The association between adolescent drinking and drinking of significant others is well known but underlying mechanisms are still not well understood. The purpose of the study was to investigate the association between social drinking in adolescents and drinking patterns of their significant others. We conducted a survey using a self-completed questionnaire on alcohol drinking habits. Of 903 students (aged 15-19), 279 (30.9%) were found to be abstainers (NDA) and 455 (50.39%) – social drinkers (SDA). These two groups were compared statistically about drinking patterns of their significant others. It was found that SDA were more likely to have fathers (OR=0.26; 95%CI=0.19-0.37), mothers (OR=0.26; 95%CI=0.19-0.37), friends (OR=0.26; 95%CI=0.19-0.37) and lovers (OR=0.26; 95%CI=0.19-0.37) that drank socially than NDA, but there were no significant differences in regular drinking of their fathers, friends and lovers. Only SDA mothers were more likely to drink regularly (OR=0.26; 95%CI=0.19-0.37). SDA were also more likely to receive alcohol offers from all their significant others, except from lovers. Social drinking in adolescence seems to be strongly socially motivated by drinking modeling and social pressure. The SDA mothers’ regular drinking is hard to explain in terms of social learning and social control theory and needs an alternative explanation.
Parental alcohol drinking is associated with an increased risk of alcohol consumption in adolescents and social drinking is often the first step to regular alcohol consumption. The purpose of the study was to investigate the association between social drinking in adolescence and parental alcohol consumption. We conducted a survey, using a self-completed questionnaire about alcohol drinking habits. Of 903 students (aged 15-19), 279 (30.9%) were found to be abstainers (NDA) and 455 (50.39%) were social drinkers (SDA). These two groups were statistically compared for drinking patterns of their parents. It was found that SDA are fourfold less likely than NDA to have two alcohol abstaining parents (OR=0.26, 95%CI =0.19-0.37) and fourfold more likely to have two alcohol drinking parents (OR=3.89, 95%CI =2.77-5.45). There were no significant differences between SDA and NDA regarding probability to have one abstaining and one socially drinking parent, and SDA were less likely to have one abstaining and one regularly drinking parent (OR=0.54, 0.37-0.8). The social learning theory explains well adolescent drinking patterns when there is no contradiction in parental modeling. It seems, however, that the presence of contradicting patterns of parental alcohol drinking needs another explanation. Since contradicting parental modeling prevents adolescents from social drinking, it could be considered in health prevention intervention.
Recent scientific evidence has shown that risk behaviors tend to form a risk cluster, but less attention is paid to clustering ability of light forms of risky behavior like social drinking. The objective of the study was to analyze the risk clustering potential of social drinking. We conducted a survey using a self-completed questionnaire. Of 903 students (aged 15-19), 279 (30.9%) were found to be abstainers (NDA), and 455 (50.39%) were social drinkers (SDA). These two groups were compared statistically, concerning smoking and drugs use among them and their significant others. SDAs were more likely to smoke (OR=3.29; 95% Cl 2.35-4.59) than NDAs but not more likely to use soft drugs. Their fathers (OR=1.4; 95% Cl 1.04-1.89), friends (OR=1.78; 95% Cl 1.31-2.42) and lovers (OR=2.01; 95% Cl 1.39-2.89) were also significantly more likely to smoke, but only friends were more likely to use soft drugs (OR=1.75; 95% Cl 1.19- 2.58). SDAs were also more likely to start smoking in order to be closer to their peers (OR=l .84; 95% Cl 1.01- 3.37) and to smoke when communicate with peers (OR=2.12; 95% Cl 1.40-3.21). Risk clustering in social drinking adolescents is limited to smoking and does not expand to drug use, irrespective of provocation by friends. Heavy smoking among SDAs’ significant others might contribute for SDA smoking. So SDAs seem to be resistant to the psycho-social mechanisms adding drug use to drinking but sensitive to psycho-social mechanisms adding smoking to drinking.