Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Manuscript version of

The Intergenerational Transmission of Harsh Parenting, Substance Use, and

Emotional Distress: Impact on the Third-Generation Child
Tricia K. Neppl, Olivia N. Diggs, Michael J. Cleveland

Funded by:
• National Institute on Aging

© 2020, American Psychological Association. This manuscript is not the copy of record and may not exactly
replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors’ permission.
The final version of record is available via its DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000551

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
 1
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Abstract

The current study evaluated the intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting,

substance use, and emotional distress across generations, and the association with child

aggression. The study included 218 generation one (G1) mothers and fathers and their adolescent

(generation two; G2) who participated from middle adolescence through adulthood, and the

third-generation (G3) child between ages 3-5 years and 6-10 years old. G1 behavior was

examined when G2 was 16 and 18 years old; G2 alcohol problems and marijuana use were

assessed when G2 was 19 and 21 years old. G2 emotional distress and harsh parenting were

examined when the G3 child was between 3 and 5 years old. Finally, G3 aggression was assessed

between 6 and 10 years old. Results showed continuity of G1 behavior when G2 was in

adolescence to G2 behavior in adulthood. G1 alcohol problems and G1 harsh parenting were

both associated with G3 aggression through G2 alcohol problems, G2 emotional distress and G2

harsh parenting. Results suggest that G1 problem behavior as experienced by G2 adolescents in

the family of origin plays an important role in G2 alcohol problems in emerging adulthood which

leads to G2 emotional distress and G2 harsh parenting in adulthood, which is related to G3

aggression in the early elementary school years.

Key words: Intergenerational transmission, substance use, harsh parenting, emotional distress,

aggressive behavior
 2
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

The Intergenerational Transmission of Harsh Parenting, Substance Use, and Emotional

Distress: Impact on the Third Generation Child

There is evidence that problem behavior such as harsh parenting, substance use, and

emotional distress are transmitted across generations (Bailey, Hill, Oesterle, & Hawkins, 2006;

Bailey, Hill, Oesterle, and Hawkins, 2009; Kavanaugh, Neppl, & Melby, 2018; Jeon & Neppl,

2019; Neppl, Conger, Scaramella, & Ontai, 2009). Indeed, generation one (G1) substance use

and hostile parenting as experienced during generation two (G2) adolescence, increases G2

substance use and other deviant behaviors into emerging adulthood (Diggs & Neppl, 2018; Yap,

Cheong, Zaravinos-Tsakos, Lubman, & Jorn, 2017). As adults, G2 is likely to continue such

behavior, as well as become harsh parents themselves, which relates to negative outcomes for the

third generation (G3) child (Jeon & Neppl, 2019; Neppl et al., 2009). Bailey et al. (2006) found

evidence for G1 to G2 continuity of substance use, which led to problem behavior for the G3

child. In addition, G1 harsh parenting influenced G2 externalizing behavior, which related to G2

substance use and G3 externalizing behavior (Bailey, et al., 2009).

Despite this evidence, more research is needed regarding mechanisms that might help

explain associations between G1 and G2 problem behavior, and problem behavior for the G3

child. For example, Bailey et al. (2006) suggest that potential pathways such as harsh parenting

should be investigated in the association between G1 substance use and G3 problem behavior.

According to the Family Stress Model (FSM; Conger & Conger, 2002), stressors as experienced

in the family of origin are associated with emotional distress and disrupted family relationships

in adulthood, and poor developmental outcomes for the next generation child. Specifically, early

stressors such as family economic adversity relate to parental emotional distress that leads to

harsh parenting practices, which in turn are associated with next generation externalizing
 3
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

behavior in early childhood (Neppl, Senia, & Donnellan, 2016), and alcohol use from

adolescence to emerging adulthood (Diggs & Neppl, 2018). Therefore, it seems reasonable that

G1 behavioral stressors negatively affect G2 problem behavior such as substance use in

adulthood. This problem behavior then leads to G2 harsh parenting. Hence, G2 outcomes turn

into predictors of G2 behavior that ultimately impact the G3 child. Understanding these

associations are critical as G3 problem behavior in childhood relates to early alcohol and other

substance use (Kerr, Capaldi, Pears & Owen, 2012). Thus, G3 behavior is both a consequence of

G1 and G2 behavior and a marker of their own potential use (Kerr, et al., 2012). These pathways

can be supplemented by the Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977), which allows for modeling

and direct associations between parent and child behavior. That is, the intergenerational

continuity of behavior may occur when individuals exposed to problem behaviors during

childhood emulate this same type of problem behavior when they become adults. These

environmental risk factors may also interact with genetic vulnerability to help explain problem

behavior, as well as poor parenting practices (see Moffit, 2005). Moreover, due to heritability

and parental rearing influences, there could be an underlying liability of transmissible risk where

problem behaviors are a manifestation of behavioral under control (i.e., Tarter et al., 2015).

With these ideas in mind, the present investigation extends earlier research on the

intergenerational transmission of problem behavior by prospectively evaluating possible

mechanisms for the continuity of G1 to G2 problem behavior on later G3 outcomes. Specifically,

we investigated the influence of G1 emotional distress, G1 alcohol problems, and G1 harsh

parenting during G2 adolescence, on G2 alcohol problems and marijuana use from late

adolescence into emerging adulthood. We also evaluated the influence of G2 alcohol and

marijuana use in emerging adulthood on G2 emotional distress and harsh parenting when G3 was
 4
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

in preschool. We then examined the association between G2 harsh parenting and G3

externalizing behavior during the early elementary years. Finally, we examined the indirect

pathways from G1 to G3 behavior and controlled for G2 substance use in adolescence.

Continuity of Substance Use and Problem Behavior

It is well established that substance use is one type of problem behavior transmitted from

the parent to the next generation child (Yap, et al., 2017). For example, parent alcohol use is

related to adolescent alcohol use (Brook et al., 2010), alcohol use in emerging adulthood

(Knight, Menard, & Simmons, 2014), as well as to other substances such as marijuana

(McCutcheon et al., 2017). Nadel and Thornberry (2017) found that mother adult substance use

defined by alcohol and marijuana use, was a risk factor for offspring substance use and other

problem behaviors. Relatedly, Capaldi, Tiberio, Kerr, and Pears (2016) found that mother

alcohol use was associated with their child’s onset and use of alcohol. Thus, while mother use

has received less attention in research than father use, mother substance use may play a

significant role in child use (Capaldi, Tiberio, & Kerr, 2018). Moreover, adolescents may be

more likely to develop problem drinking if exposed to parents who drank moderately or heavily

than those with parents who never or occasionally drank alcohol (Alati et al., 2014). Indeed,

adolescents with parents diagnosed with DSM-III-R substance abuse were more likely

themselves to be dependent on alcohol and other drugs (Hoffmann & Cerbone, 2002). Finally, in

addition to substance use disorders, adolescents exposed to parental problem drinking are at

higher risk of life stress and psychological problems (Brook et al., 2010).

Research also demonstrates that those who engage in heavy drinking during adolescence

likely continue this problematic drinking into emerging adulthood (Thompson, Stockwell,

Leadbeater, & Homel, 2014). Indeed, Diggs and Neppl (2018) examined the continuity of
 5
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

alcohol use from middle adolescence to emerging adulthood. They found alcohol use at age 16

predicted binge drinking in late adolescence, which led to binge drinking in emerging adulthood.

In addition, Henry and Augustyn (2017) found that individuals who began using cannabis by age

15 were more likely to meet criteria for a lifetime cannabis disorder. Finally, Windle and

Wiesner (2004) classified adolescents into trajectory groups based on patterns of change in

cannabis use and found that adolescent trajectory group membership significantly predicted

cannabis and alcohol disorders in young adulthood. Though the stability of adolescent substance

use is well documented, few studies, if any, have examined the influence of G1 problem

behavior on the continuity of G2 substance use to predict G2 emotional distress and G2 harsh

parenting in adulthood within the same model.

Harsh Parenting and Emotional Distress

There is also evidence that parenting in the family of origin is associated with parenting

behavior in the subsequent generation (e.g., Conger, Neppl, Kim, & Scaramella, 2003; Pears &

Capaldi, 2001; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Wu, 1991). For example, Conger et al. (2003)

found a direct association between G1 hostile parenting experienced during G2 adolescence and

G2 hostile parenting to their G3 child in adulthood. Bailey et al. (2009) found continuity in

parental monitoring and harsh discipline practices across generations. Moreover, research also

suggests that G1 parenting is associated with G2 alcohol use. Indeed, harsh parenting practices

predict adolescent drinking (Kim-Spoon, Farley, Holmes, & Longo, 2014) that extends into

emerging adulthood (Aquilano & Supple, 2001). As such, G2 problem behavior may be an

important mechanism to help explain the intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. In an

early study, Caspi and Elder (1988) demonstrated that G1 hostile parenting predicted G2

problem behavior in childhood which was associated with G2 hostile parenting to G3. Similarly,
 6
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Neppl et al. (2009) found that G2 externalizing behavior in adulthood mediated the association

between G1 harsh parenting during G2 adolescence and G2 harsh parenting to G3 during

adulthood. More recently, Augustyn, Thornberry, and Henry (2019) demonstrated that child

maltreatment victimization increased alcohol use and other problem behavior in adolescence,

which increased their engagement in maltreatment behaviors in adulthood. Finally, Bailey et al.

(2009) found associations between G1 harsh discipline and G1 substance use with G2

externalizing behavior when G2 was in early adolescence. Subsequently, G2 externalizing

behavior in early adolescence was related to G2 substance use when G2 was in adulthood, which

was then associated with G3 externalizing at the same time period (Baily et al., 2009).

The continuity of emotional distress (which may include anxiety, depressive symptoms,

and hostility) across generations is also well-documented (Stein et al., 2014). For example, Kim,

Capaldi, Pears, Kerr and Owen (2009) examined the intergenerational transmission of broad

internalizing behavior including depression across three generations. They found that G1 mother

internalizing behavior assessed when G2 was 9 to 12 years old was associated with G2

internalizing at age 13 to 18 years old. Similarly, G2 mother internalizing behavior was

associated with the internalizing behavior of the G3 child. Others demonstrate that maternal

depressive symptoms increase risk for depression in both adolescence (Monti & Rudolph, 2017)

and adulthood (Betts, Williams, Naiman, & Alati, 2015). Indeed, Jones et al. (2016) found that

family history of distress influenced mental functioning throughout adulthood. In addition, after

controlling for externalizing symptoms, Rothenberg, Hussong, and Chassin (2018) found that

depressive symptoms mediated the intergenerational transmission of family conflict.

Moreover, adolescent substance use is associated with later emotional distress, which can

influence their own child’s behavioral outcomes. Indeed, emotional distress such as depression
 7
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

often co-occurs with substance use in adulthood (Biederman et al., 2005), predicts substance use

(King & Chassin, 2008), or is a consequence of using substances (Trim, Meehan, King, &

Chassin, 2007). It also relates to child problem behavior (Kavanaugh, et al., 2018; Kim-Cohen,

Moffitt, Taylor, Pawlby, & Caspi, 2005; Neppl et al., 2016). For example, Thornberry, Freeman-

Gallant, and Lovegrove (2009) found that mother depressive symptoms when their child was 7

years old mediated the association between mother adolescent drug use and their child’s early

onset of antisocial behavior. Mother depressive symptoms indirectly related to child antisocial

behavior through its impact on parenting. Relatedly, Diggs and Neppl (2018) found that early

stress (i.e., economic adversity) was associated with parental emotional distress, which led to

harsh parenting behavior toward their child. Thus, parental emotional distress may not only be

transmitted across generations, but also provide a link between parent substance use and child

problem behavior. That is, it is plausible that adolescent substance use can lead to later emotional

distress, which influences harsh parenting behavior in adulthood. Taken together, the current

study extends this work by evaluating G1 problem behavior as experienced in G2 adolescence on

G2 substance use in emerging adulthood, to G2 emotional distress and harsh parenting to G3 in

adulthood, as well as to G3 problem behavior in the elementary school years.

The Present Investigation

The current study examined the transmission of problem behavior across generations.

Specifically, we evaluated the influence of G1 problem behavior on the continuity of G2

substance use, G2 emotional distress and harsh parenting in adulthood, and G3 aggressive

behavior within the same model. We used data from a two-decade longitudinal study of G2s and

their families followed from adolescence to adulthood. We measured G1 emotional distress,

alcohol problems, and harsh parenting during G2’s adolescence (Time 1). G2 alcohol problems
 8
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

and marijuana use were assessed in late adolescence (Time 2) and emerging adulthood (Time 3).

G2 emotional distress and harsh parenting to G3 were assessed during G3’s preschool years

(Time 3), and G3 aggressive behavior was examined in the early elementary years (Time 5). We

expected continuity of emotional distress, substance use, and harsh parenting from G1 to G2. We

further expected that G1 behavior would relate to G2 substance use in late adolescence and

expected continuity of G2 substance use from late adolescence to emerging adulthood. G2

substance use in emerging adulthood would then relate to G2 emotional distress. It was expected

that G2 emotional distress would relate to G2 harsh parenting in adulthood, which would then

predict G3 child aggression (see Figure 1).

We also controlled for original family structure, G1 per capita income, G1 mother and

father age, G2 early adolescent alcohol use, G2 gender, G2 marital status, G2 age at time 4, and

G3 gender and G3 age at times 4 and 5. Previous research shows that these variables may be

related to substance use and parenting behaviors. For example, economic hardship relates to both

emotional distress and family conflict (Neppl et al., 2016). Younger mothers may be more likely

to show signs of harsh parenting toward their children than mothers who are older in age

(Scaramella, Neppl, Ontai, & Conger, 2008). Moreover, in young childhood, males tend to have

higher levels of externalizing behavior than their female counterparts (Pogarsky, Thornberry, &

Lizotte, 2006).

Method

Participants

Data come from the Family Transitions Project (FTP), a longitudinal study of 559 youth

and their families. The FTP includes participants merged from two earlier studies known as the

Iowa Youth and Families Project (IYFP) and the Iowa Single Parent Project (ISPP). Data were
 9
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

first collected from IYFP (N = 451) in 1989 and continued annually through 1992. Participants

included the target adolescent, their parents, and a sibling within 4 years of age (52% male).

IYFP families were initially recruited to study the effects of family economic stress in the rural

Midwest, following an economic farm crisis that occurred in the late 1980s. The target

adolescents were in seventh grade when families were first interviewed (M age = 12.7 years). All

families were recruited across schools in eight rural counties in Iowa (99% Caucasian). Seventy-

eight percent of families agreed to participate, and most families were lower middle- or middle-

class with about 34% residing on farms, 12% living in nonfarm rural areas, and 54% living in

towns with fewer than 6,500 people. In 1989, parents averaged 13 years of education and had a

median family income of $33,700. Fathers averaged 40 years of age and mothers averaged about

38 years of age.

Beginning in 1991, the ISSP included target adolescents who were in ninth grade and the

same age as the IYFP targets who had been participating for the previous two years (M age =

14.8 years) Single-parent mothers and a sibling within 4 years of age of the ISSP target

adolescent also participated (N = 108). Families in the ISSP were headed by a single mother who

had experienced divorce within two years prior to the start of the project. Only three families did

not participate. Like the IYFP, participants in the ISPP were Caucasian, primarily lower middle-

or middle-class, one-parent families who lived in the same Midwestern area. Non-residential

fathers were also recruited to participate in a short telephone survey. Measures and procedures

for ISSP paralleled those for the IYFP.

In 1994, the IYFP and ISSP samples were combined to create the FTP when target

adolescents from both studies were in twelfth grade. In the first year of the FTP, target youth

participated in the study with their parents as they had during earlier years of adolescence.
 10
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Starting in 1995, the target adolescents (one year after completing high school for most)

participated in the study with their romantic partners. In 1997, the study expanded to include the

first-born child of the target adolescents, now adults. The target’s child had to be at least 18

months old to be eligible for the study. By 2005, children ranged from 18 months to 13 years old.

The present study included 218 G2 adults who participated from adolescence through

adulthood and had an eligible G3 child participating in the study by 2005. It also included G2’s

mother and father (when applicable). Informed consent was obtained by G1 and G2, each for

their own participation and the participation of the G3 child. The data were analyzed using five

developmental time periods. Time 1 examined G1 emotional distress, G1 alcohol problems, and

G1 harsh parenting to G2 during G2’s adolescence (age 16, 18; 1992, 1994). Time 2 included G2

alcohol problems and G2 marijuana use (age 19; 1995). Time 3 included G2 alcohol problems

and G2 marijuana use two years later (age 21; 1997). Time 4 included G2 emotional distress and

G2 harsh parenting towards G3 when the child was between the ages of 3 and 5 years old (1997-

2005). Time 5 included G3’s aggressive behavior between the ages of 6 and 10 (1999-2005).

The current study includes data from the first time G3 participated in each developmental

period between the ages of 3 to 5 (1997-2005) and the ages of 6 to 10 (1999-2005). This was to

assure the same child was not counted within that age range multiple times at both time 4 and 5.

At time 4, there was a total of 181 3-year-olds, 24 4-year-olds, and 5 5-year-olds. At time 5,

there was a total of 132 6-year olds, 37 7-year olds, 38 8-year olds, 2 9-year olds, and 1 10-year

old (99 females, 111 males). The FTP has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at

Iowa State University.

Procedures
 11
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

During the years of 1992, and 1994, when G2s were in the 10th and 12th grades, all

families of origin were visited twice each year by a trained interviewer in their homes. Each visit

lasted approximately 2 hours, with the second visit occurring within 2 weeks of the first. During

the first visit, each family member completed questionnaires pertaining to their relationships,

substance use, and individual characteristics. During the second visit, family members

participated in structured interaction tasks that were videotaped. The family interaction task was

used for the present study, in which family members discussed questions from a series of 20

cards labeled for either the mother or the adolescent. Each person took turns reading questions

related to subjects such as school activities, family rules, and household chores. Whoever read

the card first was instructed to read each question out loud and give their answer. Then, the

others were instructed to give their answers, followed by a discussion involving all family

members about the answers that were given. Once they felt they had said everything they wanted

to about the question, they were instructed to go onto the next card. The interviewer set up the

video camera, instructed the family through a practice card, and then left the room while the

participants completed the task. Independent trained observers coded the quality of interactions

using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998), which have been shown to

demonstrate adequate reliability and validity (Melby & Conger, 2001).

From 1997 through 2005, G2 parents, their romantic partner, and first-born G3 child were

visited in their home annually by a trained interviewer. During this visit, the G2 and his/her

romantic partner completed a number of questionnaires which included measures of parenting,

substance use, and individual characteristics. In addition to questionnaires, G2 adults and their

G3 child participated in videotaped interaction tasks. The parent-child puzzle completion task

was used in the current analyses. G2s and the G3 child were presented with a puzzle that was too
 12
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

difficult for the child to complete on their own, and parents were instructed that children must

complete the puzzle alone, but they could provide any assistance if necessary. The puzzle task

lasted 5 minutes. The puzzles varied by age so that the puzzle slightly exceeded the skill level of

the child. Trained observers watched the video-recorded puzzle tasks to code aspects of

parenting using the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998).

Measures

The means, standard deviations, sample sizes, and minimum and maximum scores for all

study variables are provided in Table 1.

G1 Emotional Distress (Time 1). Emotional distress was assessed through G1 self-

report using items from the depression, anxiety, and hostility subscales from the SCL-R-90

(Derogatis, 1994) when the G2 adolescent was 16 and 18 years old. Response categories

assessed how distressed mothers and fathers felt during the past week, ranging from 1 (not at all)

to 5 (extremely). For the depression scale, parents were asked 12 questions regarding depressive

symptoms such as feeling no interest in things or feelings of worthlessness (α = .94). The anxiety

subscale included 10 questions assessing behavior such as nervousness or shakiness inside,

suddenly feeling scared for no reason, and feeling fearful (α = .91). Finally, hostility included 5

items asking questions related to getting into frequent arguments, having temper outbursts that

you were unable control, and having the urge to break or smash things (α = .77). Items from each

subscale were averaged across the two waves for mothers and fathers and then parental

depressive symptoms, anxiety, and hostility were used as three separate indicators for the latent

construct in the model, demonstrating good internal consistency (α = .72).

G1 Alcohol Problems (Time 1). G1 alcohol problems were assessed via self-report

when G2 adolescents were 16 and 18 years of age. Three items assessing drinking behavior were
 13
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

standardized and summed for mothers and fathers separately. Then, mother and father scores

were averaged to create a parental alcohol problems construct in the model. The independent

items used were frequency of being drunk in the past year on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (often),

frequency of consuming 2 or 3 drinks in a single occasion in the past year, and consuming 4 or

more drinks in a single occasion in the past year, with the latter two both on scales from 0

(never) to 3 (3 or more times/week). Internal consistency among these variables was sufficient (α

= .82).

G1 Harsh Parenting (Time 1). Hostility, angry coerciveness, and antisocial behavior

displayed by G1 to the G2 adolescent during the videotaped family discussion task were assessed

when G2 adolescents were 16 and 18 years of age. Each behavior was scored on a 9-point scale,

ranging from 1 (no evidence of the behavior) to 9 (the behavior is highly characteristic of the

mother). Hostility was characterized by hostile, annoyed, critical, and disapproving behavior

toward the adolescent. Angry coercion was defined by an attempt to control or change the

adolescent’s behavior in a hostile manner. Antisocial behavior involved egotistic, immature,

rebellious, and indifferent behavior toward the adolescent. Mother and father scores on each of

the three behaviors were averaged together across the two waves, and then parental hostility,

angry coercion, and antisocial behavior were used as separate indicators for the latent construct

in the model (α = .94). The inter-rater reliability was substantial (α = .94).

G2 Alcohol Problems (Time 2). Five independent self-reported items at age 19 were

averaged together to create the G2 alcohol problems construct. First, G2s reported on their

frequency of consuming 3 or 4 drinks in a row in the past 30 days and consuming 5 or more

drinks in a row in the past 30 days on a scale from 0 (never) to 5 (every day). They also reported

their frequency in the past year of being drunk, in trouble with their parent(s), as well as being in
 14
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

trouble with the police due to their drinking on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (four or more times).

These five items were standardized and summed to create a measure of G2 alcohol problems at

time 2 in the model. Internal consistency among the items was sufficient (α = .87).

G2 Marijuana Use (Time 2). Also at age 19, G2 adolescents assessed how often they

had used marijuana in the past 30 days on a scale from 0 (never) to 5 (every day) via self-report.

G2 Alcohol Problems (Time 3). Six independent self-reported items at age 21 were

averaged together for the G2 alcohol problems construct at time 3. The same five items used in

the time 2 alcohol problems construct were used, as well as the frequency of wanting to quit

drinking but couldn’t on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (four or more times). These six items were

standardized and summed to create a measure of G2 alcohol problems at time 3 in the model.

Internal consistency among the items was sufficient (α = .76).

G2 Marijuana Use (Time 3). Also at age 21, G2 emerging adults assessed how often

they used marijuana in the past 30 days on a scale from 0 (never) to 5 (every day) via self-report.

G2 Emotional Distress (Time 4). G2 parents reported on their level of emotional

distress using the same items as G1 emotional distress from the depression, anxiety, and hostility

subscales from the SCL-R-90 (Derogatis, 1994) at the age of first assessment when the G3 child

was between the ages of 3 and 5 years old. Items from each subscale were averaged and then

used as three separate indicators for the latent construct in the model (α = .86).

G2 Harsh Parenting (Time 4). As with G1 to G2, hostility, angry coerciveness, and

antisocial behavior from the G2 mother to the G3 child were assessed via observer report during

the 5-minute puzzle task in childhood. Scores included the first time the task was completed

when the child was between the ages of 3 and 5. Each of the three behaviors were used as

separate indicators for the latent construct in the model and were internally consistent (α = .93)
 15
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

as well as demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability (α = .95). The observers used to code the

G1 to G2 parenting tasks were different from observers who coded the G2 to G3 puzzle task.

Thus, different informants produced the behavioral scores for harsh parenting at Times 1 and 4.

G3 Aggression. G2 parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist for ages 6-18

(Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000) when their child was between 6 and 10 years old. Scores

included the first time the child was assessed during that age range. Aggressive behavior

included 18 items from the aggression subscale. G2 parents rated each behavior on a 3-point

scale, ranging from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true) regarding their child’s behavior over the past two

months. Items included: argues a lot, gets into fights, attacks people, makes threats, hot temper,

and is disobedient at home and school. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient indicated adequate

internal consistency (α = .84). Items were summed to create the manifest dependent variable in

the model.

Control Variables. First, original family structure (ISPP = 0, IYFP = 1) was taken into

account. The G1 control variables measured when the G2 adolescent was 16 years old included

mother and father age and family per capita income (divided by $10,000). G2 earlier alcohol use

at age 16 was assessed via self-report asking the frequency of drinking beer, wine, and liquor in

the past 30 days rated on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (at least 1 time/week). Both G2 and G3

gender was also used as control variables in the model (0 = female, 1 = male). G2 age at time 4

and G3 age at times 4 and 5 were taken into account. Finally, G2 marital status at time 4 (0 = not

married, 1 = married or living with someone in a marriage-like relationship) was used as a

control variable in the model.

Analytic Plan
 16
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

SPSS was used to report means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alphas on all study

variables. Attrition analyses were also conducted in SPSS using independent samples t-tests to

assess whether or not G2s who were included in the analysis had different levels of substance use

at times 2 and 3 than those who were not included. Results indicated that mean levels of alcohol

problems or marijuana use at times 2 or 3 did not differ significantly between those who were

included in the analyses versus those who were not (m = -.09 vs. .06 for time 2 alcohol problems;

m = .21 vs. .12 for time 2 marijuana use; m = -.34 vs. .23 for time 3 alcohol problems; and m =

.24 vs. .19 for time 3 marijuana use). Factor loadings and the zero-order associations between

variables (see Table 2), using bivariate correlations at a significance level of 0.05, were

examined in Mplus Version 8.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 2012) with a measurement model. Structure

equation modeling (SEM) was estimated using Mplus Version 8.0 to examine pathways of how

predictor variables were associated with the outcome variables on the hypothesized paths (see

Figure 1), using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) procedures to account for missing

data. In longitudinal research, FIML is a procedure recommended and commonly used to

account for missing data (Allison, 2003). FIML provides a better estimation of model parameters

than methods such as listwise or pairwise deletion (Jeličić, Phelps, & Lerner, 2009). The chi-

square estimate and significance value were used to assess model fit, as well as root mean square

error approximation (RMSEA), and comparative fit index (CFI; Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

A measurement model was first examined to assess the associations among all study

variables, as well as obtain factor loadings for the latent constructs. Next, a prospective structure

equation model was tested to assess relations among hypothesized pathways as well as to

establish temporal ordering. Pathways included in the prospective structure equation model are

shown in Figure 1. All control variables were utilized in the final model. More specifically, G1
 17
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

family per capita income, G1 mother age, G1 father age, G2 alcohol use at age 16, and original

family structure were allowed to covary with G1 emotional distress, G1 alcohol problems, and

G1 harsh parenting. These control variables were used as predictors of the G2 and G3 constructs

in the model. G2 age and marital status were allowed to be correlated with G2 emotional distress

and G2 harsh parenting as well as specified to predict G3 aggression. G3 age at time 4 was

allowed to be correlated with G2 emotional distress and G2 harsh parenting, as well as predict

G3 aggression. G3 age at time 5 was allowed to be associated with G3 aggression. Finally, G3

gender was used to predict G3 aggression. All control variables were specified to be associated

with each other.

In addition, indirect pathways were examined using bootstrapped sampling techniques in

Mplus Version 8.0, per recommendation of Preacher and Hayes (2008) due to how easily

multivariate normality can be violated when estimating multiple indirect effects. We tested the

indirect effects using the bootstrap option in Mplus with 1,000 iterations to obtain bias-corrected

estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the indirect effects. All indirect pathways were

tested from G1 substance use and problem behavior to G3 aggressive behavior through G2

substance use, emotional distress, and harsh parenting. The indirect effect from G2 emotional

distress to G3 aggressive behavior was also examined.

Results

The fit of the measurement model, including all control variables, to the data was good:
2
χ = 271.03, df = 184, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA =.05. Standardized loadings of indicators

onto the latent factors ranged from .85 to .97 for G1 harsh parenting, .81 to .99 for G2 harsh

parenting, .57 to 1.0 for G1 emotional distress, and .77 to .85 for G2 emotional distress and were

all statistically significant at p < .001. Most notably, G1 emotional distress was associated with
 18
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

G2 emotional distress. G1 alcohol problems were associated with G2 alcohol problems at times 2

and 3. G1 harsh parenting was associated with G2 harsh parenting. Finally, G2 emotional

distress and harsh parenting when the G3 child was between the ages of 3 and 5 were both

positively correlated with G3 aggressive behavior between the ages of 6 and 10.

The prospective model was estimated with all specified control variables. The model fit

the data well, and result are presented in Figure 2 with standardized path coefficients. Emotional

distress was stable across generations (G1-G2; β = .24, SE = .09, p < .01) and was correlated

with G1 harsh parenting (r = .18, SE = .04, p < .05). G1 emotional distress predicted higher

levels of marijuana use at age 19 (β = .15, SE = .20, p < .05), but did not predict G2 alcohol

problems at the same time point (β = .01, SE = 1.12, p = .85). G1 alcohol problems was

associated with G2 alcohol problems at time 2 (β = .16, SE = .11, p < .05), but was not related to

G2 marijuana use at time 2 (β = .04, SE = .02, p = .58). Although the zero-order correlation

between G1 and G2 harsh parenting was significant in the measurement model, when taking all

other associations into account, this association was only marginally significant in the

prospective model (β = .13, SE = .06, p = .08). G1 harsh parenting predicted higher levels of

both G2 alcohol problems (β = .21, SE = .18, p < .01) and G2 marijuana use (β = .22, SE = .03, p

< .01) at time 2.

G2 alcohol problems at age 19 predicted further alcohol problems (β = .54, SE = .05, p <

.001) as well as marijuana use at age 21 (β = .27, SE = .01, p < .001). Marijuana use continued

from ages 19 to 21 (β = .42, SE = .08, p < .001), but did not predict continued alcohol problems

2 years later (β = -.10, SE = .32, p = .09). G2 alcohol problems and marijuana use were

correlated at both time points (r = .21, SE = .20, p < .01; r = .33, SE = .16, p < .001 respectively).

Although G2 marijuana use at time 3 was associated with G2 emotional distress in the
 19
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

measurement model, when G2 alcohol use was added to the model, only alcohol problems at

time 3 predicted G2 emotional distress at time 4 (β = .34, SE = .01, p < .001). G2 emotional

distress was associated with G2 harsh parenting at the same time point, when the G3 child was

between the ages of 3 and 5 years old (β = .29, SE = .35, p < .001), which in turn was directly

associated with G3 aggression between the ages of 6 and 10 (β = .27, SE = .27, p < .01).

Indirect Effects

We tested the indirect effects of the associations between G1 problem behavior and G2

substance use, G1 harsh parenting and G2 harsh parenting, as well as effects of problem behavior

on G3 aggression (see Table 3). All indirect effects in the model were tested, but only significant

findings are shown in Table 3. For effects on G2 substance use, G1 emotional distress was

related to G2 marijuana use at age 21 through G2s’ use of marijuana at age 19. G1 alcohol

problems and G1 harsh parenting were both indirectly associated with G2 alcohol problems and

marijuana use at time 3 through G2 alcohol problems at time 2. Additionally, G1 harsh parenting

was associated with G2 marijuana use at time 3 through G2’s use of marijuana at time 2. In the

model, G1 harsh parenting was not directly associated with G2 harsh parenting when taking into

account all other variables, but was associated with G2 harsh parenting via G2 alcohol problems

and G2 emotional distress. In terms effects on G3 aggression, there was a significant indirect

effect from G2 emotional distress to G3 aggression through G2 harsh parenting when G3 was

between the ages of 3 and 5. G1 alcohol problems and G1 harsh parenting were both associated

with G3 aggression though G2 alcohol problems, G2 emotional distress, and G2 harsh parenting.

Discussion

The present investigation examined the role of G1 emotional distress, alcohol problems,

and harsh parenting on G2 substance use, emotional distress and harsh parenting during
 20
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

adulthood, as well as G3 aggression in early childhood. This study adds to the literature

examining mechanisms that might help explain associations between G1 to G2 problem behavior

and problem behavior for the G3 child. First, results showed evidence of direct intergenerational

transmission of G1 to G2 emotional distress, alcohol problems, and harsh parenting. This is

consistent with earlier studies demonstrating continuity of such behavior across generations

(Bailey et al., 2006; Kavanaugh et al., 2018; Neppl et al., 2009). Moreover, although the zero-

order correlation between G1 and G2 harsh parenting was significant, in the prospective model

this path was only marginally significant, but showed that G1 harsh parenting was associated

with G2 harsh parenting via G2 substance use and G2 emotional distress. Others have found that

G1 and G2 harsh parenting is associated through G2 problem behavior (Belsky, Conger, &

Capaldi, 2009; Neppl et al., 2009). Results also demonstrated that G1 harsh parenting in G2’s

adolescence directly related to both G2 alcohol problems and G2 marijuana use at age 19, and

the model showed continuity of G2 alcohol problems and marijuana use through the early

emerging adulthood years. This is consistent with previous research demonstrating associations

between G1 harsh parenting and G2 problem behavior (Hops, Davis, Leve, & Sheeber, 2003), as

well as studies that have found continuity of substance use from adolescence to adulthood (Diggs

& Neppl, 2018; Thompson, et al., 2014).

We extended earlier research by evaluating the influence of G1 problem behavior and G2

substance use on G2 emotional distress and harsh parenting when G3 was 3 to 5 years old, and

G3 aggression during the early elementary years. Results showed significant indirect pathways

from both G1 alcohol problems and G1 harsh parenting to G3 aggression through G2 alcohol at

age 19 to G2 alcohol at 21 to G2 emotional distress to G2 harsh parenting. Finally, G1 emotional

distress related to G3 aggression via G2 emotional distress to G2 harsh parenting. This is

 21
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

consistent with the premise that stressors experienced in the family of origin influence emotional

health and parenting in adulthood, which affects the wellbeing of the next generation child

(Neppl, et al., 2016). Relatedly, Bailey et al. (2006) examined the role of G1 substance use on

G3 problem behavior and found that G1 substance use indirectly related to G3 problem behavior

through G2 problem behavior and substance use.

Results also showed that G1 emotional distress was associated with G2 marijuana use at

age 19, but not with alcohol problems at the same time point. There is some evidence to suggest

that marijuana use is related to coping with negative emotions and psychological distress

(Hyman & Sinha, 2009; Moitra, Christopher, Anderson, & Stein, 2015). However, to our

knowledge, limited studies have examined the intergenerational influence of emotional distress,

substance use, and parenting in one model. Future studies should continue to investigate the role

of G1 emotional distress on G2 substance use behaviors while taking other G1 problem

behaviors such as alcohol use and harsh parenting into account. In addition, results showed that

G2 alcohol problems at age 19 related to G2 marijuana use at 21 years old but not the other way

around. This is consistent with the developmental sequence of drug involvement, where the use

of alcohol and nicotine precede the use of marijuana (Kandel, 2003).

Moreover, the path from G2 marijuana use at age 21 to G2 emotional distress was also

not significant. It is important to note that when alcohol problems were not included in the

model, the path from G2 marijuana use to G2 emotional distress was significant, but when G2

alcohol problems were included in the model, this path was no longer significant. Indeed, there is

evidence of comorbidity between alcohol problems and depression (Grant and Harford, 1995),

and that drinking behaviors increase the risk for depressive symptoms (Pedrelli, Shapero,

Archibald, & Dale, 2016; Peirce, Frone, Russell, Cooper, & Mudar, 2000). It could also be that
 22
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

rural young adults may be at a higher risk for substance use problems than those from urban

areas (Martin, Inchley, Marshall, Shortt, & Currie, 2019; Rueter, Holm, Burzette, Kim, &

Conger, 2007). In fact, a large majority of the rural G2 youth in the current study experienced a

high prevalence of substance use disorders with many continuing into adulthood (Rueter, et al.,

2007). Finally, results from the current study may also be in part due to the assessment of

marijuana use, rather than problems with the substance, as it has been suggested that stronger

associations may occur for abuse and dependence, rather than use (Bailey et al., 2006; Walters,

2002). Regardless, future studies should consider polysubstance use as alcohol and other drugs

often occur in combination.

There are limitations worth noting. First, the sample was primarily white and came from

the rural Midwest which could limit generalizability of findings. Also, multiple generation

studies might include selective sampling over time. Thus, while the current findings are

noteworthy, this model should be replicated with samples that are more diverse. Another

limitation is the current study did not include G1 marijuana in the model as no G1 mothers or

fathers engaged in marijuana use over the previous year. It is possible that in other samples, G1

marijuana use could relate to G3 aggressive behavior in the same manner as findings with

alcohol problems in the current study. Moreover, frequency of marijuana use was the only item

asked of G2s involvement specifically with marijuana. Thus, more items regarding amount or

problems with only marijuana are needed. In addition, alcohol problems included two

independent questions regarding frequency of drinking 3 or 4 more drinks in a row and 5 or more

drinks in a row. Participants provided a response to both items, however it is not probable they

would answer the same frequency for both items. This measure was worded such that consuming

3 or 4 drinks occurred on a separate occasion than drinking 5 or more drinks. Alcohol data were
 23
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

also collected some time ago and may not be consistent with current trends. However, results

from the Iowa Youth Survey (IYS) indicate that adolescents in Iowa report alcohol problems

such as binge drinking rates higher than national averages (Iowa Consortium for Substance

Abuse Research and Evaluation, 2013). Finally, in addition to G1 environmental influences on

G2 substance use and other problem behavior, there could be alternative explanations for the

current findings. For example, there could be shared genetic risk for substance use and

dependence for parents and adolescents (Polderman et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it is important to

investigate environmental factors that could contribute to substance use and later problem

behavior which have consequences for the G3 child.

These findings have several implications for future prevention and intervention efforts

designed to break the intergenerational continuity of problem behaviors, such as substance use

and emotional distress. Foremost, these results help elucidate the mechanisms through which

such problem behaviors experienced in the family of origin have lasting effects across multiple

generations. We found that intergenerational transmission of alcohol problems from G1 to G2

child, and subsequent continuity of alcohol problems into G2 young adulthood was a critical link

in this process. Thus, the results underscore how intergenerational risk may be reduced if

substance use can be curtailed in adolescence, before problematic use patterns are established.

This view is supported by other research that has found evidence for intergenerational

transmission of substance use when considering continuity from substance use during emerging

adulthood, but not when limiting use to adolescence (Knight, Menard, and Simmons, 2014).

Although there are a number of universal prevention programs (school-based and family-

based) that have been found to reduce the likelihood of substance use during adolescence

(Fleming et al, 2012; Park et al., 2000; Spoth et al., 2009), recent trends in prevention science
 24
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

highlight the importance of adaptive intervention strategies that tailor the type of intervention in

order to match the intervention strategy to the individual’s risk (Collins, Murphy, & Bierman,

2004). For example, the Family Check-Up (FCU; Dishion et al., 2002) is a multimodal family

intervention that is designed to reduce adolescent problem behavior and improve mental health

by supporting family engagement and improving parenting practices. The FCU uses a

comprehensive assessment of self-report and observational data to tailor the intervention to

specifically address a family’s strengths and needs and has been shown to reduce problem

behavior and substance use among adolescents (Caruthers, Van Ryzin, & Dishion, 2014;

Stormshak et al, 2011).

Although there is evidence that interventions can also reduce risk behavior among

emerging adults, including binge drinking (Brody et al., 2012; Turrisi et al., 2013; Wood et al.,

2010), very few family-based interventions have been designed to target this vulnerable age.

Given the strong links found between G2 alcohol problems, emotional distress, and harsh

parenting, our results also highlight the importance of identifying and addressing barriers to

mental health services among all ages, but particularly during emerging adulthood when

prevalence rates of depression and other mental health disorders are highest (Cadigan, Lee, &

Larimer, 2019). Finally, our results also support the value of delivering interventions during the

elementary school years, as aggressive behavior in childhood is both a consequence of G1 and

G2 behavior, but is also shown to be a marker of the child’s own eventual use. (Averdijk, Zirk-

Sadowski, Ribeaud, & Eisner, 2016). In sum, results suggest that G1 problem behavior as

experienced in G2 adolescence plays an important role in G2 substance use in emerging

adulthood, which leads to G2 emotional distress and G2 harsh parenting in adulthood, which

relates to G3 problem behavior in the early elementary school years.

 25
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

References

Achenbach, T. M., Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA Preschool Forms & Profiles.

University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families; Burlington,

VT.

Alati, R., Baker, P., Betts, K., Connor, J., Little, K., Sanson, A., & Olsson, C. (2014). The role of

parental alcohol use, parental discipline and antisocial behaviour on adolescent drinking

trajectories. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 134, 178-184.

doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.09.030

Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 112, 545. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.545

Aquilano, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during

adolescence on well-being outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 22,

289-308. doi: 10.1177/019251301022003002

Augustyn, M. B., Thornberry, T. P., & Henry, K. L. (2019). The reproduction of child

maltreatment: An examination of adolescent problem behavior, substance use, and

precocious transitions in the link between victimization and perpetration. Development

and Psychopathology, 31, 53-71. doi:10.1017/S0954579418001633

Averdijk, M., Zirk-Sadowski, J., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2016). Long-term effects of two

childhood psychosocial interventions on adolescent delinquency, substance use, and

antisocial behavior: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental

Criminology, 12(1), 21-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9249-4

 26
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Bailey, J. A., Hill, K. G., Oesterle, S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2006). Linking substance use and

problem behavior across three generations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34,

273-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9033-z

Bailey, J. A., Hill, K. G., Oesterle, S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2009). Parenting practices and problem

behavior across three generations: monitoring, harsh discipline, and drug use in the

intergenerational transmission of externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 45,

1214-1226. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016129

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Biederman, J., Petty, C., Faraone, S. V., Hirshfeld-Becker, D. R., Henin, A., Pollack, M. H., &

Rosenbaum, J. F. (2005). Patterns of comorbidity in panic disorder and major depression:

Findings from a nonreferred sample. Depression and Anxiety, 21, 55–60.

https://doi.org/10.1002/da.20055

Belsky, J., Conger, R. D., & Capaldi, D. M. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of

parenting: Introduction to the special section. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1201–

1204. doi:10.1037/a0016245

Betts, K. S., Williams, G. M., Naiman, J. M., & Alati, R. (2015). The relationship between

maternal depressive, anxious, and stress symptoms during pregnancy and adult offspring

behavioral and emotional problems. Depression and Anxiety, 32, 82–90.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.22272

Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Chen, Y. F., Kogan, S. M., & Smith, K. (2012). The adults in the making

program: Long-term protective stabilizing effects on alcohol use and substance use

problems for rural African American emerging adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 80, 17–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026592

 27
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Brook, J. S., Balka, E. B., Crossman, A. M., Dermatis, H., Galanter, M., & Brook, D. W. (2010).

The relationship between parental alcohol use, early and late adolescent alcohol use, and

young adult psychological symptoms: A longitudinal study. The American Journal on

Addictions, 19, 534-542. doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2010.00083.x

Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA,

Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA.

Cadigan, J. M., Lee, C. M., & Larimer, M. E. (2019). Prevention Science, 20, 366-376.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0875-8

Capaldi, D. M., Tiberio, S. S., & Kerr, D. C. R. (2018). Assessing associations in substance use

across three generations: from grandparents to sons and from sons to their children.

Contemporary Social Science, https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2018.1433313

Capaldi, D. M., Tiberio, S. S., Kerr, C. R., & Pears, K. C. (2016). The relationships of parental

alcohol versus tobacco and marijuana use with early adolescent onset of alcohol use.

Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 77, 95–103. doi:10.15288/jsad.2016.77.95

Caruthers, A. S., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Dishion, T. J. (2014). Preventing high-risk sexual behavior

in early adulthood with family interventions in adolescence: Outcomes and

developmental processes. Prevention Science, 15, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-

013-0383-9

Caspi, A., & Elder, G. H. (1988). Emergent family patterns: The intergenerational construction

of problem behavior and relationships. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),

Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 218–240). Oxford, England:

Clarendon Press.

Collins, L. M., Murphy, S. A., & Bierman, K. (2004). A conceptual framework for adaptive
 28
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

preventive interventions. Prevention Science, 3, 185–196.

doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000037641.26017.00

Conger, R. D. & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from

the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,

361-373. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x.

Conger, R. D., Neppl, T., Kim, K., & Scaramella, L. (2003). Angry and aggressive behavior

across three generations: A prospective, longitudinal study of parents and children.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 143–160. doi: 10.1023/A:1022570107457

Derogatis, L. R. 1994. Symptom checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R): Administration, scoring and

procedures manual. National Computer Systems; Minneapolis, MN.

Diggs, O. & Neppl, T. K. (2018). The influence of economic hardship on emerging adu lt

binge drinking: Testing the family stress model over time. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 47, 2481-2495. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0923-5

Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., Schneiger, A., Nelson, S. E., & Kaufman, N. (2002). Preventing

early adolescent substance use: A family-centered strategy for the public middle school.

Prevention Science, 3, 191–201. doi:10.1023/A:1019994500301

Fleming, C. B, White, H. R., Haggerty, K. P., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2012).

Educational paths and substance use from adolescence into early adulthood. Journal of

Drug Issues, 42(2), 104-126. doi: http://doi.org/10.1177/0022042612446590

Henry, K. L. & Augustyn, M. B. (2017). Intergenerational continuity in cannabis use: The role of

parent’s early onset and lifetime disorder on child’s early onset. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 60, 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.09.005

 29
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Hoffmann, J. P. & Cerbone, F.G. (2002). Parental substance use disorder and the risk of

adolescent drug abuse: An event history analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66,

255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-8716(02)00005-4

Hops, H., Davis, B., Leve, C., & Sheeber, L. (2003). Cross-Generational Transmission of

Aggressive Parent Behavior: A Prospective, Mediational Examination. Journal of

Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022522224295

Hyman, S. M., & Sinha, R. (2009). Stress-related factors in cannabis use and misuse:

implications for prevention and treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 36,

400-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2008.08.005

Jeličić, H., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). Use of missing data methods in longitudinal

studies: the persistence of bad practices in developmental psychology. Developmental

Psychology, 45, 1195-1199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015665

Jeon, S. & Neppl, T. K. (2019). The intergenerational transmission of externalizing behavior:

The importance of a positive romantic partner. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00563-0

Jones, T. M., Hill, K. G., Epstein, M., Olivia Lee, J., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2016).

Understanding the interplay of individual and social–developmental factors in the

progression of substance use and mental health from childhood to adulthood.

Development and Psychopathology, 28, 721-741. doi:10.1017/S0954579416000274

Kandel, D. B. (2003). Does marijuana use cause the use of other drugs? JAMA, 289(4), 482-483.

doi:10.1001/jama.289.4.482
 30
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Kavanaugh, S. A., Neppl, T. K., & Melby, J. N. (2018). Economic pressure and depressive

symptoms: Testing the family stress model from adolescence to adulthood. Journal

of Family Psychology, 32, 957-965. doi: 10.1037/fam0000462

Kerr, D. C. R., Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., & Owen, L. D. (2012). Intergenerational influences

on early alcohol use: Independence from the problem behavior pathway. Development

and Psychopathology, 24, 889–906. doi:10.1017/S0954579412000430

Kim, H. K., Capaldi, D. M., Pears, K. C., Kerr, D. C., & Owen, L. D. (2009). Intergenerational

transmission of internalising and externalising behaviours across three generations:

Gender‐specific pathways. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19, 125-141.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.708

Kim-Cohen, J., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Pawlby, S. J., & Caspi, A. (2005). Maternal depression

and children’s antisocial behavior: Nature and nurture effects. Archives of General

Psychiatry, 62, 173–181. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.2.173

Kim-Spoon, J., Farley, J. P., Holmes, C. J., & Longo, G. S. (2014). Does adolescents'

religiousness moderate links between harsh parenting and adolescent substance use?

Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 739–748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037178

King, K. M., & Chassin, L. (2008). Adolescent stressors, psychopathology, and young adult

substance dependence: A prospective study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,

69, 629-638. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2008.69.629

Knight, K. E., Menard, S., & Simmons, S. B. (2014). Intergenerational continuity of substance

use. Substance Use & Misuse, 49, 221-233. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2013.824478

 31
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Martin, G., Inchley, J., Marshall, A., Shortt, N., & Currie, C. (2019). The neighbourhood social

environment and alcohol use among urban and rural Scottish adolescents. International

Journal of Public Health, 64, 95-105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-018-1181-8

McCutcheon, V. V., Agrawal, A., Kuo, S. I. C., Su, J., Dick, D. M., Meyers, J. L., ... & Schuckit,

M. A. (2018). Associations of parental alcohol use disorders and parental separation with

offspring initiation of alcohol, cigarette and cannabis use and sexual debut in high‐risk

families. Addiction, 113, 336-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14003

Melby, J., Conger, R., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L., Repinski, D., & Scaramella, L. (1998).

The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. Fifth Edition Iowa State University, Institute

for Social and Behavioral Research; Ames, IA.

Melby, J. N., & Conger, R. D. (2001). The Iowa family interaction rating scales: Instrument

summary. In P. Kerig & K. Lindahl (Eds.), Family observational coding systems:

Resources for systematic research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology:

Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 533-

554. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.533.

Moitra, E., Christopher, P. P., Anderson, B. J., & Stein, M. D. (2015). Coping-motivated

marijuana use correlates with DSM-5 cannabis use disorder and psychological distress

among emerging adults. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29, 627-632.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/adb0000083

Monti, J., & Rudolph, K. (2017). Maternal depression and trajectories of adolescent depression:

The role of stress responses in youth risk and resilience. Development and

Psychopathology, 29, 1413-1429. doi:10.1017/S0954579417000359.

 32
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles, CA:

Muthén & Muthén.

Nadel, E. L. & Thornberry, T. P. (2017). Intergenerational Consequences of Adolescent

Substance Use: Patterns of Homotypic and Heterotypic Continuity. Psychology of

Addictive Behaviors, 31, 200-211. doi:10.1037/adb0000248

Neppl, T. K., Conger, R. D., Scaramella, L. V., & Ontai, L. L. (2009). Intergenerational

continuity in parenting behavior: Mediating pathways and child effects. Developmental

Psychology, 45, 1241-1256. doi: 10.1037/a0014850

Neppl, T. K., Senia, J. M., & Donnellan, M. B. (2016). The effects of economic hardship:

Testing the family stress model over time. Journal of Family Psychology, 30, 12-21.

doi:10.1037/fam0000168

Park, J, Kosterman, R., Hawkins, J. D., Haggerty, K. P., Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Spoth,

R. (2000). Effects of the preparing for the drug free years curriculum on growth in

alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prevention Science, 1, 125–138.

doi: 10.1023/a:1010021205638

Pears, K. C. & Capaldi, D. M. (2001). Intergenerational transmission of abuse: A two

generational prospective study of an at-risk sample. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 1439–

1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00286-1

Pedrelli, P., Shapero, B., Archibald, A., Dale, C. (2016). Alcohol use and depression during

adolescence and young adulthood: A summary and interpretation of mixed findings.

Current Addiction Reports, 3, 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-016-0084-0

 33
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Peirce, R. S., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., Cooper, M. L., & Mudar, P. (2000). A longitudinal

model of social contact, social support, depression, and alcohol use. Health Psychology,

19, 28-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.1.28

Pogarsky, G., Thornberry, T. P., & Lizotte, A. J. (2006). Developmental outcomes for children

of young mothers. Journal of Marriage & Family, 68, 332-344. doi:10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2006.00256.x

Polderman T.J., Benyamin B., De Leeuw C.A., Sullivan P.F., Van Bochoven A., Visscher P.M.,

& Posthuma D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty

years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47, 702–709. doi:10.1038/ng.3285

Rothenberg, W. A., Hussong, A. M., & Chassin, L. (2018). Intergenerational continuity in high

conflict family environments: Investigating a mediating depressive pathway.

Developmental Psychology, 54, 385-396. doi:10.1037/dev0000419

Rueter, M. A., Holm, K. E., Burzette, R., Kim, K. J., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Mental health of

rural young adults: Prevalence of psychiatric disorders, comorbidity, and service

utilization. Community Mental Health Journal, 43(3), 229–249. doi: 10.1007/s10597-

007-9082-y

Scaramella, L. V., Neppl, T. K., Ontai, L. L., & Conger, R. D. (2008). Consequences of

socioeconomic disadvantage across three generations: Parenting behavior and child

externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 725.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013190

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Wu, C. I. (1991). Intergenerational

transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 159-171. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.159
 34
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Spoth, R. L., Trudeau, L., Guyll, M., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2009). Universal intervention

effects on substance use among young adults mediated by delayed adolescent substance

initiation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 620–632. doi:

10.1037/a0016029

Stein A., Pearson R. M., Goodman S. H., Rapa E., Rahman A., McCallum M., et al. Pariante C.

M. (2014). Effects of perinatal mental disorders on the fetus and child. The Lancet, 384,

1800–1819. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61277-0

Stormshak, E. A., Connell, A. M., Véronneau, M.-H., Myers, M. W., Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh,

K., & Caruthers, A. S. (2011). An ecological approach to promoting early adolescent

mental health and social adaptation: Family-centered intervention in public middle

schools. Child Development, 82, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8624.2010.01551.x

Tarter, R. E., Kirisci, L., Reynolds, M., Horner, M., Zhai, Z., Gathuru, I., & Vanyukov, M.

(2015). Longitudinal modeling of the association between transmissible risk, affect

during drug use and development of substance use disorder. Journal of Addiction

Medicine, 9, 464-469. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000163

Thompson, K., Stockwell, T., Leadbeater, B., & Homel, J. (2014). Association among different

measures of alcohol use across adolescence and emerging adulthood. Addiction, 109,

894-903. doi: 10.1111/add.12499

Thornberry, T. P., Freeman-Gallant, A., & Lovegrove, P. J. (2009). The impact of parental

stressors on the intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Youth

and Adolescence, 38, 312-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9337-0

 35
INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF SUBSTANCE USE

Trim, R. S., Meehan, B. T., King, K. M., & Chassin, L. (2007). The relation between adolescent

substance use and young adult internalizing symptoms: Findings from a high-risk

longitudinal sample. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 97-107.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.21.1.97

Turrisi, R., Mallett, K. A., Cleveland, M. J., Varvil-Weld, L., Abar, C., Scaglione, N., &

Hultgren, B. (2013). Evaluation of timing and dosage of a parent-based intervention to

minimize college students’ alcohol consumption. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and

Drugs, 74, 30-40. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2013.74.30

Walters, G. D. (2002). The heritability of alcohol abuse and dependence:

A meta-analysis of behavior genetic research. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol

Abuse, 28, 557–584. https://doi.org/10.1081/ADA-120006742

Windle, M. & Wiesner, M. (2004). Trajectories of marijuana use from adolescence to young

adulthood: Predictors and outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 1007-1027.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579404040118

Wood, M. D., Fairlie, A. M., Fernandez, A. C., Borsari, B., Capone, C., Laforge, R., &

Carmona-Barros, R. (2010). Brief motivational and parent interventions for college

students: A randomized factorial study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

78, 349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019166

Yap, M. B. H., Cheong, T. W. K., Zaravinos-Tsakos, F., Lubman, D. I., & Jorn, A. F. (2017).

Modifiable parenting factors associated with adolescent alcohol misuse: A systematic

review and meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies. Addiction, 112, 1142-1162.

https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13785