than their peers although only marginally less. Johnson (1989) looked at 105 intact families with alcoholic fathers who were actively drinking, or depressed fathers or normal control fathers. There were no difference between children of alcoholics and other youth in alcohol use, drinking contexts, or attitudes although the children of alcoholics were more likely to use drugs.

Cotton's review (1979) of 39 studies reports that alcoholic offspring are more frequently associated with alcoholic parents, especially for alcoholic daughters. "Two thirds of the studies found that at least 25% had fathers who were alcoholics.... According to half of the estimates, maternal alcoholism occurred in fewer than 5% of the alcoholics' families; in the remaining 14 studies, it was reported to occur in from 6 to 27% of the alcoholics' families. A large percentage of alcoholics, ranging from 47% to 82% of the samples reviewed do not come from families in which one or both parents were alcoholics."

Goodwin (1971) says "every family study of alcoholism, irrespective of country of origin, has shown much higher rates of alcoholism among the relatives of alcoholics than apparently occurs in the general population."

Christiansen did find problem parental drinking related to adolescent drinking behavior although it explained only a very small percentage of the variance.

Parker (1988) reports a representative national survey of the U.S. of 1772 adults. He found that having parents who have been alcohol abusers places sons at risk for problem drinking (13% vs. 4%) with a trend in the same direction for daughters. Both were also at an increased risk for divorce or separation and daughters for depression.

Pandian (1990) followed 1,380 teens and parents and found children of alcoholics did not differ from other youth on age of first intoxication, frequency of intoxication and drug use., or consequences of substance use. However, the children of alcoholics reported having an alcohol or drug problem or having been in treatment twice as often (12% vs. 6%).

Roosa (1988) studying high school students found children of problem drinking parents did drinking more often although the difference was not statically significant.

Orenstein (1993) studied 277 11th grades. Students who said their parents had been treated for alcohol and drug problems were more likely to be smoking cigarettes (24% vs 39%), drinking alcohol (46% vs 61%), getting drunk (31% vs 46%), using marijuana (11% vs 28%) and other drugs (3% vs 14%) in the previous two weeks.

Studies of Children of Parents Abusing Other Substances

Annis examined multiple-drug use between family members and found significant associations between them, e.g. adolescent alcohol use was related to mother's and father's use of cigarettes. (Annis, 1974).

Nine of eleven studies show that parental smoking increases smoking by their children (Borland, 1975, Bynner, 1969, Charlton, 1984, Charlton, 1989, Gottlieb, 1982, Hover, 1988, McKennel, 1967, Murray, 1985, Rawbone, 1979). There are, as noted, two studies not finding this effect (Ledwith, 1984, McNeill, 1989). Parental attitudes about smoking are also found to have an impact more often than not(Eiser, 1989, Newman, 1989, Nolte, 1983, Penny, 1988).

Teens tend not only to emulate parental substance use behaviors, but to generalize this imitative pattern to the use of illicit drugs as well as licit ones (Louria, 1968; Lawrence, 1970; Shade, 1971, Hochman, 1973, Annis, 1974). Families with a drug-abusing member are characterized by multigenerational chemical dependency (Stanton, 1979; Stanton, 1981; Needle, 1986). Teens from families in which one or more members smoke, drink, or take drugs are more likely to use substances than teens whose family members do not use substances (Barnes, 1986). Overall substance abuse by mothers and by fathers was found associated with increased substance abuse by their teen offspring although the difference for fathers failed to reach statistical significance (Needle, 1988). The influence of parents has been found to be weaker than that of peers and siblings, although the studies have been unable to factor in how much teen selection of peers is influence directly and indirectly by parents. Although Kandel (1978) did not find parental alcohol use related to adolescent marijuana use, Dull (1992) did find such a relationship.

Lawrence (1974) surveyed 1416 suburban upper-middle class New York City high school students in 1970. Parental alcohol, tobacco, and pill-taking habits were significantly associated with teen drug use (p < .001). Non-drinking parents and parents who were never drunk had the fewest marijuana smoking offspring. Parents who drank two or more drinks per session had more children marijuana smokers and parental drunkenness had a marked effect.Non-smoking by non-drinking mothers had a sizeable positive addictive effect in having fewer offspring using marijuana.Parental tranquilizer use was also correlated with teen marijuana and barbiturate abuse. Parental conflict, i.e. parents often fighting, was associated with increased student drug use. Peer drug use was very highly correlated with student drug use. Mother and father tranquilizer use and drunkenness were highly related to each other. Student underachievement, as determined by comparing student verbal SAT scores with school class rank, was strongly related to student drug use. School drug education efforts and student knowledge of drug laws were unrelated to levels of drug use.

Meller (1988) also found person admitted to an inpatient chemical dependency unit for non-alcoholic substances had stronger family histories of abuse of nonalcoholic substances. Cadoret (1986) in an extensive adoption study of genetic and environmental factors in drug abuse, found drug abuse strongly correlated with a biologic background of alcoholism in non-antisocial probands, even when environmental factors were controlled. Schere (1973) showed a high correlation between tranquilizer use in parents and both tranquilizer and cannabis abuse by their college-age children. Fawzy (1983) found a 78% prevalence of substance use in adolescent children of parents who admitted to the use of marijuana or hashish. Annis (1974) found an association between alcohol use in parents and children, as well as an association between the use of pain killers by parents and children.

Lawrence (1974) found that New York City suburban upper-middle class high school student drug use in 1416 students was strongly associated with parental alcohol use as measured by the combination of frequency of drinking, number of drinks per occasion and frequency of intoxication by parents. This was true for both marijuana and LSD use by the students.

Scherer (1971, 73) also found in 100 Toronto college illicit drug users that offspring of non-drinking or seldom drinking fathers and mothers were much less likely to be "hard" drug users, occasional drinking parents' offspring were intermediate and frequent or very frequently drinking parents were much more likely to have offspring fall into the hard drug using category (p<.001). Both maternal and paternal alcohol use were strongly related to cannabis and LSD usage by their children. Scherer concludes, "The parental environment may play a major role in the child's subsequent drug-taking behavior." Schneider (1977) found in a study of 1506 Thailand high schoolers, 65% of illicit drug users vs 48% of non-users had a parent who drank alcohol. Smart (1970) also found that marijuana and LSK users more often had parents who were users of alcohol and tobacco than did non-users.

Newcomb (1986) found student drug use in 10th to 12th grade significantly related to their perceptions of their parents' drug use.

Opiate use is associated with a high prevalence of familial drug addiction (Rounsaville, 1982). A Pakistan study found opium addicts with a family history of opium use before such use was made illegal in 1979 started to use at an earlier age (Chaudhry, 1991).

Tec (1974) found non-drinking parents to have the fewest marijuana smoking teens and excessive drinking parents to have the most although teen-reported family characteristics were still more strongly linked to teen marijuana usage.

Heredity Factors

While research shows unquestionably that heredity plays an important role in increasing the frequency of alcoholism in families with such a past history, no studies have yet been done on the effects of heredity on the development of alcohol problems in the non-alcoholic family. Hughes (1985) did do a survey of teetotalers vs other church members in England. Teetotalers were more likely to report blood relatives with alcohol problems (54% vs 33%) and more likely report drinking problems in children although the numbers were small.

Goodwin (1973) looked at the adopted away sons of alcoholics and found they were four times more likely to become alcoholics but no more likely to become moderate, heavy, or problem drinkers. Thus, the role of heredity causing problem drinking and its role in a large percentage of cases of alcoholics may be minor compared to environmental factors and, of course, the addictiveness of alcohol itself.

Even in cases with strong hereditary predisposition, environment can and does play a very major role. For instance, research suggests that in a society where heredity accounts for 50% of the variance in alcoholism, if a change in important environmental factors, e.g. a sizeable increase in taxation and restrictions to access, were to cut overall consumption of alcohol in half, the rate of alcoholism in both predisposed and non-predisposed families would both be reduced by a large and probably equal percentage. Heredity would probably still account for about half of the variance under the new environmental circumstances but there would be much less alcoholism.

No one has suggested decreasing the fertility rates of families afflicted with a predisposition to alcoholism. No study has yet demonstrated any intervention specifically aimed at these families has been effective in decreasing the percentage of offspring who go on to develop alcohol problems. However, numerous studies have shown dramatic decreases and increases in alcohol consumption and alcoholism from various social interventions over the past several hundred years in various countries around the world. In other words, it is very hard to change heredity, but much easier to change the environment if only social forces favoring the promotion and sale of alcohol (i.e. the alcohol industry) can be overcome.

Parental Approval or Disapproval of Underage Drinking

Every one of the 14 studies listed below that has looked at parental approval or disapproval of underage drinking has found that strong parental disapproval decreases underage drinking. The studies which differentiated weak parental disapproval vs strong parental disapproval have always found that the children whose parents strongly disapproved were least least to drink or have alcohol problems. The several studies that have also looked at underage alcohol abuse show that parental disapproval also decreases alcohol abuse.

Aitken(1988) in Scotland found that parents not strongly against under-age drinking were considerably more likely to have children who were under-age drinkers. He also found peer-drinking and being able to identify and enjoying alcohol advertising as important factors differentiating non-drinkers from drinkers.

Jessor (1975) found parents had more influence on drinking than peers while Margulies (1977) and Smart (1978) found the reverse.

Guinn (1978) studied 1222 Rio Grande high school students, mostly Mexican-Americans, and found alcohol use negatively correlated with parental approval and awareness.

Biddle (1980) looked at both parental norms and behavior. He found that parents were more likely to influence adolescent drinking in his study through the standards they set, rather than the behavior they model.

Casswell (1982) showed that the normative standards parents set and enforce for their children's drinking are also important.

Parental approval of drinking in high school was mildly correlated with being a problem drinker seven years later (Donovan, 1983). Also, problem drinkers in high school were more likely to still be problem drinkers at follow-up when compared to non-problem drinkers although many were no longer problem drinkers and a sizeable number of non-problem drinkers had become problem drinkers.

Gonzalez GM (1983) found University students introduced to alcohol by parents or with their parents' approval were less likely to experience alcohol-related problems later in life than those whose parents did not know of their first drink however at least one study has found the opposite.

Wilks (1984, 1988) showed that parents' general attitudes toward alcohol have a significant impact on their offsprings drinking.

Bank (1985) did a four-nation study. Teen norms were predicted by parental norms in Australia, and most by peer norms in the U.S.

Barnes (1986) found in a study of 27,335 high school students more considerably abstaining by black males and females vs. white (lighter black drinking has been reported in numerous studies back to at least 1975). Peer modeling effects were noted by Barnes but parental drinking was not recorded. Parental approval of drinking and first intoxication were also linked to heavy, problem drinking. Strong parental disapproval vs. mild parental disapproval was linked to fewer drinking (59% vs 95%). School grades and conduct were strongly inversely linked to being a drinker.

Ghodsian M, Power C (1987) report that those illegally drinking in taverns at 16 were more likely than those drinking at home to be heavy drinkers at age 23 although the difference wasn't large. Those not drinking at at 16 either at home or in taverns were considerably less likely to be heavy drinkers at age 23.

Kline (1987) in a study of 499 10th to 12th graders found parental norms to be more highly related than peer norms to the students' alcohol use.

Beck (1991) found however that parents of high school students had low levels of awareness of the extent of teen drinking, low levels of control over teen drinking, and a feeling of detachment from other parents. They were quite receptive to receiving training in substance abuse issues.

Cherry (1991) surveyed 466 college seniors. Perceived parental approval of teen drinking, and drinking standards had a moderate effect on alcohol use, with Tolerance of Minor Deviance having the strongest causal effect. The factors explained 81% of the variance in current alcohol use.

Drinking At Home

Harford (1983) studied 13,122 American 6th to 12th graders in a national questionnaire. He found that of those who drink, drinking at home at ages 12 and 13 was considerably more common than drinking with friends. By age 14-15, drinking at home and also with peers became the most common pattern, followed by home alone. Only 12% of drinkers reporting drinking only with peers. At all ages, those who drank at home and with peers drank more frequently than those who drank only with peers or those who drank only at home. Binge drinking showed no difference between the two groups with both groups showing high levels of binge drinking.

Kane (1972) reports that 60% of first alcohol use by 19,000 Kentucky junior high students was in the home. Seventy-four percent had had at least one drink and 55% considered themselves drinkers. The reason for taking a first drink was curiosity (53%), parents' or relatives' offer (32%), or friends' encouragement (8%) and to get drunk (7%). Eleven percent had already used false ID to buy alcohol. Half obtained their alcohol from parents or relatives. Thirty-four percent of the drinkers drank more than six drinks on a drinking occasion.

Although Ghodsian (1986) reports that British young people drinking only at home at age 16 are less likely to be heavy drinkers at age 23 than those who illegally drank only in public houses at age 16, the differences were small. Also, as noted above, in the U.S. the clear majority of those drinking with their families at ages 12 and 13 are already also drinking with peers by age 15. By looking at those drinking only at home, there is the risk of artificially selecting out a somewhat lower risk group.

Other Parental Factors

Quite a number of studies have looked at parent-child relationship and other factors. These have usually been found to be significant. Parental warmth and intact original two parent families have also been repeatedly shown to have lower levels of substance abuse. Increased family flexibility, decreased parent-child strain, decreased stressful events in the teen's life also are associated with less substance abuse. Lack of parental involvement in the child's activities, unconventionality of parents and weak parental discipline have been linked with increased child alcohol use (Murray '85; Beschner '85). Peer disapproval of alcohol use and of marijuana use was also found strongly associated with decreased substance abuse (Needle, 1988).

College students from one-parent families become intoxicated more frequently (Wechsler, 1973). Students from intact families are less frequent users of alcohol and marijuana (Napier, 1981).

Davies J, Stacey B (1972). Teenagers and alcohol: A developmental study in Grlagow. H.M. Stationary Office, 2. Newcomb MD, Maddahaian E, Be Some studies report m Another reports only 10% do so with 44% from friends and 42% getting for themselves (Khavari, 1993), some undoubtedly from parental supplies.

Khavari KA (1993). Interpersonal influences in college students' initial use of alcohol and drugsÑThe role of firends, self, parents, doctors, and dealers. Intl J Add 28:377-88.

Check Catalano RF, Morrison DM, Wells EA, Gillmore MR, Iritani B, Jawkins JD (1992). Ethnic difference in family factors related to early drug initiation. J Stud Alc 53:208-27.

Server Training: Single E (1990 Health Education Research 5:237-45, 1990

it.  Despite the evidence that abstaining parents and abstaining religions have fewer, not more children with drinking problems, the exact opposite is the standard message in mainstream publications. In November, 1993, Parents Magazine claims "research indicates that children in teetotaling families have higher risk factors for substance abuse than do children in families where alcohol is permitted occasionally." The writer Kathleen Cushman would not supply me with the source of this very erroneous information. Redbook Magazine in November, 1992 even encourages parents to start giving alcohol to their 10-year-old children if the children have an interest.

drank much more often at home or in the earlier studiesthreewas successful for hundreds of years until greater assimilation into the heavy drinking and drug using mainstream American culture.

The question of whether religious bigotry or the drinking habits of the individual researchers have caused them to so obviously misinterpret their own data is of interest. Clearly, the data overwhelming shows that religions that teach abstinence have fewer members who end up with drinking problems.

More on Drinking in Different Races or Nationalities

sition for these nationalities.  We have also found that marijuana and LSD An early onset of drinking is quite strongly associated with heavy and problem drinking later in life. There are at least 36 studies covering 174,000 individuals supporting this finding. Children who start drinking at home usually do so at an early age. Obviously, parents who allow their children to drink in the home are giving a message that they approve at least somewhat of underage drinking. This, too, has been found to increase drinking problems. Although drinking at home has not been very well studied, the available evidence suggests that it is an unwise policy.

In this heavy drinking young teen population, 34% Heavy early drinking is particularly strongly associated with later problems., it is likely that Ghodsian artificially selected. One must ask what made this group not start drinking with their peers as well as is the most typical pattern.

's study, noted above (#75) found that students Cushman K (1993). Facing the facts about drugs. Parents 68(11):185-88.

ed occasionally." The source of the referred to reserach is unknown, but this review is a very comprehensive compliation of studies examining the parental modeling issue. in Nove

Most the majority of younger drinking. However, one report finds only 10% of underage drinkers did

Mitic W (1990) Parental versus peer influence on adolescents alcohol consumption. Psychol Rep 67:1273-4.t broken out (Cumes-Rayner, 1992Heavy drinking boys spent less time with the family.

Lo (1993) did a small study of 160 students at a black Alabama university and reports that students who take their first drink at a lower age are more likely to drink at a high level and to experience a high number of alcohol-related problems in college. However, the negative relationship between age at the time of the first drink and college drinking patterns is attenuated if these young onset drinkers start their drinking in the presence of adults or with the knowledge of their parents.

Parental support and monitoring have been found important even after taking into account demographic and family factors including socioeconomic indicators, age, gender, race, family structue, and family history of alcohol abuse (Barnes, 1992). Again peer orientation was also found important. Barner GM, Farrell MP (1992). Parental support and control as predictors of adolescent drinking, delinquency, and related problem behaviors. J Marr & Family 545:763-76.

Lewin T, Dunne M, Raphael B (1992)

Lo CC, Globetti G (1993). Black college students drinking patterns Ñ the roles of family, religious affiliation, and parental guidance during the 1st drinking experience. Sociol Spectrum 13:343-63.

Barnes GM, Farrell under Mark Goldman of Wayne State University Dept of Psychology frequent 12 to 19 years old teens appeared to experience some shift from family drinking to frequent and problem drinking. Heavy and problem parental drinking were linked to problem and frequent teen drinking. Christiansen does report that "offspring of nondrinking parents scored higher on the Problem Drinking Scale, but not the Frequent Drinking Scale, than children of occasional and moderate drinkers." However, Christiansen's Problem Drinking Scale may be biased since adolescents who storngly disapproved of drinking scored higher of the scale than others, suggesting that they might better remember the negative effects of any drinking that they had engaged in.81 Of 81 alcoholic parents, 78Thesto this include()only one foundThat study by Christensen (1983) does reports more alcohol problems in children of abstainers, than in occasional or moderate drinking parents, but less frequent drinking. It fails to provide adequate details. The large majority and all of the larger, more recent studies report children of abstainers having the fewest problems, definitely fewer than children of moderate drinkers.iased since adolescents who stro

81) Weinberg (1994) reports parental drinking and gender factors in the prediction of early adolescent alcohol use. A questionnaire study of 2,213 5th and 6th grade Ann Arbor student had children report their own alcohol use, alcohol-related problems, and perceived level of parental drinking. Children who reported their parents abstainers had the lowest level of alcohol misuse and of heavy drinking. This was true for both boys and girls and for both mothers' and fathers' drinking patterns. The rate of heavy drinking and alcohol-related problems was doubled among children of moderate drinking parents and more than tripled among children of heavy drinking parents compared to children of abstaining parents.

Weinberg NZ, Dielman TE, Mandell W, Shope JT (1994). Parental drinking and gender factors in the prediction of early adolescent alcohol use. Interntl J Addictions 29:89-104.

© 1994