statistical analysis of what causes drug use
TRANSCRIPT
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 1/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Teenage Drug Use: What Causes Teens to Use Drugs?
The use of drugs is a troubling problem plaguing society. It starts at an early age
and may continue for an individual’s entire life. In order for society to reduce or rid itself
of drugs, it must understand when drug use starts and why. Drug use usually starts at
earlier stages in ones life. Teenage drug use is the use of any drug (alcohol, tobacco,
stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogenic) by youths under the age of twenty one. Past
research has shown that by the time of high school 90% of American adolescents have
tried alcohol, 60% have used marijuana, and one-third have used amphetamine
(Anastasios, Behr, Johnson. 1986). Though figures have diminished in some areas, the
numbers are still presently high. Society has programs that deal with drug addiction and
rehabilitation but these are ‘after the fact interventions’. What I mean by ‘after the fact
interventions’ is that drug use has already occurred and now stopping the use is the focus.
The methods of prevention have only recently come out, generally on television. Before
then it was left to parents and what little health education schools had to offer. To
address the problem and find a resolution, society must determine what causes or what
drives teenagers to use drugs. In the case of teenage drug use the problem has been
identified but the causes are still speculative. The most successful way to combat teenage
drug use is to determine the credited source or sources and target them for reformation or
elimination.
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 2/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
As a new focus on the problem of drug use, this research paper will look at the
root of societal drug use by concentrating on the youth. This research paper will examine
what causes teenagers to use drugs.
LITERATURE REVIEW
There has been little attention to religion and its affects on drug use. Some
research has argued that religion plays an important role in social conformity (Tittle and
Welch 1983). Social conformity can influence perceptions of drug use. Religion relates to
social conformity in that it has the ability to teach the youth what is socially acceptable.
We know by our laws that drug use is not socially acceptable and is actually frowned
upon. However, the findings by Tittle and Welch support religion as a means of social
conformity only when the society is characterized by certain conditions. These conditions
are low social conformity, perceptions of low peer conformity, and a large proportion of
religious non-affiliates (Tittle and Welch 1983). What they are saying is that religion can
play an important role in social conformity only if a large portion of society has low
social integration, the factor of society are not stronger than the factors of religion.
Religion is also thought to bring meaning to life and build friendships through
social interaction and bonding (Anastasio et al. 1998). The first idea presented here is that
religion will provide a better appreciation for life and as a result teens would be less
likely to use drugs since they would hold their life in higher value. The value of life can
also come from bonding with other youths. So value of life and bonding can evolve from
one another. The second idea, bonding, is important in that attitudes and values about
drugs can be passed on. Bonding in church also has an indirect effect on parent-
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 3/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
adolescent relationships (Anastasio et al. 1998). Youths in a church setting can make
friends and become involved in peer groups that do not use drugs. It is also worthy to
note that peer groups can be formed with an accepted value of abstinence from drugs.
These forms of religious activities have a strong effect preventing deviant behavior (Tittle
and Welch 1983). Church communities can play a role in program development about
drug education. A church community-based program targeting family resilience can
prevent youth drug abuse (Berbaum et al. 1998). In conclusion, religious activities can
prevent and reduce the likelihood of youth drug use by way of appreciation of life,
friendships made through religious social interaction, and by adopting a standard of
values the is negative towards drug use that is accepted by youths (Anastasio et al. 1998;
Berbaum et al. 1998; Tittle and Welch 1983).
Belief systems are a major part of religion. These belief systems play an important
role in reinforcing individual beliefs about drug use (Anastasio 1998) When an individual
is actively part of a church they are, in a sense, belonging to a community. If a set of
beliefs is accepted by a community then those who belong to the community are more
prone to adopt those beliefs. This idea ties to Tittle and Welch’s (1983) results where
religion builds social conformity. Therefore, the restrictions that Tittle and Welch put on
the applications of their results would extend and be applicable to more societies not
exhibiting the conditions they stated (Tittle and Welch 1983).
Most research done on youth drug abuse has been focused on family variables
(Abbott et al2002.; Denton and Kampfe 1994; Robertson and Simons 1989). Family
interaction is a common determinant of youth drug abuse. Family interaction is defined as
involvement with family, communication, and discipline (Denton and Kampfe 1994).
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 4/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Inattentiveness and neglect to teens can make them feel unwanted or uncared for. Teens
who feel a rejection by their family will often turn to drugs. They may also associate with
deviant peer groups who use drugs. Weak bonds to family and strong bonds to deviant
peers are associated with substance abuse (Robertson and Simons 1989). However, in this
case parent-teen relation is indirectly related to teen drug abuse. The teens drive to use
drugs is brought by their deviant peer group, but the association with the deviant peer
group is the result of poor parent-teen relations. Some researches argue that biggest
influence of adolescent drug use is having friends who do drugs (Anastasio, Bahr, and
Johnson 1986). What this research fails to connect is the relationship between family and
the deviant peer group. The parent-teen relationship affects “the parent’s ability to
influence his/her child’s friendship choices” (Robertson and Simons 1989). Robertson
and Simons (1989) argue that a child is less likely to care about their parent’s opinions
when there is a poor relationship between them. Hence, their choice of friends may not be
reflective of their parents.
Research has had mixed findings on the parental discipline and its impact on
adolescent drug use. Teens that use drugs may have parents with a permissive attitude or
that uses excessive control (Denton and Kampfe 1994). However, some research has
shown that higher family monitoring and consistent discipline lowers the risk of
adolescent drug abuse (Abbott, Catalano, Guo, Hawkins, and Hill 2002). The conflicting
findings cannot show that discipline or lack of discipline effects adolescent drug use.
The most important family variable in teen drug use is family bonding and
communication. Low levels of family conflict and a warm supporting family are at lower
risk for teen drug use (Abbott et al 2002). Communication builds trust and strengthens
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 5/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
the bond between parents and children. The importance of bonding is that the parent
becomes more involved with the child life. The child may also accept the parent’s
decisions more. The quality of a peer group can be affected by a strong parent-teen
relationship created by bonding (Denton and Kampfe 1994). When there is parent-child
bonding youths are more likely to respect, listen to, and have a desire to please their
parents (Anastasio et al. 1998). Bonding may also help youths resist outside influences on
drugs (Anastasio et al. 1998)
HYPOTHESIS
The literature covered here suggests that religion plays an important role in
teenage drug use. Religion is a protecting factor against drug use for adolescents
(Bachman et al. 2003). Some researchers have found that religion, church, and religious
activities decrease the likelihood and prevent the use of drugs by teenager’s teenage
(Anastasio et al. 1998; Tittle and Welch 1983; Bachman et al. 2003). Religious views and
values that church communities condemn the use of drugs. Therefore, involvement in a
religion or religious activities by an individual would provide them with the education
and peer groups, as well as positive social forces, to deter them from drug use. It has been
suggested that social forces are a determinant of drug use (Anastasio, Bahr, and Johnson
1986) . Religion and religious activities create their own set of social norms parallel with
society. Social forces are just as strong at work in a religious atmosphere as they are in
society. So if social forces influence teenagers to use drugs then they can also deter
teenagers from using them as well. Communication between parents and teenagers open
up discussions for issues about drug use to be talked about more. Talking about drugs
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 6/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
with teens lets a parent know if their teen is at risk. Bonding can strengthen in a religious
setting between parents and children (Anastasio et al. 1998). By looking at a teenagers
frequency of attendance at church and their drug use, we can determine the extend to
which religious participation effects drug abuse. Examining the relationship between teen
drug use and religion, I propose the following hypothesis:
In comparing teenagers, those who have low religious participation will be more
likely to use drugs than those who have high religious participation.
Much of the research done on teenagers who use drugs focuses on family factors
as predictors of drug use. Research has shown that weak family bonding has influenced
teen drug use (Denton and Kampfe 1994). Family factors may directly or indirectly
influence teenage drug use. Anastasio, Bahr and Johnson (1986) find that the most
influential predictor of drug use is peers that use drugs. On the other hand, Robertson and
Simons (1989) find that what leads teens to drug using peer groups is the quality of the
parent-child relationship. It is important to note that it has been found that few gender and
racial differences exist when examining the possible causes of teen drug use (Abbott et al.
2002; Bachman et al. 2003). Also parental drug use has minimal effects on the drug use
of teens (Denton and Kampfe 1994; Robertson and Simons 1989). Family plays a role in
education about drugs and abstinence from deviant peer groups. The role of family and
the connection between family members seems to have a large impact on youth drug use.
By examining the communication between parents and teens we can determine the level
of family bonding to determine the extend to which bonding affects drug use.
Acknowledging the importance of family I propose the following hypothesis to be true:
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 7/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
In comparing teenagers, those who have strong family bonding will be less likely
to use drugs than those with weak family bonding..
Data and Methods
The data that will be used to test these hypotheses is data from the Harris 1970
Youth Survey no. 2047, which was extracted from the archive of The Odum Institute.
The producer of the questionnaire was Louis Harris and Associates which was distributed
by the Louis Harris Data Center at the University of North Carolina. The data was
collected from a cross-sectional sample of young people ages 15-21 years old living in
the United States. Included in this cross-section is a sample of U.S. college students. The
total cross-sectional sample was 1,223 respondents. The questionnaire focused on such
issues as family, morals, religion, parents, attitudes, drugs and education, just to name a
few. The total number of questions asked was 41 with various subsections. There was
also an additional section labeled ‘F’ with 11 questions. The goal of this questionnaire
was to examine young persons, ages 15-21, opinions about different social issues. The
data was collected with a face to face interview using the questionnaire.
The variables that were used from this survey to test my hypotheses were drugs,
communication with parents, and church attendance. The dependent variable that was
used, drugs, is a nominal level variable that is coded 0 for ‘NO’ and 1 for ‘YES’. The
way this variable is defined is does the respondent spend money on drugs. According to
the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, indicators of teen drug use include youth spending
money on drugs (Tom Corbett, 2005). Therefore, this variable that focuses on youth
spending on drugs is appropriate for this analysis. The first independent variable,
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 8/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
communication with parents, is defined as trouble communicating with parents. This
variable is coded 1 for ‘have trouble communicating’, 2 for ‘do not have trouble
communicating’, and 3 for ‘don’t know’. The second independent variable, church
attendance, refers to the frequency in which one attends church or a synagogue. This
variable is coded 1 for ‘attend regularly’, 2 for ‘don’t attend regularly’, and 3 for ‘don’t
know’.
Results
The dependent variable, drug spending, received few responses of ‘yes’. The
number of respondents who responded ‘yes’ was 3.5% which is shown in Table 1. Since
the dependent variable is nominal, the mode is used to calculate the central tendency of 0.
Note that the response 0 codes for ‘NO’. Figure 1 shows that there is little dispersion on
this variable and that 96.5% responded 0 ‘NO’ and 3.5% responded 1 ‘YES’.
The first independent variable, communication with parents, had moderate
dispersion as shown in Figure 2. This variable is nominal so the central tendency used is
the mode. Taking a look at Figure 1, the mode is 2 which is ‘do not have trouble’. This
was the response given by 65.9% of the respondents. The percentage that responded
‘have trouble” was 32.3%.
The second independent variable, attend church/synagogue’, had equal dispersion
across the two categories of ‘attend regularly’ and ‘don’t attend regularly’ (see Figure 3).
This variable is nominal and the median is used for central tendency which is 2, ‘don’t
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 9/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
attend regularly’, as is shown in Table 1. Those who attend regularly was 49.1% and
those who don’t attend regularly was 50.1%
The third category will not get attention for this analysis due to its low number of
respondents. It is important to remember that this analysis will look at the effects of
religious attendance on drug use and not those who don’t know if the attend church. This
category will be treated a missing values. The same situation is also applied to the ‘don’t
know’ category for communication with parents.
Table 5 is a cross tabulation that examines the relationship between
communication with parents and drugs spending. The results show that those who have
trouble communicating with their parents have a higher percentage of drug spending than
those who do not have trouble communicating with their parents. 5.3% of those who have
trouble communicating with their parents spend money on drugs while 2.5% of those
who do not have trouble communicating with their parents use drugs. It is clear from
Table 5 results that those having trouble communicating with their parents are more
likely to use drugs that those that do not have trouble communicating with their parents.
The Cramer’s V indicates that the relationship is weak, with a value of .086. However,
the relationship is statistically significant, with a P value of .011.
Very similar results were found in the cross tabulation of church/synagogue
attendance and drug spending. Table 6 shows the relationship where those who attend
church/synagogue regularly have a lower percentage of drug spending than those who
don’t attend regularly. Of those who attend regularly only 1.3% spend on drugs as
opposed to 5.7% of those who don’t attend regularly. The relationship is moderate with a
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 10/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Cramer’s V of .119 and is statistically significant at the .000 level. Both of these cross
tabulations are consistent with the hypotheses.
I now turn to the multivariate analysis to examine the relationships of the
independent variables and dependent variable, with each independent variable held
constant for the other. Table 7 examines the relationship between drug spending and
communication with parents with church/synagogue attendance as the control. At both
categories of church/synagogue attendance those having trouble communicating are still
more likely to spend on drug than those that do not have trouble communicating. Located
in Table 8 are the tests of statistical significance and measures of association from this
cross tabulation. The controlled comparison at the category of attend regularly is not
statistically significant because of a level of .760. However, the category of don’t attend
regularly has a level of .033 which is statistically significant. The Cramer’s V shows that
the relationship, controlling for don’t attend regularly, is moderate with a value of .106.
The value of the controlled attend regularly is .030 which is weak and irrelevant because
it is not statistically significant.
The second cross tabulation (Table 9) compared the relationship between drug
spending and church/synagogue attendance controlling for communication shows that
those who attend regularly are less likely to use drugs, at both categories of the control,
than those who don’t attend regularly. Unlike the previous cross tabulation, both
controlled comparisons were statistically significant with levels of .037 and .030. The
Cramer’s V is .129 showing that the relationship was stronger in the category of ‘have
trouble’. The Cramer’s V for the ‘don’t have trouble’ category is .093 which is weak.
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 11/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Discussion
These findings conclude that there is no relationship in the population between
drug spending and communication except for those who don’t attend church/synagogue
regularly. The statistical level of .076 confirms that this is not statistically significant and
therefore the null hypothesis has to be accepted. Turning to Table 7, the difference on
drug spending for those who don’t attend regularly differs 3.7 percentage points between
those who have trouble communicating and those who don’t. The Cramer’s V in Table 8
for those who don’t attend regularly shows that there is a moderate relationship. However,
the relationship in the population is only at this category and not those who attend
regularly.
There is a relationship in the population between religious attendance and drug
spending. The Cramer’s V for religious attendance shown in Table 6 is .119, while Table
10 shows the relationship to be stronger for trouble with communicating (.129) and
weaker for don’t have trouble (.093). The impact is strongest for religious attendance for
those who have trouble communicating than those who don’t. This relationship is also
interactive. The relationship between the religious attendance and drug spending depends
on the category of communication. Table 9 shows that the difference in drug spending
for those having trouble communicating differs by 5.4 percentage points between those
who regularly attend and those that don’t. The difference in drug spending for those who
do not have trouble communicating differs by 2.9 percentage points between those who
regularly attend and those that don’t.
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 12/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Conclusion
The results from the analysis of the relationship between communication and drug
spending do not support the hypothesis. Lack of communication does not increase drug
spending except for those who don’t attend church/synagogues regularly. Therefore, the
hypothesis cannot be fully supported and must be rejected. One could conclude that those
who don’t attend church/synagogues regularly and have trouble communicating are more
likely to spend on drugs than those that don’t attend church/synagogues regularly and
don’t have trouble communicating. Communication by itself is not a sufficient predictor
of drug abuse by itself. This is partially contrary to the findings of Abbott et al 2002 and
Denton and Kampfe 1994. They find that the main contributing factors to drug use are
lack of family communication and bonding. I say that the findings above are partially
contrary because there were other variables that these other studies used to determine the
effects of family. The results in this analysis show that communication itself is not a good
predictor of teenage drug use. However, these finding do coincide with the study done by
Anastasio et al. 1998. This study looked at family bonding through religious activity,
which confirms a portion of my second hypothesis.
The results from the analysis of the relationship between religious attendance and
drug spending do confirm my hypothesis. There is a moderate relationship between drug
spending and religious attendance. The results from Table 9 can clearly show that those
who that attend church/synagogues regularly are less likely than those to spend on drugs
than those who don’t attend regularly. The communication variable is interactive in this
relationship. Figure 4 is a multiple line graph that shows the relationship between the
three variables. 7.76% spend on drugs of those who don’t attend church/Sinagogues
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 13/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
regularly and have trouble communication. 1.86% spend on drugs of those who attend
regularly and have trouble communicating. Clearly religious attendance has a major
impact, having 5.9 percentage points drop when one attends church/synagogue regularly.
The graph also shows the different values at different categories of each independents
variable further portraying the interactive relation. The findings show that the relationship
is stronger for those who have trouble communicating. This concludes that those who
don’t attend church/synagogues regularly and have trouble communicating with their
parents are more likely than those who do attend church/synagogues regularly and have
trouble communicating with their parents to spend on drugs. Those who don’t attend
church/synagogues regularly and have trouble communicating with their parents are more
likely to spend on drugs than those who don’t attend church/synagogues regularly and
don’t have trouble communicating with their parents. The findings support Tittle and
Welch’s study as well as Bachman et al. Religion does have an impact on teenage drug
spending.
Some other factors may contribute to family communication and is influence on
drug use. Communication may not be a sufficient enough form of family bonding to
influence drug use. The studies noted in this research acknowledge the role of family
bonding. What type of bonding and the effects on drug use need further investigation.
The dependent variable may have assumed too much that teens spend money on drug. It
is possible that this variable failed to notice that some teens receive drugs for free,
consequently excluding them from what the variable was intended to measure.. However,
there is sufficient evidence that religion plays an important role in whether teens use
drugs or not. The actual causes are unknown, but it is though that peer groups formed in a
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 14/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
religious setting seems to hold major influence on one another in their decision to use
drugs. There are many other factors that lead to drug use such as peer groups, parents
who use drugs, lack of discipline, and gateway drugs. More research has to be done to
find what the most important factor contributing to teenage drug abuse. Only then can the
bulk of the problem be targeted.
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 15/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Table 1: Central Tendency for All Variables
Spend Money on
Drugs
Communicating
with Your Parents
Attend
Church/Synagogue
Regularly
Mode No Do not have trouble Don’t attend
regularlyMedian No Do not have trouble Don’t attend
regularly
Table 2: Frequency Distribution for Spend Money on Drugs
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Valid No 1180 96.5 96.5 96.5
Yes 43 3.5 3.5 100.0
Total 1223 100.0 100.0
Table 3: Frequency Distribution for Communicating with Your Parents
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Valid Have trouble 395 32.3 32.4 32.4
Do not have trouble 806 65.9 66.1 98.4
Not sure 19 1.6 1.6 100.0
Total 1220 99.8 100.0
Missing System 3 .2
Total 1223 100.0
Table 4: Frequency Distribution for Attend Church/Synagogue Regularly
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Valid Attend regularly 604 49.4 49.5 49.5
Don t attend regularly 613 50.1 50.2 99.7
Not sure 4 .3 .3 100.0
Total 1221 99.8 100.0
Missing System 2 .2
Total 1223 100.0
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 16/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Figure 2 Bar Chart of Communicating with Your Parents
Not sure Do not have trouble Have trouble
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1.56%
66.07%
32.38%
Figure 1: Bar Chart of Spend Money on Drugs
Yes No
100
80
60
40
20
0
P e r c e n t
3.52%
96.48%
P e r c e n t
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 17/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Table 5: Bivariate Crosstab between Spend Money on Drugs and Communicating with
Your Parents
374 786 17 1177
94.7% 97.5% 89.5% 96.5%
21 20 2 435.3% 2.5% 10.5% 3.5%
395 806 19 1220
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
No
Yes
Spend Moneyof Drugs
Total
Have troubleDo not have
trouble Not sure
Communicating with Your Parents
Total
Note: Chi-square = 9.094; p<.011. Lambda = .000; Cramer’s V = .086
Figure 3: Bar Chart of Attend Church/Synagogue Regularly
Not sure Don t attend regularly Attend regularly
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P e r c e n t
50.2% 49.47%
0.33%
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 18/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Table 6: Bivariate Crosstab between Spend Money on Drugs and AttendingChurch/Synagogue Regularly
596 578 4 117898.7% 94.3% 100.0% 96.5%
8 35 0 43
1.3% 5.7% .0% 3.5%
604 613 4 1221
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count%
Count
%
Count
%
No
Yes
Spend Moneyon Drugs
Total
Attendregularly
Don t attendregularly Not sure
Attend Church/Synagogue Regularly
Total
Note: Chi-square = 17.365; p<.000. Lambda = .000; Cramer’s V = .119
Table 7: Multivariate Crosstab between Spend Money on Drugs and Communicating
With Your Parents, Controlling for Attend Church/ Synagogue Regularly
158 429 7 5
98.1% 98.8% 100.0% 98.
3 5 0
1.9% 1.2% .0% 1.
161 434 7 6
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.
214 354 9 5
92.2% 95.9% 81.8% 94.
18 15 2
7.8% 4.1% 18.2% 5.
232 369 11 6
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.
1 2 1
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.
1 2 1
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
No
Yes
Spend Moneyon Drugs
Total
No
Yes
Spend Moneyon Drugs
Total
NoSpend Moneyon Drugs
Total
AttendChurch/SynagogueRegularly
Attend regularly
Don t a ttend regularly
Not sure
Have troubleDo not have
trouble Not sure
Communicating wi th Yor P arents
Tota
Table 8: Statistical Significance and Measures of Association for Multivariate Crosstab
between Spend Money on Drugs and Communicating with Your Parents,Controlling for Attend Church/Synagogue Regularly
Chi-square/Sig. Lambda Cramer’s V
Attend Regularly .548
p< .760
.000 .030
Don’t Attend
Regularly
6.831
p< .033
.011 .106
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 19/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Table 9: Multivariate Crosstab between Spend Money on Drugs and AttendChurch/Synagogue Regularly, Controlling for Communication with
Your Parents
158 214 1 373
98.1% 92.2% 100.0% 94.7%
3 18 0 21
1.9% 7.8% .0% 5.3%
161 232 1 394
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
429 354 2 785
98.8% 95.9% 100.0% 97.5%
5 15 0 20
1.2% 4.1% .0% 2.5%
434 369 2 805
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
7 9 1 17
100.0% 81.8% 100.0% 89.5%
0 2 0 2
.0% 18.2% .0% 10.5%
7 11 1 19
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
No
Yes
Spend Moneyon Drugs
Total
No
Yes
Spend Moneyon Drugs
Total
No
Yes
Spend Moneyon Drugs
Total
Communicating withYour Parents
Have trouble
Do not have trouble
Not sure
Attendregularly
Don t attendregularly Not sure
Attend Church/Sinagogue Regularly
Total
Table 10: Significance and Measures of Association for Multivariate Crosstab
between Spend Money on Drugs and Attend Church/Sinagogue Regularly,Controlling for Communicating with Your Parents
Chi-Square/Sig. Lambda Cramer’s V
Have Trouble6.603
p = .037.000 .129
Don’t have Trouble7.036
p =.030.000 .093
Not Sure
1.626
P = .444 .000 .293
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 20/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
Figure 4: Multivariate Line Chart of Spend Money on Drugs by Attend
Church/Sinagogue Regularly and Communicating with Your Parents
N ot sureD onot havet r oubl eH avet r ouble
CommunicatingwithYourParents
20. 00
15. 00
10. 00
5. 00
0. 00
Y e s ( R ) S p e n d s M o n e y o n D r u g s
0.0%0.0%0.0%
18.18%
4.07%7.76%
0.0%1.15%1.86%
N ot sure
D ont at tend
regul ar ly
At t endregular ly
AttendChurch/Sinagogue
Regularly
__
8/8/2019 Statistical Analysis of What Causes Drug Use
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/statistical-analysis-of-what-causes-drug-use 21/21
Research Paper by Eddie Terrenzi
REFERENCES
Abbott, Robert D., Richard F. Catalano, Jie Guo, David Hawkins, and Karl G. Hill. 2002.“A Developmental Analysis of Sociodemographic, Family, and Peer Effects on
Adolescence Illicit Drug Initiation.” Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry. 47.7: 838(8).
Anastasios, Marcos C., Stephen J. Bahr, and Richard E. Johnson. 1998. “Family,
Religiosity, and the Risk of Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of Marriage and the
Family 60: 979-992.
Anastasios, Marcos C., Stephen J. Bahr,Suzanne L. Maughan, Bindoa Li. 1986. “Test of
a Bonding/Association Theory of Adolescence Drug Use.” Social Forces 65:
131-161.
Bachman, Jerald G., Tony N. Brown, Thomas A. Laveist, and John M. Wallace Jr. 2003
“The Influences of Race and Religion on Abstinence from Alcohol, Cigarettes,and Marijuana among Adolescence.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64.6: 843(6).
Berbaum, Michael, Denise D. Bryant, David A. Collins, Knowlton Johnson, Tim D. Noe,
and Ted N. Strader. 1998. “Preventing and Reducing Alcohol and other DrugsUse Among High-Risk Youth by Increasing Family Resilience.” Social Work 43:
297(12).
Denton, Rhonda E. and Charlene M. Kampfe. 1994. “The Relationship Between FamilyVariables and Adolescent Substance Abuse: A literature Review.” Adolescence
29: 475(21).
Robertson, Joan F., and Ronald L. Simons. 1989. “The Impact of Parenting Factors,Deviant Peers, and Coping Style upon Adolescent Drug Use.” Family Relations
38: 273-281.
Tittle, Charles R. and Michael R. Welch. 1983. “Religiosity and Deviance: Toward aContingency Theory of Constraining Effects.” Social Forces 61: 653-682.
Corbet, Tom. Pennsylvania Attorney General. “Know the Signs: Drug and Alcohol
Abuse in Children”. Office of the Attorney GeneralBrochure. www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Drugs/signs.pdf