2015
DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Trajectories of Early Binge Drinking: A Function of Family Cohesion and Peer Use

Abstract: Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we tested latent growth models examining whether the number of friends using alcohol and family cohesion were linked with trajectories of binge drinking (N = 3,342) from adolescence (average age 15.06) into young adulthood (average age 27.93). Adolescents with higher family cohesion had lower rates of binge drinking in adolescence (b = -.07, p < .05), while those with more friends drinking alcohol were more likely to binge drink in adolescence (b = .5… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
32
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
(77 reference statements)
5
32
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, cohesive families appear likely to decrease IGD escaping motives (i.e., individuals may not abscond to the virtual world due to their satisfying family context). Furthermore, such families may positively moderate other external stressors (i.e., peer issues), that could precipitate IGD behaviors, by providing a place of belonging, and a safe outlet for relieving tension (Rajesh et al 2015;Solloski et al 2015). This is in consensus with literature indicating family cohesion to have a buffering role in the associations between discomfort and distress and psychopathological behaviors, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (Farrell et al 1995;Ibanez et al 2015;Kaur and Kearney 2013).…”
Section: Family Cohesionsupporting
confidence: 76%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In particular, cohesive families appear likely to decrease IGD escaping motives (i.e., individuals may not abscond to the virtual world due to their satisfying family context). Furthermore, such families may positively moderate other external stressors (i.e., peer issues), that could precipitate IGD behaviors, by providing a place of belonging, and a safe outlet for relieving tension (Rajesh et al 2015;Solloski et al 2015). This is in consensus with literature indicating family cohesion to have a buffering role in the associations between discomfort and distress and psychopathological behaviors, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (Farrell et al 1995;Ibanez et al 2015;Kaur and Kearney 2013).…”
Section: Family Cohesionsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…To the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first study that has examined the potential protective effect of higher family cohesion for more anxious gamers. Nevertheless, the findings were in consensus with previous research suggesting that family cohesion may have a significant role in preventing the development of addictions (Solloski et al 2015;Rajesh et al 2015;Manzi et al 2006;Wark et al 2003;Li and Warner 2015). There are two potential reasons why this might be the case.…”
Section: Family Cohesion As a Buffer Of The Igd Risk Effect Of Anxietysupporting
confidence: 74%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There is consistent evidence that adolescents whose parents provide both boundaries and empathy, and monitor their activities and whereabouts have a lower binge drinking risk Kelly et al, 2016;Klima et al, 2014;Pedersen & von Soest, 2013;Soloski, Kale Monk, & Durtschi, 2016;Song, Smiler, Wagoner, & Wolfson, 2012;Steiner et al, 2014;Stickley et al, 2013). In contrast, authoritarian or neglectful parents are more likely to have binge drinking offspring (Stafstrom, 2014).…”
Section: Social Factors (I): Parentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, a variety of recently published studies have demonstrated that frequently spending time with friends, having friends who drink, or drinking with friends is a major risk factor for binge drinking (Dietze, Livingston, Callinan, & Room, 2014;Eisenberg, Golberstein, & Whitlock, 2014;Elisaus et al, 2015;Hahm, Kolaczyk, Jang, Swenson, & Bhindarwala, 2012;Harakeh et al, 2012;He, Assanangkornchai, Cai, & McNeil, 2016;Kelly et al, 2016;Kuntsche, Otten, & Labhart, 2015;Mustonen, Makela, & Lintonen, 2016;Scholly, Katz, & Kehl, 2014;Seid, Hesse, & Bloomfield, 2016;Simons-Morton et al, 2016;Soloski et al, 2016;Song et al, 2012;Stickley et al, 2013;Tomczyk, Isensee, & Hanewinkel, 2015;Washburn, Capaldi, Kim, & Feingold, 2014).…”
Section: Social Factors (Ii): Peersmentioning
confidence: 99%