The Influence of Economic Pressure on Emerging Adult Binge Drinking: Testing the Family Stress Model over Time

Abstract

The Family Stress Model proposes that disrupted family processes may help explain the association between economic adversity and poor child developmental outcomes. In this study, the Family Stress Model was tested across adolescence to emerging adulthood. Participants included 451 rural White youth who participated with their parents from age 13-23 (52% female). The data were analyzed at five developmental time periods with separate pathways for mothers and fathers. The findings reveal for both parents that economic pressure at time 1 (age 13) led to parental emotional distress which was related to harsh couple interaction at time 2 (ages 14 and 15). This marital conflict was related to harsh parenting toward the adolescent (time 2), which was then directly associated with higher levels of offspring drinking when youth were in middle adolescence (age 16) at time 3. Alcohol use in middle adolescence was associated with binge drinking in late adolescence (age 18, time 4) into emerging adulthood (age 23, time 5). Drinking behaviors did not differ for boys and girls. The current results show that economic adversity has an effect on family processes which influence offspring binge drinking patterns in later adolescence that continue into emerging adulthood.

Evaluation of a longitudinal family stress model in a population‐based cohort

“…In the longitudinal change FSM, the indirect effects via parenting explained roughly 50% of the total effect from SES at childbirth to youth outcomes, suggesting sizeable contributions from the direct effects (e.g., economic pressure at the age of one, maternal distress at the age of three, parenting at the age of five). Indeed, previous longitudinal tests of the FSM that examined this model across timespans of more than a few years report similarly small or non‐significant indirect effects of parenting (Diggs & Neppl, 2018; Kavanaugh et al, 2018; Neppl et al, 2016; White et al, 2015). By contrast, Landers‐Potts et al, (2015), whose longitudinal test of the FSM measured constructs only 2 years apart, reported much larger effect sizes ( αβ = .16, 85% of the total effect) for the indirect effects of economic pressure on youth outcomes via parenting (see also Henninger & Luze, 2014).…”

“…That is, we found evidence that economic pressure and maternal distress may predict youth outcomes via mechanisms outside of parenting. This result is difficult to compare with previous tests of the FSM model as results have been mixed-some studies have not tested for these direct effects (e.g., , some have found evidence for them (e.g., Kavanaugh et al, 2018), and others have not (e.g., Diggs & Neppl, 2018). However, there is good reason to believe that economic pressure and maternal distress may predict youth outcomes via multiple pathways.…”

Dimensions of Masculine Norms, Depression, and Mental Health Service Utilization: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study Among Emerging Adult Men in the United States

“…Emerging adulthood is often characterized by elevated stress culminating in a heightened vulnerability to mental health concerns (Adkins et al, 2009;Ghobadzadeh et al, 2019;Lee & Dik, 2017). This vulnerability is compounded for racial minorities and those from low-income communities, given unique stressors (Diggs & Neppl, 2018;Polanco-Roman et al, 2019;Polanco-Roman & Miranda, 2013), who may be less likely to engage in mental health treatment seeking (Blumberg et al, 2015;Chandra et al, 2009;Cummings, 2014;National Institute of Mental Health, 2019;Parent et al, 2018). In the present sample, masculine status was associated with less depressive symptomology and more treatment seeking, especially for emerging adult men who were not depressed.…”

Trends in US Alcohol Consumption Frequency During the First Wave of the SARS‐CoV‐2 Pandemic

“…Millions of lives were impacted directly by health concerns related to the virus, and the majority of US residents also experienced school and daycare closures, job loss, economic insecurity, and stay‐at‐home orders restricting typical movement, consumption, and social routines (Alon et al, 2020; Bartik et al, 2020; Bayham and Fenichel, 2020; Shanthakumar et al, 2020; Tull et al, 2020). People experiencing financial, social, and family stress, as well as major disasters, may increase alcohol consumption as a form of coping (Brown et al, 2014; Diggs and Neppl, 2018; Fergusson et al, 2014; Keyes et al, 2011; Rospenda et al, 2010; Sillaber and Henniger, 2004); thus, the pandemic may have led to increases in alcohol consumption and problematic alcohol use. Indeed, in the early months of the pandemic, academic editorials warned that the virus and subsequent state and municipal responses may lead to increases in heavy drinking, relapses for those struggling with alcohol use disorder, and subsequently a spike in alcohol‐related diseases and disorders, such as liver disease (Clay and Parker, 2020; Da et al, 2020).…”