Descriptive statistics. Table 2 shows descriptive information regarding gender and age variables. The sample was composed by 50.34% of males and 49.66% of females. The sample was divided into two age groups in the following ranges: 13–17, representing 29.22% and 18–23, representing 29.22%.

The participants of this study were also divided into two wide categories: low (n=724, 70.77%) and high (n=299, 29.23%) alcohol consumers. All variables of the study were analyzed confronting both levels of drinking patterns. Table 2 exhibits the results of the analysis showing no gender differences. Nevertheless, significant differences in alcohol consumption between age groups were observed.

As it can be seen, in Table 3, among family/parental variables, high parental monitoring and high good father–adolescent relationship are variables that related very well with drinking behavior. On the first place, high parent monitoring consistently related with lower alcohol consumption (χ2=31.13, p<.001). Likewise, parent monitoring proved to be a good protective factor of high alcohol use (OR=0.454). Other family variables such as Father–Adolescent Relation did not show relevant results.

Concerning personal and behavioral variables category, including personal values, filial self-efficacy, adolescent risk perception and academic performance, all proved to be significantly related with adolescent alcohol drinking. High levels in those variables work as good protective factors, except for academic achievement.

Finally, social variables such as antisocial behavior and peer pressure are clearly related with low alcohol consumption when they exhibit low values. At higher levels, both variables are considered important risk factors for drinking behavior.

Correlation analysis. Tables 4–6 show correlation matrixes for the three different analyzed category variables. Inter correlation obtained with family/parental variables (parental monitoring and father relationship) showed moderate to high congruence. All variables correlated negatively with alcohol consumption.

The personal/behavioral variable group correlated also very well between them (filial self-efficacy, risk perception, academic achievement and protection values), showing moderate to high values and correlated negatively with alcohol use, except academic achievement.

The correlations for the social variables (peer pressure, antisocial behavior and age) presented similar result patterns; all variables interrelated very well confirming strong ties between them. It is important to note that all correlated positively with alcohol consumption (see matrix in Table 6).

It is important to note that in the three previous matrixes presented, high correlation indices were not observed to suspect multicollinearity.

Linear regression analysis. As it was clear enough that all variables incorporated in the present study proved to be relevant for the risk/protection analysis of drinking behavior (as was shown by χ2 and OR calculation), and after verifying the strong relationship between them, further analysis was considered to be needed. Consequently, the data was tested through regression analysis, entering all the family/parental, personal/behavioral and social characteristics, expecting to identify those variables which could predict alcohol consumption in adolescents.

First at all, a model including all variables was tested (no exceptions): Age, Academic Achievement, Father–Adolescent Relationship, Risk Perception, Antisocial Behavior, Parental Monitoring, Filial Self-Efficacy, Protection Value, and Peer Pressure. These variables were entered as independent or predictors, and Alcohol Consumption as dependent or criterion variable. The obtained results, as was expected, indicated that the model needed adjustment in order to be more accurate.

After excluding variables with little or no contribution or impact on the criterion variable (with lower standardized regression values), a model including the following variables was built: Age, Parental Monitoring, Father–Adolescent Relationship, Peer Pressure, Antisocial Behavior, and Risk Perception. The dependent variable was once again Alcohol Consumption.

Table 7 exhibits the amount of total variance explained by the actual model. The adjusted R2 was 46.7% variance of alcohol consumption with error independence (Durbin-Watson=1.749). Even though, this variance proportion is not as high as was expected, the general model showed a significant ANOVA (F=149.67, p<.001) (see Table 8).

Table 9 exhibits the beta coefficients (standardized regression coefficients), t values for each beta coefficient with their significant output and collinearity statistics. It is evident that the most influential variables in the model are the social variables (Antisocial Behavior and Peer Pressure) and risk perception. Nevertheless, the other variables also contribute well to the model.

This table also provides information on collinearity diagnosis confirming the functional independence of the model variables (tolerance values not below .758 and FIV values not above 1.320). It is also important to note that the graphical standardized residual analysis (ZPRED-ZRESID and P-P cumulative probability) allowed accepting the linearity, normality and homoscedasticity assumptions.

Summarizing, using the enter method, a significant risk/protection model (F(6, 1012)=149.67, p<.001) has been obtained with a R2 adjusted=.467 with the following significant variables (see Table 10).

Risk/Protection Multi-Causal Model of Alcohol Use. As a final step in the analysis, the pattern of relationship among the study variables was examined by means of structural equation modeling (Bentler, 1995; Byrne, 2010) using AMOS program. The model incorporated four of the six variables (excluding Age and Risk Perception, which do not fitted well in the theoretical model) already tested in the multiple regression procedure: parental monitoring, father–adolescent relationship, peer pressure and antisocial behavior. Peer pressure was presented as a double latent variable combining resistance and complacence to pressure. Alcohol consumption was the outcome variable in the model. Fig. 1 summarizes schematically the direct and mediated paths of influence in the posited structural model:

Figure 1.

Hypothetical causal structure through which, social and parental latent variables would affect drinking behavior of adolescents.

(0.15MB).

It was proposed that antisocial behavior would promote complacency to peer pressure and therefore alcohol use would be higher. On the other hand, antisocial behavior should be negatively associated with low parental monitoring increasing complacency with peer pressure and consequently, improving alcohol use.

It was also assumed that parental monitoring would be able to strengthen resistance to peer pressure and therefore it can be expected to reduce alcohol consumption. In addition, the likelihood that appropriate parental monitoring could promote suitable emotional relationships between parents and adolescents would increase resistance. Consequently, an increase of the resistance to the undesirable peer pressure would reduce alcohol consumption. Finally, it was hypothesized that proper relationship between parents and adolescents could protect the latter from excessive alcohol consumption, reducing complacency to peer pressure.

The results of structured equation modeling including its estimates that are significant beyond the .05 level are summarized in the path influence diagram in Fig. 2. The model's goodness of fit to the data was corroborated by the most important fit indices considered. Although CMIN/df (χ2=3.103, p<.001) resulted significant, Comparison Baseline Indicators (NFI=.895, RFI=.886, IFI=.927, TLI=.920, CFI=.926) were acceptable, and ECVI=3.7 confirmed a parsimony-like model. Finally, the RMSEA=.045, offered also a good shape. According to the modeling results, it is noted through standardized regression weights, that of the five latent variables hypothesized as determinants of alcohol use among adolescents (including resistance and complacency as expressions of peer pressure), three of them [antisocial behavior (.42), parent monitoring (−.07) and complacency to peer pressure (.44)] demonstrated clear direct effects on drinking behavior. The remaining two estimates [father–adolescent relationship (.032) and resistance to peer pressure (.002)], yielded no significant values and therefore do not explain the main endogenous variable.

Figure 2.

Path diagram summarizing the influential patterns of the model through which family/parental and social variables affect drinking behavior. The numbers correspond to standardized regression weights (p<.05).

(0.16MB).

Modeling estimates also confirmed that antisocial behavior would favor complacency to peer pressure (.44) and consequently alcohol consumption would increase. Likewise, parental monitoring deters teen engagement in antisocial behavior (−.33) reducing therefore the likelihood of alcohol use. Parental monitoring proved to strengthen resistance to peer pressure (.23) protecting youth binge drinking.

Parental monitoring, would also promote emotional relationships between parents and adolescents (.27), which could positively affect undesirable peer pressure resistance. However, the lack of significant relationship between this variable and alcohol consumption did not allow assuming alcohol consumption reduction when peer pressure resistance mediates between parental monitoring and excessive drinking.

The model supported the fact that a proper relationship between parents and adolescents plays as a protective factor for excessive alcohol consumption, reducing the complacency with peer pressure (.10). Finally, the Squared Multiple Correlation index made clear that the exogenous variables: peer pressure, antisocial behavior, parental monitoring and parent–adolescent relationship explain 56.5% of the alcohol consumption variance.

Therefore, a theoretical-conceptual model relatively well adjusted was obtained. Nevertheless the analysis could be further deepening, using some other elements not considered in this study. For example, it would seem appropriate to include in the model some personal variables such as filial self-efficacy beliefs or some other personal values that could operate as protective mechanisms for excessive drinking.

The results of the present research supported the line of findings reported by several authors stressing the importance of family and peer variables as risk conditions, highly related with adolescent heavy alcohol consumption. This study could fit successfully a structural equation modeling where parental monitoring, father–adolescent relationship and complacency to drinking pressure by peers, confirmed as causal variables of drinking behavior. On the other hand, antisocial conduct seems to be the most clear and relevant variable to explain alcohol consumption. Several studies also support the findings of the proposed Risk/Protection Multi-Causal Model of Alcohol Use described previously, showing a cause-effect relationship between proposed variables.

Concerning antisocial behavior and complacency to peer pressure with an increase in alcohol consumption, we agree with Brook, Brook, Richter and Whiteman (2003), who proposed a developmental model that identified parental relationships, individual personality and behavioral characteristics, with peer relationships as critical factors in predicting adolescent drug use. In the same direction and concerning peer pressure and peer alcohol consumption, we also confirmed Pollard et al.’s results (cited in Instituto de Adicciones de Madrid Salud, 2012) showing that adolescent's attachment to peers plays an important role as a risk factor. Adolescents will seek emotional support and stability from their peers since they share similar attitudes and goals. In that sense, the weight of peer's pressure appears significant in complacency to alcohol and other substance use and abuse.

With regard to the effect of parent's monitoring practices in reducing antisocial behavior by decreasing complacency to peer pressure and therefore reducing alcohol use, our results are in the line with those of Wright and Cullen (2001). These authors found that parental support plays an important role in preventing adolescent's delinquent behavior. Juang and Silbereisen (1999) also reported that adolescents with supportive parents were less likely to engage in delinquent acts than those without that supportive behavior.

Other aspects of parental monitoring, such as the strengthening of peer pressure resistance for reduction of alcohol consumption, were reported by Hayes et al. (2004). The authors stated that parental permissiveness also appeared to influence peer associations, with clear relationship between peer influence and alcohol use, when parents were permissive. Similar results were obtained in the present research. Furthermore, Williams and Hine (2002) in a rural area study carried out in Queensland, Australia, showed that parental permissiveness together with parental use of alcohol would predict adolescent's alcohol misuse. There is enough evidence supporting the idea that inconsistent and poor parental practices play an important role in alcohol use. Becoña (1999) states that inconsistent parental discipline together with unclear mother family implication, facilitates alcohol and other substance consumption.

Concerning the increased resistance in adolescents, promoted by appropriate parental monitoring (suitable emotional relationships between parents and adolescents) and its effect in the increase of the peer pressure resistance thus lowering alcohol consumption, Hayes et al. (2004) found that parental permissiveness in relation with alcohol use would show adolescents heavy binge drinking to be more likely.

Romero and Ruiz (2007) studying protective factors for coping with risky behaviors, found that “youth who reported spending more time with family doing positive activities, were more likely to report that parents knew their whereabouts, which they spend time with. They also reported more consistent parental discipline and parents who often inquire about their activities” (p. 51). This observation is consistent with the strong negative relationship confirmed in the present study, between parent monitoring and drinking behavior of Bolivian youth.

Results of our study contribute to previous research linking antisocial behavior with heavy alcohol drinking. For example, Catalano and Hawkings (1996) have found a consistent and systematic relationship between delinquent behavior and alcohol and drug consumption. Other authors have also stressed the importance of these three elements, through different theories: Deviated Behavior Syndrome (Hundleby & Mercer, 1987), General Deviation Syndrome (McGee & Newcomb, 1992) and Problem Behavior (Jessor, 1987). In all of them, antisocial behavior has been described accompanied by alcohol and drug consumption and in problematic sexual behavior.

Finally, data of the present study appear to be consistent with previous research stressing the importance of proper relationships between parents and adolescents protecting the latter from excessive alcohol consumption and reducing complacency to peer pressure. Adequate attachment and implication together with family positive relationships has shown to be a protective factor for alcohol and other substance use (Crawford & Novak, 2008; Ryan, Jorm, & Lubman, 2010; Van Der Vorst, Engels, Meeus, & Dekovic, 2006). Family attachment can counterweight the influence of other risk factors like peer pressure.

Alcohol and drug prevention interventions require the development and deepening of theoretical-conceptual models like the one presented here. This will allow to clearly identifying population risk factors, predictors and the like, for alcohol and other substance consumption (Fernández & Rojas, 2010). Such studies must be scientifically solid, and should be carried out to enlighten social policy makers in developing adequate regulation and effective preventive strategies oriented to reduce the incidence of adolescent alcohol drinking as well as the abuse of other unhealthy substances. Only through this kind of research, drug prevention interventions will have the assurance that they are culturally context sensible and evidence based, far from the bias of the social discourse and the cultural view of the phenomena.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.