European Journal of Psychology of Education1987, vol. II, n~ 4, 403-419© 1987, I.S.P.A.

Substance Use:A Life Skills Perspective

Millicent PooleMonash University, Australia

Glen EvansUniversity of Queensland, Australia

The paper proposes a life skills perspective for understanding subs­tance use, in which generative and context based competences and con­trol strategies are central. Within that framework, reasonsfor substanceuse, general goal related competence, and specific strategies used to con­trol substance use were examined for 360 young people (144 moles, 216females) aged 18-20years. Relationships were established between fre­quency of use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs and participants'self reported knowledge of methods and effects of use, as well as ofhow much use was made of knowledge of effects in social situations.Participants also answered short tests on actual knowledge of effectsand results on these were related to the extent of use reported. Finallyperceptions of the best ways to learn about the effects of using thesesubstances were related to patterns of reported use. The results suppor­ted the application of the life skills perspective to the domain of subs­tance use in six areas; goal orientation; perceived competence; controlover one's actions; contextual competence; personality traits; and utili­sation of knowledge. Educational strategies to develop this perspectivewere suggested.

In this paper, we propose a reconceptualisation of existing approaches to research onsubstance use in line with an emerging «life skills» perspective of human development. Thelife skill perspective recognises the «acquisition and utilisation of skills for specific purposesand in specified contexts» (Evans & Poole, 1985) as well as general skills for controlling lifesituations.

The life skill perspective differs from previous research on substance use, which is setlargely within various developmental explanatory frameworks devised from developmentaltheory. Dembo, Blount, Schmeilder, and Burgos (1985), for example, have identified four viewscurrently dominating the substance use field: (1)problem behaviour proneness; (2) social lear­ning theory; (3) self-derogation theory; and (4) socialization theory.

In developing a theoretical framework for life skills, Evans and Poole (1983, 1985), Pooleand Evans (1986, in press) argued that life skills may be both generative and context based.The latter relates to aspects needed to meet everyday situations in a variety of life contexts.Generative skills are those which, through learning from the practice of particular skills inspecific contexts, lead to the application of knowledge interpretively to any number of newsituations or contexts. In each the basic concern is with the person's ability to exercise con­trol over actions in life contexts.

This is a jomt project. The order of names for authorship is alternated. We acknowledge the financial supportprovided by the Australia Research Grants Scheme and the Special Research Grants Schemes of Monash Universityand the University of Queensland. The contribution of Kirsty Williamson in the development of the substance useQuestionnaire and its administration is gratefully acknowledged.

M. POOLE & G. EVANS

The theory derives in part from the work of Hopson and Scally (1981), Baldwin andWells (1979-1983), and Button (1982), educators and researchers who have produced life skillprograms for young people so that they can develop skills of «empowerment» or personalcompetence. In addition, we have built on sets of referents for the concept of competencereviewed by Ford (1982, 1985) and developed by Poole and Evans (1986). These include: (I)effortful, goal-directed activity; (2) self efficacy, self-esteem, perceived control, perceived com­petence; (3) «behavioural repertoire» or «equipment for competence» whereby a competentperson has specified skills or abilities e.g, coping skills, social skills; (4) contextual compe­tence i.e. effectiveness of transactions in relevant contexts and in negotiating the environ­ment; (5) personality traits which derive from a history of successful performances and positiveself attribution.

These categories may be further elaborated and particular reference made to substanceuse. First, competence may be regarded as the satisfaction of hierarchically ordered goalsand related to levels of needs (Maslow, 1962). Such a goal-oriented view of competence canthus be applied to the study of substance use through the reasons the person expresses forusing or not using a particular substance. Second, self efficacy can be conceived either asa durable and pervading sense of competence in a variety of skills and situations, or theability to use rules and cope with problems in a particular area such as substance use. Third,the equipment for competence can be taken to include both self perceived and objectivelyassessed knowledge (cf. Brewster-Smith, 1968; Edgar & Maas, 1984). In the case of subs­tance use, this includes knowledge of use, knowledge of effects, and the ability to utilizeknowledge in particular situations. Fourth, different personality traits may favour particularapproaches to substance use. Apart from the esteem factors mentioned earlier, outgoing (vs.withdrawing) behaviour and considerateness for others have been identified in our earlierwork (Poole & Evans, 1986), as persisting traits.

These notions of competence map readily onto the framework of life skills, which wehave previously described (Evans & Poole, 1987; Poole & Evans, 1986, in press) in terms ofattaining competence in particular domains (domain specific skills), attaining generic andgenerative personal and social skills, and learning to learn. With respect to substance use,the domain specific skills entail knowledge of use and of effects and the utilization of know­ledge. They also include the use of rules and methods of coping with problems, which cha­racterize self efficacy. There are also domain specific aspects of goal formation, which, inthe case of substance use, find expression in the reasons that young people give for theiruse. We conceive the more generic aspects of skills as durable traits which may be assessedby more global measures of personal and social competence.

The extensive literature on substance use can be reconceptualised within the frameworkof the specific aims of this paper, viz. to use the life skills perspective with its emphasis on«empowerment» and «control» so as to examine frequency and level of substance use in termsof (a) goal formation, (b) self efficacy and competence, (c) personal traits of self presenta­tion, and (d) the use of knowledge to monitor and direct behaviour.

First, substance use can be related to goal directed activity in personal development. Forexample, in educational contexts, drug use was associated with lower educational aspirations(Spencer & Navaratnam, 1980); and problem drinking with low achievement orientation (Smart& Gray, 1979; Budd, Elser, Morgan, & Gammage, 1985).

Second, several studies report on associations between substance use and self-efficacyor self concept. High use of alcohol is generally associated with a lack of sense of compe­tence and low self-esteem (e.g, Tarbox, 1919; Butler, 1982). Tarbox (1919), for example, foundalcoholics performed considerably less well than non-alcoholics on measures of self-regulatorycompetence. Rist and Watzl (1983) found that while alcoholic patients might regard themsel­ves as competent in general assertiveness situations, they expected difficulties in coping withsituations of social temptation to drink alcohol. In contrast, Shore (1983) reported that socially«at ease» students will drink but resist pressure to drink more. That is. there may be a strongelement of control in alcohol use. Segal, Rhenberg and Sterling (1975) found that drug users

LIFE SKILLS PERSPECTIVE AND SUBSTANCE USE 405

had low self-concept, and were dissatisfied with their physical, moral-ethical, personal, andfamily selves.

There is some evidence that a sense of self-efficacy and control are important in theself-regulation of substance use. For example, successful female smoking quitters possesseda high sense of self-efficacy (Barrios & Niehaus, 1985). Smart and Gray (1979) highlightedthe importance of «internality» when they found «self» factors were important correlatesof drinking behaviour. Substance use is also associated with the development and displayof a sense of social competence e.g. sociability, sense of well-being, social ease, release ofsocial tension and coping with stressful situations (Beck & Summons, 1985; Jessor & Jessor,1975; Spencer & Navaratnam, 1979). Abstainers or non-users of substances have been foundto be higher on self-concept variables (Butler, 1982) but also to be more attuned to externalcontrols (e.g. parental and peer disapproval, Johnson, 1985; Rohrbaugh & lessor, 1975; Chassin,Presson & Sherman, 1984; Spencer & Navaratnam, 1979). Fear of addiction, fear of beingcaught, and fear of a bad trip also serve as controls (Spencer & Navaratnam, 1979).

Third, the personal traits associated with substance use are diverse and covary with gen­der, class and context. Botvin (1983, p. II7), for example, cites evidence for the followingfactors: external locus of control, low self-esteem, low self-satisfaction, a greater need forsocial approval, low self-confidence, high anxiety, low assertiveness, impulsivity, rebellious­ness, impatience to assume adult roles, susceptibility to social pressures. Such factors can,for the most part, be readily subsumed under the major life skill concepts of «control», «self­-regulation», and perceptions of competence. We concentrate in this paper on two possiblefactors - outgoing behaviour and considerateness for others.

Fourth, a number of studies have focussed on the role of knowledge in substance use.What has to date been generally lacking, however, is sufficient consideration of joint usageof various substances by young people, together with an examination of their knowledge ofsubstance use and its effects. McBride and Clayton (1985), for example, while appreciatingthat public policy is connected to specific classes of drugs also argue for greater considera­tion of joint usage because of parsimony of presentation and analysis. Do young people,for example, use their knowledge of the effects of different substances to regulate their intakein line with personal and social development? The life skills perspective would suggest thatthe application of such knowledge is central to self-regulation in terms of setting limits ofusage and boundaries of exploration and experimentation. Knowledge may be basic as equip­ment for competence.

Studies focussing on knowledge as a factor in substance use have not generally reportedhigh levels of association between knowledge and behaviour, or accurate perceptions of actualknowledge. Butler (1982), for example, found that knowledge of alcohol was not related toalcohol consumption in early adolescence. Smart and Gray (1979) reported that their know­ledge scale accounted for little of the variance in use, but was still one of the more primarycorrelates of drinking behaviour. Galli (1978), assessing the relationship among student per­ception of knowledge, their levels of interest, and actual knowledge about drugs, found nosignificant relation between perception of knowledge and actual level of knowledge.

In their study of the drinking behaviour and attitudes of Saskatchewan adolescents, Hea­therington, Dickenson, Cipywnyk and Hay (1979) explored knowledge about effects and mainsources of information. Primary reasons for not drinking were a mixture of external andinternal controls: trouble with police, loss of self-control, fear of reliance on alcohol to solveproblems and effects on health. Primary predictors of drinking level were context, access,and perceptions of parents' drinking. In the present study, we sought to examine further therole of knowledge of use and of effects as they relate to self perceived competence and pat­terns of substance use.

406

Aims

M. POOLE & G. EVANS

Within the life skills perspective developed above, especially in relation to competence,knowledge, and control, the aims of the present study were to relate frequency of use andpatterns of use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana to (I) goal related behaviour, (2) self­-perceptions of general efficacy and of specific controlling behaviours involved in the useof rules and avoidance of problems associated with substance use, (3) self-perceptions of per­sonal traits related to interaction with others, and (4) knowledge related to substance useand the use made of that knowledge.

These four foci were studied both separately and in conjunction as part of the overallperspective of life skills and empowerment. In detail, goal related behaviours were studiedin terms of (a) reasons for never using, giving up, or now using the various substances, (b)general goal setting preferences, and (c) previous expressions of self concept on hierarchi­cally related goals of health, security and belonging, and success, (e.g. Maslow, 1962). Effi­cacy and control were examined in terms of (a) prior self-perceptions of competence in generallife skills and stressful situations and (b) the use of rules and avoidance of problems relatedto substance use. Interactive traits were examined in terms of prior self perceptions of (a)considerateness for others and (b) outgoing behaviour. Knowledge components included (a)self reported knowledge of methods of use and effects, (b) tested knowledge of effects, and(c) self reports of use made of this knowledge.

Method

Instrumentation

A series of questions were developed in pilot work to assess aspects of life skill compe­tence and substance use. Details of scale development for the Life Skills Study were reportedby Evans and Poole (1987) and Poole and Evans (1986). Scales developed for the presentstudy on substance use are detailed in Appendix 1. The Life Skill questionnaires were admi­nistered in small groups to young people when they were still in formal educational settingsin 1984 or 1985 and by mail surveys when they had left such settings in 1986. The data onsubstance use were obtained entirely by mail surveys in 1987. The substance use questionnai­res sought demographic and context information; frequencies of substance use (Tobacco, Alco­hol, Drugs, Appendix I); goal related reasons for substance use (Appendix 11); aspects ofcompetence reflected in self-regulation strategies associated with substance use and problemsencountered through usage (Appendix III); and knowledge relating to substance use (Appen­dix V). The Youth Goal Setting Scale (YGSS) and Social Goal Setting Scale (SGSS) develo­ped by Ford (1982) served to measure general goal setting characteristics (Appendix I). Scalesfrom the Life Skill Questionnaires administered in 1984/85 (Poole and Evans, 1986) inclu­ded: (a) scales of self concept, related to general goal fulfilment, based on Maslow's (1962)hierarchy of needs, relating to health, security, and success (Appendix II) and (b) scales ofself-perceived competence in life skill areas and coping with stressful situations and interper­sonal stress (Appendix III), and (c) scales of self perceptions of outgoing and consideratebehaviour (Appendix IV). The variables derived from the questionnaires, together and withscale and item descriptions and Cronbach alpha estimates of coefficients of reliability forthose scales, are detailed in Apprendix I, under the headings substance use, goals, compe­tence, interaction, and knowledge.

Sample

The subjects for the present study were 360 young people (144 males and 216 females)aged mainly 18 to 20 years, living in two states (202 in Queensland and 158 in New SouthWales). Age frequencies were: 23 less than 18 years, 118 of 18+ years, 155 of 19+ years,

LIFE SKILLS PERSPECTIVE AND SUBSTANCE USE 407

and 64 of 20+ years. These young people were either in their second or third year of a lon­gitudinal study, having been previously questioned in June 1984 or June 1985 and in 1986.The original sampling frame, in each state, comprised 4 government schools, 4 non-governmentschools, and 4 'Iechnical and Further Education (TAFE) colleges selected to be part of alongitudinal study on life skills.

Of the original samples in 1984 and 1985, some 600 students were included in the 1986mail survey on life skills. These same students were approached by mail for the substanceuse survey in 1987, and 395 (or 66 percent) responded, for 360 (61 percent) of which there wasa complete set of 1984/5, 1986, and 1987 data. The proportion of young people from eachsection of the original sample (schools and TAFE) suggested no systematic sampling bias.The percentages involved in work and study combinations were: neither, 6; part-time study,no work, 2; part-time work and no study, 4; full time work only, 46; full time study only,17; full time work and part-time study, 12; and full time study and part-time work, 13. Thus58 percent were in full time work, 30 percent in full time study, and 12 percent were notemployed or studying full time. These figures suggest the sample contained somewhat fewerunemployed people than expected from the national sources.

Results

The analysis of the data involved frequency distributions, analysis of variance (univa­riate and multi-variate), and correlational and factor analysis. In the case of analyses ofvariance, group contrasts were carried out where appropriate using the Studentized range(Newman-Keuls procedure). In what follows, the term «drugs» refers to other than alcoholand tobacco for simplicity of expression. The numbers of respondents in each use category(never, gave up, now use) for each substance are given in Table I, together with joint usenumbers and frequencies of use. Alcohol use is most prevalent (79 percent) with only 13 per­cent reporting «never used». While 60 percent had smoked, only 34 percent still did so, whileonly 14 percent continued to use marijuana. Some of the lighter users of alcohol and tobaccoalso placed themselves in the «gave up» category.

Thble 1Numbers oj respondents in categories oj substance use

History of use

Never used Gave up Now use

Substance n 0J0 n % n 0J0 Total

Tobacco 140 39 97 27 123 34 360Alcohol 45 13 31 9 284 79 360Marijuana 221 61 89 25 50 14 360

Current use pattern

Substance n ClJo

Drugs +Alcohol +TobaccoDrugs +AlcoholAlcohol +TobaccoAlcohol onlyTobacco onlyUse none

321874

!602056

95

2144

616

Frequencies of use

None I per day 1-9 per day 10-19 per day 20+ per dayTobacco 204 63 43 31 19

None 1-5 per roth 6-19 per roth 20-39 per roth 40+ per mthAlcohol 68 115 III 36 30Marijuana 310 32 13 2 3

Tableau 1Nombres de reponses dans les difJerentes categories d'usage des substances nocives

408 M. POOLE & G. EVANS

Specific goals: Reasons for substance use

The importance attached to various reasons for use allows comparison of goal relatedand other motivational cognitions both within and between substances. Means and internalconsistencies of «importance» scales are shown in Table 2.

For never smoking, never drinking, or never using drugs, there were two major reasonsrated highly - fears of bad effects on health or of addiction, and rejecting through a senseof control e.g. «I can enjoy life without smoking», «I know how to refuse cigarettes andstill keep my friends», «I am able to refuse, even if I lose my friends», «I feel OK aboutsaying no». Other major reasons endorsed were: «against my principles», taste or aroma,and expense, for all substances, and social pressure from parents, friends, or boyar girl­friend, for drugs only. Social pressure, from peers, boy or girlfriend, or parents, sanctions(trouble with police or work and study), and being «too scared to try» (timidity) were ratedmuch lower in the case of smoking and drinking.

Table 2Mean rating and standard deviation for reasons for neverusing, giving up or using substances

REASONS SMOKING ALCOHOL DRUGS

(4 point scale) Never Gave up Use Never Gave up Use Never Gave up Use(1 = low 4=high)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Taste orAdministration 3.5 .9 - 2.4 .93.2 1.0 - 3.3 .72.8' 1.3 - 2.2 1.0

Expense 2.9 1.2 2.4 1.1 - 3.1 1.1 2.6 1.2 - 3.5 1.0 2,1 1.2 -Bad effect orAddiction 3.5 .72.7 .92.7 .93.5 .72.0 1.0 1.2 .4 3.7 .61.8 .91.2 .6

Pleasant effect - - 2.4 .7 - - 2.0 .8 - - 2.4 .7

Control 3.4 .83.1 .9 - 3.5 .73.1 1.1 - 3.7 .73.1 1.0 -Development - - 1.4 .4 - - 1.2 .5 - - 1.4 .6

Social modellingor pressure 2.1 1.0 2.0 .81.7 .72.2 1.0 1.5 .81.6 .73.0 1.1 2.0 1.0 1.5 .7

Sanctions - - - 2.6 1.1 1.3 .6 - - 1.3 .6 -Against

.62.6 1.3principles 3.1 1.1 2.8 1.1 - 3.2 1.0 2.2 1.2 - 3.8 -Does no harm - - 1.7 1.0 - - 2.2 .8 - - 2.4 .8

Fear 1.6 1.0 - - 1.9 1.0 - - 2.6 1.1 - -Curiosity - - 1.6 .7 - - 1.8 .9 - - 2.3 1.0

Tableau 2Valeurs moyennes et ecarts types des reponses aux differentesraisons pour lesquelles les sujets n'on jamais utilise, ont renonceou utilisent les differentes substances

The most highly rated reasons for giving up were, in each case, again related to con­trol, as assessed by four questions similar to those above. Deciding it was against one's prin­ciples was moderately important in each case, but social pressures and sanctions were oflittle importance. Bad health effects were seen as moderately important in giving up smoking.

The main reasons for use were only partly related to control. Items in the social deve­lopment category were not endorsed. These were concerned with: not being the odd oneout, mixing, impressing, being more grown up, emulating admired adults, or being unable

LIFE SKILLS PERSPECTIVE AND SUBSTANCE USE 409

to refuse and still keep friends. On average these were regarded as being almost not impor­tant at all as reasons for using any of the three substances. The reasons rated most impor­tant were: for tobacco, addiction (it's a habit with me; I'd like to give up but it's too hardto); for alcohol and drugs, taste or aroma and pleasant effects. These last included pleasantfeelings, relaxation, coping, confidence, and, for smoking, increased concentration, and, foralcohol and drugs, increased creativity. There is thus some element of seeking control throughcoping and confidence. Addiction was not seen as important for alcohol or drugs. Socialmodelling (parents, friends, girl or boyfriends, or advertisements) was not seen as importantfor any substance. In the case of drugs one of the highest means was for the item «theydo me no harm»,

Table 3 presents the mean relative frequencies of substance use where there are signifi­cant differences between levels of importance attributed to reasons by those young peoplewho were current users. For tobacco, those who endorsed curiosity actually smoked less, pre­sumably because they were beginners. Those who endorsed addiction more were heavier smo­kers. The same result for addiction applies to alcohol and drug use. Similarly, those whoendorsed taste, pleasant effects, and social modelling more for alcohol weresignificantly heavierusers. A comparison of the differences in means with the overall standard deviations alsoindicates quite substantial effect sizes for these results between 30 and 78 percent. These rela­tionships between the importance attached to reasons and extent of use are supported bythe simple correlations given in Thble 4-8. Frequency of alcohol use has significant low tomoderate correlation with the rated importance of addiction, pleasant effect and taste, fre­quency of smoking with addiction and curiosity, and frequency of drug use with addictionand pleasant effect. The correlations in Table 4-B for each set of users are grouped accor­ding to a principal factor analysis of the variables, indicating the relationships between thevariables that may contribute to substance use.

Thble 3ANOVA results and mean frequencies of substance usefor different levels of importance of reasons

Substance Reasons F P Importance categories (a) Pop.mean frequencies of use S.D.

(b) (d)Tobacco Curiosity 3.7 <.05 N(69) LMV(54)

c) 8.5 7.7 2.3

Addiction 9.4 <.003 NL(62) MV(61)7.5 8.8 2.3

Alcohol Taste 10.7 <.001 NLM(l54) V(l26)4.0 4.7 1.8

Addiction 22.4 -e.ooor N(240) LMV(38)4.1 5.5 1.8

Pleasant 20.5 <.01 NL(204) MV(73)effect 4.1 4.7 1.9Social 5.7 <.02 N(l45) LMV(l32)

4.0 4.5 1.8Marijuana Addiction 5.6 <.02 N(41) LMV(9)

2.8 4.2 1.8

Note. (a) Only results for significant differences are shown.(b) N=Reason not important L=A little important

M = Moderately important V= Very important(c) Frequencies expressed on a 12 point scale:

I = none; 7=40+ per month; 9=40+ per week; 12=40+ per day.(d) Number of cases in each comparison shown in brackets.

Tableau 3ANOVA (valeurs de F) et frequences moyennes d'utilisation des substancesnocives pour differents niveaux d'importance des raisons invoquees

410 M. POOLE & G. EVANS

In summary there is a contrast in the reasons that were endorsed for not using or givingup and for using. The former tend to emphasise control and fear of bad effects; the latteremphasise addiction, pleasant effects, or acceptance, but not social or personal developmentor control, except to help with coping. In no case was social pressure or social modellingseen as even moderately important, except in the case of not using drugs.

Substance use and general goal related self concepts

The differential importance attached to control in using or not using various substan­ces suggests that self perceptions of general goal related competencies may also be relatedto the extent of substance use. The Youth Goal Settings Scale (YGSS) and the Social GoalSetting Scale were used to explore such an effect. As shown by Table 4-A, when non usersare included there are low but significant negative correlations between scores on the for­mer and frequency of use of tobacco and marijuana. Table 4-B shows that, when non-usersare excluded, frequency of alcohol use and of marijuana use each have a low but significantnegative correlation with the goal setting (YGSS) scores.

The other view of goal related behaviour used here is the person's self concept on gene­ral goal related traits-health, security and belonging, and success. Measures of these wereavailable from administrations of questionnaires in 1984 (or 1985 for some participants) and1986. The overall correlations in Table 4-A again indicate small but significant negativecorrelations between these measures and smoking frequency and the 1986 self-ratings ofsuccess were also weakly negatively related to frequency of use of alcohol and marijuana.Users and non-users thus appear to be differentiated to a small extent by their previous selfconcept.

General competence. self efficacy, and substance use

Allied to general goal satisfactions is the extent to which the person feels competentin everyday life situations. The measures of life skill competence, coping with interpersonalstress, and coping with stressful situations, made two years earlier, were used to assess thisaspect. As Table 4-B indicates, such prior traits were significantly related to the extent ofuse of marijuana by users, but not of alcohol or tobacco.

Specific control of substance use. Rules and problems

While self perception of general goal related competence is related only weakly to use,stronger relationships should be expected for more specific control through the use of rulesrelated to use, such as knowing when to stop, reserving particular times and places for use,diluting, avoiding some contacts, knowing how to refuse and still keep friends, being ableto say no. Each of the «Rules» scales comprised such items. The correlations between totalrules scores and frequencies of use are given in Table 4-B. The correlations are all modera­tely strong negative (alcohol -.36, tobacco -.52, marijuana -.40).

The converse of rule use is the number of problems encountered, e.g. with family,friends, girl or boyfriend, driving, at work or study place, with health or with loss ofcontrol. Table 4-B shows that again that extent of problems, indicating lack of control, issomewhat correlated with extent of use for alcohol (.31) and drugs (.24), but hardly fortobacco (.10).

The relationships between rules or problems and frequency of substance use for subs­tance users were tested in more detail by use of MANOVA, which indicated significant rela­tionships between rule use and frequency for both tobacco (p<.OOI, df= 2, 111) and alcohol(p<.OOOl, df= 2, 222). For high, medium, and low rule use for smoking, the respective mean

LIFE SKILLS PERSPECTIVE AND SUBSTANCE USE

Table 4Correlations with frequencies of use of substances

A. Total sample. including non-user (N= 360) (r>.ll significant at .05 level)

411

Frequency of use

Alcohol Smoking Marijuana

Frequencies Alcohol 1.00of use Smoking .36 1.0

Marijuana .37 .27 1.00

Knowledge Alcohol .51 .28 .25of use Smoking .33 .64 .17

Drugs .42 .36 .50

Forgetting Alcohol .25 .25 .17knowledge Smoking .19 .49 .14of effects Drugs .19 .23 .31

Using Alcohol -.15 -.20 -.13knowledge Smoking -.13 -.39 -.11of effects Drugs -.11 -.02 -./6

Youth Goal Setting Scale -.06 -.12 -.11

Considerateness 1984/5 -.14 -.21 -.161986 -.17 -.25 -.19

Outgoing 1984/5 .25 .21 .191986 .19 .10 .15

Health 1984/5 .02 -.05 -.021986 -.04 -.26 -.09

Security 1984/5 -.03 -.16 -.021986 -.04 -.21 -.11

Success 1984/5 -.08 -.14 -.091986 -.15 -.18 -.11

B. Correlation within user groups(* Each set of variables has beencategorized according to the results ofprincipal factor analysis.)

Alcohol Users (N = 280). Correlations of frequency of alcohol use with:

a.· Taste (reason) .20; pleasant effect (reason) .21; knowledge of use .36;b. Using knowledge of effects -.13; forgetting knowledge .14;c. Outgoing tendency 1984/5 .22; outgoing tendency (1986) .16;d. Goal setting -.11; rule use -.36; considerateness 1984/5 -.14;

considerateness (1986) -.15; addiction .28; problems .31;social (reasons) .15.

Smokers (N = 120). Correlation of smoking frequency with:

a. Rule use -.52; considerateness (1984/5) -.24;using knowledge of effects -.16; curiosity -.16; addiction .32;knowledge of use .34.

Drug Users (N = 50). Correlation of frequency of marijuana use with:

a. Addiction .28; pleasant effect .20; taste .20;b. Outgoing tendency 1984/5 .25; outgoing 1986 .14;c. Considerateness 1984/5 -.26; considerateness 1986 -.22;d. Goal setting -.26; rule use -.40; coping with stressful situations 1984/5 -.21; coping with inter­

personal stress 1984/5 -.18; security 1986 -.25; success 1984 -.20; tested knowledge -.21; pro­blems .24; forgetting knowledge of effects .18; knowledge of use .21.

Tableau 4Correlations avec la frequence d'utilisation des substances nocives

412 M. POOLE & G. EVANS

frequencies of tobacco use were 6.7, 7.6, and 9.0, on the 12 point scale, compared withan estimated population standard deviation of 2.4. This indicates a substantial effect sizeof 96 percent of a standard deviation between low and high rule users. Similarly, for alco­hol, for relatively high, medium, and low rule use, the mean frequencies of alcohol use were3.7,4.5, and 5.2, with an estimated population standard deviation of 1.8. Again this repre­sents a substantial effect size (83 percent). The effect of rule use for marijuana was notsignificant (P = .28), but it was in the predicted direction, with mean marijuana use frequen­cies for high and low rule use of 2.8 and 3.4 (SD= 1.8).

As expected, the problems experienced by users were also related to frequency of use,again in the expected direction, but the differences were statistically significant only for alcoholusers (p<.OOOl). Those with few or no problems had a mean frequency of alcohol use of3.8 compared with 5.1 for those whith more problems. This effect size (72 percent) is alsoappreciable when compared with an estimated population S.D. of 1.8.

Substance use and traits of self-presentation

The self report ratings on considerateness had small significant negative correlationswith frequency of use of all three substances whether or not non-users were excluded (Tables4-A and 4-B). Similarly out-going tendencies had positive correlations. These results heldfor both the 1984/5 and the 1986 data, indicating relationships between long standing selfperceptions of personal traits and substance use.

Knowledge and use of knowledge relating to substance use

Table 5 presents the mean scores on the knowledge variables together with significantdifferences between patterns of joint use, arising from a multivariate analysis of variance(Multivariate F, p<.OOI). Generally, users of substances have more knowledge of how touse them and users of two or more substances have more knowledge than others, a notunexpected finding. Tobacco only users have the lowest tested or actual knowledge aboutthe effects of smoking and alcohol. Alcohol only users have the highest tested knowledgeabout the effects of alcohol and tobacco. Those who both smoke and drink are least likelyto use their knowledge about the effects of alcohol and tobacco. Drug users are least likelyto use their knowledge about the effects of drugs. Those who both smoke and drink aremost likely to forget to use their knowledge of the effects of these substances. The smokersonly also are likely to forget the effects of smoking. Drug users are most likely to forgetto use their knowledge about drugs. There were low correlations between self reported know­ledge of use and self-reported knowledge of effects (about .20) but near zero correlationsfor tested knowledge.

Since alcohol use was entailed in many of the significant contrasts mentioned above,a further set of analyses was carried out to compare differences in knowledge related varia­bles for various levels of alcohol use. The pattern of differences conformed with those inTable 5. Expectedly, knowledge of alcohol use increased with frequency of use (p<.OOl), butthose who drank moderately had a greater tested knowledge of the effects of alcohol thaneither non-users or heavy users. Those who drank most rated themselves lower on the usethey made of their knowledge of effects and were more likely to forget to use this knowledge.

A further examination of knowledge of effects was obtained by correlation analysis.Tables 4-A and 4-8 also show that knowledge of use was correlated with frequency of useboth for users of each substance, and overall, when non-users are included. There were alsointer-relations between substances. Neither perceived nor tested knowledge of effects wassignificantly related to use levels. Again, using knowledge was negatively related to frequencyof use, and likelihood of forgetting positively correlated, for each substance. It is evidentlynot knowledge of effects so much as using this knowledge, or remembering to use it, whichis most likely to have an effect on substance use.

LIFE SKILLS PERSPECTIVE AND SUBSTANCE USE 413

Table 5Overall mean scores on knowledge related variablesand significant differences between patterns 0/ use

(multivariate F for all knowledge variables: p<.OOI)

Overall Mean for each pattern of use

Variable Substance M (a) SD N (c) D A+T A T P

Perceived Alcohol 2.80 .78 1.9 3.3 (d) U. 2.9 2.7 <.001knowledge Tobacco 2.82 1.12 1.9 3.3 il 2.4 3.8 <.001of use Drugs 1.73 .78 2.0 ti 2.7 2.3 2.2 <.001

Perceived Alcohol 3.42 .66 NS .87knowledge Tobacco 3.41 .71 NS .38of effects Drugs 3.33 .78 NS .59

Tested Alcohol 5.54 2.60 4.9 5.3 5.6 5.9 4.9 .02knowledge Tobacco 5.73 2.97 5.2 5.7 II 6.3 4.9 .001of effects (b) Drugs 8.83 2.23 NS .11

Use made of Alcohol 3.02 .92 3.1 2.9 2.6 3.1 3.7 <.001knowledge Tobacco 3.04 1.07 3.1 2.8 2.3 3.4 2.8 <.001of effects Drugs 3.41 .97 3.3 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.9 <.002

Likelihood of Alcohol 2.01 1.01 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.1 <.001forgetting Tobacco 1.80 1.10 1.1 2.2 2.7 1.4 2.4 <.001effects Drugs lAO .86 1.1 b.l 1.3 1.3 1.8 <.001

Note. (a] Except for tested knowledge. ratings reduced to a 4-point scale (4=high).(b) Maximum scores: Alcohol. II; Tobacco, 9; Drugs, 12.(c) N =Use nosubstances; D=Use drugs alone or in combination; A + T=Alcohol and tobacco, butnotdrugs;

A=Alcohol only;T=Tobacco only.(d) Underlined means indicate significant differences in the direction of substance users.

Tableau 5Scores moyens generaux, et scores moyens pour chaque pattern d'utilisationdes substances nocives, aux differentes variables concernant les connaissances relatees

Discussion

The patterns of individual and joint substance usage show the importance of the fac­tors identified and developed above in the life skills framework with its emphasis on goal­-formation, self efficacy and competence, personal traits. and knowledge which enablesmonitoring and directing of behaviour (e.g. Ford, 1985; Evans & Poole, 1983, 1985, ]987;Poole & Evans, 1986, in press).

Goal orientation

Self concepts concerned with health, security, belonging, and success reflect fulfilmentof general pervasive goals. There is some evidence that such views of self are related negati­vely to smoking frequency, even when measured one to three years earlier. However foralcohol and marijuana, only self perceptions of success were significantly correlated. Whilethe effects are not large, they do point to contributory self concept factors in substanceuse, particularly smoking. The tendency to set goals for oneself (YGSS results) has similarweak but consistent relationships.

The reasons endorsed for using or not using substances may be regarded as expressionsof goals in specific situations. The main reasons endorsed for not beginning to use eachtype of substance had to do with personal control (internality). rather than social pressure,sanctions, or timidity, and with a dislike of taste or aroma and fear of possible addictive

414 M. POOLE & G. EVANS

effects. Similar reasons applied to giving up substances. In contrast, the main reasons forusing the substances were hedonistic or for relaxation; and, in the case of tobacco, addic­tion. However, substance use was seen also as contributing to coping and to increased con­centration (smoking) or increased creativity (alcohol). These results support earlier researchon substance use, self-concept, and self-efficacy (e.g. Tarbox, 1979; Butler, 1982; Segal, Rhen­berg, & Sterling, 1975); and that of Smart and Gray (1979) in relation to «internality»; andSpencer and Navaratnam (1979) in terms of fear of addiction serving as a control.

Self-efficacy and competence

Self-perceived competence and control relate to substance use, either in terms of the appli­cation of generative control strategies to specific substances or situations, or the intentionaleasing of such controls for sociable or pleasurable reasons. The results of the present studyindicated the importance of context specific life skills. For example, substance use appearsto be monitored by the competent person using control through the utilisation of specificrules for self regulation (e.g, knowing when to stop; being able to resist pressure and sayno; exercising control by restricting usage to particular times). Correlations between rule useand frequency of substance use were at a useful level. These results are consistent with thosereported by Shore (1983) for socially «at ease» students being able to resist pressures to drinkmore, Tarbox (1979) for self-regulatory competence in relation to alcohol, and Rist and Watzl(1983) for assertiveness skills in specific situations involving social temptation to drink alcohol.

The use of rules to monitor and regulate substance use can also be interpreted in termsof a «behavioural repertoire» and «equipment for competence». The occurrence of problemsarising from substance use, e.g, with family, friends, girl/boyfriend, driving, work, study,and health, can be interpreted as a lack of control. In the factor analysis of variables asso­ciated with use, rules and problems were negatively correlated, and appeared in the samefactor, and, as would be expected, incidence of problems was positively related to frequencyof use for each substance. The use of context specific regulatory behaviours thus suggestsan important aspect of the life skills approach which may be applied to substance use.

We also argued that long standing self perceptions of general life skill competence andof coping with stressful situations might indicate generic competencies able to be appliedto current use of substances, or to non-use. This expectation was only partially fulfilled, inthe case of marijuana use. The idea does, however, show some promise; there needs to bea more precise tracing, starting with the relationship between current perceptions of life skillcompetence, frequency of substance use, and use of regulatory behaviours.

Tho other sets of measures of self-concept did have useful correlations with substanceuse - that of health, security, and success based on Maslow's needs hierarchy, and that ofself presentation. The former have already been discussed in terms of goal related variables.The self-presentation variables, considerateness and outgoing behaviour. are oppositely rela­ted to substance use, and appear to be consistent predictors of use or non-use and extent of use.

Know/edge and control

The life skills perspective emphasises the importance of knowledge and of applicationof knowledge within the domain of substance use. Knowledge of use, presumably gained byexperience, is associated with frequency of use, both overall and for users of each substance.Of more importance is knowledge of the effects of substance use and application of thatknowledge. Tested knowledge of effects of smoking was least for smokers, indicating a pos­sible educational implication, but alcohol users were those most knowledgeable about theeffects of drinking. Such findings may be compared with those reported by Butler (1982),Smart and Gray (1982), and Galli (1978), for the use of specific substances. In addition, thelife skill perspective used here would suggest that propositional knowledge (as tested) canonly contribute to competence and self-efficacy if and when that knowledge is used to

LIFE SKILLS PERSPECTIVE AND SUBSTANCE USE 415

control or monitor substance use. The relationships for each substance between use vs. nonuse or frequency of use, on the one hand, and the use made of knowledge of effects andthe likelihood of forgetting to use the knowledge, on the other, gives good support to thisproposition.

Educational implications

The above discussion suggests some useful educational implications. While the youngpeople in this study had left school one or two years previously, their responses suggestsome educational strategies which could be used in the later years of school or at technicalcolleges, or by parents and youth workers. There are four areas that present possibili­ties: making knowledge of effects more accessible; discussion of how to form and utilizerules of use; helping students come to terms with self presentation; and promoting selfcontrol.

Knowledge of effects, particularly addiction, appears to be a basic requirement for con­trolling use in that it provides both a rationale and motivation for regulatory behaviour. Thereare two problems. First, many young people, according to these data, do not have a cleargrasp of effects (Table 4). Helping young people acquire better knowledge should be a reali­zable educational goal. Second, possessing such knowledge offers no guarantee of using itin everyday life contexts. Translating knowledge into use could be done in one of three ways- through the use of rules, through an enhanced intention to control use, and through spe­cific training in using knowledge. The use of rules is correlated negatively with the frequencyof use for each substance. This suggests the importance of presenting and discussing theserules in available educational settings, particularly by allowing young people to discuss freelytheir own experiences and how they might deal with them. While specific training in control­ling the use of substances in the school or college setting may be impracticable, simulationexercises which introduce a range of peer and other social pressures are feasible. Use of know­ledge and rules in situ also sometimes implies a strong intention to withstand social pressure.Such resistance, it could be argued from the above discussion, could be helped by developinggoals and by a sense of security and success. While social modelling or pressure was notseen by the young people in this study as a salient reason for using or not using substances,other considerations suggest that there is a need to develop social support networks, espe­cially during the transition from school to work, as reference groups and as a context forusing regulating strategies in real life social settings.

The self presentation traits of considerateness and outgoing behaviour might both beregarded as desirable, but the latter is associated with increased substance use and the for­mer with less. There may be a case for helping students who are more outgoing, and pos­sibly more adventurous, come to terms better with their early use of substances. This couldwell take the form again of presenting usable strategies of regulation and encouraging theformation of general goals.

Finally, the reasons given by young people in support of patterns of substance use suggestthe importance of a general sense of control and a desire to exercisethis control in particularcontexts. Educational approaches that develop in young people an enhanced sense ofempowerment and control in various life contexts, including the classroom and workstation, may well make an important contribution to the specific control of substance use.Such an approach would be consistent with the general life skills approach on which thisstudy was based.

416

References

M. POOLE & G. EVANS

Baldwin, J., & Wells, H. (Eds.) (1979-1983). Active tutorial work, Books One-Five and Sixteen to Nineteen. Oxford:Basil Blackwell (with Lancashire County Council).

Barrios, F. X., & Niehaus, 1. C. (1985). The influence of smoker status, smoking history, sex and situational variableson smokers' self-efficacy. Addictive Behaviours, 10, 425-429.

Beck, K. H., & Summons, T. G. (1985). A comparison of the social context for alcohol consumption of college stu­dents and convicted DWI offenders. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 30, 31-39.

Boivin, G. J. (1983). Prevention of Adolescent Substance Abuse Through the Development of Personal and Social Com­petence. In T. J. Glynn, C. G. Luekefeld, and J. P. Ludford (Eds.). Preventing Adolescent Drug Abuse: Interven­tion Strategies. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 47. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 83-1280.Washington, D.C.: Supt of Docs, U.S. Govt, Print. Off., 115-140.

Brewster-Smith, M. (1968). Social Psychology and Human Values. Chicago: Aldine.

Budd, R. J., Elser, 1. R., Morgan, M., & Gammage, P. (1985). The personal characteristics and life style of the youngdrinker: the results of a survey of British adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 16, 145-157.

Butler, J. T. (1982). Early adolescent alcohol consumption and self-concept, social class and knowledge of alcohol.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 43, 603-607.

Button, L. (1982). Group tutoring for the form teacher 2: Upper secondary school. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Chassin, L., Presson, C. c., & Sherman, S. J. (1984). Cognitive and social influence factors in adolescent smokingcessation. Addictive Behaviours, 9, 383-390.

Dembo, R., Blount, W. R., Schmeilder, J. S., & Burgos, W. (1985). Methodological and substantive issues involvedin using the concept of risk in research into the etiology of drug use among adolescents. Journal of Drug Issues,15, 537-553.

Edgar, D., & Maas, F. (1984). Adolescent competence, leaving home and changing family patterns. In Social changeand family policies, key paper of the XXth International Committee on Family Research Seminar, Melbourne,Part I, 355-426.

Evans, G. T., & Poole, M. E. (1983). Life skills: concerns, needs, and attributions and skill levels of adolescents. Paperpresented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Educational Research.

Evans, G. T., & Poole, M. E. (1985). Educating for life skills: issues and theory. Unpublished paper, University of Queens­land, St. Lucia.

Evans, G. T., & Poole, M. E. (1987). Adolescent concerns: a classification for life skill areas. Australian Journal ofEducation, 31, 55-72.

Ford, M. E. (1982). Social cognition and social competence in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, IB, 323-340.

Ford, M. E. (1985).The concept of competence: themes and variations. In H. A. Marlowe, Jr. & R. B. Weinberg (Eds.),Competence Development (pp, 3-49). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

Galli, N. (1978). How self-perceived knowledge, actual knowledge and interest in drugs are related. Journal of DrugEducation, B, 197-202.

Heatherington, R. W., Dickenson, L, Cipywnyk, D., & Hay, D_ (1979). Attitudes and knowledge about alcohol amongSaskatchewan adolescents. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 70, 247-259.

Hopson, B., & Scally, M. (1981). Lifeskills teaching. London: McGraw-Hili Book Company (U.K.) Ltd.

lessor, R., & Jesser, S. L. (1975). Adolescent development and the onset of drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,36, 27-51.

Johnson, S. (1986). A survey of abstinence from alcohol amongst teenagers: an analysis of reasons for not drinking.Australian Alcohol/Drug Revie .... 4, 197-200.

Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton, Van.: Nostrand.

McBride, D. C., & Clayton, R. R. (1985). Methodological issues in the etiology of drug abuse, Journal of Drug Issues,15, 509-529.

Poole, M. E., & Evans, G. T. (1986). Adolescent self-perceptions of competence in life skiIJ areas. Paper presented tothe Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Education Research, Melbourne.

Poole, M. E., & Evans, G. T. (in press). The important things in life: Group differences in adolescent concerns. Austra­lian Journal of Education.

Rist, F., & Watzl, H. (1983). Self-assessment of social competence situations with and without alcohol by female alco­holics in treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, If, 367-311.

Rohrbaugh, R., & Jesser, R. (1975). Religiousity in youth: a personal control against deviant behaviour. Journal ofPersonality; 43, 136-155.

Segal, B., Rhenberg, G., & Sterling, S. (1975). Self-concept and drug and alcohol use in female college students. Jour­nal of Drug and Alcohol Education, 20, 17-22.

LIFE SKILLS PERSPECTIVE AND SUBSTANCE USE 417

Shore, E. R. (1983).Social ease in drinking situations among college students. The International Journal of the Addic­tions. 18, 875-~8O.

Smart, R. G., & Gray, G. (1979). Parental and peer influences as correlates of problem drinking among high schoolstudents. The International Journal of the Addictions, 14. 905-917.

Spencer, c., & Navaratnam, V. (1980).Social attitudes, self-description and perceived reasons for using drugs: a surveyof the secondary school population in Malaysia. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 5, 421-427.

Tarbox, A. R. (1979). Self-regulation and sense of competence in men alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 40,860-867.

Victorian Ministry of Education (Schools Division) and Health Commission (1986). Report on the survey of drug useamong Victorian post primary students.

AppendixVariables used in the study

I. SUBSTANCE USE VARIABLES

Frequency of use (based on Victorian Survey of Drug Use, 1985) of alcohol, tobacco,and drugs. (Marijuana, Hallucinogens, Stimulants, Narcotics, Inhalants).The scales were based on number of items of substance taken per month, week, or day.

II. GOAL RELATED VARIABLES

Reasons for Never using, Giving up, UsingFor each substance students were asked to rate how important a number of reasons werefor never using, giving up, or now using on a 4 point scale (4=very important, 3= mode­rate, 2= little, I = not at all). Sub-scales (see Thble 2) were based on factor analysis ofeach of the nine sets of items and maximizing reliabilities. For smoking, reliabilities ran­ged from .53 to .79, for alcohol use, .66 to .86, and drug use, .67 to .85.

Goal Related Self-Concepts (1984/5 and 1986)Three scales based on Maslow's (1962) hierarchy of needs were developed and used in1984/85 and 1986 from semantic differential scales, each rated on a five point scale5= high, 1= low, using factor analysis:

Health A 3 item scale (healthy/unhealthy; strong/weak; energetic/slow). 0:=.55.Security A 12 item scale including items such as well-fed/hungry; secure/insecure;

despairing/hopeful; loved/unlowed. 0:= .90.Success A 6 item scale including failing/succeeding; winner/loser; clever/not cle-

ver. 0:=.74.

General Goal SettingThe Youth Goal-Setting Scale (YGSS): Ford (1982). A 12item scale of goal-direetedness(e.g, I know what I want out of life; my goals are clearly defined; I'm very concer­ned about the future). Each item presents a forced preference. 0:=.78.Social Goal Setting Scale (SGSS): Ford (1982). A 12 item scale of interest in socialgoals (e.g. I have some long-range social goals I'm working on; I often think abouthow my friendships are going; I like to plan ways to improve my social life. Eachitem presents a forced preference. a= .64.

Ill. COMPETENCE RELATED VARIABLES

Life Skill and Situational Competence (1984/85 and 1986)General Life Skill Competence (LSC). A 36 item scale comprising responses on rela­tionships, activities, communication, personal development, social awareness, and lear­ning to learn to the question «How I think of myself:» (l=not so good; 2=just OK;3= pretty good; 4= great). 0:=.91.Coping with Stressful Situations (CSS). A 10 item scale comprising responses to the ques­tion «How good are you at coping with?» The situations included: being bored, upset,under pressure, working without supervision, taking blame. Response categories were(l=not very good, 2=just OK, 3=pretty good, 4= great). a=.78.

418 M. POOLE & G. EVANS

Coping with Interpersonal Stress (CIS). A 10 item scale based on young people's selfperceptions of their competence in coping with stressful interpersonal interactions e.g.people being angry with you; people getting in your way. Each item was rated on a 4point scale (1= not very good, 2=OK, 3=pretty good, 4 = great). a=.86.

Rules

Three scales concerned with rules for using alcohol (a =.72), rules for smoking (a =.69),and rules for using drugs (a = .79). Each scale comprised 9 items (different for each scale)expressing control over use. Each item has four response categories: very much like me,much like me, a little like me, and not at all like me.

Problems

Three scales concerned with problems experienced with alcohol use (8 items, a=.77),smoking (7 items, a=.70), and drug use (9 items, a=1.81). Problem categories includedproblems with family, girlfriend/boyfriend, friends, acquaintances, work, school, col­lege or university, health problems, for each substance, and one to three substance spe­cific items. Response categories as for rules.

IV. SELF PRESENTATION VARIABLES

Tho scales using semantic differential items (1984/5, 1986)

Considerateness. Based on 5 items, e.g, help others/don't help others, care­ful/careless, tidy/untidy. a =.70.

Outgoing behaviour. Based on 3 items; outspoken/quiet, outgoing/shy, loudvoice/soft voice. a=.75.

V. KNOWLEDGE RELATING TO SUBSTANCE USE

Knowledge oj How to Use

Tobacco 4 item scale e.g, doing drawbackAlcohol 5 item scale e.g, mixing drinksDrugs 6 item scale e.g, obtaining drugs, a safe

or satisfying amount to take

a=.96a=.89

a=.90

Perceived Knowledge of Effects

Single item on knowledge of effects on health, well being, families, and society for eachof tobacco, alcohol, and drugs on a 4 point scale, 4= high; 1= none.

AlcoholMarijuana

Tested Knowledge of Effects

Tobacco 12 item scale on known risks of effects of smoking(e.g. lung cancer, emphysema, stroke)

9 item multiple choice test of the effects of alcohol12 item true/false test of knowledge of effects of marijuana

a=.78a=.48a=.69

Use of Knowledge of Effects

Single item scales on how much use has been made of the respondent's knowledge aboutthe effects of each of tobacco, alcohol, drugs (4=high usage of knowledge to 1=none).

Forgetting Knowledge 0/ EffectsSingle item scales of how likely the respondent was to forget about the effects of eachof tobacco, alcohol, and drugs (4=very likely to forget to I = not likely to forget).

LIFE SKILLS PERSPECTIVE AND SUBSTANCE USE

L'utilisation de substances nocives chez des sujetsde 18 a 20 ans, a la lumiere de leurs habiletes

et savoir-faire de base

Cette etude se propose de contribuer a la comprehension de l'usagede substances nocives (tabac, alcool; marijuana, heroine, etc.) chez 360jeunes des deux sexes de 18 a20 ans (144 hommes, 216 femmes). Elletient compte des donnees demographiques et du contexte dans lequelse situe l'usage des substances nocives, ainsi que des raisons ou strate­gies qui conduisent ai'utilisation ou aune limitation de leur controte.

On a etabliune relation entre la frequence et la methode d'utilisa­tion des substances nocives considerees et I'explication que donnent lessujets de leur connaissance des methodes et des effets de cette utilisation.

Pour une meilleure appreciation des resultats de l'enquete faite en1987, en Nouvelles Galles du Sud et au Queensland (Australie), les lee­teurs francophones se reporteront avec profit au vocabulaire anglo-saxonde l'echelle des competences de Maslow qui sert de cadre aun certainnombre de suggestions de strategies educatives:

Key words: Life skills, Goals, Competence, Self-efficacy, Knowledge.

419

Received: July 1987Revision received: November 1987

Millicent Eleanore Poole. C/ Faculty of Education. Monash University, Clayton, VIC Australia 3186.

Current theme of research:

Youth in 'Iransitiou,

Most retevant publications in the field of Educational Psychology:

Poole, M. E. (19871. Youth in Transition. In S. P. Keeves (Ed.), Australian Education: Review of Recent Research (pp.286-315). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Poole, M. E. (1983). Youth; Expectations and Transitions. Melbourne: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Poole, M. E.• & Cooney, H. (1986). Work and leisure relationships: an exploration of life possibilities during adoles­cence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15. 475-486.

Poole, M. E., & Cooney. H. (1987). Orientations to the future: a comparison of adolescents in Australia and Singapore.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, /6, 129-151.

Glen Thomas Evans. C/ Department of Education, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD Australia 4067.

Current theme of research:

Adolescent competence and control of learning and behaviour.

Most relevant publications in the field of Educational Psychology:

Evans. G. T.• & Poole, M. E. (1987). Adolescent concerns: a classification for life skill areas. Australian Journal ofEducation. 31, 55-72.

Evans, G. T., & Poole, M. .E (1986). Evaluation of a skills-based language and information processing program. Aus­tralian Journal of Education. 30, 168-187.

Thylor, J. c.,& Evans, G. T. (1985). The architecture of human information processing: empirical evidence. Instructio­nal Science, 13. 347-359.

Evans, G. T. (1984). The School as a Centre for Professional Development. In M. Skilbeck (Ed.), Readings in SchoolBased Curriculum Development (pp. 256-270). London: Harper and Row.