-
DOCUMENT PESUME
ED 210 596 CG 015 621
AUTHOR -Glynn, Thomas J..
TITLE Families and Drugs: A Life-Span Researci Approach.PUE DATE
Aug 81 1NOTE 28p.: Paper presenttd at the Annual Convention of
the
American Psychological Association (89th, N..cs.. Angeles, CA,
August 24-26, 1981).
EDR.S PRICE ME01/PCO2 Plus Postage.D SCRIPTORS Behavioral
Science Research; Drug Abase: *Drug Use;
IFamily (Sociological Unit) : *Family Life :' Family.Role:
*Individual Development: InterpersonalRelationship; Life Style:
*Perspective Takirg:*Research Needs: *Sociocultural Patterns: State
ofthe Art Reviews; Systems Approach
.
T he stadpof human development and behavior from afe-ipan
perspective Wan area of growing interest, and the family
i a natural laboratory for this steudy. Research in the area cf
druga use demonstrates that drug use is not limited to any cne
populations gmentlor age group, but is pervasive across population
subgroup.More ana more evidence suggests that .the family is
clearly implicatedi the initiation, maintenance, cessation, and
preverticn of drugabuse by its members. Systems, intergenerational,
and life-cycles udievof the past have relevance to a life -span,
perspeotive and canp cvide a database from which more specific
life-span-criented
udies may be conducted. Life-span oriented drug akuse research
mustidentifj and understand the complex variables which can
ccntribute,tothe development of drug abuse during an individual's
lifetime.Through the family, the complex roles on drug abusing
behaviors ofsocietal institutions, peer groups, and developing
technology can bestudied.. As a first step toward the integration
of a life-span,orientatiCn with more traditional drug, abuse
research approaches,several content-relited and methodological
questions lust beexplored. (NEE)
L
40"
-4
z
*******************************,**,************************************\t*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are'the best that can be made *. .*
/ from the'oriVnal document. .
**********************************************************io*************
-
it
Families and Drugs:,A Life-Span Research Approach
_
,.Thomas J. Glynn, Ph.b.
PsycholOgical Sciences BranchDivision of ResearachNational
Institute on Drug Abuse5600 Fishers Lane, Room 9-31Rockville, MD
20857
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
EDU TIONAI RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC/4 T document has been reproduced asreceived from
the person or organizationpollinating it .
ri Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction
quality
"PERMISSION TO.REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN G NTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESPoints of view or options stated in
this docu INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."merit do not necessanly
represent official NIEposition or policy
Presented at the Eighty-Ninth Annual Meeting of the-American
Psychological Association, Los Angeles, California, - August
24-28; 1981;the views presented in thiS paper are not necessarily
those of theNational Institute on Drug Aubse or the U.S: Department
of Health andHuman SerVices.,
2t.
-
: Families and Drugsi: A Life-Span Research Approach..,
Bck9rounda
rIP
' Life-span perspective. The study-o
44' Irom a life-span perspective is an area
:,Danish (1981), an increasing number of
'1175; Baltes et al., 1927; Mussen et al
and Schaie, 1973; Datan and Reese, 1977
annual series ,( Baltes,
devoted to a life -span
in this perspective, th
a
f khan development and behavior
of growing interest. Astnoted t5y,
major publications (e.g. Re'Llsky,
.? 1979), conferences (e.g. Baltes
Lerner and Spanier, 1978) and an
1978; Baltes and Briml.,1979,' 1980) have been
approach., As an additional' indicator of interestJi
e Annual Review of Psychology recently included a
chapteron life-span developmental Psychology (Baltes et al.,
1980).: -
Several definitions of this field have been developed. Baltes
and
Goulet (1970)', for'example, state that "Human life-span
developmental
psychology is concerned with the description and explication
of
ontogenetic (age- related) behavioral changes from birtn'to
death (p.12)",
emphasizing, however, the need for an "...integrative
conceptualization.
,of the totality of (these) ontogenetic
behavioral'changes...(sinte) the
,1
bulk of research efforts in developmental psychology has been
conducted
thus fad by researchers whose primary orientation was toward
Specific age
periods suchas infancy etc: without any compreneKsive
attempts,to
integrate the findings within the framework of the life span
(p.13) ".
More recentlylBaltesond Brim (1979) note'that a
life-spanapproach
"...suggests that behavior develops throughout l'
death). and, morov
onception to
evelopmental processesy whatever their age(
-
loCAion, can be better unaerstood if theyiie seen in the context
of the...
..,.
entire 4ifetime of indiviouals (p.xi)". As may be seen4rom
these
'definitions, and in other special ereas of study such as
community
psychology, life-span oeyeiopmental piychology may best be
considered an
orientation rather than' a theory (Baltes et al., 1980).
Finally, Daiish `(1981)has summarized the ife-span perspective
by. _ii , 1
observing that it assumes that (1) development sa continual
process,
not limited to any particular life-stage; (2) change will occur
in
varioUs interconnected domains (social,' psychological,
biological) and.
appropriate research and clinical responses thus must be made
from a4
:
multidisciplinary, pluralistic-focus; (3)-change is sequential
and
therefore mustbe- viewed within the context of any preceding
and
following developmental changes; and (4) individual must be_
.
.
considered within the context of prevailing norms and the
Zeitgeist.
Life-span perspective and the family: The farrilly is a
natural
laboratory for the study' of behavjOr from a life-span
'perspective. Not
only' do a yoad range of behaviors take Place within the
family,s'sphere
of interest but, also, the entire array of life-stages may be
viewed and
studied within it.
There have, of course, ,been numerous approaches developed to
study
theAlife-stages of the-in ual (e.g. Erikson,'1950; Clausen,
1972;
Elder, 1975) and the family (e.g... Glick, 19477 1977; Feldman
and Feldman,
1975; Begalen, 1974). A difficulty inherent in theses
approaches,
4
-
S.
- 3-ti
. I however, CO7PIRS theif utility_in attempting to view
development in an.
. integrated, pluralisti& fas'rion. Hill and Mattessich
(1979) have
observed this difficulty in their attempt to interface family
development
and life -span development perspectives, particularly with
regard to age
stratification. fr,
Although it has been traditional to study individual human
development from an age (or stage) stratification
perspectiveOill and
-Mattessich point out that this perspective may bednadeduata
when
./
faMilies (or even communities) become the object of study.
Within a'
family, individuals Ofdiiferent ages, norms and eras are
developing
simultaneously and to study them iti an individual
age-stratified manner
is'to ignore the vital behavioral affects of their interaction.
Thus it
is in the content of the family that the systemic life-span
orientation
may be of most value when behavior prediction or clinical
intervention is
( attempted. 'Family theorists such as Henry (1965), Laing
(1969, 1970),
and Laing and.Esterson (1964) have implicitly used this approach
in their
studies of whole families. Additibnally, Elder (1978) and Hill
and
Mattessich themselves have suggested that the construction
"....of an1,
integrated modeleofi.ndividual development and family
development wherein
the complementary processes Of each type df development would be
clearly
Lxplicated (p.189)" is a worthy goal...
Life-span perspective, the family and drug abuse .7 A growing
body of"
Evidence (e.g.Seldinv 1972; Harbin and Maziar, 1?75; Stanton,
1978,
1979; Glynn, 1981a) suggests that the family is, clearly
implicated in the
5
-
initiation, kaintenance, cessation, and prevention of drug abuse
by one
or'more of .its members, Further, althoUgh'nparlY all drug abuse
researchr
focuses on a specific population (e.g. adolescents, the
elderly), tables
1-3 dethrstate that use is not limited to any one segment, of
the
population but is pervasive across population subgroups.
Tables 1-3 about.here
Table 1 summarizes the results of the most recent National
Institute
on Drug Abuse (NIDA) - sponsored National Household Survey on
Drug Abuse,
inaicating significant rates of arug use not'only among the 25
and
youNer population-put also among the older adult (26+)
population..,
Table)2 presents a summary, by age arid drug, of
drug-related-emergency
room visits reported to thaiNIDA-Drug Enforcement Administration
-.
sponsored Drug Abuse Warning Network data system during\1979.
The data
in this table clearly demonstrate that, although certainly
more
concentrated within certain age groups,
drug-related'problems
any means limited toany one of these qoups, including those
are not by
adults 50^
years of age and over. Finally, Table 3 reports the age-related
results
of a 1978 New York State - sponsored household survey on illicit
and
nonmedical drug Use. These findings also point to the conclusion
that
drug abuse iso,a.concern across all age group's.
. The significance of these data for the life-span study of the
family-.
6
-
r
t
r'
is wo-fOld:' First, since they'suggest that drug problems are
not
.
limited to any one age group but may, rather, be found abross
all ages,
. .-
the family (consisting of a configuration of individualsof
theseq.different age then begomes a natu I focus for, the study of
drug.
abuse. SebOnd, and perhaps more di ectly relevant for a
life-span
orientation, the realization that dug abuse is not solely an
age-related
behavior permits and encourages the researcher to view the
family and i7ts
drug-abusing member(s) from an interactive, Systems perspective,
one that
,regards drug abuse as a developmental behavior dependent not
only upon'/
the user's'age but also Aida'', past history and future
expeOtations,
Ainteraction-with other using and nonusing family memb s, peer
influence,
family attitudes and environment and any of the other numerous
variables
which may influence drug use t anytime across th-
life-span:.
Previous Research
As noted above, the bu]k of previous.drug abuSe re earch has
focused
on such discrete' groups as adolescents, heroin users p women
but there
is a growing realization, as evidencedlin Tables 1-3, t at drug
abuse is,
not an equally discrete behavior. -.The boundaries relev nt
tO,past
research may not accurately reflect the developing patt rns of
drug use
in our society and the growing'number of studies focuslig on,
the family
,
an& more. specifically, on the-family. from a.life-span
perspective, may,
be a reaction to such new patterns.' While this interest in the
study of
families and the life-span is relatively new to the drug field,
there .s-
a bo.cof literature either directly or irbplicitY related to'it
upon
7
V-
-
.
.I.
1
,
which future studies can build. Although the increasing extent
of
arug-related literature focusing On the family (t.g. Stanton,
1978;
Glynn,.i"
1981a).demonstrates this field's belief. in the
multidimensional
bases of.drug use, there are subsets of thiS literature which
may be more
specifically relevant fora life-span perspective. Although
the
bpundaries between these literature subsets. ,
defined and are often intermeshed, they may4 .
Intergenerational, and Life-Cycle 'studies. Several
representative '
-stiff aies from each of these subsets, and their relevance to a
life-Span,r
perspective, are, briefly described below.
are by no means clearly
be separately termed Systems,
'Is
Systems Studies. These studies build upon the rich literature
on
faMily system's theory developed in the 1950rs and 60's (e.g.
Bateson et
al., 1956; Jackson; 1957; Haley, 1963, 1971; Watzlawick et al.,
1967)."
In their most basic form, they approach the study of drug abuse
in the
family from the perspectivethat.the behavior of.each member of
the
family affects all other members, that no behavior is without
its
consequences.- thus, although the drug abuser may be Vie
"identified
patient", his or her deviance cannot be understood and dealt
with without
understanoing the interactibns and oynamiCs of the entire
family.
1,*
Stanton and his colleagues have explored this approach in depth
and .
'have.de4eloped a theory in which
...it 'is proposed trgt drug addiction bethought of as part of
a.Cyclical .process involving three or moreindividuals, commonly
the
addict and two parents. These people form an intimate,
interdependent, interpersonal system. At times the equilibrium
ofthis interpersonal system is threatened, such as when discord
between-
, the parents is amplified to the point. of impending sOaration.
Whenthis.happens, addict become activated, their behavior changes,
and0
"*.
-
-7-
1
they create situations that dramatically focus attention
uponthemselves (Stanton,. 1980, p.153).
-
Viewed in this way, a systems approach to the study of drug
abuse
requires the researcher to collect data across the family
life-span.
Without this perspective, information regarding changing family
norms,
sequences, and fecurring patterns of behavior, as well as
important
developmental changes within the family, may be lost.
Although Stanton et al. (1978) point out that most family -
oriented
theoreticians-tend to regard the addiction process in linear
causal erWis
(Le..A causes B, or A and B caC) rather than as a complex set
of
feedback mechanisms qperating within an open-system,-repetitive
cycle
A causes B, B causes C, C causes A);\then are others Wlio do
advocate this approach. .Coleffieri (e.g. 1979, 1980, 1981).has
designed'her
studies fromfrom a'systems perspective, noting the repetition,
across the
life-span of the family, of familiar crises and behavior
sequences.
Huberty Huberty, 1975; Huberty and Huberty, 1,76) also
utiliLes'a..,
systems' approach and views drug abuse as a cyclical behavior
growing out
of family problems, such as poor communication and fairure to
accept
responsibility. -
'Intergenerational Studies. A number, of researchers have
conducted
studies investigating the premise that drug abuse is best
understood as
an,..intergenerationally or multigenerationally transmitted
behavior. The
life-span relevance of these stlidies, of course; is that, in
attempting'tow
to understand the drug abuse Of one.family member, they advocate
the
-
. . ..
i1
,
.
-8- .54..;..
4',.
'collection of aata from numerous people at different points in
the
.
life.
,.
of the family. '
(
1 "
.5
Oistasio (1975 1978), for example, in her attempt to understand
the! .
behavior of the female addict; collected data from the'children
and
parents of her subjects and analyzed their role in the drug
abuse of the
(Temale. Madanes et al.-(1980) tested the hypothesis "that
herpin addicts:
are enmeshqp with their parents or parental surrogates in
alliances
across generational lines and in reversals of the
hierarchical.
.organization of their families that, clinically, appear to
perpetuate the
taddictiye behavior. Controneo and Krasner (1976)
1 7
investigated the
relational,components of grandparents, parents, mates, and
children in
. .
shaping the lives of addicted peisons. Kander (e.g. 19741
has
intensively' studied the inter - and intragenerational
influencestinvolved
in adolescent drug use and Coleman (1981)-has%investigated
the
multigenerational life-cycle patterns of heroin addict families
in
.comparision with p§ychiatricpatientsl*stressed community
college
- 5 ,
students, and normal college students. Although
the,broadconclusion of
this' research is that drug abuse has an intergenerational
component, -
,f there are other studies
conclusion ancLsuggest
(e.g. Union, 1979) which challenge ,that
instead that, when all. relevant factors an
controlled, the family lives of users and nonuser of-the
same
socioeconomic background are only minimally different ;,.%
Se
LifeCycle Stuaies. Although this'research approach has often
been
.
utilized in the mental health area (e.g. Dohrenwend and
Dohrenwend, 1974,
"1977), it has seldem been a focus of the drug field. While tpe
mental
, 10
-
$
health literature has not always, agreed upon the most
salient
or aspects of the life-cycle to study., (e:g. starting
school,
birth offirst child; death of parent), the broad approaCh
of4
10e4elopment or adjustment from the perspectiveJof one or
more
has been an accepted-research approach for some time.
10
life events
marriage,
studying
life events
In the drug abOse Tesearch-field, ttiose.wrio have utilized d-a
life
cycle approach have not necessarily done so in.a concio9s
effort,to study
drug abuse from a life -span orientation. N6ertheless,sstudies
have been
carried out and theimetical perspectives developed which fall
int
life-span perspective. Duncan (1978), for example, asked adoles
eht drug
dentify stressful family life events (e.g. parents divorced,.
.
.
ion of sibling, loss of job by a parent) which occurred in,
-
)/ ,
1.-,
ceding their first illicit drug use. Coleman (1981) has also, .
. . .
sw
users to
hOspitaliza
the year,p
't
. investigitea the significance for 'later drug use of certain
life events.. - .
, ,. _(e.g. significant childhbod separations,"moving away ?rod
home, parental
/divorce) in the .fami°lies of heroin addicts.
a ., s1 ,
0 -11 I We, . 4
Others have focusedon specific aspects of the life-cycle. Noone
and. .
tReoaig (1976), for example, regard drug abuse as a symptom
ofan
interruption in'the life-cycIe of a family, a symptom
inbicatingrthat the
t 4family is having diTfiFulty getting past a
particular,lite-cicle stage.
The stage they focused their 'research on, based upon earlier
research,
was the point at which the young/become indepengent from their
parents:,_
Coleman (1980) acd Coleman and Stanton (1978) have focused Oh
the role of,
death in the addict family, including the.hypothesis that
unresolved
mourning for a deceased member of the family (e.g.
siblingilparent:i
'a I
-
-10-
grandparent) may contribute to the deielopment of drug abuse
within the
family. 9
Finally, Scotts and Shrontz (1980,, 1981) have Atveloped a
theoretical.
framework which, while not directly focusing an the family,
addresses the
issue of life-cycle changes,and their role in,an individuffl's
drug use
patterns. Characterizing their approach as a "life theme theory
of
chronic drug abuse", they put forth a devel6pmental theory which
draws
heavily upon the ideas of Jung. They have intensively_stjiieo
small .
groups of barbiturate users, opiate users, amphetamine
Uters,'ocaine_
users'and a non-using control group and established a umber of
Jungian .
life-cycle stages (e.g. Establishment of the Selft-Reflecting
Ego,
Transition: Loss of Mythic Roots, Isolation, Hollow-Victory)
which they
use to aid in explaining the patterns and development of
particular typese V
of drug abuse across an individual' entire life-span. .
;
._
Although, as noted earlier,a_
:Systems, Intergenerational, an8
the'studies in the areas reviewed above
Life-Cycle.studies - have not necessarily
been detigned from a life-span perspective, they do provide a
data1 base
from which more specifically life-span oriented studigs may beco
ucted.
Future Research
' The goal of\future life -span oriented drug abuse
research.should'be
Lt
to mole clearly identify and understand, in such a way that
reasonable
interventriorttican be desigried, the growing number of'complex
Variables:
12
tvc
A'
A.
-
.
.
',' J
which are thought to contribute to the development of drug abuse
dUring. . .
an- individual's lifetime.. Although it is suggested here that
the family ii.
be the focus of such a research effort, the faMily cannot, of
course,
remain the sole object of this research. Rather', through the
family,, the
enormously complex role on drug using behavior of societal
institutions .-
/41-(e:g. government, media, schools), peer groups,.developing
technology end
so.on can be studied. In order to make a first step toward
the
, integration of a life-span orientation with more traditional
drag abuse
research,approaches[the following are among the content-related
and
methoaological.Ouestions which would need to be explored:
.40'
o Are there predictable stages or patterns of drug use ehd
abuseacross the life-span? Kandel and her colleagues (e.g.
Kandel,Kessler and Margulies, 1978) have developed a stage. model
Ofadolescent progression into drug use: Are there similar
stages,with different substances, be9ona adolescence? Would such
stages
be continuous or would intervals between stages be expected?
Who:might be most susceptible to progression through several levels
of
such.stages?
o Is drug abuse a behavior that may be
transmitted.acrossgenerations? Laing (1969, 1970) has argued that
it takes at least ,three generations of dysfunction before
kschizophrenic isdiagnosed within'aefemily. What role do other
generations (e.g.
. children, grandparents,- parents) play in the develOpment of
a
drugabusing family member? Does the behavioral, legacy of
deceased'family members impact upon other generations and, if.soo
how? .
o What concaterttion pf social, psychological andkfconditions
placean individua at the greatest-ris or drug abuse?
One of the primary contributions of a life -span orientation
is-its,. insistence' upon a multidisciplinary, 'pluralistic focus.
Are -there
predictable, points in an individual's life when there is, in
a
sense, a critical mass Of seemingly unconnected
Conditionswhich,if occurring together, place that indivIdualcat
risk of initiationto-drug abuse?, Are-there identifiable
precipitating factors or
.events related tothese conditions?
o Are there ,individuals who are invulnerable to drug abuse
throughout
',the life-span? There IS often pn assumption that individuals
whoremainessentially 'drug-free throughout adolescence, and
young
adUlthood will remain so throughout life.. Is'this
assumptioncorrect? Or .are there conditions or periods when
previously drugfree individuals, are, susceptible to Initiation?
How do drugs free;'
130 -.
0
'Mk
-
.
-12-
.or essentially drug free, adults differ from adults who'are
abusers?
o How does drug abuse-or non-use at one period in an
individual'slife affect future drug use patterns?. An assumption of
thelife-span orientation is that change is sequential and must
be
viewed Within the context pf.any preceding and.folloying
changes.Do certain patterns of drUg use during adulthood place. one
at
grpate.r risk for drug problems during late middle age?, If one
has),had-little,or no,exposure to:drugs.during adolescence, is
that
individual' more or less susceptible to drug use during
adulthood?.
o How do families who play either facilitat ive or preventive
roles.with regard to their member's drug use differ? Some
familiesappear-to act as preventive agents and others as
facilitators, forBurg abuse among one or more of their members. How
do thesefamilies differ, not only in characteristics such as
theirinteraction patterns, attitudes, SES, etc. but in their
history andtheir future plans? Do these families fo/low
characteristicpatterns, either day-to-day or across
generations?
o What changes take place, over, the life-span, in'the
composition andsalience of an individual's reference groups in
regard to druguse? 'While subatantial'amount ofstudy has been
conducted to17.estigate the relative influence of family an,seers
oh
adolescent drug use (e.g. Kanglell 1974; Glynn,--:104,
influencesources at other times across the'life-span have received
littleattention.. What,reference group(s)ke.g. children,. spouse,
peers,parents) most influence the older adult who is
abtosingTrescriptidn
0.drugs ? How'dq,changing societal norms interaeptwith'serience
of-reference group'inlireventing or-facilitating drug abuse?
o What roles dosbcietal institutions other.than the family
playirl
preventing or facilitating drug use across the life-span?
.Whileipdividuals are influenced by their family throughout their
life,other influences are mote time- limited but have the,
potential forsubstantial impact. What roles do schools play?
-Self-help
groups? GovernMent? Community organizations?
o Are'longitUdinal studies'fhe onfly effective method of
obtainingvalid life-span data.concerning drug use? Extended,
prospective..
longitudinal dies,are certainty the most appropriate method
for,
life-span studies, but they are also.among the most expensive
andproblem-fraught designs; Can cross-Sectional, retrospective,
life- histoij studies yielding appropriate data'be designed ?.
Cansuch approaches as representative case design (e.:g. Shoeitz,
1977)
or appropriate quasi .:txperimental desigincorporate relevant
.life -span data from such subject donfigutations as nuclear
families, extended families, thele40erly,
and)single-parent,families?, .
o What is the value of age` - specific studies:to life-span drug
abuse
research?' Taqles 173 suggested-that,drugabuse occurs
at'allper1s,i5rthe life-cycle. Is age. therefore a' valid
independent-variable upon which td. focus in future life-span drug
abuse .
-
-13-
research? Or, can age-specific studies be useful in
identifying'what is unique and what is common to different life
periods andthus facilitate a comparative approach to the study of
age (and itsconcomitant'variables)-effects on drug-using
behavior?'
o Are aata bases available upon which secondary analyses
can-beconducted which are of%relevance to life -span drug
abusresearch7The family has been the focus of an enormous amount of
study frodthe perspective of numerous disciplines. Can the data
from any ofthese studies be tapped and re-analyzed from 1
life-span
perspective? Are there studies which have
corlectedbothrelevantdrug use information and life-span data -Which
have notlbeenspecifically analyzed with their drug content in
mind?
o What is the comparative value, for life-span drug abuse
research,of observational, ethnographic family studies vs.
experimentalstudies?t Handel k1967) observes that we do .not yet
.know veryfully, much less cactly, what we should be looking for
when westudy families and that, consequently, we need both
observationaland experimental studies. rat kinds of observation do
we need,e.. whole-families, individuals in the context of their
families,explorations-of family themes? How can the data from
these
observational studies best be incorporated into future
experimentalstudies? .. .
o What unique methodologies and instruments need be and can
bedeveloped to most fru±tfuliy conduct life-span drug
abuse,research?- A life -span orientation to research requires
thatZECETEFEent be seen as a continual, sequential process which
i$sensitive to prevailing north's and best studied from . -
multidisciplinary, pluralistic fouls. What existing
researchstrategies (e.g. Benner, 1980) can be'best utilized in
thisresearch? What new strategies peed to be developed? Are
there
existing instruments (60g. Coleman, 1981) which will yield
life-spah datlftelevant to dr60aCuse? Should others be
developed?, -
tThis 4, of course, not an exhaustive list' of research
questions. It
should, however, provide a foundation for needed drug abLiSe
researchiror6
a. life -span perspective.4
F-
5
-
REFERENCES
.: s,Baltes, P.B. (Ed.) Life-span_Development and Behavior
(Volume 1). New
York: Academic Press, 1977.
Baltes, P.B: and Goulet, L.R. Status and issues of a
life-span
deVelopmental psychology. In: Goulet, L.R., & Baltes, P.B2
(Eds.)
11, Life-span Developmental Psychology: Research andTheory. New
York:
Academic Pre4s. 1970
4
Baltes, P.B. and Schaie,,K.W. Eds.). Life-Span Developmental
Psychology:,
Personality and Socialization. New York: Academic Press,
1973.
Baltes, P.B., & Brim, 0.Q., Jr. (Eds.) Life-Span Development
and Behavior
(Volume 2). keWyprk: Academic Press, 1979.
Baltes, P.B., & Brim, 0.G.I'Jr. (Eds.) Life-Span Development
and Behavior
(Volume 3): '.New York: Academic Press, 1980.
Baltes, P:13, Reese,. H.W. and Nesselioade,
'3.8.,Life-SplartDevelopmental
Psychology: Introduction to Research Methods. 'Montereyl.CA:
Brooks-Cole,
1977.
Baltes, P.B.,Reese, H.W., & Lipsitt, L.P. Life-span
developmental
psychology: Annual Review of, cholow, .1980. 31; 65-110..
a
-
Bateson, G., lickson,D.U., Haley, J. and Weakland, J. Toward'a
theory
of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1956, 1, 251=264.
Bentler, P.M. Multivariate analysis With latent variables:
Causal
modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 1980, 31, 4191456.
Bini.on, V.J. A descrip9ve comparison'of the families of origin
of women
4 heroin users and nonusers. In: National Tztitute on Drug
Abuse,
Addicted Women: Family Dynamics, Self Perceptions, and Support.
Systems.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (DREW
PubJ,ication No.
(ADM)80-762), 1979. -
..,
Clausen, J.A. The life course of indiViduala.. In: Riley, M.W.,
Johnson,
W. and Foner, A. (Eds.),Aging and Society: A Sociology of
Age
Stratification (Volume 3),. New York: Russell Sage Founda "on,
1972.
Colemad4..5.B. Cross cultural approaches to addict
familes.(Journal ofri
Drug Education, 1979, 9(4), 293-299.
$44
Coleman, S.g. Incomplete mourning in substanbe abusing families:
Theory,
'research and practice. In: L. Wolberg and M. Aronson (Eds.)
Group and
Family Therapy: An Overview. New tork Brunner-Mazell 1980.
Coleman, S.B. Multigenerational life-span patterns of addict
fend:131s.
Paper presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the American
Psychological
.
Association, Los.Angeles, CA, 198L
-17
0
41
41
-
Coleman, S.B. and Stanton, MADThe-iole of death in the addict
family.
tJournal of Marriage and Family Counseling,-1978, 4, 79-91.
e.
1/4
Cotroneo, M. and Krasner, B.R. Addiction, alienation, and
parenting.
Nursing Clinics of North America, 1976, 11(3)1517-525.
Danish, S.J. Life-span human development and intervention: A
necessary
link. The Counseling Psychologist, 1981, 9(2), 40-43.
Oatan, N., and Reese, H.W. (Eds.) Life-Span Developmental
Psychology:
DialecticAl Perspectives on Experimental Research. New York:
Academic
Press, 1977.'
Distasio,'C.A. ,Multigenerational family pathology in opioid
addiction: A
three. generational bnalysis
E: Sepay,.V. Shorty,'' and
of a postpartal women's family system. In:,
Alksne (Eds.)*Developments in the Fieldtof
Drug Abuse: Cambridgel.MA: Sthenkman, 1975.
Oistasio,'C.A. Multigenerational Study of Families of Opiate
Addicts.'
Final Report, Grant No. 1-R01-DA 00994, National Institute on
Drug Abuse,
1978.
Dohrenwend, Dohrenwend, B.P.,(Edad'Stressful Life Events:
Their.
tc,
Nature end'Effects: New York: Wiley, 1974.
DoPmenwend, B.P. and Dohrenwend, B.S. The conce¢tbylization
and
' measurerrient of stressful life events: An overview. In: J.S.
Strauss,,
48
-
H.M. Babigan, and M. Roff (Eds,) Proceedings of Conference on
Methods of
Longitudinal Research InPsycholopathology. New York: Plenum,
1977,
Duncan, D.F. Family stress and the initiation of adolescent drug
abuse:
A retrospective study: Corrective and Sqcial psychiatry` and
Journal of
Applied Behavior Therapy, 1978, 24, 111-114.
Elaer, G. H. Age differentiation in life course perspective.
Annual
Review of Sociology, 1975, 1, 165-190.
Elaer, G.H. Approaches to social change and the family.
American
Journal of Sociology, Supplement, 1978; 84, S1 -S38. Th
IErikson, E.H. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton,
1950.
Feldman, H. and,Feldthan, M. Th.& family life cycle:
Some-suggestions for. .
41 f. ..
recycling. JournalofMarriage and the Family, 1975,371
277-284.
.
as
Fishburne, P.M.,- Abelson, H.I. and Cisin, I. National Survey on
Drug
Abuse: Main Findings, 1979. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govdrnment
Printing
Office (Publication No. (ADM): 80-976), 1980.
Glick, P.C. The family life cycle. American
Sociological,Reviewls 1947,
12, 164-174.7
Glick, P.C. Updating -the -life. cycle of the family. Journal of
Marriage
and the Family.,i1977, 39, 5-13'.
ti
-
Glynn, T.J. (Ed.) Drugs and the Family. Washington, D.C.:
U.S.
GOVernment Printing Office, NIDA Research'Issues Series,. Volume
29, DHHS
Publication No. (ADM) 81-1151), 1981a.
Glynn, T.J. From Family to Peer: A review of'tra sitionS of
influence
among drug-using youth. .Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
1981b, 10(5).14
in press.
-Haley,'.J. Strategies of P§ychotherapy. New York: Gr e and
Stratton.
1963.
Haley, .7: Changing Families: A Family, Therapy Reader: New
York: Grune
and Stratton, 1971.
ors,
Handel, G.H.. Thelos chbsocial'Interior of the Family:
h.Sourcebook for.. ' 6
the Study of Whale Families. Chicago:
Aldine-Athertor6.,1967.-,I.. te
Harbin, H., and Maziari,q. The familiesf drUgatiusers; A
fiteratOre,
review.2 1
4c
t-
Family Process. 14:411-431, 1975.
..1)" , , 0
Henry, J. Pathways to Madness: New York: Random
House,401965.,
,
Hill,R. and'MattesSich, P.. Family development theory and
life-span
development. In: Baltet,'P.B. end Brim, O.G. (Eds.).pfe-Span
Development and Behavior. Nei York: Acade91cPress,,1979. -.0
-
,Huberty, D.J. 'Treating the adolesRent drug abuser: ?'amity
affair.4
Contemporary Drug Problems, 1975, 4(2), 179-194.
Huberty, C.E. and Huberty', D.J:' Trea ng the parents of
adolescent drug
...--.9e-e.Nab&ers. Contemporary Drug,Problems, 1976, 5,
573-52.2:
4
Jackson, D.D. The question of family horneDkeels. Psychiatric
Quaiterlyt
Supplement, 1957, Part 1, 79-90.4
el, D. Inter -.and intragenerational influences on
adolescent
marijuana use. Journal of Social Issues, 1974, 30(2),,
107,4135.
o
Kandel,..D., Kessler., R. and Margulies, R. Antecedents-of
adolespen
4
initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis.
Jowl of.
Youth and Adolescence, 1978, 7, 13-40.
4t.
Laing, R.D. :Knots. London: Tavistock PublicatiOns, 1970.
Laing, R.D. The Politics orthe Family. New York: Random tiOtAe,
1969.
O
Laing, R.D. and Esterson, A. Sanity: Madness, and the Family:
Families
of ,Phizophrenics. ?Few York: Basic Books,'1964.
.Lerner, R.M. and Spanidri G.B. (Eds..) Child Influences on
Marital and
Family Interaction: A Life-Span PerspePtiVe., New York:
'AcadeMic-Pressr,
21
-
1, , 1
. Lipion,',D.S., Stephens .nd Uppal, G.S.9R.C.
.
Drug Use in New York State:
Oieport on the Nonmedical Use of Digs Among the New York
State
Household Population!' New Yark:State of New York Division
of_Substanc&
Abuse.Services, 1978.
Madanes, C.1Dukes, J. and Harbin, U. 'kamily ties of heroin
addicts.
Ai Chives of General Psychiatry, 1980, 37, 889-894.o.
Mussen, P., Conger, J., Kagan, J.,and Gewirtz, J.
Psychological
development: klife-span approach:yNew York: Harper & Row,,
1979,
.
6
b
Natiohal Institute on Drug Ab4e. Drug AbusiWarning Network: 1979
DAWN
finhual Report. 'Washington, D.C.: O.S: Government Printing
Office (Stock
No. 1980-328-565/6551)9'1980.
. Noonet R.J. and Readig,c
drug abuse. Fimify.POCe.
,Case etudies in the family trea ent oaf
t
976, 15(2), 3254332.
Rebelsky, F. (Ed.) Life: The Continuous Process. New York:
Knopf, 1975.
:segalen;.M. ,Research and,discussiOn*ound the family life
cycle.
, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 19744 364 814-819.
.Seldin, N.E. The family, oi"theaddiCt: A review of the
literature.
International Jouinal of the Addictions9,1(1):97.:107, 19o
22
-
Shantz, F.C. Single organism designs. In: Gentler, P.M.;
Lettieri, D.J.
and Austin, G. (Eds.). Data Analysis Strategies.and Designs for
Substance, .
Abuse Research. (NIDA Research Issues Series, Volume 13, DHEW
/
Publication No. (ADM) 78-389), Washington, D.C. : U.S.
Government.PriDZing
Office, 1977.
'SpottS, C.V., and Shantz, F:e. A life theme theory of chronic
drug,
abuse. In:,Lettieril D.J., Sayeis, M. and Pearson, H.W. (Eds.)
Theories. 44
on Drug Abuse: Selected Contemporarly Perspectives. Washington,
D.C.:
U.S.-Government Printing Office (DHHS Publication No. (A64)
811-97), 1980.
ISpotts, J.V. and Shantz, F.C. Ego Development, DregomFights;
and-
.
Chronic 'Drug Abusers. Report,. Grant No.- 1-R01-DA 01786,
National
Institute on Drug Abuse, 1981.
Stanton, The familY and drug Misuse: A bibliography. American
,
41,e Journal.of Dr4g.and Alcohol Abuse, 1978. 5:151-170,
1978.
4 , t
...-4
Stanton, M.D. Drugs anti the family. Marriage and.Family
2(2):1-101 1979.
Stantonf M.D. A family,theory of drug abuse. In: Lettieri,
D.J.,
Sayers, M. and Pearson, H.W. (Eds.) Theories on Drug Abuse:
SelectedI
,
.contemporary,Pertpectives; Washington, C.C.: U.S. Govern
Printing
Office. NIDA Research.mgnograph Spries Volume 30 (DHHS
Publication No.i
(ADM) 80- 967,11980.
-
1
Mowatt; D.T.; Riley, P., Scott, S.M. and Van Detisen _Heroin
;clictlon as a family phenomenon: A new conceptual model.,
American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse1\1978, 5(2), 125=150.
& .
Stanton, M.D., Todd, 7.4, Heard, D.B.1-Kirschner, Kleiman,
J.1.,
t.*
ti
4
p
-Wetzlawick,, P., Beavip, J.N. and Jackson, D.D. .Pragmatics of
Hutnar
Communication: A Studs of Interactional Patterns, Patholog.;6s,
an
Paradoxes. New York: W.W. _ Norton, 1967.
'1k- -
)
1
24
*
4
-
TABLE 1
Lifetime Prevalence Ofrug Use Among !Youth, .Young Adults and
Older Adults'6 (
(Adalpted from FishbUrne, P.M. et al. National Survey on
Drug Abuse Main Findings, 1979. 'Washington, D.C.:
.U.S.Government Printing Office, 1980)
DRUG EVER USED (%)_ Age 12-17 Age 18-25 Age 26+
Marijuana -30.9 68.2 19.6.
Inhalants 9.8 16.5 . . 3.9
'Hallucinogens 7.1 25.1 4 .5
'Cocaine 27.5 f 4.3
Heroin .5 \ .3.5 1.0
Stimulants (Nonmedical Use) 18.2 5.8
Sedatives (Nbnmedldal Use)-50
:17.O',
.5
Tranquilizers (Nonmedical Use) 4.1 15.8 3 1
Analgesics (Nonmedical Use) 3.2 : 1E8 2.7
.°Alcohol 70.3 95.3. 91.5
Cigarettes 54.1 82.8 83.0
25
.
-
Distribution of Mentions
Drug
.
Alcohol-in-Combination:Diazepam .Heroin/MorphineAspirinPCP/PCP
CombinationsFlurazepam
Marijuana,-PropoWhene, -
'Amitriptyline* .
AcetaminophenMethaElualone .-Chlordiazepoxide '
sine s.
Phenobarbital
Se"gobarbital/AmobarbitalHydantoin - ',. .,
MethadoneOver- the - Counter Sleep Aids.
-ChlorpromazineAmphetamine
*
26
TABLE ,2
AGE CHARACTERISTICSASSOCIATED WITH MENTIONS OF THE TOP TWENT
UGS
DAWN EMERGENCY ROOMS.- JANUARY-DECEMBER 1979
(Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Drug AbuseWarning
Network: 1979 DAWN Annual Report. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980) ,. /
V
TotalMentions
25,03218'1557
- 6,8226,6826,0024,666
4,5553,585
3,2973,2963,2702,8692,846,799
2,516,2,4662,4152, o2,1`10
1,996
a.
50 Unknown/'6-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 l& over No Response
Total% % % % % . % % %
* 17.0 39.9 22.9 11.7'' .,7.7 : 0.8 100* 15.0 40.2 23.9 11.6 8.6
0.7 100* 4.0 59.1 28.2 '6.0 1.5 1.2 100
0.2 40.8 32.9 15.0 . 5.8 4.8 0.5 100* 34.3 .:4 53.4 8.9 1.5 .
0%4 1.4 100'0.1 10.9 29.3 25.2 ' 16.3 47.7 0.5 100'* 37.5' 42.2 ,
15.1' .'4.0 0.7 '0.4 100.* 23.5 39.4 19.7 9.6 7.3 0.4 100
-0.2 11%2 36.0 26.7 14.3 10.4 1.2 1000.1. 36.4 36.7 15.5 6.4
'4.3 0.6 100'
29.3 56.4 11.4 1.4. 1).9 0.5 AOlc 10.2 32.0 26.0 ,17.3 13.6 ,
1.0 100- 12.9 , 58.5 % 22:1 4.0 1.2 0.6 100D.1 16.1 38.3 25.4 10.6
8.7' 0.8 1000.1 13.7 60.2 lg.7 4.8 3.3 11.2 100D.4 11:7 33.3 428.0
,15.0 10.9 0.6 1.00* 3.1 :57.5 , '129.6 .° 6.1 1.7 .". 1 _ 2;0 100*
4- 27.7 4e.3' 15.7 . 5.7
.
4.0 , 0.6 100* 11.9 42.4 24.D 13.1 er.2 - j 0.4 100D. i 23.6 .--
54.4 16.7 34 1.3\ 0.6 100:,
-
TABLE 3 0
Lifetime Use of Drugs by Age Group in New York State
(Adapted from Lipton, D.S. et'al., Drug Use in New
Yorke'''State: A Report on the Nonmedical Use of Drugs Among theNew
York State Household Population, New York: State ofNew York
Division of Substance Abuse Services, 1978)
illegal Drugs Ever Used
CocaineHeroin.Psychedelics.
innalants/SolVents.,Marijuana /Hashish
% = Percentage of Total State Population 14 and Older
Total 14-19 20-24 25-34 __35-4A_ 45_and_older
3 4 10 6 , 2 >11 1 ,3 2 1 >1, .e4' 6 12 . 7 2 >12 2 4 4
1 >118 40 50, 32 10 .2
Legal Drugs Ever UsedNonmedically
Analge lcs
Metha ualOneOthe Barbs./Sed,-HypnoticsMin Tranquilizers
Prescription Diet PillsOther Stimulants
Cough Medicine with CodbineMethadoneOther Narcotics
Ever Used atLeast OneIllegal Drug or LegalDrug,NOnmedlcally
4 4' 9 - 7 '4 14 7 4 1 >1
_ ....
2 t 4 8 4 1 2 >1
4 9 8 3 12 2 6 4 3 >14 4 .5, 7 3 13 4 5 .5 4 ' 2
>1 1 1 1 1 >12 2 5 3 2 >1
23 41 56 38 17 6.