Psychology 350: Adolescence
11-8-00
Guest lectures: Dr. John Schulenberg & Dr. Tabbybe Chavous
Purpose and Overview
(1) Identify trajectories of binge drinking
during transition
(2) Examine differences according to college student
status and experiences
(3) Focus on full-time 4-year college students who are
initial non-binge drinkers:
- Predict divergence
- Correlates and consequences of different patterns
The Monitoring the Future (MTF) Project
- Funded by NIDA
- Substance use and adjustment among youth
- Annual surveys of high school seniors since 1975
Nationally representative samples
~17,000 students/year from ~135 public and private high schools
In-school administration of questionnaires
Panel component
Follows ~2,400 high school seniors from each cohort into young adulthood on biennial basis with mail surveys up to age 32
MTF Binge Drinking Trajectories
- Multi-cohort, multi-wave national panel data
16 cohorts (1976 - 1991)
4 waves: modal ages of 18, 20, 22 & 24
Weighted N ~ 16,200
Binge drinking = 5+ drinks in a row/last 2 weeks
Frequent = at least twice in last two weeks
Binge drinking trajectory groups
Based on conceptualizations, cluster analysis, logical decision rules
Chronic, Decreased, Rare, Increased, Fling, and Never groups
Prevalence of Trajectories: Total and by Gender
Prevalence of Trajectories:
Full-time 4-year College Student Status
Prevalence of Trajectories: College Students
- Living arrangements/Greek status
- Ethnicity
- Size of university
- Drop-out status
Wave 1 (Age 18) Predictors of Divergence
Male, white, lower conventionality,
higher drink to get drunk, more evenings out
White, more evenings out
Male
Wave 2 (Age 20) Psychosocial Differences
-higher risk taking
-lower social conservatism
-lower religious importance
-higher social intolerance/
apathy
-more risky driving
-more delinquency
-more substance use
-higher drink to get drunk
-more friends get drunk
-more evenings out and dating
-Greek involvement
Age 30 Psychosocial Differences
- No differences between Fling and Rare:
- Increase vs. Fling/Rare:
- more binge drinking - more risky driving
- less likely to be married - more substance use
- higher risk taking - higher drink to get drunk
- lower religious importance - more friends get drunk
- higher social intolerance - more evenings out
Summary
Binge drinking increases for college students
Only modest success in predicting divergence in advance
Wave 2 (age 20) psychosocial differences:
Fling and Increased are very similar
Rare is quite different from Fling and Increased
Age 30 psychosocial differences:
Rare and Fling are very similar
Increased is quite different from Rare and Fling
Adolescent Development and The Juvenile Justice System: Do Youths’ Crimes Make Them Adults?
Tabbye M. Chavous
Points to Cover
- Adolescence as a "Problem" for Researchers and Policy Makers
- Evolution of Juvenile Justice System
- Adolescence and Culpability: Do Actions Define Adulthood?
- A Developmental Approach to Assessing Competence and Maturity
- Implications for Research, Policy, and Intervention?
Adolescence as a "Problem" for Researchers and Policy Makers
adolescents have been classified with younger children as minors legally
"mixed messages" exist in family, school, and legal domains about what constitutes adulthood
relatively little sound scientific information about adolescence available until recently
Juvenile Justice and Adolescents
central concept of the juvenile justice system is treatment that represents "the best interests of children"
Before the turn of the century, all children under 7 considered incapable of crime; children 7-14 years could be treated as adults if courts decided; all youth 14 or above considered adult
juvenile court established in 1899 (Illinois Act) with rehabilitation as the primary goal
underlying premise - because of their immaturity, children do not bear the same culpability as adults
A "New" Era in Juvenile Justice
- By the 1950s, criticism of courts had developed due to inconsistency in judgement guidelines and retributive nature of juvenile facilities
- The case of In re Gault (1967) - Youth were given due process rights
- Reflected view of youth's similarity to adults
- More recently, other events have changed societal perceptions of youth
- Publicized increase in violent crime among adolescents
- High profile cases of adolescent violence
- Youth violence portrayed as normative by media
The Results? Current State Of Juvenile Justice System
- lowering of age of juvenile transfer
- lengthening of sentences past 21
- increase in juvenile transfers without hearings
Has this approach been effective?
- recidivism rates higher for transfer than non-transfer youth
- stronger endorsement of death penalty for youth 16 years of age or lower
Adolescents and Culpability: Do Actions Define Adulthood?
Competence
- Under criminal law, a competent adult is "a person 18 or older who is a rational actor, autonomously choosing to 'do the bad act' " (Bonnie et al., 1997)
- assumption that competence is related to maturity, but it is unclear how maturity is defined or used in theory or practice in legal contexts
- Psychological research defines maturity in terms of ability to make decisions about one's own actions, i.e., cognitive capability
- Unclear picture provided by this research
- methodological and conceptual limitations (sampling, generalizabilty, validity)
- Grisso (1981) found that adolescents 15 and above of average intelligence were able to understand their Miranda rights as well as adults
- Cowden & McKee (1995) found that juveniles aged 12-17 did not score as well as adults on standard competence measures
A Developmental Approach to Assessing Competence and Maturity
Some researchers offer frameworks for assessing adolescent competence and maturity that integrate both cognitive and non-cognitive factors (e.g., Scott, Woolard, & Reppucci, 1995)
- Influence of Others: Conformity - impact of peer influence and vulnerability to peer pressure differs for adolescents
- Risk Perception: Adolescents may think of risk differently
- Temporal Perspective: Adolescents tend to weigh more heavily the short-term versus long-term consequences
Biological evidence also points to differences in brain maturity
Variations in Maturity among Adolescents
- socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and IQ tend to affect a variety of decision-making components
- meaning of risk and risky behavior
- opportunities to make decisions
- the level of risk exposure
- access to information
- antisocial activity as less risky alternative
- criminal conduct/antisocial behavior as a normative part of adolescent development
Implications for Research, Policy, and Intervention?
- Examining interaction of context and development is crucial
- Research using appropriate samples of juvenile offenders matched with "normal" nonoffenders on age, gender, and ethnicity; and comparison samples of legal adults
- Integrating psychology and legal practice requires that the fields "speak the same language" (clarity in defining and measuring legal policies)
How Should This Information be Used In Legal Policy and Decision Making?
- Should developmental immaturity be a mitigating circumstance in any crime that occurs?
- If so, does this alter how we should judge adolescents’ autonomy, free will, and rational choice (the standards by which adults are judged) in their criminal actions?
- Are there certain criminal acts for which developmental immaturity should not be considered?
- Which factor should "hold more weight" in decisions around legal responsibility: age or developmental immaturity? How do we decide which one to "weight" most heavily?
- How might cultural, ethnic, social class, and/or gender factors (among others) make assessing developmental immaturity difficult?
Return to psychology 350 home page