Journal ol' Personal n> and Social Psychology Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1492. Vol. 63. No. 2. 280-296 0022-3514/92/S3.00

Multiple Protective and Risk Factors for Drug Use and Abuse:
Cross-Sectional and Prospective Findings
Michael D. Newcomb Maria Felix-Ortiz
University of Southern California University of California, Los Angeles

A conceptual elaboration was developed that incorporates many risk and protective factors, and
both direct and moderating (buffering) influences on drug involvement were tested. From prospec-
tive data, 14 factors related to drug use were selected and assigned empirically to either a multiple
protective index (PFI) or a risk factor index (RFI). Analyses examined the relationships of the RFI,
PFI, and their interaction on measures of cigarette, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and hard drug use
cross-sectionally in late adolescence and later in young adulthood. These same variables were used
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

to predict alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine abuse 8 years later. Vulnerability as measured by the RFI,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

PFI. and their interaction was highly associated with drug use in adolescence, moderately asso-
ciated with certain types of drug use in young adulthood, and strongly associated with heightened
drug problems in adulthood.

With a few exceptions, virtually all research on the etiology
of adolescent drug use has been focused on identifying risk
factors that promote or encourage such behavior. The search for
factors that insulate or protect teenagers from drug involvement
has rarely been considered or attempted. As a result, little is
known about the forces that contribute to the ability of many
teenagers to resist the allure of using drugs or to limit their drug
involvement and thereby avoid the adversities of drug abuse.
At least one tacit assumption may underlie this narrow and
restricted focus on only risk or vulnerability influences that
promote adolescent drug use. This unproven belief is that those
who are not at high risk nor extremely vulnerable for using
drugs are by default protected and invulnerable. This conceptu-
alization ignores the possibility that certain factors may be un-
equally or more powerfully protective than they are risk-induc-
ing. Furthermore, this perspective fails to consider and appreci-
ate that protective conditions may operate in both direct (as
main effects) and interactive (as moderators or buffers of risk)
forces on drug use and abuse.
Our research examines factors that encourage and inhibit
drug use and addresses whether these factors are conceptually
distinct or only the endpoints of a single continuum. We also
test the additive and interactive effects of these risk and protec-
tive factors on changes in drug use from late adolescence and
the development of drug abuse in adulthood.
Risk Factors for Drug Use
The search for the causes of drug use and abuse has spanned
numerous domains, usually constrained by the scientific disci-
pline of the researcher (Lettieri, 1985). The diversity of investi-
This research was supported by Grant DA 01070 from the National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mi-
chael D. Newcomb, Division of Counseling and Educational Psychol-
ogy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089-
0031.
280
gated domains is great and ranges from biogenetic influences
(e.g., Bardo & Risner, 1985; Crabbe, McSwigan, & Belknap,
1985) to macroenvironmental-societal influences (e.g., Con-
nors & Tarbox, 1985; McCarty, 1985). However, among the
hundreds of possible influences that have been studied across
all domains, no one factor or even a few taken together have
successfully accounted for all patterns of drug use and abuse.
The conceptual model we propose can theoretically incorpo-
rate this heterogeneous set of factors, although our empirical
analyses are restricted to psychosocial influences. Even so, we
include many different factors that capture various aspects of
personal and interpersonal conditions.
Intrapersonal Variables
Several studies have found that college-bound students have
lower rates of illicit drug use than students who do not aspire to
higher education (Friedman & Humphrey, 1985; Jessor & Jes-
sor, 1977; Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 1986; Smith &
Fogg, 1978). Church attendance has a strong negative effect on
drug use (Adlaf & Smart, 1985; Guinn, 1978; Jessor & Jessor,
1977). Low personal control and meaninglessness in life (New-
comb & Harlow, 1986), as well as emotional distress and life
dissatisfaction, are associated with drug use (Newcomb, Mad-
dahian, Skager, & Bentler, 1987; Robins, 1978). Low self-es-
teem has been implicated in some theories of drug use (Kaplan,
1980; Smith & Fogg, 1978). Specifically, apathy and pessimism
(Smith & Fogg, 1978), personal alienation (Jessor & Jessor,
1978), and depressed mood (Kandel, 1978) have been found to
be antecedents of marijuana use. Deviance, rebelliousness, and
unconventional attitudes and behavior have been identified as
both consequences and antecedents of drug use in many studies
(Cloninger, Sigvardsson, & Bohman, 1988; Huba & Bentler,
1980, 1983; Jessor & Jessor, 1977; Johnston et al., 1986; New-
comb, Maddahian, & Bentler, 1986; Smith & Fogg, 1978).
Interpersonal Variables
In support of social learning theory, studies have found that
parental attitudes and behavior regarding alcohol and drinking
 MULTIPLE PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR DRUG USE
influence a child's drinking and drug use behavior (e.g., Brook,
Whiteman, Gordon, & Brook, 1985; Huba & Bentler, 1980;
Kandel, Kessler, & Margulies, 1978; McLaughlin, Baer, Burn-
side, & Pokorny, 1985; Newcomb, Huba, & Bentler, 1983;
Reeves, 1984). Peer models of drug use are also potent influ-
ences on drug use (e.g., Huba, Wingard, & Bentler, 1980; Jessor
& Jessor, 1977; Margulies, Kessler, & Kandel, 1977; Newcomb,
Maddahian, & Bentler, 1986), as are perceived peer and commu-
nity attitudes toward drug use (Johnston et al., 1986; Stein,
Newcomb, & Bentler, 1987). The availability of drugs and
spending money to purchase them are also associated with sub-
stance use among adolescents (Kandel et al., 1978; Maddahian,
Newcomb, & Bentler, 1986; Mills & Noyes, 1984).
On the basis of our review of the literature, we selected 14
variables from our late adolescent assessment to include in our
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
analyses as either protective or risk factors for drug use or abuse.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
These include grade point average (GPA), educational aspira-
tions, religiosity, self-acceptance, perceived future opportuni-
ties, depression, deviant acts, law abidance, perceived impor-
tant people/community support of drug use, perceived parent/
family social support, perceived sanctions against drug use,
perceived adult drug use, perceived peer drug use, and availabil-
ity of drugs. These factors reflect various and diverse theories
of drug use and abuse (e.g., Chassin, 1984; Lettieri, 1985; Long
& Scherl, 1984; Sadava, 1987). No one substantive drug abuse
theory guides this research, because by definition it is a method-
ology that integrates numerous theories and empirical data into
a cumulative stress and resiliency model (Newcomb, 1992).
Drug Use as Multiply Determined
Recent attempts to explain and consolidate such a diverse
body of literature have adopted an epidemiological model. This
perspective considers the number of factors that place an indi-
vidual at risk for drug use, rather than trying to identify the
single or few causes of substance abuse. Multiple causal path-
ways are considered and it is "how much rather than exactly
what there is to cope with" (Bry, McKeon, & Pandina, 1982, p.
274) that determines future substance use. This makes a great
deal of sense and has proven quite successful in helping to unify
a rather diverse set of theories and empirical findings (e.g.,
Newcomb, Maddahian, & Bentler, 1986). Thisapproach is supe-
rior to standard multiple regression models in several respects.
First, it only considers the presence or absence of a factor that
reflects the critical component of a predictor and not the idio-
syncracies of sample-determined regression weights (Bentler &
Woodward, 1979; Newcomb & Bentler, 1980). Second, it does
not restrict a particular factor to a specific degree of relevance,
but rather allows each factor to be important in each individual
case. Third, this approach reflects an additive model unique to
the person and in effect captures interactions among any subset
of risk factors that heighten a person's vulnerability to drug use
and abuse. Finally, optimally determined beta weights are fine-
tuned to unique characteristics of a specific sample and are
difficult to cross-validate and generalize to other populations.
Unit-weighted models are much more likely to cross-validate
and generalize to other samples (Bentler & Woodward, 1979).
Bry et al. (1982) pioneered this approach to drug use when
they demonstrated that the simple sum of the presence of six
281
factors was linearly related to the general extent of substance
use and heavy use. Despite this innovative beginning, several
shortcomings were obvious: They did not distinguish between
various types of drugs, only six risk factors were considered,
risk factor cutpoints were determined empirically to maximize
their association with substance use in their sample, and no
causal inferences could be drawn because all data were cross-
sectional (Newcomb, Maddahian, & Bentler, 1986).
Newcomb and his colleagues (Newcomb, Maddahian, &
Bentler, 1986; Newcomb et al., 1987; Scheier & Newcomb,
1991a, 1991b) built on and expanded this preliminary work.
Nevertheless, none of these studies have integrated potential
protective factors into the methodology nor have they exam-
ined problem outcomes such as long-term drug abuse.
Protective Factors for Drug Use
Protective factors have been denned as influences that pre-
vent, limit, or reduce drug use and that may counter, buffer,
neutralize, and interact with risk factors within or across time
(Brook, Nomura, & Cohen, 1989a, 1989b; Brook et al., 1985;
Brook, Whiteman, Gordon, & Cohen, 1986; Brook, White-
man, Gordon, Nomura, & Brook, 1986; Newcomb, 1992). Pro-
tective and risk factors have been conceptualized as represent-
ing opposite ends of the same continuum. For example, high
religiosity is associated with low drug use and abstinence (Adlaf
& Smart, 1985), whereas low religiosity is a risk factor and asso-
ciated with high drug use or abuse. However, the assumption
that absence of risk is equivalent to protection lacks validation
and overlooks potential differences between the risk and pro-
tective potency of specific factors. For instance, perhaps high
religiosity is more related to low drug use than low religiosity is
associated with high drug use. Some studies indicate that teen-
agers may experiment with certain drugs even when not ex-
posed to risk conditions (Newcomb & Bentler, 1989). Others
have identified factors specifically associated with little or no
drug use (Brook et al., 1989a, 1989b; Brook et al., 1985; Brook,
Whiteman, Gordon, & Cohen, 1986; Brook, Whiteman, Gor-
don, Nomura, & Brook, 1986; Newcomb, 1992). Likewise,
some teenagers exposed to many high-risk factors do not abuse
or even use drugs (Newcomb & Bentler, 1988a). It is possible
that protective factors may account for these variations and
improve the prediction of drug use beyond that attributable to
risk conditions. If protection is only defined as the lack of risk,
it should not provide any unique, direct effect on predicting
drug use independent of risk.
The few attempts to study protective factors for drug use have
examined only one factor at a time. We propose that protection
may function in a manner similar to risk and should be opera-
tionalized as a multiple-factor index. Numerous factors may be
protective, and exposure to more of these factors should be
related to less drug involvement.
Direct and Moderator Effects
Two important issues emerge when considering both risk
and protective influences on drug use. Protection may be a
distinct construct from risk, and its influence on drug use
should be examined for both direct and moderator effects.
 282 MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB AND MARIA FELIX-ORTIZ

These two types of effects reflect distinct processes that can be
operationalized and tested with specific statistical methods.
Moderator variables may have direct main effects on the crite-
rion variable as well as interaction with other independent vari-
ables. Baron and Kenny (1986) denned moderating effect as
differences in the causal relation between two variables asso-
ciated with different conditions of the moderator variable such
that "moderator variables specify when certain effects will
hold" (Baron & Kenny, 1986. p. 1176). Several statistical meth-
ods are used to test differential effects of the independent vari-
able on the dependent variable as a function of the moderator
and include interaction terms, multiple-group comparisons, or
multi-factor analyses of variance (ANOVAs; Newcomb, 1990).
Substantively, the main or direct effect of protection is to pre-
dict less drug use. whereas the direct effect of risk is to predict
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
in our analyses multiitem scales of physical, social, and work
consequences due to alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine.
The Present Study
We construct and examine separate indices of numerous risk
factors and protective factors, as well as their interaction or
moderating effects as predictors of various types of drug use
and abuse, at three time intervals: cross-sectionally (no time
lapse), 4 years later, and 8 years later. The time frames span
from late adolescence to adulthood (mid to late 20s). The risk
and protective factors include those 14 variables presented ear-
lier and defined in the Method section. The longitudinal data
are analyzed with latent-variable structural equation models
(SEMs). The advantages of this method have been clearly noted

increased drug involvement. The moderator or interaction ef- in many theoretical expositions (e.g., Bentler, 1980; Bentler &
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

fect of protection may buffer the relationship between risk and Newcomb, 1986; Newcomb, 1990) and empirical studies (e.g.,
drug use (high protection reduces the impact of risk on drug Newcomb & Bentler, 1988a, 1988b).
use, and low protection strengthens the link between risk and
drug involvement). Method
Subjects
The Nature of Drug Use and Assessment
Analyses are based on several waves of data collected in a 12-year
In their pioneering study, Bry et al. (1982) collapsed data on longitudinal study of adolescent and adult development and drug use
frequency, recency, and duration of drug and alcohol use into a (Newcomb, 1992; Newcomb & Bentler, 1988a). The study began in
general substance use index. Although frequency and quantity 1976 with 1,634 students in grades 7,8, and 9 in 11 Los Angeles County
of drug use are highly correlated, these measures are not identi- schools. Schools were selected to reflect all socioeconomic status (SES)
cal nor similarly related to aspects of problem or disruptive levels with oversampling of low SES schools and schools with large
drug use (Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1988). Stein et al. (1988) ethnic minority populations.
Sufficient psychosocial information for the present study was gath-
found that a second-order factor accounted for substantial com-
ered only in the last three follow-ups (Years 5,9, and 13). Three sets of
mon variance between frequency of use and quantity of use, but analyses are presented: One on cross-sectional data from Year 5 and
each measure retained some unique variance. Quantity of use two on longitudinal data spanning 4 years (Year 5 to Year 9) and 8 years
was more predictive of problem or disruptive drug use than was (Year 5 to Year 13).
frequency of drug use. For example, quantity of use may cap- In Year 5, data were collected from 896 late adolescents (grades 11,
ture episodes of binge drinking and relate to problem or 12, and post high school). Table 1 presents the distribution of sample
disruptive patterns of drug involvement, whereas frequency of characteristics according to sex. Of the 896 subjects, 32.5% were men
use might not. Frequent drinking does not necessarily mean an and 67.5% were women. Distributions for different ethnic groups and
individual is abusing alcohol; he or she could be drinking only grade levels are also provided in Table 1.
small quantities on each occasion. It is not reasonable to ob- The larger numberof young women has been an unfortunate feature
scure different patterns of drug use or abuse nor types of spe-
cific substances into a reductionist composite score. Both pre-
dictors and consequences of specific substances have been
found to differ and must be appreciated in any careful study of Table 1
drug use and abuse (e.g., Khantzian & Khantzian, 1984; New- Sample Description of Late Adolescents (Year 5)
comb, 1992; Newcomb & Bentler, 1988a, 1988b, 1989). Men Women
It seems most useful and informative to retain distinctions
Variable
between types and patterns of drug use. In this study, we in-
clude in our analyses frequency of use forfivedifferent drugs Grade
(cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and hard drugs), quan-
tity assessments (for cigarettes, alcohol, and cannabis), and 11 127 43.6 245 40.5
12 102 35.1 214 35.4
problem use (for alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine). Use of multi- Graduate 62 21.3 146 24.1
ple drugs, including illicit substances, is one important aspect
of drug abuse that is often overlooked in empirical studies Ethnicity
(Clayton & Ritter, 1985). We capture this pattern of drug abuse Hispanic 37 12.7 80 13.2
as a latent construct of polydrug use that reflects the extent of Black 43 14.8 109 18.0
involvement (frequency and quantity) with all five drugs. Fi- Asian 20 6.9 47 7.8
White 191 65.6 369 61.0
nally, to capture more accurately the extent of severe drug prob- 32.5 605 67.5
Total 291
lems that emerge after several years of drug misuse, we include
 MULTIPLE PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR DRUG USE
of this sample since Year 1 and does not reflect differential attrition by
sex (Newcomb, 1992; Newcomb & Bentler, 1988a). Nevertheless, gener-
alizability of our results is certainly more applicable to women than
men because of the disproportionate distribution by gender in the
sample. Data were collected in the schools at Years 1, 2, 4, and 5 (no
data were gathered in Year 3), and Year 9 and Year 13 follow-ups were
conducted with mail surveys. Residents in Los Angeles County are
highly mobile and frequently change residences. The in-school follow-
ups involved track ing subjects from school to school via school records
(which were often inaccurate or incomplete). Tracking methods for the
follow-ups for Years 9 and 13 involved numerous procedures when
previous address data was no longer valid. Such methods included
tracing subjects via voter registration, parent or best friend informa-
tion, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, and telephone
books. Many subjects were contacted throughout the county and even
across the world.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
For the longitudinal analyses between Years 5 and 9 complete data
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
were available for 654 subjects, whereas 536 subjects contributed data
in both Years 5 and 13 for the second set of longitudinal analyses.
Attrition Effects
Between Years 1 and 5 of the study, 45% of the sample was lost, 10%
more was lost by Year 9, and 8% more by Year 13. Many attrition
analyses were run to determine whether any first-year variables pre-
dicted retention in the study at Years 5, 9, and 13 (Newcomb, 1992;
Newcomb & Bentler, 1988a, 1988b; Newcomb & McGee, 1991). Drop-
outs and Year 13 participants were contrasted in terms of their frequen-
cies and prevalences of use for the 13 drug substances and 25 personal-
ity traits from the 1976 data set (Newcomb, 1992). There were no dif-
ferences between dropouts and Year 13 participants on prevalence
rates of drug use after the significance level was adjusted for 13 simulta-
neous comparisons (Newcomb, 1992). Using the Bonferroni procedure
to adjust for multiple simultaneous comparisons, not one of the com-
bined set of 13 frequency of drug use and 25 personality variables was
able to significantly differentiate the Year 13 sample from the drop-
outs. This result indicates that very little of the attrition between 1976
and 1988 was due to self-selection based on drug use or personality
traits. A stepwise multiple regression analysis was run using all 38 of
the 1976 drug use frequency and personality variables as the predictor
pool and retention in 1988 as the criterion variable. Although the equa-
tion was significant, it accounted for only 3% of the variance between
groups. Those who continued in the study reported more agility, less
attractiveness, more generosity, more intelligence, less invulnerability,
less orderliness, and more trustful qualities in 1976 than those who
dropped out (no drug items entered the equation).
Additional analyses were conducted to determine whether the attri-
tion from 1980 (Year 5) to 1988 (Year 13) was due to any systematic
influence. Comparisons of the dropouts and the participants at Year 13
on 26 different drug substances and 23 personality, emotional distress,
and social support scales from the 1980 data set revealed no signi ficant
differences (Newcomb, 1992). A stepwise multiple regression analysis
was also run using these 49 variables as the predictor pool and reten-
tion in 1988 as the criterion variable. Only two variables were selected
to differentiate the groups, and they accounted for only 1% of the vari-
ance between them. Those who continued in the study reported a bet-
ter relationship with their family and reported greater use of nonpre-
scription cold medicine (nonillicit drug substances) in 1980 than those
who did not continue in the study (Newcomb. 1992). This indicates
that loss of subjects between 1980 and 1988 was not largely due to
systematic self-selection on drug use, personality, emotional distress,
and social support variables. Similar results were found for other sam-
ple partitions regarding attrition. In addition, there were minimal ef-
283
fects on attrition (less than 1% of the variance) attributable to sex or
ethnicity. These effects are reported elsewhere (Newcomb, 1992; New-
comb & Bentler. 1988a, 1988b: Newcomb. Maddahian, & Bentler,
1986).
Measures
Year 5 and 9 .substance use measures. Two aspects ofdruguse behav-
ior were assessed for up tofivespecific substances: cigarettes, alcohol,
cannabis, cocaine, and hard drugs. Frequency of use was obtained for
all five drug categories, and typical quantity of use per occasion was
assessed for cigarettes, alcohol, and cannabis.
Frequency of use was assessed for 6 months on 7-point anchored
scales ranging from never (I) to more than once a day (1). One item was
used to measure cigarette use. one was used to measure cocaine use,
three were averaged for alcohol (beer, wine, and hard liquor), two were
averaged for cannabis (marijuana and hashish), and 14 were averaged
for hard drugs (i.e.. phencyclidine. heroin. LSD, barbiturates, amphet-
amines, etc.).
The three quantity measures pertained to cigarettes, alcohol, and
cannabis use and were rated on 7-point anchored scales ranging from
no ingestion to heavy use. Rating categories for cigarettes varied from
no cigarettes (1) to more than 40 cigarettes (more than 2 packs a day) (7).
The average daily amount of alcohol consumed for the past 6 months
was reflected by the number of bottles of beer, glasses of wine, or
mixed drinks on a typical day and ranged from none (I) to six or more
(7). Because it is difficult to quantify use of hashish across individuals,
this form of cannabis was not included in the quantity measure of
cannabis. Cannabis quantity reflected the number of marijuana joints
or cigarettes personally consumed and ranged from none (I) to six or
more(l).
Year 13 problem use measures. Items assessed 29 problems related
to three specific types of drugs (alcohol, cannabis. and cocaine). Each
set of 29 items was combined into three scales for each drug and used to
reflect latent constructs of Alcohol Problems, Cannabis Problems, and
Cocaine Problems. These three specific types of problems were prob-
lems at work, social problems, and physical problems and were as-
sessed by the frequency of occurrence (during the past year) of 29
various adverse consequences attributable to each drug (a total of 87
items). Each item was rated separately for the use of alcohol, mari-
juana, and cocaine. An exploratory factor analysis conducted on the
three separate sets of items (alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine) identi-
fied a general factor underlying each of the three sets (Newcomb,
1992). and the items were grouped conceptually into the three catego-
ries (Stacy. Newcomb. & Bentler. 1991a. 1991b).
These items were created to capture most of the symptoms and diag-
nostic criteria for Substance Dependence as defined by the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev.; DSM-IH-R
American Psychiatric Association. 1987; Newcomb. 1992). Three ex-
amples of these items include, "used the alcohol or drug over a longer
period of time than you intended." "hurt your performance on the
job," and "hurt your relationships with your friends and family" (see
Newcomb, 1992. for a complete list of items). Because of the many
items included in each scale, there was adequate variance for each,
although the distributions ranged from fairly normal for alcohol to
fairly skewed for cocaine. When an algorithm was used to transform
these responses into pseudo-diagnoses of dependence (Newcomb,
1992). 13% of the subjects were classified as alcohol dependent, 8%
marijuana dependent, and 7% cocaine dependent according to DSM-
III-R criteria.
Protective and risk factor measures. Fourteen variables were se-
lected for study as possible protective or risk factors based on theory
and previous research (Bry et al.. 1982; Chassin. 1984; Kandel, 1980;
 284 MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB AND MARIA FELIX-ORTIZ
Kaplan, 1980; Long & Scherl, 1984; Marlatt, Baer, Donovan, & Kivla-
han. 1988; Mills & Noyes, 1984; Newcomb & Bentler, 1989; Newcomb,
Maddahian, & Bentler, 1986; Sadava, 1987). These variables were se-
lected as likely correlates or predictors of substance use and abuse and
were available in the Year 5 database.
Academic influences were captured in two measures: GPA was
coded in the usual manner and educational aspirations ranged from
some high school (will drop out before graduation) (1) to doctoral degree
(6). Future expectations and hopeful outlook were reflected by per-
ceived opportunity, a three-item scale that assessed satisfaction with
opportunities for the future, satisfaction with school or work, and
chances to be what you want (Newcomb, Bentler, & Collins, 1986).
Each item was rated on a 5-point disagree-agree scale, and the Cron-
bach alpha reliability for these three items was .69.
Attitudes toward traditionalism and conformity were reflected by
two scales (four bipolar items each) of law abidance (period-free reli-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ability = .85; Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1986) and religiosity (period-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
free reliability = .77; Stein et al, 1986); these scales have been de-
scribed elsewhere (Huba & Bentler, 1983; Newcomb & Bentler, 1988a,
1988b; Newcomb. Huba, & Bentler, 1986). A sample item for law abi-
dance is "return incorrect change" versus "keep incorrect change,"
whereas an item for religiosity is "believe in the Bible" versus "believe
in science." Deviant behavior was represented by one scale that as-
sessed the frequency of performing 16 criminal activities during the
past year. These items covered minor and major personal and property
offenses, but excluded all types of drug crimes. The internal consis-
tency of this scale was .73.
Psychological distress was captured in one 4-item scale of depres-
sion (« = .72) that measures normal variations in dysphoric mood
(Newcomb, Bentler, & Collins, 1986; Newcomb, Maddahian, &
Bentler. 1986). Satisfaction with oneself and self-esteem were repre-
sented by a 4-item scale of self-acceptance (a = .76; Newcomb, Huba, &
Bentler, 1986; Stein et al., 1986). Quality of family life was reflected in and included in the Protective Factor Index (PFI). If the AC for risk was
one scale of home relationships. This measure combined two 4-item
scales assessing relationships with parents (a = .82) and with family (a = the Risk Factor Index (RFI). To verify each assignment, the largest
.84; Newcomb & Bentler. 1986b).
Perceived social and community norms regarding drug use were
reflected in one composite measure of two multiitem scales. These
scales were perceived community approval for use of several drugs
(Stein et al.. 1987) and the extent that people important to the respon-
dent condoned use of various licit and illicit drugs. The internal con-
sistency for the combined items was .89. The perceived likelihood of
being punished for using drugs was captured in one 6-item scale on
sanctions against use. Each item asked, "If you used next index, but was assigned to the PFI because deviant behavior was al-
month, how likely is it you would get caught and punished?" for ciga-
rettes, beer. wine, liquor, marijuana or hashish, and other drugs. Re-
sponses were given on 5-point anchored scales ranging from no way I'll
gel punished (1) to I'm certain to get punished(5). The internal consis-
tency of this scale was .92.
Models of drug use behavior were rated for adults and peers for a
variety of drugs and drug use patterns. Perceived adult drug use was a
composite scale (a = .85) based on how many adults were known to
engage in 12 types of use/abuse of drugs and alcohol as rated on 5-point
anchored scales from none (I) to all (5). Perceived peer drug use was a
similar composite of eight items reflecting how many peers were
known to engage in various types of drug involvement (a = .84).
Access to and ease of drug acquisition were assessed with one com-
posite scale of availability of drugs (a = .90). In this scale six items
captured how hard or easy it would be to obtain cigarettes, beer, wine,
liquor, marijuana or hashish, and other drugs. Responses were pro-
vided on 5-point anchored scales ranging from very hard (I) to very
easy (5).
Creation of the Risk and Protective Factor Indexes
Because each of these 14 factors may or may not contribute unique
information to predicting substance use, five simultaneous multiple
regressions using all 14 scales as independent variables and each of the
five drug frequency measures as dependent variables were computed.
Accountable variance (R2) ranged from .30 for cigarettes to .55 for
cannabis. All but two variables accounted for significant unique vari-
ance in at least one equation. Self-acceptance and perceived opportu-
nity were not significant predictors in any of the five equations, but
were retained in subsequent analyses because of their central role in
several theories of drug abuse (e.g., Kaplan, 1986; Newcomb &Harlow,
1986).
Most individuals should have very few risk factors (Newcomb, Mad-
dahian, & Bentler, 1986) and very few protective factors. This reflects
our hypotheses that most people do not engage in heavy drug use or
abuse nor do they completely abstain from using drugs. To reflect
these expectations, the lower 20% or upper 20% of each variable distri-
bution was designated as either protection or risk. For example, the
upper 20.8% of the distribution for deviant behavior, those who had
committed seven or more deviant acts, was designated as being at risk.
On the other hand, those who were more religious, the upper 18.3% of
the distribution, were considered protected. In this manner, two di-
chotomous variables were created for each of the 14 psychosocial mea-
sures: one for protection and one for risk.
All 14 risk variables and all 14 protective variables were correlated
with the five frequency of use measures. The correlations were com-
pared in two ways to determine for each psychosocial measure whether
the protection or risk variable was related most strongly to drug use.
First, an average correlation (AC) across substances was computed for
the risk variable and another AC was computed for the protection
variable for each measure. If the AC for protection was higher than the
AC for risk, the protective variable was designated a protective factor
largest, the risk variable was designated a risk factor and included in
correlation between each pair of risk or protective variables and drug
use was noted and also used as criterion for assignment. For example,
deviant behavior was assigned to the RFI because the AC between
drug use and the deviant behavior risk variable was greater than the
AC between drug use and the deviant behavior protection variable. On
further inspection, the largest correlation was between drug use and
the variable designated as risk. With these two criteria met, deviant
behavior was assigned to the RFI rather than the PFI. Law abidance
differed on the two criteria and could not be clearly assigned to either
ready identified as a risk factor. Because there was no difference be-
tween ACs for Self-Acceptance, it was assigned to the PFI to have an
equal number of factors in each index.
Table 2 shows the seven risk factors and seven protective factors. This
table also provides the range for each variable, the cutpoints for protec-
tion or risk, and the percentage of the sample at risk or protected for
each factor. High GPA, low depression, having supportive relation-
ships at home, perceiving many sanctions for drug use, high religiosity,
high self-acceptance, and high law abidance were assigned to the PFI.
Low educational aspirations, high perceived adult drug use, high per-
ceived peer drug use, many deviant behaviors, high perceptions of
community support for drug use, easy availability of drugs, and low
perceived opportunity were assigned to the RFI. Each index ranged
from 0 to 7.
Table 3 provides distributions for RFI and PFI for the total sample
and separately by sex. The general patterns match those expected:
Most of the samples had less than two risk factors and less than two
protective factors.
 MULTIPLE PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR DRUG USE 285

Table 2 Table 4
Cutpoints for the Protective and Risk Factors Mean Sex Comparisons on the Year 5 Drug Use Measures
and Risk and Protective Factor Indexes
Variable Cutpoint %of
Factors range for index sample Men Women
Variable (n = 291) (n = 605) F*
Protective
Grade point average 1-4 A 11.8a Frequency of use over
Law abidance 4-20 >16 21.1 6 months
Religiosity 4-20 >19 18.3 Cigarettes 2.85 2.56 3.59*
Depression 4-20 =4 18.9 Alcohol 7.83 7.31 3.90**
Self-acceptance 4-20 >18 24.6 Cannabis 4.35 3.91 4.80**
Home relationships 8-40 >36 21.0 Cocaine 1.42 1.40 0.11
Sanctions against Hard drugs 15.12 15.23 0.20
drug use 6-30 >23 21.9 Quantity of drug use
Risk Cigarettes 1.39 1.65 10.67***
Eduational Alcohol 2.98 2.38 16.45***
aspiration 1-6 <3 15.1
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Cannabis 1.83 1.46 13.47***

Perceived
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Indexes
opportunity 3-15 <10 16.6 Protective Factor Index 1.30 1.11 4.11**
Deviance 0-42 >6 20.8 Risk Factor Index 1.30 1.41 1.05
Important people/
a
community dfs = 1 and 894.
support 12-53 >27 21.1 * p < . 1 0 . **/><.05. *** p<.001.
Perceived adult
drug use 9-34 >19 20.5
Perceived peer
drug use 9-35 >20 18.5
Availability of drugs 6-30 >28 21.0 separately by sex and the F tests for sex differences. Women
used cigarettes more frequently (p < .10) and in greater
Note. The W= 896. amounts than men. Men used alcohol and cannabis more often
a
Cutoff closest to 20% given the variable's distribution. and in larger quantities than women. There were no significant
differences between the sexes on frequency of use of cocaine or
hard drugs. Men scored higher on the PFI than women, but
Results there was no difference between the groups on the RFI.
Cross-Sectional Analyses Correlations with RFI and PFI. Table 5 presents the correla-
tions of the PFI and RFI with thefivedrug frequency and three
Mean comparisons. Table 4 presents the means of the Year 5 drug quantity measures. Correlations are given for the total
drug frequency and quantity measures and the RFI and PFI sample and separately by sex, including tests between correla-
tions for men and women (using the Fisher r-to-z conversion).
All but one of the correlations between the PFI and the eight
Table 3 drug scales were significant and ranged from -.21 to -.35 for
Sample Distribution for Protective and Risk Factor Indexes the total group, from -.04 to -.36 for men, and from -.22 to
-.37 for women. The correlations of the PFI with frequency
Percentage of sample and quantity of cigarette use and cannabis quantity were signifi-
Factor index Total Men Women cantly higher for women than for men. Correlations of the PFI
and number (N = 896) (n = 291) (n = 605) with frequency and quantity of alcohol use tended to be higher
than correlations of the PFI with other measures of drug use.
Protective All correlations of the RFI with the eight drug use measures
0 35.8 21.1 19.0 were significant and ranged from .36 to .64 for the total group,
1 24.6 22.3 20.3
2 19.3 16.5 17.2 .35 to .64 for men, and .39 to .64 for women. The magnitudes of
3 9.3 16.2 14.5 these correlations were not significantly different for men com-
4 5.8 9.3 9.6 pared with women. Across all groups, correlations of the RFI
5 3.1 6.9 7.4 with cannabis tended to be higher than correlations of the RFI
6 2.0 4.1 5.1
7 0.2 2.7 3.0 with other substances.
Risk Multiple regression analyses. Two sets of multiple regression
0 44.6 19.6 27.3 analyses were conducted: One group tested the simultaneous
1 24.9 19.9 22.3 main effects of the RFI and PFI and the other included an
2 13.9 18.9 15.5
3 10.1 14.1 13.1 interaction effect in hierarchical steps. Eight dependent vari-
4 4.1 10.3 8.4 ables were used from Year 5: thefivefrequency of use scales and
5 2.1 7.2 6.1 the three quantity of use items.
6 0.2 4.1 3.3 Each set of eight multiple regression analyses was run for the
7 0 0 0
total sample and separately for men and women. For the total
 286 MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB AND MARIA FELIX-ORTIZ

Table 5 PFI X RFI interaction was entered last and made a significant
Correlations of the Protective Factor Index (PFI) and Risk contribution only in a few equations: hard drug frequency for
Factor Index (RF1) With Different Dependent Measures both sexes and cocaine frequency and cigarette quantity (p <
.10) only for women. Additional analyses and plots of these
Total significant interactions confirmed that they all represent buf-
sample Men Women Z
Variable (N = 896) (n = 291) (n = 605) difference fering effects, that is, that high risk and low protection reflect
extremely high drug use and that low risk and high protection
Frequency of use over the past 6 months are associated with extremely low drug use. Protection had very
PFI little effect on drug use at high levels of risk, whereas risk had
Cigarettes -.27 -.15 -.31 2.36** moderate effects on drug use at high levels of protection.
Alcohol -.35 -.31 -.37 0.95
Cannabis -.32 -.29 -.33 0.62
Cocaine -.22 -.20 -.23 0.44 Longitudinal Structural Equation Models
Hard drugs -.22 -.23 -.22 -0.15
RFI Two SEMs were constructed to test across-time, possible
Cigarettes .42 .38 .44 -1.01 causal, influences among latent constructs and measured vari-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Alcohol .51 .50 .52 0.38 ables. Regression paths within time were not included, given
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Cannabis .64 .64 .64 0.00 that their causal interpretations are ambiguous. Within-time
Cocaine .56 .51 .59 -1.60
Hard drugs .50 .54 .50 0.77 associations were captured as correlations between constructs,
factor loadings, and correlations between residuals.
Quantity of drug use Both models were created with two waves of prospective
PFI data. Each model incorporated the same Year 5 drug use mea-
Cigarettes -.21 -.04a -.27 3.31*** sures and psychosocial indices as the initial baseline conditions
Alcohol -.35 -.36 -.35 -0.16 and predictors. The two models differed in the length of time
Cannabis -.27 -.19** -.32 1.94* between waves and the types of outcome variables. The first
RFI
Cigarettes .36 .35 .39 -0.65
SEM incorporated data that spanned a 4-year period from late
Alcohol .44 .41 .45 -0.69 adolescence (Year 5) to young adulthood (Year 9) and included
Cannabis .59 .60 .59 0.22 numerous drug use frequency and quantity measures as out-
come variables in Year 9. The second SEM was constructed
Note. All correlations are significant at the .001 level except where with the same data from late adolescence (Year 5), but the sec-
otherwise indicated.
a
Nonsignificant.
ond wave was 8 years later and included several measures of
*p<.Q5. * * p < . 0 1 . ***/?< .001. drug problems reflecting adult consequences (Year 13).
All prior Year 5 cross-sectional analyses were conducted sepa-
rately for men and women. Although a few differences were
noted between sexes, these were relatively small, and most find-
sample, all equations were significant (p < .01), and account- ings were quite similar for women and men. On the basis of
able variance due to both the PFI and RFI ranged from 14% (for these results, the two longitudinal SEMs are constructed on
cigarette quantity) to 43% (for cannabis frequency). The RFI combined data from both sexes. This aggregation has the ad-
was always a significant predictor and the PFI was significant vantage of improving the stability and reliability of the SEMs
in all but one of these multiple regression equations (cocaine because of the larger sample achieved by combining men and
frequency). Beta weights for the PFI tended to be smaller than women.
those for the RFI for all substances, but were especially small Threefirst-orderlatent drug use factors were hypothesized to
for cigarettes and illicit substances. The PFI had more signifi- underlie six variables (frequency and quantity measures of ciga-
cant effects for women (six of eight analyses) than for men (half rettes, alcohol, and cannabis) at Year 5. These three constructs
of the analyses). and frequency measures for cocaine and hard drugs were hy-
Moderator or interaction effects can be tested with hierarchi- pothesized to reflect a second-order latent factor of Polydrug
cal multiple regression analyses that compare an equation in Use. The Year 5 variables were the same in both models. These
which all main effect predictors are entered with an equation same eight drug use measures were reassessed in Year 9, and the
that also includes the interaction effects, usually created as mul- same hierarchical latent factor measurement model was used to
tiplicative variables (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). To minimize col- represent these measures in young adulthood (Year 9) as in
linearity problems, we standardized the risk factor and protec- Year 5.
tive factor measures before creating the product (interaction) The RFI and PFI were negatively correlated with each other
term and used these in our regression and SEM analyses (Cron- for the total sample (r = -.31, p < .001), for men (r= -.23, p <
bach, 1987; Dunlap & Kemery, 1987). .01), and for women (r = .34, p < .001). Although each index
These analyses were conducted separately by sex, using the was constructed from mutually exclusive factors, they still were
eight Year 5 drug use scales as dependent variables. The PFI moderately correlated in a negative direction as expected (New-
was entered first and contributed significant variance in all comb, 1992). Therefore, they cannot be treated as independent.
equations for both men and women, except for cigarette quan- To capture this moderate commonality between the RFI and
tity among men. The RFI was entered second and accounted PFI, we used a latent construct of Vulnerability in Year 5 to
for significant incremental variance in every equation. The represent the amount of high risk and low protection shared by
 MULTIPLE PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR DRUG USE
the RFI and PFI (Newcomb, 1990). Failure to do this might
create collinearity difficulties in SEM analyses. Furthermore,
although we constructed the interaction term between the RFI
and PFI to maximize the independence between these main
and interaction effects (Dunlap & Kemery, 1987), it is quite
likely that the interaction variable is not orthogonal to the RFI
and PFI. To capture this suspected commonality, the RFI X
PFI interaction variable was also allowed to be an indicator of
the Vulnerability latent construct. This Vulnerability construct
was allowed to covary with Polydrug Use in Year 5. This corre-
lation was included for two reasons. First, we expect on theoreti-
cal grounds that Polydrug Use and Vulnerability will be highly
associated. Second, from a statistical standpoint, it is essential
that we include this correlation so that we can make stronger
causal inferences from any across-time paths we may find
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(Newcomb, 1990).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Four-year SEM. In the initial SEM, the second-order factor
of Polydrug Use in Year 9 was predicted by both the second-
order factors of Polydrug Use and Vulnerability in Year 5. The
initial SEM also included (a) correlated within-time residuals
for similar types of measures (e.g., the frequency of alcohol use
residual was correlated with the frequency of cigarette use resid-
ual), (b) correlated across-time disturbances for similar con-
structs (e.g., Alcohol Use in Year 5 correlated with Alcohol Use
in Year 9), and (c) the residuals of repeatedly measured vari-
ables, which were also allowed to correlate across time (e.g., the
residual of cannabis quantity in Years 5 and 9 were allowed to
correlate).
This initial model fit the data reasonably well, x2(108, A7 =
654) = 285, p < .001, Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI;
Bentler & Bonett, 1980) = .96, and Comparative Fit Index (CFI;
Bentler, 1990) = .99. Factor loadings for the Year 5 first-order
latent constructs ranged from .31 (for RFI x PFI interaction) to
.94 (for frequency). Factor loadings for the Year 9 first-order
constructs ranged from .70 (for cocaine frequency) to .98 (for
cigarette frequency). Factor loadings for the Year 5 second-
order latent construct of Polydrug Use ranged from .56 (for
Cigarette Use) to .87 (for Cannabis Use). Factor loadings for the
Year 9 second-order latent construct of Polydrug Use ranged
from .55 (for Cigarette Use) to .70 (for cocaine frequency). The
correlation between Vulnerability and Polydrug Use was quite
high (r = .90). There was a highly significant path from Year 5
Polydrug Use to Year 9 Polydrug Use; however, the path from
Year 5 Vulnerability to Year 9 Polydrug Use was not significant.
Other more specific and detailed effects that were not hy-
pothesized may have been excluded from this model. These
nonstandard across-time paths were restricted to six types: (a)
from Year 5 Polydrug Use or Vulnerability latent constructs to a
later measured variable, (b) from disturbance terms of Year 5
first-order latent constructs to later measured variables, (c)
from the Year 5 Polydrug Use or Vulnerability constructs to
later latent constructs, (d) from the disturbance terms of Year 5
first-order latent constructs to later constructs, and (e) from
Year 5 measured-variable residuals to later latent constructs
(Newcomb, 1990,1992). Residual or disturbance terms capture
the unique portion of measured or latent variance, respectively,
not captured in the common or second-order factors repre-
sented by these constructs. Measured-variable residuals also
include variance attributable to random error of measurement
287
(Newcomb, 1990). These nonstandard paths go beyond the re-
stricted effects of construct-to-construct influences allowed by
the limited LISREL models (e.g., Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988) and
permit more detailed analyses afforded by the EQS program
(Bentler, 1989; Newcomb, 1988).
These additions were selected with the Lagrange multiplier
modification indices (Chou & Bentler, 1990). The model was
overfit by adding these across-time regression paths and then
trimmed by deleting nonsignificant parameters (constraining
them to zero). This process of deleting nonsignificant parame-
ters was guided by the multivariate Wald test (Chou & Bentler,
1990). This procedure of adding and then removing parameters
was found by Chou and Bentler (1990) and MacCallum (1986)
as the best method to capture the "true" model. ThefinalSEM
only included significant paths and as a result was parsi-
monious and more easily interpretable. ThisfinalSEMfitwell,
X2(102, N = 654) = 209, NFI = .97, CFI = .99, and significantly
better than the initial model, difference x2('O6, N = 654) = 76,
p<.001.
Standardized factor loadings and relationships among the
latent constructs of thisfinalSEM are depicted in Figure 1. The
correlation between the Vulnerability construct and Polydrug
Use in Year 5 was quite high (r = .90), as was the stability path
from Year 5 to Year 9 Polydrug Use (r = .77). These strong
relationships made the direct path from Vulnerability to Poly-
drug Use in Year 9 very unlikely to be significant (Gollob &
Reichardt, 1987). The model accounted for 62% of the variance
of Polydrug Use at Year 9. The residual of Cigarette Use at Year
5 significantly predicted Cannabis Use at Year 9. Table 6 pre-
sents the nonstandard regression effects, which are from the
same final SEM but are not displayed in Figure 1 for reasons of
clarity. Predictor variables designated by an (R) are from the
residual of the particular variable. Year 5 Vulnerability signifi-
cantly increased Year 9 quantity of cigarette use and frequency
of cannabis use. The residual of the RFI X PFI interaction
increased later frequency of cannabis use and cocaine use.
All other nonstandard paths across time were between drug
use measures, with all Year 5 predictors being residual or dis-
turbance variables. Frequency of alcohol use was a significant
predictor of frequency of cigarette, alcohol, and cocaine use.
Frequency of cannabis use significantly predicted Polydrug
Use, quantity of alcohol use, and quantity of cannabis use. Fre-
quency of cocaine use predicted frequency of hard drug use and
quantity of cannabis use.
Eight-year SEM. Our second SEM tests the influences of
our Year 5 variables on problems with drug use 8 years later (see
Figure 2). Year 5 variables were the same as the first SEM. At
Year 13, three latent constructs representing problems asso-
ciated with drug use were hypothesized to underlie nine indica-
tors, three each related to alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine (physi-
cal problems, social problems, and problems at work). The Poly-
drug Use and Vulnerability constructs at Year 5 were postulated
to predict these three latent constructs at Year 13. The initial
SEM also included correlations between within-time residuals
for similar measures and correlations between within-time dis-
turbances for Year 9 constructs.
This initial model fit the data reasonably well, x2(144, N =
536) = 504.85, p < .001, NFI = .93, CFI = .95. Factor loadings
for the Year 5first-orderlatent constructs ranged from a low of
 288 MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB AND MARIA FELIX-ORTIZ

YEAR 5 YEAR 9

RFI . 90***
~»
. 3 5***
PFI Vulnerability

3C ** *
RxP -—•
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

70 5 9
/ Polydrug hU Polydrug \ - / Alcohol
Use Use I "l Use L. 7 8 *

hard drug hard drug

frequency frequency

Figure 1. Structural equations model for the influence of Vulnerability on changes in drug use over 4
years. (Circles represent latent constructs, squares represent measured variables, the double-headed arrow
is a correlation, and one-headed arrows represent factor loadings or paths of influence between variables.
All parameter estimates are standardized and significant as indicated by ***[p < .001 ]. Residual variances
are shown in small circles, a = fixed in the unstandardized solution to identify the construct; RFI = Risk
Factor Index: PFI = Protective Factor Index; R X P = Risk Factor Index X Protective Factor Index; cig.
freq. = cigarette frequency; cig. quan. = cigarette quantity; ale. freq. = alcohol frequency; ale. quan. =
alcohol quantity; can. freq. = cannabis frequency; can. quan. = cannabis quantity.)
 MULTIPLE PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR DRUG USE 289

Table 6
Across-Time Influences of Latent and Observed Variables in the Final Structural Model for
Frequency of Drug Use Over 4 Years (N = 654)
Adolescent predictor variable Adult consequent variable Standardized
parameter
Observed Latent Observed Latent estimate"

Effects of vulnerability variables on later drug use

Vulnerability Cigarette quantity .06***
Vulnerability Cannabis frequency .08*
RFI x PFI (R) Cannabis frequency .06***
RFI X PFI (R) Cocaine frequency .08***

Effects of Year i Drug Use on Year 9 Drug Use

Alcohol frequency (R) Cigarette frequency .09*'!«*
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Alcohol frequency (R) Alcohol frequency .19*"

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Alcohol frequency (R) Cocaine frequency .15*"It*

Cannabis frequency (R) Polydrug Use .14* k *
Cannabis frequency (R) Alcohol quantity .10*
Cannabis frequency (R) Cannabis quantity .48*
Cocaine frequency (R) Hard drug frequency .07*
Cocaine frequency (R) Cannabis quantity .06***

Note. (R) denotes variable residual; RFI = Risk Factor Index; PFI = Protective Factor Index.
a
Significance level determined by a critical ratio of the unstandardized parameter estimate divided by its
standard error.
* p < . 0 5 . **/?<.01. ***/?<.001.

.36 (for RFI X PFI interaction) to a high of .95 (for cannabis
frequency). Factor loadings for the Year 5 second-order latent
construct of Polydrug Use ranged from .59 (for Cigarette Use) to
.92 (for Cannabis Use). All factor loadings were highly signifi-
cant (p < .001).
More specific and detailed effects that were not hypothesized
(e.g., nonstandard across-time paths) were selected with the La-
grange multiplier modification index (Chou & Bentler, 1990).
The model was overfit by adding these across-time regression
paths and then trimmed by deleting nonsignificant parameters
(MacCallum, 1986). The final SEM included only significant
paths and as a result was parsimonious and more easily inter-
pretable. The process of deleting nonsignificant parameters
was guided by the multivariate Wald test (Chou & Bentler,
1990), which ensures that deleting multiple effects can be done
without losing significant parameters. This final SEMfitwell,
2
x (124, N= 536) = 190.06, p < .001, NFI = .97, and CFI = .99,
and significantly better than the initial model, difference x2(20,
N= 530)= 314.79, p> .001.
Year 5 Vulnerability significantly increased Cannabis Prob-
lems 8 years later (see Figure 2). The disturbance variable of
Year 5 Alcohol Use significantly increased Year 13 Alcohol
Problems and Cannabis Problems constructs. The disturbance
variable of Year 5 Cannabis Use significantly increased Year 13
Alcohol and Cannabis Problems. Year 5 Polydrug Use had a
significant direct effect on Year 13 Cocaine Problems.
Table 7 presents the nonstandard regression effects that are
from the same final SEM as depicted in Figure 2, but that are
not displayed in that figure for reasons of clarity. In this table,
those predictor variables designated by an (R) are from the
residual of the particular variable. Year 5 Vulnerability signifi-
cantly influenced four Year 13 indicator variables of drug prob-
lems: alcohol problems, physical; cannabis problems, work; co-
caine problems, physical; and cocaine problems, social. The
residual of the RFI significantly increased Year 13 Alcohol
Problems and Cannabis Problems. The residual of the PFI sig-
nificantly reduced Year 13 Alcohol Problems. The residual of
the RFI x PFI interaction also increased Year 13 Alcohol Prob-
lems.
The remaining significant paths in this 8-year SEM are be-
tween Year 5 drug use variables and Year 13 problem drug use
measures and constructs. The disturbance variable of Year 5
Cigarette Use significantly increased Year 13 cannabis prob-
lems, physical. The residual of cigarette frequency had a signifi-
cant effect on Year 13 Alcohol Problems. The disturbance vari-
able of Year 5 Alcohol Use predicted Year 13 alcohol problems,
physical, and cocaine problems, physical. The disturbance vari-
able of Cannabis Use significantly increased cannabis prob-
lems, work, and cocaine problems, physical. The residual of
cannabis frequency significantly predicted Year 13 alcohol
problems, social, and cannabis problems, physical. The resid-
ual of cannabis quantity also significantly increased cannabis
problems, physical. The residual of cocaine frequency signifi-
cantly influenced Alcohol Problems. The residual of hard drug
frequency significantly predicted cannabis problems, work.
Discussion
Recent theory (e.g., Sadava, 1987; Zucker & Gomberg, 1986),
accumulation of empirical research (e.g., Stein et al., 1987), and
conclusions of current reviews (e.g., Newcomb & Bentler, 1989)
have indicated clearly that neither drug use nor drug abuse can
be fully accounted for by any one or even a few etiological fac-
tors. This has led several investigators to conceptualize (e.g.,
 290 MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB AND MARIA FELIX-ORTIZ

Year 5 Year 13

RFI .90
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

phys.

soc.

work

phys.

work

phys.
.90
Cocaine V" 9 1 * * *
soc.

work

Figure 2. Structural equations model of the influences of Vulnerability and drug use on problems asso-
ciated with drug use after 8 years. (Circles represent latent constructs, squares represent measured vari-
ables, the double-headed arrow is a correlation, and one-headed arrows represent factor loadings or paths
of influence between variables. All parameter estimates are standardized and significant as indicated by
***[p < .001]. Residual variances are shown in small circles, a = fixed in the unstandardized solution to
identify the construct; RFI = Risk Factor Index; PFI = Protective Factor Index; R X P = Risk Factor
Index x Protective Factor Index; cig. freq. = cigarette frequency; cig. quan. = cigarette quantity; ale.
freq. = alcohol frequency; ale. quan. = alcohol quantity; can. freq. = cannabis frequency; can. quan. =
cannabis quantity; phys. = physical problems; soc. = social problems; work = problems at work.)
 MULTIPLE PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR DRUG USE 291

Table 7
Across- Time Influences of Latent and Observed Variables in the Final Structural Model for Problem Drug Use Over 8 Years (N = 536)
Adolescent predictor variable Adult consequent variable Standardized
parameter
Observed Latent Observed Latent estimate"

Effects of Year 5 Vulnerability variables on Year 9 Drug Use

Vulnerability Alcohol problems, physical .09***
Vulnerability Cannabis problems, work .04*
Vulnerability Cocaine problems, physical .07**
Vulnerability Cocaine problems, social .09**
RFI (R) Alcohol Problems .52**
RFI (R) Cannabis Problems .15**
PFI (R) Alcohol Problems -.10**
RFI x PFI (R) Alcohol Problems .16**
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Effects of Year 5 Drug variables on Year 13 Drug Problems

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Cigarette Use (R) Cannabis problems, physical .06*

Cigarette frequency (R) Alcohol Problems .19*
Alcohol Use (R) Alcohol problems, physical .20*'
Alcohol Use (R) Cocaine problems, physical .08*'
Cannabis Use (R) Cannabis problems, work .18*'
Cannabis Use (R) Cocaine problems, physical .06*"
Cannabis frequency (R) Alcohol problems, social .07*
Cannabis frequency (R) Cannabis problems, physical .16*
Cannabis quantity (R) Cannabis problems, physical .16***
Cocaine frequency (R) Alcohol Problems .22***
Hard drug frequency (R) Cannabis problems, work .07**

Note. (R) denotes variable residual; RFI = Risk Factor Index; PFI = Protective Factor Index.
a
Significance level determined by a critical ratio of the unstandardized parameter estimate divided by its standard error.
*p<.05. **/><.01. ***/><.001.

Bry, 1983) and demonstrate empirically that both drug use and
drug abuse are more likely and more severe with the increasing
number of risk factors to which the individual is exposed in
cross-sectional (e.g., Bry et al., 1982; Newcomb et al., 1987) and
longitudinal tests (Newcomb, Maddahian, & Bentler, 1986;
Scheier & Newcomb, 1991a, 1991b). This perspective has been
called the multiple risk factor model and postulates that drug
use and abuse are reactions to increasing numbers of vulnerabil-
ity conditions to which a person is exposed and with which they
must cope (Bry, 1983).
In the present study, we extrapolated this prior theory and
research on multiple risk factors in several important directions
and in particular to hypothesize a multiple protective factor
model. Although a few investigators have considered protective
factors against drug use, these have only been examined as sin-
gle factors (e.g., Brook, Nomura, & Cohen, 1989a, 1989b; Brook
et al., 1985; Brook, Whiteman, Gordon, & Cohen, 1986; Brook,
Whiteman, Gordon, Nomura, & Brook, 1986). We have extrap-
olated from the multiple risk factors model to hypothesize and
create a multiple protective factor index. By analogy, the greater
number of protective factors to which a person is exposed, the
less likely he or she will use or abuse drugs. Furthermore, we
have elaborated both a direct effects and buffering (interactive)
influence of these multiple protective factors, which in the past
have only been considered as uni-vector forces (Brook et al.,
1985; Brook, Whiteman, Gordon, & Cohen, 1986; Brook,
Whiteman, Gordon, Nomura, & Brook, 1986). Most prior re-
search on multiple risk factors has not explicitly represented a
wide variety of drug use type and patterns (e.g., Bry et al., 1982).
We have considered both use and abuse (problems with use) of
alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine; use of cigarettes and hard
drugs; and polydrug use. Finally, either cross-sectional or rela-
tively brief time frames in longitudinal studies (i.e., 1 year) have
been incorporated in prior research. In our present study, we
have examined cross-sectional data as well as more lengthy pe-
riods of prospective data (4 years and 8 years).
Our approach to understanding and operationalizing the in-
fluences that affect substance use behaviors among teenagers
and young adults integrates and consolidates numerous aspects
of personality; deviance; educational orientation; and per-
ceived community, parent, and peer drug use and attitudes to-
ward use into separate indices of risk factors and protective
factors. Fourteen predictor variables were assigned exclusively
to either the RFI or PFI. For some variables, small differences
in correlations were used for category assignment, and two vari-
ables were assigned on conceptual bases because of ambiguous
correlation differences. In future studies, these variables may
fall into different indices.
These two indices and their interaction were examined in a
series of multiple regression analyses and SEMs to determine
how they were associated with drug use in late adolescence,
predicted changes in drug use 4 years later, and influenced
problems with drug use 8 years later. The prospective SEMs
largely confirmed results obtained from the cross-sectional mul-
tiple regression analyses: Vulnerability as measured by the RFI,
PFI, and their interaction was highly associated with drug use
 292 MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB AND MARIA FELIX-ORTIZ
in adolescence, moderately increased certain types of drug use
in young adulthood, and strongly contributed to some kinds of
drug problems in adulthood.
In the cross-sectional analyses, the RFI was positively corre-
lated (always significantly) with frequency and quantity of use
for all substances. Although the PFI was negatively correlated
with use of all substances (most often significantly), the account-
able variance from the multiple regression analyses for fre-
quency and quantity of alcohol use were largest. The two indi-
ces accounted for moderate (always significant) amounts of vari-
ance for all substances in the multiple regression analyses, with
the largest for alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine.
These variations in predictive strength across substances sug-
gest that some types and patterns of drug use are more or less
strongly associated with the RFI and PFI, whereas others are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
more associated with a specific index. RFIs and PFIs may be
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
developed for specific drugs, stages of involvement (e.g., initia-
tion versus escalation; Scheier & Newcomb, 1991a, 1991b), or
stages in life (Kandel, 1980). For instance, Kandel (1978,1980)
suggested that certain variables are more salient for drugs of
initiation, whereas other variables account for drugs used later
(i.e.. hard drugs).
This tentative evidence for some independent effects of
amount of risk and protection on drug use during adolescence
has several important implications. Thesefindingsare particu-
larly meaningful given that the two indices were not con-
structed as opposite ends of the same continuum (variables were
included and assigned to each index in a mutually exclusive
manner) yet the two indices were moderately correlated with
each other. Although extreme ends of all factors were correlated
with substance use, some were more powerfully protective than
risk inducing as indicated by differential correlations of drug
use with the indices. These results support the conclusion that
protective and risk factors for drug use are partly related and
partly distinct constructs. They share some degree of common-
ality as evident in our ability to create a Vulnerability latent
construct in the prospective SEMs, while each index retained a
substantial amount of unique variance. Thus, we must con-
clude that risk and protection from drug use do not simply
reflect the ends of the same continuum; they represent distinct
processes differentially related to drug use and abuse. In other
words, even though it now seems likely that both risk and pro-
tective forces toward or against drug use/abuse can be inferred
from opposite ends of the same psychosocial construct, these
forces may not exert equal impact on the target behavior. This
result also suggests that there are no uniquely protective or ab-
solute risk factors if the full range (low to high) of the construct
is considered and assessed.
Even at the level of individual factors, each drug was in-
fluenced by different predictors to some degree. One could
argue that even better prediction of drug use might be achieved
by creating a unique set of indices for each drug. However, on
the basis of the current analyses, previous research, and risk
factor theory, each of these indices would contain a large num-
ber of common factors, and creating separate indices for each
drug may not be a useful way of viewing drug use behaviors.
Furthermore, our SEMs illustrate quite clearly that polydrug
use is a robust, reliable, and meaningful construct of drug use
behaviorduring late adolescence and young adulthood. We also
may have overlooked factors that are distinctly protective but
not at all risk inducing. Factors such as level or type of accultur-
ation and cognitive factors may differ between populations and
might be included in future protective indices for better predic-
tion.
In a few instances, risk and protective factors interacted and
contributed further information about drug use involvement.
Among women, this interaction was associated with frequency
of cocaine and hard drug use. Among men, the RFI X PFI
interaction was associated with frequency of hard drug use. In
the prospective SEMs, this interaction had three specific, direct
effects on later cannabis and cocaine frequencies and Alcohol
Problems, as well as its common effects as a part of Vulnerabil-
ity. In the cases where interaction effects were found, protection
was a moderator or buffer of risk for drug use. These interac-
tions indicate that high risk is exacerbated by low protection
and buffered by high protection in relation to drug use. This
occurs beyond the additive (main) effects of risk and protection
as competing forces to increase or decrease drug use, respec-
tively. However, these effects were small and only associated
with certain drugs. Therefore, the buffering effects of protec-
tion from drug use against risk for drug use seem modest at
best.
Our longitudinal SEM analyses revealed direct influences of
Vulnerability on problems associated with drug use 8 years
later and some moderate influence on drug use 4 years later. In
general, the risk index tended to be a stronger predictor of drug
use or abuse than the protection index, and protective factors
had less predictive effect on drug use at higher levels of risk.
Previous drug use was the best predictor of future drug use (e.g.,
Newcomb & Bentler, 1988a) and later problems with drug use
(e.g., Newcomb, 1992) as evidenced by strong stability coeffi-
cients from Year 5 Polydrug Use to Year 9 Polydrug Use and
from Year 5 drug use measures to Year 13 drug use problems.
These relationships highlight the importance of early interven-
tion and prevention efforts that should occur before risk
reaches high levels where increasing protective factors may have
less impact.
The correlation between Year 5 Vulnerability and Polydrug
Use at Year 5 was quite strong, and in conjunction with the
strong stability effects of Polydrug Use on later Polydrug Use,
may have captured and masked many potential effects of Year 5
Vulnerability on these later constructs. This high correlation
between Vulnerability and Polydrug Use is a mixed blessing.
On the one hand, this large degree of association confirms to a
remarkable degree our success at selecting potent risk and pro-
tective psychosocial factors for drug use. Over 80% of the vari-
ance between psychosocial Vulnerability and behavioral in-
volvement with drugs was shared by these two constructs in the
4-year SEM. On the other hand, this extreme level of associa-
tion directly and severely restricts our ability to detect any possi-
ble causal effect of Vulnerability on drug use and abuse over
time.
However, this does not mean that Vulnerability was unre-
lated to drug use at Year 9 or drug abuse at Year 13. Confirma-
tory factor analyses were run for both of the SEMs. These re-
vealed that Year 5 Vulnerability was significantly correlated
with the second-order factor of Polydrug Use at Year 9 and with
each of the three abuse constructs at Year 13. The limited num-
 MULTIPLE PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR DRUG USE
ber of direct effects found from Vulnerability (or its indicators)
to later drug use or abuse was not the result of them being
unrelated; they were in fact quite highly related. In the two
confirmatory factor analysis models, Year 5 Polydrug Use was
more highly related to later drug use/abuse than was Year 5
Vulnerability. In other words, if Year 5 Polydrug Use had not
been included in the two SEMs, Year 5 Vulnerability would
have had direct and significant paths to later Polydrug Use and
the drug abuse constructs. Therefore, Vulnerability was rele-
vant and highly related to later substance use/abuse, but simply
not as powerful as prior drug use in the prediction of these later
drug use behaviors.
This high correlation between Vulnerability and Year 5 Poly-
drug Use may also reflect processes that occurred earlier in
childhood or young adolescence and were well established at
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
this older age. Although this may account for the limited 4-year
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
effects of Vulnerability (and its indicators) on young adult drug
use frequency and quantity, the influence of Vulnerability on
drug problems in adulthood was much more powerful. These
efforts may reflect emerging developmental patterns in adult-
hood that are different from those in adolescence. For instance,
it appears that risk and protective factors have both immediate
and long-term effects. These risk and protective factors were
measured during late adolescence but were probably operating
earlier in development as well. We know that certain factors
have more powerful effects at one age than another (i.e., parents
are more influential at younger ages and peers are more influen-
tial at older ages; Huba & Bentler, 1980). If some of these factors
operated earlier in development (and presumably were detect-
able in prospective studies at younger ages), they would be ex-
pected to be related to drug use at an older age, but not causally
related. In other words, if several of these risk or protective
factors were more causally associated with drug use earlier in
life, which various researchers have found (e.g., Kandel, 1978;
Newcomb, Maddahian, & Bentler, 1986), they would be ex-
pected to be related with drug use at older ages (as we have
found), but would not necessarily be reliable predictors of drug
use in later life.
Nevertheless, on the basis of nonstandard effects in the 4-
year SEM, Year 5 Vulnerability directly increased young adult
cigarette quantity and cannabis frequency. The interaction of
RFI and PFI increased both cannabis use and cocaine fre-
quency. Finding only these four specific effects supports our
interpretation that the general effect of Vulnerability may have
been masked by the large stability paths, within-time correla-
tion, and earlier processes discussed earlier.
Our second SEM demonstrated stronger influences of Vul-
nerability on problems associated with alcohol, cocaine, and
cannabis use over an 8-year period into adulthood. This proba-
bly reflects the lower, but still substantially predictive, associa-
tions from earlier drug use to drug use problems over this 8-
year period. In other words, there is greater room for Vulnerabil-
ity to have effects on drug abuse over this longer period of time
(Gollob & Reichardt, 1987), even in conjunction with the high
correlation between Vulnerability and Polydrug Use in Year 5.
These effects were evident where Year 5 Vulnerability directly
increased Year 13 Cannabis Problems and four specific alcohol,
cocaine, and cannabis problems. Among the specific indicators
of Vulnerability, the RFI increased both Alcohol Problems and
293
Cannabis Problems, the PFI reduced Alcohol Problems, and
the RFI X PFI interaction increased later Alcohol Problems.
The influence of adolescent Vulnerability on drug use was less
detectable over a short time (4 years), perhaps because drug use
was already established at a younger age (reducing its predictive
influence), but became stronger over time as a predictor of drug
problems as demonstrated by several direct paths from Vulnera-
bility (and its indicator variables) to various aspects of drug
abuse at Year 13.
Both SEMs also captured several specific effects from Year 5
drug use to later drug use in Year 9 and drug abuse in Year 13.
Generally, frequency measures tended to predict frequency
measures and quantity measures tended to predict quantity
measures. Results substantiate earlier studies that suggest fre-
quency and quantity are related, but distinct, dimensions (Stein
et al., 1988). Stein et al. (1988) found that polydrug quantity was
a slightly better predictor of disruptive polydrug use (New-
comb, 1988) and problems with polydrug use than was poly-
drug frequency. This result appears contrary to the present find-
ings, but may be reconciled in several ways: (a) The present
analyses captured multiple frequency and quantity measures of
several drugs as a second-order latent construct, whereas the
previous study did not capture the very large correlation be-
tween frequency and quantity polydrug constructs as a higher
order construct; (b) the present measures of problem drug use
are more diverse and objective than those used in the prior
work; and (c) the previous findings were found on cross-sec-
tional analyses of young adults, whereas the current study exam-
ined late adolescent predictors of adult outcomes 8 years later.
Results from this study provide some support for various
developmental models of drug use. Kandel (1978, 1980) sug-
gested that there are stages of drug use in which alcohol is
usually the first drug used, followed by marijuana, and then
other illicit drugs. Some confirmation of this sequence has
been demonstrated in cross-sectional research (e.g., Huba, Win-
gard, & Bentler, 1981; Kandel, 1975), although longitudinal
research has not consistently supported this notion (e.g., New-
comb & Bentler, 1986a).
We found some support and some disaffirming evidence
for this sequence model. The 4-year SEM revealed no clear
effects consistent with the stage model. Most across-time ef-
fects either skipped stages in the proposed sequencing (i.e., alco-
hol frequency predicted cocaine frequency) or reversed the an-
ticipated sequence (i.e., cocaine frequency increased the
amount of cannabis used). Similarly, mixed findings were
found in the 8-year SEM from earlier drug use to later drug
problems. We must conclude that the stage model of drug use
does not accurately reflect the evolution of drug use from late
adolescence into either young adulthood or adulthood. Al-
though these results may only question the validity of this no-
tion for postadolescent development, prospective findings at
younger ages (early adolescence) have also revealed substan-
tially disconfirming evidence for the stage model (Newcomb &
Bentler, 1986a).
Our results indicate that factors influencing drug use may
differ depending on the drug used. For example, the PFI repre-
sents factors that were more strongly associated with alcohol
use, as compared with cigarettes or illicit drugs. The RFI was
more strongly associated with use of illicit drugs. However, we
 294 MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB AND MARIA FELIX-ORTIZ
did not find clear support for a distinction between early influ-
ence of social variables and later importance of psychological
variables as suggested by Kandel(1978,1980). Both psychologi-
cal and social variables were associated with later adolescent
drug use.
Finally, the RFI may represent problem behavior proneness
proposed by Jessor and Jessor (1978). About half of the factors
in the RFI reflect aspects of the three-problem behavior prone-
ness system: Low expectation for academic achievement is
from the Personality System; high friends' approval for and
modeling of problem behavior are parts of the Perceived Envi-
ronment System: and high deviant behavior is from the Behav-
ior System (Jessor & Jessor, 1978). These types of influences
may combine with other psychological factors (as proposed by
Kandel. 1978.1980) from our RFI to place individuals at high
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
risk for drug use and abuse. In contrast, these personal attitudes
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and behaviors, as well as drug use, may be generated by a com-
mon factor or syndrome of deviance as demonstrated in recent
empirical work (e.g.. Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Donovan, Jessor,
& Costa. 1988: McGee & Newcomb, in press; Newcomb &
McGee. 1991). although cross-lagged paths would not be ex-
pected by this theory.
This study demonstrates the importance of considering mul-
tiple factors of risk, protection, and to a more limited extent,
their interaction on influencing drug use and drug problems
later in life. Clarification of these effects was gained by study-
ing several time intervals. These results emphasize the need to
modify and expand current theories of drug use and abuse to
include not only multiple risk factors, but also multiple protec-
tive factors and the interaction of risk and protection. Preven-
tion and clinical interventions must attempt to increase protec-
tion as well as reduce risk to decrease the likelihood of both
drug use and abuse. For example, programs aimed at discourag-
ing deviant acts (a risk factor) can also encourage law abidance
(a protective factor) to be maximally effective at decreasing fu-
ture drug use. These data also emphasize that multifaceted in-
terventions may be necessary for greatest effectiveness (e.g., Se-
gal. 1986). These interventions must address a variety of factors
that encourage and discourage drug use. Our results highlight
the importance of creating real change in many aspects of the
youngster's environment, in addition to providing information
about drug use or instruction to "just say no" (e.g., Newcomb &
Bentler. 1989).
Future research should determine how interventions can in-
crease the level of protection for children at high risk for drug
use. More powerful indices may be created by including more
than seven factors in each and considering an even wider range
of factors that may be related to teenage drug use. However,
considering the high correlation between psychosocial vulnera-
bility and polydrug use. such indices may not generate substan-
tially greater prediction of drug use than the risk and protective
factors used in this study. Nevertheless, indices of the type we
created can allow researchers and clinicians to assess more ade-
quately the levels of risk and protection for future drug use and
drug abuse and to build more powerful theories, prevention
models, and interventions.
References
Adlaf. K. M.. & Smart, R. G. (1985). Drug use and religious affiliation,
feelings, and behavior. British Journal of Addiction, 80, 163-171.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders. (3rd ed., rev.) Washington, DC: Author.
Bardo, M. T, & Risner, M. E. (1985). Biochemical substrates of drug
abuse. In M. Galizio & S. A. Maisto (Eds.), Determinants of sub-
stance abuse: Biological, psychological, and environmental factors
(pp. 65-99). New York: Plenum Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 51, 1173-1181.
Bentler, P. M. (1980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal
modeling. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 419-456.
Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS structural equations program manual. Los
Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,
88, 588-606.
Bentler, P. M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1986). Personality, sexual behavior,
and drug use revealed through latent variable methods. Clinical Psy-
chology Review, 6, 363-385.
Bentler, P. M., & Woodward, J. A. (1979). Regression on linear compos-
ites: Statistical theory and applications. Multivariate Behavioral Re-
search Monographs, 79(1), 1-58.
Brook, J. S., Nomura, C, & Cohen, P. (1989a). A network of influences
on adolescent drug involvement: Neighborhood, school, peer, and
family. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 115,
125-145.
Brook, J. S., Nomura, C, & Cohen, P. (1989b). Prenatal, perinatal, and
early childhood risk factors and drug involvement in adolescence.
Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 115, 223-241.
Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A. S., & Brook, D. W (1985).
Father's influence on his daughter's marijuana use viewed in a
mother and peer context. Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse,
4,165-190.
Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A. S., & Cohen, P. (1986). Dy-
namics of childhood and adolescent personality traits and adoles-
cent drug use. Developmental Psychology, 22, 403-414.
Brook. J. S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A. S., Nomura, C, & Brook, D. W
(1986). Onset of adolescent drinking: A longitudinal study of intra-
personal and interpersonal antecedents. Advances in Alcohol and
Substance Abuse, 5, 91-110.
Bry, B. H. (1983). Predicting drug abuse: Review and reformulation.
The International Journal of the Addictions, 18, 223-233.
Bry. B. H., McKeon, P., & Pandina, R. (1982). Extent of drug use as a
function of number of risk factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
91, 273-279.
Chassin, L. (1984). Adolescent substance use and abuse. Advances in
Child Behavioral Analysis and Therapy, 3, 99-152.
Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P. M. (1990). Model modification in covariance
structure modeling: A comparison among likelihood ratio, La-
grange multiplier, and Wald tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
25, 115-136.
Clayton, R. R., & Ritter, C. (1985). The epidemiology of alcohol and
drug abuse among adolescents. Advances in Alcohol and Substance
Abuse, 4, 69-97.
Cloninger, C. R., Sigvardsson, S., & Bohman, M. (1988). Childhood
personality predicts alcohol abuse in young adults. Alcoholism:
Clinical and Experimental Research, 12, 494-505.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connors, G. J., & Tarbox, A. R. (1985). Macroenvironmental factors as
determinants of substance use and abuse. In M. Galizio & S. A.
Maisto (Eds.), Determinants of substance abuse: Biological, psycho-
 MULTIPLE PROTECTIVE AND RISK FACTORS FOR DRUG USE 295

logical, and environmental factors (pp. 283-314). New York: Plenum cal findings and methodological issues. Washington, DC: Hemi-
Press. sphere.
Crabbe, J. C, McSwigan, J. D., & Belknap, J. K. (1985). The role of Kaplan, H. B. (1980). Self-esteem and self-derogation: Theory of drug
genetics in substance abuse. In M. Galizio & S. A. Maisto (Eds.), abuse. In D. J. Lettieri, M. Sayers, & H. W Pearson (Eds.), Theories
Determinants ofsubstance abuse: Biological, psychological, and envi- on drug abuse: Selected contemporary perspectives (pp. 128-131).
ronmental factors (pp. 13-64). New York: Plenum Press. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws Kaplan, H. B. (1986). Social psychology self-referent behavior. New
in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414-417. York: Plenum Press.
Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem behavior in Khantzian, E. X, & Khantzian, N. J. (1984). Cocaine addiction: Is there
adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clini- a psychological predisposition? Psychiatric Annals, 14, 753-759.
cal Psychology, 53, 890-904. Lettieri. D. J. (1985). Drug abuse: A review of explanations and models
Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., &Costa, F. (1988). The syndrome of problem of explanations. Advances in Alcohol and Substance Abuse, 4, 9-40.
behavior in adolescence: A replication. Journal of Consulting and Long, J. V F, & Scherl, D. J. (1984). Developmental antecedents of
Clinical Psychology, 56, 762-763. compulsive drug use: A report on the literature. Journal ofPsychoac-
Dunlap, W P., & Kemery, E. R. (1987). Failure to detect moderating live Drugs, 16. 169-182.
effects: Is multicollinearity the problem? Psychological Bulletin, 102, MacCallum, R. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

418-420. modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 107-120.

Friedman, J., & Humphrey, J. A. (1985). Antecedents of collegiate Maddahian, E., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Adolescents'
drinking. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 14, 11-21. substance use: Impact of ethnicity, income, and availability. In B.
Gollob, H. E, & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in Stimmel (Ed.), Alcohol and substance abuse in women and children
causal models. Child Development, 58, 80-92. (pp. 63-78). New York: Haworth Press.
Guinn, R. (1978). Alcohol use among Mexican American youth. Jour- Margulies, R. Z., Kessler, R. C, & Kandel, D. B. (1977). A longitudinal
nal of School Health, 48, 90-91. study of onset of drinking among high school students. Quarterly
Huba, G. J., & Bentler, P. M. (1980). The role of peer and adult models Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38, 897-912.
for drug taking at different stages in adolescence. Journal of Youth Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Donovan, D. M., & Kivlahan, D. R. (1988).
and Adolescence, 9, 449-465. Addictive behaviors: Etiology and treatment. Annual Review of Psy-
Huba, G. J., & Bentler, P. M. (1983). Causal models of the development chology, 39, 223-252.
of law abidance and its relationship to psychosocial factors and drug McCarty, D. (1985). Environmental factors in substance abuse: The
use. In W S. Laufer & J. M. Day (Eds.), Personality theory, moral microsetting. In M. Galizio & S. A. Maisto (Eds.), Determinants of
development, and criminal behavior (pp. 165-215). Lexington, MA: substance abuse: Biological, psychological, and environmental factors
Heath. (pp. 247-281). New York: Plenum Press.
Huba, G. 1, Wingard, J. A., & Bentler, P. M. (1980). Longitudinal analy- McGee, L., & Newcomb, M. D. (in press). General deviance syndrome:
sis of the role of peer support, adult models, and peer subcultures in Expanded hierarchical evaluations at four ages from early adoles-
beginning adolescent substance use: An application of setwise ca- cence to adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
nonical correlation methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 15, McLaughlin, R. J., Baer, P. E., Burnside, M. A,&Pokorny, A. D.(1985).
259-280. Psychosocial correlates of alcohol use at two age levels during adoles-
Huba, G. J., Wingard, J. A., & Bentler, P. M. (1981). A comparison of cence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46, 212-218.
two latent variable causal models for adolescent drug use. Journal of Mills, C. J., & Noyes, H. L. (1984). Patterns and correlates of initial and
Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 180-193. subsequent drug use among adolescents. Journal of Consulting and
Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial Clinical Psychology, 52, 231-243.
development. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Newcomb, M. D. (1988). Drug use in the workplace: Risk factors for
Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1978). Theory testing in longitudinal re- disruptive substance use among young adults. Dover, MA: Auburn
search on marijuana use. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal re- House.
search on drug use: Empirical findings and methodological issues Newcomb, M. D. (1990). What structural equation modelingcantellus
(pp. 41-71). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. about social support. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce
Johnston, L. D, O'Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1986). Drug use (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 26-63). New York:
among American high school students, college students, and other Wiley.
young adults: National trends through 1985. Rockville, MD: Na- Newcomb, M. D. (1992). Understanding the multidimensional nature
tional Institute on Drug Abuse. of drug use and abuse: The role of consumption, risk factors, and
Joreskog, K. J., & Sorbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7, A guide to the program protective factors. In M. D. Glantz & R. Pickens (Eds.), Vulnerability
and applications. Chicago: SPSS. lodrugabuse(pp. 255-297). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
Kandel, D. B. (1975). Stages in adolescent involvement in drug use. cal Association.
Science. 190, 912-914. Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1980). Assessment of personality
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Convergences in prospective longitudinal surveys and demographic aspects of cohabitation and marital success. Jour-
of drug use in normal populations. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitu- nal of Personality Assessment, 44, 11-24.
dinal research on drug use: Empirical findings and methodological Newcomb. M. D, & Bentler, P. M. (1986a). Frequency and sequence of
issues (pp. 3-38). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. drug use: A longitudinal study from early adolescence to young
Kandel, D. B. (1980). Developmental stages in adolescent drug involve- adulthood. Journal of Drug Education, 16, 101-120.
ment. In D. J. Lettieri, M. Sayers, & H. W Pearson (Eds.), Theories on Newcomb, M. D, & Bentler, P. M. (1986b). Loneliness and social sup-
drug abuse: Selected contemporary perspectives (pp. 120-127). Rock- port: A confirmatory hierarchical analysis. Personality and Social
ville, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse. Psychology Bulletin, 12, 520-535.
Kandel, D. B., Kessler, R. C, & Margulies, R. Z. (1978). Antecedents of Newcomb, M. D, & Bentler, P. M. (1988a). Consequences ofadolescent
adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analy- drug use: Impact on the lives ofyoung adults. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
sis. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal research on drug use: Empiri- Newcomb, M. D, & Bentler, P. M. (1988b). Impact of adolescent drug
 296 MICHAEL D. NEWCOMB AND MARIA FELIX-ORTIZ
use and social support on problems of young adults: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 64-75.
Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1989). Substance use and abuse
among children and teenagers. American Psychologist, 44, 242-248.
Newcomb. M. D., Bentler, P. M., & Collins, C. (1986). Alcohol use and
dissatisfaction with self and life: A longitudinal analysis of young
adults. The Journal of Drug Issues, 16, 479-494.
Newcomb, M. D., & Harlow, L. L. (1986). Life events and substance use
among adolescents: Mediating effects of perceived loss of control
and meaninglessness in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 51, 564-577.
Newcomb. M. Q, Huba, G. J., & Bentler, P. M. (1983). Mothers' influ-
ence on the drug use of their children: Confirmatory tests of direct
modeling and mediational theories. Developmental Psychology, 19,
714-726.
Newcomb, M. D., Huba, G. J., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Life change
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
events among adolescents: An empirical consideration of some
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
methodological issues. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
174, 280-289.
Newcomb, M. D., Maddahian, E., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Risk factors
for drug use among adolescents: Concurrent and longitudinal analy-
ses. American Journal of Public Health, 76, 525-531.
Newcomb. M. D., Maddahian, E., Skager, R., & Bentler, P. M. (1987).
Substance abuse and psychosocial risk factors among teenagers: As-
sociations with sex, age, ethnicity, and type of school. American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 13, 413-433.
Newcomb, M. D.. & McGee, L. (1991). The influence of sensation
seeking on general deviance and specific problem behaviors from
adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 61, 614-628.
Reeves, D. (1984). Parental power and adolescents' drinking. Psycholog-
ical Reports, 55, 161-162.
Robins, L. N. (1978). The interaction of setting and predisposition in
explaining novel behavior: Drug initiations before, in, and after
Vietnam. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal research on drug use:
Empiricalfindingsand methodological issues (pp. 179-196). Wash-
ington, DC: Hemisphere.
Sadava, S. W (1987). Interactional theories. In H. T. Blane & K. E.
Leonard (Eds.). Psychological theories of drinking and alcoholism.
New York: Guilford Press.
Scheier, L. M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1991a). Differentiation of early
adolescent predictors of drug use versus abuse: A developmental
risk factor model. Journal of Substance Abuse, 3, 277-299.
Scheier, L. M., & Newcomb, M. D. (1991b). Psychosocial predictors of
drug use initiation and escalation: An expansion of the multiple risk
factors hypothesis using longitudinal data. Contemporary Drug
Problems, 18,21-73.
Segal, B. (1986). Intervention and prevention of drug-taking behavior:
A need for divergent approaches. International Journal ofthe Addic-
tions, 21, 165-173.
Smith, G. M., & Fogg, C. P. (1978). Psychological predictors of early
use, late use, and nonuse of marijuana among teenage students. In
D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal research on drug use: Empirical
findings and methodological issues (pp. 101-113). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Stacy, A. W, Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (199 la). Cognitive moti-
vation and problem drug use: A nine-year longitudinal study. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 502-515.
Stacy, A. W, Newcomb, M. D, & Bentler, P. M. (1991b). Personality,
problem drinking, and drunk driving: Mediating, moderating, and
direct effect models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60.795-811.
Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D, & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Stability and
change in personality: A longitudinal study from early adolescence
to young adulthood. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 20, 276-291.
Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1987). An 8-yearstudy of
multiple influences on drug use and drug use consequences. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1094-1105.
Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Structure of drug
use behaviors and consequences among young adults: Multitrait-
multimethod assessment of frequency, quantity, work site, and prob-
lem substance use. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 595-605.
Zucker, R. A., & Gomberg, E. S. L. (1986). Etiology of alcoholism
reconsidered: The case for a biopsychosocial process. American Psy-
chologist, 41, 783-793.
Received March 4,1991
Revision received February 3,1992
Accepted February 10,1992 •