The Effects of Family Factors on Alcohol Consumption in Three East-European Countries

Abstract

Underage use of alcohol is a large and increasing problem in Eastern Europe. The objective of this comparative study is to examine the effects of family-related factors on youth alcohol consumption in three East-European countries (Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary). Data on alcohol use and risk factors were drawn from the International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD-2). Using binary logistic regression, it was found that in all three countries, adolescents with stronger parental supervision were more likely to be abstinent and less likely to be involved in heavy episodic drinking than those with weaker supervision. Parental bonding had similar positive effects regarding abstinence in Hungary and the Czech Republic but not in Estonia. In the Czech Republic, adolescents living in single-parent households were less involved in heavy episodic drinking, whereas affluence increased heavy episodic drinking. This effect is not found for Hungary and Estonia. Adolescents in Estonia who experienced more negative life events were more involved in heavy episodic drinking; this was not so for the other two countries. We conclude that family social control is a universal protective factor in decreasing alcohol use in these three Eastern European countries; concerning the other factors, the results were more mixed.

Keywords

alcohol use adolescents family Eastern Europe risk factors protective factors self-report survey

According to the Global Status Report on alcohol and health (World Health Organization [WHO], 2011), yearly recorded consumption of alcohol in the Czech Republic is 15.0 liters, in Estonia 13.8 liters, and in Hungary 12.3 liters of pure alcohol per capita. The recent European School Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) report on substance use among 15- to 16-year-old school children¹ confirm high levels of alcohol consumption among adolescents in these countries. The ESPAD study shows that 79% of respondents in the Czech Republic reported drinking within 30 days prior to study; the figures for Estonia and Hungary were 59% and 61%. Alcohol is one of the most prevalent youth risk behaviors (Aiken, Sochalske, & Anderson, 1996; MacKay, Fingerhut, & Duran, 2000; O’Malley, Johnston, & Bachman, 1998). A large amount of empirical work has demonstrated that adolescent alcohol use is heavily influenced by the quality of attachment to the family (Brody & Forehand, 1993; Duncan, Duncan, & Hops, 1994; Velleman, Templeton, & Copello, 2005). In addition, strong relationships between family factors and later delinquency have been demonstrated (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). Many studies have examined which family factors (i.e., characteristics of parenting as well as other family-related issues) can explain delinquency in adolescents. For example, it is found that factors that increase the risk of adolescent delinquency are related to lack of warmth, low supervision, harsh punishment, conflict within the family climate, problems of parents, and delinquency within the family (Loeber & Dishion 1983; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).

Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory is one of the most frequently cited theoretical frameworks used to examine the association between family factors and delinquent behavior (Rebellon, 2002). According to Hirschi, youth participate in delinquency due to their lack of affective attachments to parents, stakes in conformity, involvement in conventional activities, and belief in conventional norms. The expectation of social control theory is that children will adopt and adhere to prosocial norms when they have stronger bonds with their parents. These bonds can include the amount of parental supervision, the quality of communication between parents and their children, how much time parents and children spend together, parents’ knowledge of their children’s friends, and issues of trust (Agnew, 1991; Hirschi, 1969; Miller, Esbensen, & Freng, 1999).

This article examines the effects of family factors including family structure (complete core family, single-parent household), family social control (parental supervision and family bonding), affluence, and negative life events (family disruption) on the use of alcohol by adolescents in three different East-European countries (Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary). In addition, the differences in family factors concerning alcohol use in these three East-European countries are examined.

Family Structure

In terms of family structure, not having both parents present in the home can have deep and lasting negative effects on the social behavior of children. Poor supervision at home is as a major determinant of delinquency (Junger-Tas, Marshall, & Riberaud, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Wells and Rankin (1991) assessed the existing research into the link between single-parent households and delinquency. They found that “the effect of intact versus single-parent families is a consistent and real pattern of association” where the prevalence of delinquency in broken homes is about 10% to 15% higher than in intact homes. Numerous studies indicate that adolescents in single-parent families are significantly more likely to be involved in severe risk behaviors such as using alcohol, drugs, and tobacco than their counterparts residing with two biological, married parents (Blum et al., 2000; Flewelling & Bauman, 1990; Oman et al., 2002; Santelli, Lowry, Brener, & Robin, 2000; Upchurch, Aneshensel, Sucoff, & Levy-Storms, 1999; Young, Jensen, Olsen, & Cundick, 1991).

The first International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD-1) also found that a father’s presence is important with respect to delinquent behavior, although for Northwestern-European countries it did not appear to play a decisive role as compared to Southern-European and Anglo-Saxon country clusters (Junger-Tas et al., 2003). Possible explanations for this include the higher proportion of teenage mothers in Anglo-Saxon countries versus continental European countries. Teenage mothers are often socially and economically disadvantaged, and this adds to the risk factors for delinquent behavior. Social welfare support is more substantial in Northwest Europe and, therefore, being a single mother in these countries does not necessarily equate with financial hardship. In general, the findings of the ISRD-1 study supported the idea that family factors are related to delinquency through a complicated interplay of various social structural variables.

Family Social Control

Family social control is based on two dimensions, indirect and direct control (Junger-Tas et al., 2003). Indirect control is exercised by the quality of the relationship of a young person with his parents (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). The stronger the bond with parents, the more their norms will be internalized (even if the parents are not present; see also Hirschi, 1969). Direct control in the family is exercised by close monitoring and supervision. For example, previous research has found that regularly having family dinner together is positively associated with better child–parent relationships (Fulkerson et al., 2010). Concerning the consumption of alcohol, children between the ages of 12 and 14 years who ate dinner with a parent 5 or more days per week were found to be less likely to use alcohol (Council of Economic Advisors, 2000). White and Halliwell (2010) have also found that family dinners are correlated with lower likelihood of alcohol use (see also Fisher, Miles, Austin, Camargo, & Colditz, 2007).

Concerning parental knowledge of a child’s whereabouts, studies have found that it is associated with decreased problem behaviors and delinquency (e.g., Clark, Kirisci, Mezzich, & Chung, 2008; Rai et al., 2003; Soenens, Vansteenkiste, Luyckx, & Goossens, 2006) and parental support has been associated with decreased alcohol consumption (Urberg, Goldstein, & Toro, 2005).

Family Affluence

Another factor linked to youth alcohol consumption is parental affluence (e.g., socioeconomic status, or SES). Pomerleau, Pederson, Ostbye, Speechley, and Speechley (1997) have found that higher SES is positively related to higher levels of alcohol consumption. Some studies have identified a higher risk of excessive adolescent drinking behavior among lower socioeconomic groups (Lemstra et al., 2008; Lintonen, Rimpelä, Vikat, & Rimpelä, 2000; Lowry, Kann, Clooins, & Kolbe, 1996); others have found a weak effect of SES on adolescent alcohol consumption (Tuinstra, Groothoff, Van den Heuvel, & Post, 1999; Vereecken, Maes, & De Bacquer, 2004). Kuntsche, Rehm, and Gmel (2004) have pointed out that while for adults problem drinking seems to be more common in less affluent groups, this direction might be reversed for adolescents. If one reasonably assumes that availability of pocket money is at least to some degree related to parents’ affluence, the results of two Finnish studies, which found a clear relationship between adolescents’ own financial resources (i.e., amount of pocket money) and getting drunk, support this view (Kouvonen & Lintonen, 2002; Lintonen et al., 2000). Richter, Leppin, and Nic Gabhainn (2006) conclude that family affluence appears to be more strongly related to income or spending patterns, therefore indicating the availability of resources to indulge in the relatively costly consumption of alcohol.

Negative Life Events

Negative life events (i.e., illnesses or death in the family, parental conflicts, and alcohol abuse) can have also an effect on an adolescent’s behavior. For example, Harland, Reijneveld, Brugman, Verloove-Vanhorick, and Verhulst (2002) found that those children who experienced divorce or separation of parents had a higher risk of behavioral or emotional problems. When substance use is examined at a family level, the proportion of families experiencing some form of substance use is considerable (Percy, Thornton, & McCrystal, 2008). Otten, van der Zwaluw, van der Vorst, and Engels Rutger (2008) found that alcohol use in younger children was affected by the alcohol use of both parents, whereas alcohol use in older children was only affected by the alcohol use of the mother. Alcohol use in parents is considered a strong precursor of child drinking behavior (Petraitis, Flay, & Miller, 1995). Several studies have examined the effects of parents on the age of onset and on heavy and problematic drinking of their children (Barnes, Farrell, & Banjerjee, 1994; Brook et al., 2010; Van der Vorst, Engels, Meeus, Dekovic, & Van Leeuwe, 2005; Yu, 2003). Greater alcohol use by parents is associated with earlier use of alcohol by adolescents (Ellickson & Hays, 1991; Jackson, 1997).

Parental problematic alcohol use may disrupt normal social processes within the family, leading to increased levels of family disruption, family and marital conflict, financial strain, family alcohol and drug use, inadequate parenting practices, and poorer outcomes for children (Gutman, Eccles, Peck, & Malanchuk, 2010; Johnston & Leff, 1999; Keller, Cummings, Davies, & Mitchell, 2008; Lynskey et al., 2002; Sher, Grekin, & Williams, 2005; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2006). Seljamo et al. (2006) found that fathers’ present heavy drinking and parental early drinking were the best predictors of their children’s problematic alcohol use at the age of 15.

Children of alcoholics are not only at a higher risk for early alcohol initiation (Hill, Shen, Lowers, & Locke, 2000), but they also show a greater increase in alcohol consumption over time than adolescents without alcoholic parents (Chassin & Barrera, 1993). In addition, children with a family history of alcoholism demonstrate more escalation of alcohol use (Lieb et al., 2002) and more often develop alcohol disorders and dependence (Hill et al., 2000) than children without a family history of alcoholic parents.

Current Study

In this article, we examine the effects of family factors on adolescent alcohol consumption in three East-European countries: the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Hungary. All three countries are former socialist countries that during the past 20 years transitioned from totalitarian socialist societies to market-oriented democracies. The main reason, however, for selection of those countries were the similar levels of alcohol consumption among the countries and comparability of data due to the similar sampling methods used in the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD-2).

We are particularly interested in two variables concerning alcohol consumption, namely abstinence (i.e., no consumption of alcohol during adolescents’ life time) and heavy episodic drinking (i.e., drinking at least five drinks in a row on the last occasion in the last month). The former variable is important in order to examine which family factors have protective effects on abstinence among adolescents; however, studying the latter variable may give us insight into which family factors increase risk for heavy episodic drinking among youth. It is hypothesized that family structure acts as a protective factor for those adolescents in two-parent households: These adolescents will be more likely to be abstinent and less likely to be involved in heavy episodic drinking than those from broken homes. Family social control is measured by two variables, family bonding and parental supervision. It is hypothesized that adolescents with higher levels of family social control will be more likely to abstain from alcohol and less likely to be involved in heavy episodic drinking than those with a lower degree of family social control. Concerning family affluence, it is hypothesized that affluence is a risk factor for adolescents: When affluence is higher, youth are less likely to be abstinent and more likely to be involved in heavy episodic drinking due to better financial opportunities. Finally, regarding negative life events, it is hypothesized that these will act as a risk factor in that adolescents who have experienced more negative life events will be less likely to be abstinent and more likely to be involved in heavy episodic drinking.

Method

Participants

Participants in this study are juveniles who participated in the ISRD-2 study in 2006. The ISRD-2 is a comparative study on youth crime and victimization, which also includes questions concerning alcohol use or other substance abuse (Enzmann et al., 2010; Junger-Tas et al., 2010; Junger-Tas et al., 2012; see also Introduction of this issue). For the purposes of the current analysis, a subsample from the larger ISRD-2 sample was drawn by selecting seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-grade students (comprising 12- to 16-year-olds) from the Czech Republic (N = 3,224), Estonia (N = 2,554), and Hungary (N = 2,157). In each selected country, the data are nationally representative for seventh, eighth, and ninth grade in secondary school.

Measures

Independent variables

In the current study, we used grade (seventh, eighth, and ninth), gender (female-male), and migration status (natives, first generation, and second generation) as individual control variables for alcohol use (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics of the factors regarding different countries).

Table 1.

Description of Sample: Percentages, Means (SD).

	Czech Republic N = 3,224	Estonia N = 2,554	Hungary N = 2,157	p
Abstinence	14.6	13.6	21.7	***
Heavy episodic drinking	15.4	21.8	9.5	***
Gender
Boys	50.1	50.0	50.5
Girls	49.9	50.0	49.5
Grade				***
Seventh	32.4	33.5	36.4
Eighth	32.4	37.4	32.2
Ninth	35.2	29.2	31.4
Migration status				***
Native born	91.3	80.0	96.2
First-generation migrant	2.5	1.8	1.5
Second-generation migrant	6.2	18.2	2.4
Core family complete	70.3	62.0	75.1	***
Single-parent household	12.9	21.8	12.2	***
Family affluence (1 to 100 scale)	85.77 (SD = 18.08)	85.29 (SD = 20.27)	85.16 (SD = 22.51)	*
Family bonding (1 to 100 scale)	75.94 (SD = 16.20)	74.13 (SD = 18.66)	78.55 (SD = 17.17)	***
Family disruption (1 to 100 scale)	13.66 (SD = 21.86)	17.92 (SD = 26.08)	15.83 (SD = 25.92)	***
Parental supervision				***
Never	7.6	9.6	4.6
Sometimes	48.5	56.0	42.8
Always	43.8	34.4	52.6

Note. p = differences between countries using one-way ANOVA.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Concerning family structure, we used two dichotomized variables. The first variable core family complete was coded as “yes” if the youth was living with his or her mother and father and “no” for all other variations: living in a single-parent household, living with mother or father and a stepparent or any other type of family member. As Table 1 shows, Hungary has the highest proportion of complete core families (75.1%), and in Estonia and the Czech Republic, the proportion of core family households was lower (respectively, 62% and 70.3%). To make a further distinction with regard to family composition, we also used a variable asking if the youth is living in a one-parent household; in Estonia, the proportion was much larger (21.8%) than in Hungary (12.2%) or in the Czech Republic (12.9%).

Family bonding is a combined variable that consists of four items; specifically, whether the adolescent gets along with father (from 1 = not at all to 4 = very well), gets along with mother (from 1 = not at all to 4 = very well), spends leisure time together with parents (from 1 = never to 6 = more than once a week), and has dinner with his or her family (from 1 = never to 8 = daily). This variable is in on a scale from 0 to 100 (from weak to strong family bonding). Family bonding was higher in Hungary (M = 78.55, SD = 17.17, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.39) than in the Czech Republic (M = 75.94, SD = 16.2, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.49) and Estonia (M = 74.13, SD = 18.66, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.45). The differences in the level of family bonding are statistically significant between all countries (ANOVA, p < .001).

Parental supervision is a variable with three categories: whether the youth gets supervised (1) rarely or never, (2) sometimes, or (3) always (or he or she does not go out). As Table 1 shows, in Hungary (M = 2.48, SD = 0.59), the parental supervision was the highest between three countries, followed by the Czech Republic (M = 2.36, SD = 0.62) and Estonia (M = 2.25, SD = 0.62). All differences between countries are statistically significant (ANOVA, p < .001).

Family affluence is a measure used to estimate family social economic status. The scale is a combined variable in a 0 to 100 scale, which consists of four items: whether the adolescent has his or her own room (yes or no), owns a PC (yes or no), owns a mobile phone (yes or no), and if the family has a car (yes or no). Among three countries, the lowest level of family affluence was in Hungary (M = 84.10, SD = 22.51, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.46). The difference between Hungary and other countries was statistically significant (ANOVA, p < .01), while the level of family affluence in the Czech Republic (M = 85.77, SD = 18.08, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.25) and Estonia (M = 85.23, SD = 20.27, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.37) did not differ significantly. Although the scale was already used in international research (Boyce, Torsheim, Currie, & Zambon, 2006), the analysis of ISRD-2 data questions the value of this scale as a measure of affluence. It is hypothesized that in affluent societies it measures the propensity to consume, instead of affluence (Marshall & Enzmann, 2011, p. 52). As the scale was the best available indicator for social economic status, it was decided to include it into analysis, however the results shall be interpreted with care.

Negative life events related to family disruption is measured by an index (0 to 100) consisting of three items, namely whether the adolescent experienced parents’ use of alcohol and/or drugs, violence of parents, and parents’ separation or divorce. In the Czech Republic, there was a lower level of family disruption reported (M = 13.66, SD = 21.86, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.34) than in Hungary (M = 15.83, SD = 25.92, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.53) and Estonia (M = 17.92, SD = 26.08, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.45). All differences between countries are statistically significant (ANOVA, p < .01).

Dependent variables

Dependent variables in this study were abstinence from alcohol (no consumption of alcohol during lifetime) and heavy episodic drinking (drinking at least five drinks in a row on the last occasion in the last month, see Table 1). The proportion of abstinent adolescents was highest in Hungary (21.7%) and lower in Estonia (13.6%) and the Czech Republic (14.6%). Heavy episodic drinking was more prevalent in Estonia (21.8%) than in the Czech Republic (15.4%) and in Hungary (9.5%). With respect to abstinence level, Hungary differs significantly (ANOVA, p < .001) form Estonia and the Czech Republic, while differences between these last two countries are not statistically significant.

Results

Binary logistic regression is used for all analyses; we control for grade, gender, and migration status.

First, the effects of family-related factors on abstinence were analyzed (see Table 2). In all countries, those pupils in older grades (eighth and ninth) were less abstinent than seventh graders. There were no significant differences for gender or migrant status. Family structure (i.e., whether an adolescent was living with both parents or not) did not have any effect on abstinence. Similarly, whether an adolescent was living in single-parent household or not did not have any effect on abstinence. There were also no effects of affluence and family disruption on adolescents’ abstinence. However, for family social control, some effects emerged. Namely, parental supervision had an effect on abstinence in all countries; that is, youth with stronger supervision were more abstinent than those with weaker supervision. Family bonding had effects on abstinence in the Czech Republic and Hungary but not in Estonia (i.e., those with stronger bonding were more abstinent than those with weaker bonding).

Table 2.

Odds Ratios for Binary Logistic Regression for Abstinence on Demographic and Family-Related Variables.

	Czech Republic	Estonia	Hungary
Grade (ref. = 7)
Eighth grade	0.514*** (.391 to .677)	0.562*** (.419 to .752)	0.586*** (.459 to .747)
Ninth grade	0.242*** (.174 to .337)	0.377*** (.267 to .532)	0.311*** (.234 to .414)
Male	1.216 (.952 to 1.552)	1.220 (.938 to 1.585)	1.111 (.895 to 1.379)
Migrant (ref. = native born)
First generation	1.988 (1.00 to 3.954)	1.973 (.828 to 4.702)	0.584 (.205 to 1.666)
Second generation	1.031 (.615 to 1.728)	1.409 (1.025 to 1.938)	0.709 (.317 to 1.587)
Core family complete	1.145 (.938 to 1.397)	1.086 (.893 to 1.321)	1.060 (.893 to 1.257)
Single-parent household	1.111 (.930 to 1.328)	1.048 (.881 to 1.248)	1.098 (.931 to 1.295)
Family affluence	0.891 (.776 to 1.019)	0.962 (.841 to 1.099)	0.944 (.852 to 1.045)
Family bonding	1.203*** (1.035 to 1.401)	1.146 (.989 to 1.331)	1.272*** (1.118 to 1.451)
Parental supervision	1.539*** (1.341 to 1.763)	1.679*** (1.448 to 1.943)	1.931*** (1.682 to 2.211)
Family disruption	0.861 (.70 to 1.055)	0.915 (.781 to 1.069)	0.889 (.782 to 1.009)
Model	N = 3,114, LR chi2(12) = 181.44 (p = .001), −2LL = 1,736.30, Nagelkerke R² = .134	N = 2,306, LR chi2(12) = 126.07 (p = .001), −2LL = 1,568.69, Nagelkerke R² = .105	N = 2,074, LR chi2(12) = 259.65 (p = .001), −2LL = 2,115.10, Nagelkerke R² = .166

Note. Model controlled for gender, grade, and migration status.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Next, the effects of family-related factors on heavy episodic drinking were analyzed (see Table 3). In all countries, those pupils in older grades (eighth and ninth) were more likely to be involved in heavy episodic drinking than seventh graders. First-generation migrants were less likely to be involved in heavy episodic drinking than natives only in Estonia, and second-generation migrants were less likely than natives to be involved in heavy episodic drinking in the Czech Republic. In all countries, boys were more involved in heavy episodic drinking than girls. Family structure (as measured by complete core family contrasted with all other living situations) had no effect on heavy episodic drinking in any of the countries. In single-parent households, adolescents were less involved in heavy episodic drinking only in the Czech Republic but not in Hungary and Estonia. Family affluence only had a significant positive effect in the Czech Republic, but there were no significant effects of affluence in Estonia and Hungary. Parental supervision and family bonding had effects on heavy episodic drinking in all countries in our study (i.e., those with stronger supervision and bonding were less involved in heavy episodic drinking than those with weaker supervision and bonding). Family disruption had effects on heavy episodic drinking only in Estonia by increasing heavy episodic drinking, but this effect was not present in Hungary or the Czech Republic.

Table 3.

Odds Ratios for Binary Logistic Regression for Heavy Episodic Drinking on Demographic and Family-Related Variables.

	Czech Republic	Estonia	Hungary
Grade (ref. = 7)
Eighth grade	1.900*** (1.339 to 2.697)	1.836*** (1.385 to 2.434)	2.448*** (1.498 to 3.998)
Ninth grade	3.144*** (2.26 to 4.373)	2.657*** (1.996 to 3.536)	5.463*** (3.472 to 8.595)
Male	1.326** (1.036 to 1.697)	2.180*** (1.735 to 2.739)	2.248*** (1.614 to 3.130)
Migrant (ref. = native born)
First generation	0.802 (.354 to 1.818)	0.336* (.110 to 1.027)	0.428 (.097 to 1.890)
Second generation	1.486* (.949 to 2.327)	1.092 (.830 to 1.436)	0.495 (.124 to 1.975)
Core family complete	0.897 (.760 to 1.059)	0.935 (.807 to 1.082)	0.875 (.709 to 1.080)
Single-parent household	0.836** (.715 to .977)	0.950 (.834 to 1.082)	0.912 (.744 to 1.119)
Family affluence	1.138* (.985 to 1.319)	0.987 (.876 to 1.111)	0.985 (.846 to 1.167)
Family bonding	0.805*** (.705 to .919)	0.897* (.802 to 1.001)	0.746*** (.635 to .874)
Parental supervision	0.646*** (.572 to .731)	0.729*** (.650 to .820)	0.622*** (.530 to .731)
Family disruption	1.143 (.973 to 1.346)	1.191** (1.064 to 1.338)	0.965 (.821 to 1.134)
Model	N = 3,026, LR chi2(12) = 180.27 (p = .001), −2LL = 1,747.83, Nagelkerke R² = .134	N = 2,243, LR chi2(12) = 173.96 (p = .001), −2LL = 2,013.86, Nagelkerke R² = .123	N = 1,994, LR chi2(12) = 195.11 (p = .001), −2LL = 1,161.42, Nagelkerke R² = .184

Note. Model controlled for gender, grade, and migration status.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

In this article, the effects of family-related factors such as family structure, social control, affluence, and negative life events on abstinence from alcohol and heavy episodic drinking in three East-European countries—namely, Estonia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic—were examined.

The results indicate that family structure had an effect on the adolescents’ alcohol use only in the Czech Republic. Namely, those adolescents who were from single-parent households were less often involved in heavy episodic drinking. For the other two countries (Estonia and Hungary), the assumption that living in two-parent households would decrease the usage of alcohol was not supported. Therefore, our results contrast with some earlier research, which has confirmed that family structure plays a significant role in adolescents’ alcohol use (Flewelling & Bauman, 1990). Interestingly, in Hungary and the Czech Republic, the proportion of two-parent households was significantly lower than in Estonia; however, it did not have an effect on abstinence.

Research has demonstrated that supervision and control are one of the strongest predictors of delinquency (Junger-Tas, 1988; Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Similarly to previous research (Clark et al., 2008; Rai et al., 2003; Soenens et al., 2006), we demonstrate that family social control had effects in all countries on both abstinence from alcohol and heavy episodic drinking (except for family bonding in Estonia concerning abstinence). Both dimensions, indirect (i.e., bonding) and direct (i.e., supervision) control (Junger-Tas et al., 2003), had strong effects on adolescents’ use of alcohol. Interestingly, the proportions of bonding and supervision were different in these countries, higher in Hungary and lower in the Czech Republic and Estonia. Nonetheless, both direct and indirect control have similar effects in different countries regardless of the proportion. It can be concluded that family social control seems to act as a rather universal protective factor in the countries examined concerning youth’s consumption of alcohol.²

Family affluence had effects on heavy episodic drinking only in the Czech Republic but not in the other two countries examined. Therefore, our hypothesis regarding the notion of Kuntsche et al. (2004) that those youth who have better access to financial resources can afford more alcohol to consume (see also Kouvonen & Lintonen, 2002; Lintonen et al., 2000) was only partly confirmed. We can conclude that family affluence is a risk factor concerning the use of alcohol in the Czech Republic but not in Estonia and Hungary (although the affluence index was similar for all three countries). However, it should be considered that what we define as affluence is not directly linked with SES but is more indicative of whether the adolescent has (access) to certain household items.

Negative life events have been found to have effects on the onset and problematic drinking patterns of children (Barnes et al., 1994; Brook et al., 2010; Van der Vorst et al., 2005; Yu, 2003). Our study did not demonstrate that negative life events related to family disruption had any effects on abstinence. Therefore, our hypothesis was not confirmed. Concerning heavy episodic drinking, the effects of negative life events were present only in Estonia. A possible explanation to this finding may be that in Estonia there were more negative life events than in Hungary and the Czech Republic.

In conclusion, our results demonstrated that social control by the family is a universal protective factor for abstinence in the three countries in our study. Family structure (i.e., not living in a single-parent household) is a protective factor regarding heavy episodic drinking in the Czech Republic but not for the other two East-European countries. Of the risk factors, negative life events had an effect on heavy episodic drinking in Estonia and family affluence had an effect on heavy episodic drinking in the Czech Republic. Therefore, although the three East-European countries share some patterns concerning the effects of protective factors on adolescent use of alcohol (i.e., abstinence and heavy episodic drinking), there are still some differences between those countries that have to be considered, for example, when applying prevention methods for decreasing the effects of risk factors on adolescent alcohol use.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the reviewers for the helpful comments and also members of the Alcohol Abuse Among Adolescents Project for fruitful discussions.

The results of this article were presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the European Society of Criminology, Bilbao, Spain, September 12-15.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was carried out by support of European Commission 7th Framework Programme to the project Effective Environmental Strategies for the Prevention of Alcohol Abuse Among Adolescents in Europe (AAA-Prevent), grant agreement HEALTH-F2-2009-242204.

Notes

Author Biographies

Anna Markina is a lecturer in the Institute of Public Law at The University of Tartu, Estonia. She has worked and published extensively on crime control, organized crime, trafficking in human beings, and recently juvenile delinquency. She is a part of the International Self-Report Delinquency Study research consortia.

Kristjan Kask is a researcher in the Institute of Public Law at The University of Tartu, Estonia. His research interests are adolescents’ alcohol use, investigative interviewing of child and adult witnesses, and eyewitness issues. His recent work can be found in journals such as Applied Cognitive Psychology, Psychology, Crime and Law, and Juridica International.

References

Agnew

(1991). A longitudinal test of social control theory and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 126-156.

Aiken

L. H.

Sochalske

Anderson

G. F.

(1996). Downsizing the hospital nursing workforce. Health Affairs, 15, 88-92.

Barnes

G. M.

Farrell

M. P.

Banjerjee

(1994). Family influences on alcohol abuse and other problem behaviors among Black and White adolescents in a general population sample. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 183-201.

Blum

R. W.

Beuhring

Shew

M. L.

Bearinger

L. H.

Sieving

R. E.

Resnick

M. D.

(2000). The effects of race/ethnicity, income, and family structure on adolescent risk behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1879-1884.

Boyce

Torsheim

Currie

Zambon

(2006). The family affluence scale as a measure of national wealth: Validation of and adolescent self-report measure. Social Indicators Research, 78, 473-487.

Brody

G. H.

Forehand

(1993). Prospective associations among family form, family processes, and adolescents’ alcohol and drug use. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 587-593.

Brook

J. S.

Balka

E. B.

Crossman

A. M.

Dermatis

Galanter

Brook

D. W.

(2010). The relationship between parental alcohol use, early and late adolescent alcohol use, and young adult psychological symptoms: A longitudinal study. The American Journal on Addictions, 19, 534-542.

Chassin

Barrera

Jr. (1993). Substance use escalation and substance use restraint among adolescent children of alcoholics. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 7, 3-20.

Clark

D. B.

Kirisci

Mezzich

Chung

(2008). Parental supervision and alcohol use in adolescence: Developmentally specific interactions. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 29, 285-292.

10.

Council of Economic Advisors. (2000). Teens and their parents in the 21st century: An examination of trends in teen behavior and the role of parent involvement. Washington, DC: Council of Economic Advisors.

11.

Duncan

T. E.

Duncan

S. C.

Hops

(1994). The effects of family cohesiveness and peer encouragement on the development of adolescent alcohol use: A cohort-sequential approach to the analysis of longitudinal data. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 588-599.

12.

Ellickson

P. L.

Hays

R. D.

(1991). Antecedents of drinking among young adolescents with different alcohol use histories. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 398-408.

13.

Enzmann

Marshall

I. H.

Killias

Junger-Tas

Steketee

Gruszczynska

(2010). Self-reported youth delinquency in Europe and beyond: First results of the second international self-report delinquency study in the context of police and victimization data. European Journal on Criminology, 7, 159-183.

14.

Fisher

L. B.

Miles

I. W.

Austin

S. B.

Camargo

C. A.

Jr. Colditz

G. A.

(2007). Predictors of initiation of alcohol use among US adolescents: Findings from a prospective cohort study. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 959-966.

15.

Flewelling

R. L.

Bauman

K. E.

(1990). Family structure as a predictor of initial substance use and sexual intercourse in early adolescence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 171-181.

16.

Fulkerson

J. A.

Pasch

K. E.

Stigler

M. H.

Farbakhsh

Perry

C. L.

Komro

K. A.

(2010). Longitudinal associations between family dinner and adolescent perceptions of parent–child communication among racially diverse urban youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 261-270.

17.

Gutman

L. M.

Eccles

J. S.

Peck

Malanchuk

(2010). The influence of family relations on trajectories of cigarette and alcohol use from early to late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 119-128.

18.

Harland

Reijneveld

S. A.

Brugman

Verloove-Vanhorick

S. P.

Verhulst

F. C.

(2002). Family factors and life events as risk factors for behavioral and emotional problems in children. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 11, 176-184.

19.

Hill

S. Y.

Shen

Lowers

Locke

(2000). Factors predicting the onset of adolescent drinking in families at high risk for developing alcoholism. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 265-275.

20.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

21.

Jackson

(1997). Initial and experimental stages of tobacco and alcohol use during late childhood: Relation to peer, parent, and personal risk factors. Addiction Behavior, 22, 685-698.

22.

Johnston

J. L.

Leff

(1999). Children of substance abusers: Overview of research findings. Pediatrics, 103, 1085-1099.

23.

Junger-Tas

(1988). Causal factors: Social control theory. In Junger-Tas

Block

(Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in the Netherlands (pp. 41-75). Berkeley, CA: Kugler Publications.

24.

Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

(2012). Introduction to the International Self-Report Study of Delinquency (ISRD-2). In Junger-Tas Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczynska

(Eds.), The Many Faces of Youth Crime. Springer.

25.

Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczynska

(2010). History and Design of the ISRD Studies. In Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczynska

(Eds.), Juvenile Delinquency in Europe and Beyond: Results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (pp. 21-65). New York: Springer.

26.

Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Riberaud

(2003). Delinquency in an international perspective: The international self-reported delinquency study (ISRD). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press; The Hague, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications

27.

Keller

P. S.

Cummings

E. M.

Davies

P. T.

Mitchell

P. M.

(2008). Longitudinal relationship between parental drinking problems, family functioning and child adjustments. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 195-212.

28.

Kouvonen

Lintonen

(2002). Adolescent part-time work and heavy drinking in Finland. Addiction, 97, 311-318.

29.

Kuntsche

Rehm

Gmel

(2004). Characteristics of binge drinkers in Europe. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 113-127.

30.

Lemstra

Bennett

N. R.

Neudorf

Kunsta

Nannapaneni

Warren

L. M.

Kershaw

Scott

C. R.

(2008). A meta-analysis of marijuana and alcohol use by socio-economic status in adolescents aged 10-15 years. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 99, 172-177.

31.

Lieb

Merikangas

K. R.

Höfler

Pfister

Isensee

Wittchen

H. U.

(2002). Parental alcohol use disorders and alcohol use and disorders in offspring: A community study. Psychological Medicine, 32, 63-78.

32.

Lintonen

Rimpelä

M. K.

Vikat

Rimpelä

A. H.

(2000). The effect of societal changes on drunkenness trends in early adolescence. Health Education Research, 15, 261-269.

33.

Loeber

Dishion

T. J.

(1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68-99.

34.

Loeber

Farrington

D. P.

(1998). Never too early, never too late: Risk factors and successful interventions for serious and violent juvenile offenders. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 7, 7-30.

35.

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In Tonry

Morris

(Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 29-149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

36.

Lowry

Kann

Collins

J. L.

Kolbe

L. J.

(1996). The effect of socioeconomic status on chronic disease risk behaviors among US adolescents. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276, 792-797.

37.

Lynskey

M. T.

Heath

A. C.

Nelson

E. C.

Bucholz

K. K.

Madden

P. A. F.

Slutske

W. S.

Statham

D. J.

Martin

N. G.

(2002). Genetic and environmental contributions to cannabis dependence in a national young adult twin sample. Psychological Medicine, 32, 195-207.

38.

MacKay

Fingerhut

Duran

(2000). Adolescent health chartbook. Health United States, 2000. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

39.

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

(2012). Methodology and Design of the ISRD-2 Study. In Junger-Tas

Marshall

I. H.

Enzmann

Killias

Steketee

Gruszczynska

(Eds.), The Many Faces of Youth Crime: Contrasting Theoretical Perspectives on Juvenile Delinquency across Countries and Cultures (pp. 21-65). New York: Springer.

40.

Miller

M. H.

Esbensen

Freng

(1999). Parental attachment, parental supervision and adolescent deviance in intact and non-intact families. Journal of Crime and Justice, 22, 1-29.

41.

O’Malley

P. M.

Johnston

L. D.

Bachman

J. G.

(1998). Alcohol use among adolescents. Alcohol Health and Research World, 22, 85-93.

42.

Oman

R. F.

Vesely

S. K.

McLeroy

Harris-Wyatt

Aspy

C. B.

Rodine

. (2002). Reliability and validity of the youth asset survey (YAS). Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 247-255.

43.

Otten

van der Zwaluw

C. S.

van der Vorst

Engels Rutger

C. M. E.

(2008). Partner effects and bidirectional parent-child effects in family alcohol use. European Addiction Research, 14, 106-112.

44.

Percy

Thornton

McCrystal

(2008). The extent and nature of family alcohol and drug use: Findings from the Belfast Youth Development Study. Child Abuse Review, 17, 371-386.

45.

Petraitis

Flay

B. R.

Miller

(1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 67-86.

46.

Pomerleau

Pederson

L. L.

Ostbye

Speechley

(1997). Health behaviours and socio-economic status in Ontario, Canada. European Journal of Epidemiology, 13, 613-622.

47.

Rai

A. A.

Stanton

Galbraith

Cottrell

Pack

Harris

D’Alessandri

Burns

(2003). Relative influences of perceived parental monitoring and perceived peer involvement on adolescent risk behaviors: An analysis of six cross-sectional data sets. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 108-118.

48.

Rebellon

C. J.

(2002). Reconsidering the broken homes/delinquency relationship and exploring its mediating mechanism(s). Criminology, 40, 103-136.

49.

Richter

Leppin

Nic Gabhainn

(2006). The relationship between parental socio-economic status and episodes of drunkenness among adolescents: Findings from a cross-national survey. BMC Public Health, 6, 289.

50.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

51.

Santelli

J. S.

Lowry

Brener

N. D.

Robin

(2000). The association of sexual behaviors with socioeconomic status, family structure, and race/ethnicity among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1582-1588.

52.

Seljamo

Aromaa

Koivusilta

Rautava

Sourander

Helenius

Sillanpää

(2006). Alcohol use in families: A 15-year prospective follow-up study. Addiction, 101, 984-992.

53.

Sher

K. J.

Grekin

E. R.

Williams

N. A.

(2005). The development of alcohol use disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 493-523.

54.

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

Luyckx

Goossens

(2006). Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: An integrated model with adolescent self-disclosure and perceived parental knowledge as intervening variables. Developmental Psychology, 42, 305-318.

55.

Tolan

Gorman-Smith

Henry

(2006). Family violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 557-583.

56.

Tuinstra

Groothoff

J. W.

Van den Heuvel

W. J. A.

Post

(1999). Socio-economic differences in health risk behavior in adolescence: Do they exist? Social Science and Medicine, 47, 67-74.

57.

Upchurch

D. M.

Aneshensel

C. S.

Sucoff

C. A.

Levy-Storms

(1999). Neighborhood and family contexts of adolescent sexual activity. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 920-933.

58.

Urberg

Goldstein

M. S.

Toro

P. A.

(2005). Supportive relationships as a moderator of the effects of parent and peer drinking on adolescent drinking. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 1-19.

59.

Van der Vorst

Engels

R. C. M. E.

Meeus

Dekovic

Van Leeuwe

(2005). The role of alcohol-specific socialization in adolescents’ drinking behavior. Addiction, 100, 1464-1476.

60.

Velleman

R. D. B.

Templeton

L. J.

Copello

A. G.

(2005). The role of the family in preventing and intervening with substance use and misuse: A comprehensive review of family interventions, with a focus on young people. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24, 93-109.

61.

Vereecken

Maes

De Bacquer

(2004). The influence of parental occupation and the pupils’ educational level on lifestyle behaviors among adolescents in Belgium. Journal of Adolescent Health, 34, 330-338.

62.

Wells

L. E.

Rankin

J. H.

(1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of the impact of broken homes. Social Problems, 38, 71-93.

63.

White

Halliwell

(2010). Alcohol and tobacco use during adolescence: The importance of the family mealtime environment. Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 526-532.

64.

World Health Organization. (2011). Global status report on alcohol and health 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved August 24, 2012, from http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdf

65.

Young

E. W.

Jensen

L. C.

Olsen

J. A.

Cundick

B. P.

(1991). The effects of family structure on the sexual behavior of adolescents. Adolescence, 26, 977-986.

66.

(2003). The association between parental alcohol-related behaviours and children’s drinking. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 69, 253-262.