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.