Selection and Socialization of Drinking Among Young Adult Dating, Cohabiting, And Married Partners

8/13/2019 Selection and Socialization of Drinking Among Young Adult Dating, Cohabiting, And Married Partners

1/20

http://spr.sagepub.com/Relationships

Journal of Social and Personal

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/0265407510380083

November 20102011 28: 182 originally published online 18Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

S. HarrisJacquelyn D. Wiersma, Judith L. Fischer, H. Harrington Cleveland, Alan Reifman and Kitty

cohabiting, and married partnersSelection and socialization of drinking among young adult dating,

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Relationship Research

can be found at:Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsAdditional services and information for

http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 18, 2010OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Mar 30, 2011Version of Record>>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 7, 2012spr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://spr.sagepub.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.iarr.org/http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182.refs.htmlhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/17/0265407510380083.full.pdfhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/17/0265407510380083.full.pdfhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182.full.pdfhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182.full.pdfhttp://spr.sagepub.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/17/0265407510380083.full.pdfhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182.full.pdfhttp://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.iarr.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/content/28/2/182http://spr.sagepub.com/


2/20

Article

Selection and socializationof drinking among youngadult dating, cohabiting,and married partners

Jacquelyn D. Wiersma

1

, Judith L. Fischer

2

,H. Harrington Cleveland3, Alan Reifman2, and

Kitty S. Harris2

Abstract

This study examines associations among adolescent drinking, young adult drinking, andromantic partner drinking through selection and socialization processes in young adult

dating, cohabiting, and marital relationships. Hierarchical regression analyses, using datafrom The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (n 1132), demonstratedsignificant selection and socialization effects for young adult romantic partner drinking.Moderating effects indicated that romantic partner drinking significantly predicted youngadult drinking within dating and cohabiting relationships, but not within married rela-tionships. Both young adult women and men had positive associations between theirown and partners drinking, but this association was significantly stronger for males.Continuing to study the effects of romantic partners on risky behaviors during adoles-cence and young adults is warranted.

Keywords

alcohol use, cohabitation, dating, marriage, romantic relationships, selection,socialization, young adults

1 University of Arkansas, USA2 Texas Tech University, USA3

The Pennsylvania State University, USA

Corresponding author:

Jacquelyn D. Wiersma, School of Human Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas 118 HOEC,

Fayetteville, AR 72701-1201 USA

Email: [email protected]

J S P R

Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships

28(2) 182200 The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0265407510380083

spr.sagepub.com

182

http://spr.sagepub.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/http://spr.sagepub.com/


3/20

Heavy and problematic drinking by young adults poses serious public health threats,

putting individuals at risk. Alcohol is a factor in many young adult injuries, physical

assaults, sexual assaults (Hingson, Heeren, Zakocs, Kopstein, & Wechsler, 2002), and,

most notably, traffic fatalities (Yi, Williams, & Smothers, 2004). Previous studies onyoung adult drinking behaviors focused on myriad factors, including individual char-

acteristics (e.g., sensation seeking; Magid, MacLean, & Colder, 2007), the social context

(e.g., exposure to parental and peer drinking; Fromme & Ruela, 1994; Poelen, Scholte,

Willemsen, Boomsma, & Engels, 2007), and college environments (Arnett, 2005).

Noticeably absent is consideration of romantic relationships. Given that young adult

romantic and alcohol-use experiences are formative life choices, understanding these

experiences and how they are related are important tasks.

It is important to understand late adolescents and young adults development and

well-being (Paul, Poole, & Jakubowyc, 1998) and the central role romantic relationships

play in that development (Gilmartin, 2005). Drinking behaviors (Fischer, Fitzpatrick, &

Cleveland, 2007) and the congruence (or discrepancy) of couple drinking patterns

for married (Roberts & Leonard, 1998) and dating couples (Wiersma, Fischer, &

Fitzpatrick, 2009) affect relationship quality. Here, we consider selection and socialization

effects as part of a larger endeavor to better understand associations between alcohol use and

young adults romantic partnerships. After considering selection and socialization, we

discuss these social processes on young adult drinking. Relationship type (i.e., dating,

cohabiting, married) and gender are believed to form important interpersonal contexts for

couple drinking.

Selection and socialization processes

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) illustrates how selection and socialization

combine to influence young adults romantic relationships and alcohol use. Romantic

relationships may predict young adult drinking through identification, interaction, and

imitation processes in acquiring new and reinforcing old alcohol-use behaviors

(Bandura, 1969; Bandura & Walters, 1963). Similarity in peer and romantic relationship

includes two processes: selection and socialization. Selection refers to the influence of

individual characteristics that attract adolescents and young adults toward particular

experiences or people (Ennett & Bauman, 1994; Kandel, 1978; Pascarella & Terenzini,

1991). Socialization refers to the influences of experiences or people on the individual

(e.g., Kandel, 1978; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991).

Selection effects

Selection effects for alcohol use appear for adolescent peer groups (Ennett & Bauman,

1994; Fisher & Bauman, 1988; Kandel, 1978) and young adult peer groups (McCabe,

Schulenberg, & Johnston, 2005; Reifman, Watson, & McCourt, 2006). In peer selection,individuals choose and keep friends whose behaviors and beliefs are similar to their own

(Sieving, Perry, & Williams, 2000). Considerable research has explored who befriends

whom in childhood and adolescence. In Kandels (1978) research performed over a

school year, some friendships formed at the beginning of the year had many prior

Wiersma et al. 183

183



4/20

behavioral similarities, including drug use. Information from stable friendships,

friends-to-be, and former friends allowed Kandel to examine similarities and divergences

in drug use before friendships formed, during friendships, and after the friendship died.

Adolescents coordinate their friendship choices and behaviors by breaking off friendshipsdissimilar in drug behaviors and keeping friendships similar in drug behaviors, because

adolescents enjoy affiliating with similar peers (see Newcomb, 1961). Using longitudinal

social network analyses, Ennett and Bauman (1994) and Fisher and Bauman (1988) found

that smokers and drinkers (compared with non-smokers and non-drinkers) were more likely

to acquire smoker and drinker friends. Similarities between individuals and their peers

drinking appear because individuals seek out peers whose behaviors and beliefs are

consistent with their own (Bullers, Cooper, & Russell, 2001).

As individuals transition into young adulthood, heavy drinkers, compared to less

heavy drinkers, are more likely to select peers who drink at similar levels (Parra, Krull, &

Sher, 2007). McCabe et al. (2005) concluded that greater alcohol use precedes entrance

into peer groups, such as sororities and fraternities. Using a three-wave panel design,

Reifman et al. (2006) concluded that college students drinking appeared to be driven

by dropping and adding new friends into their peer group/network. Students earlier

drinking predicted their networks later average drinking. Thus, selecting and deselect-

ing drinking buddies occurred for individuals and their peer groups (Reifman et al.,

2006). Drinking buddies can be extended to drinking partnerships, where individ-

uals select and deselect romantic partners based on drinking.

Socialization effects

Socialization includes approval of drinking and having the same interest in drinking,

which can encourage continued behavior (Bandura, 1977). Socialization effects for

alcohol consumption appear among peer groups in adolescence (Kandel, 1978; Wills &

Cleary, 1999) and young adulthood (Lo & Globetti, 1995; McCabe et al., 2005; Reifman

et al., 2006). Socialization also occurs for adolescent friends who shared common drug

use, and socialization effects increased as the length of association between friends

continued (Kandel, 1978). Among stable friends, similarity increased over time and was

highest when partners reciprocated friendships (Kandel, 1978). Thus, these stable friendsinfluence each other over time via the continued friendship. Peer use of adolescent

tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use at one time positively predicted the rate of change in

later adolescent substance use (Wills & Cleary, 1999). Wills and Cleary concluded that

socialization, and not selection, was the primary mechanism to explain adolescent and

peer substance use.

Socialization effects consistently appear in college settings. First-year undergraduate

fraternity and sorority members were more likely than non-members to increase alcohol

use over time (Lo & Globetti, 1995). Similar findings appeared among fraternity and sor-

ority members for heavy episodic drinking and marijuana use over time (McCabe et al.,2005). Finally, young college adults drinking buddies (i.e., the peer network) pre-

dicted individuals later alcohol use (Reifman et al. 2006).

In conclusion, selection proposes that drinkers select partners similar to themselves in

environments where alcohol use is accepted, prevalent, and normative. Once in this

184 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28(2)

184



5/20


6/20

also differ in commitment and shared goals (Givertz & Segrin, 2005; Huston, Surra,

Fitzgerald, & Cate, 1981), which may affect drinking. Examining change in drinking

in one relationship type may not generalize to other relationship types.

In addition to characteristics such as length, commitment, and shared goals, hetero-sexual relationships also reflect gender dynamics (Wood, 2000). Within such marriages,

husbands and wives differentially influence each other. In some cases, influences on

drinking habits appear to work mostly from husband to wife (Jacob & Selhamer, 1982;

Leonard & Eiden, 1999; Leonard & Mudar, 2003). For example, husbands influence

wives alcoholism more so than wives influence husbands (Gomberg, 1976). Moreover,

wives drinking is strongly associated with their perceptions of their husbands drinking

(Hammer & Vaglum, 1989; Wilsnack, Wilsnack, & Klassen, 1984).

Gender dynamics, however, may depend on relationship duration. For example,

husbands premarital alcohol use influenced wives alcohol use after one year of mar-

riage, but wives drinking was not related to their husbands drinking at that point

(Leonard & Eiden, 1999; Leonard & Mudar, 2003). After the second year, however, the

pattern is reversed: wives first-year drinking predicted husbands drinking in the second

year of marriage, but the reverse was not the case (Leonard & Mudar, 2004). Therefore,

relationship duration may be an important moderator of gender differences in drinking

partnerships.

Young adult women and men romantic partners drinking may follow their rela-

tionship roles and needs. Womens alcohol use may reflect motivations to maintain the

relationship (Covington & Surrey, 1997; Leonard & Mudar, 2003), leading women to

adapt their drinking to match their male partner to enhance the relationship (i.e., social

contagion, or one partner producing similar behavior in the other partner; Holmila,

1994). Social contagion would occur if one person copies the lifestyle of higher status

individuals (in Western cultures, typically the wife following the husband; Holmila &

Raitasalo, 2005). Social contagion may be significant in understanding relational

drinking influence. Women are typically described as having stronger relational orien-

tations (Gilligan, 1982) and center time and energy into romantic endeavors. Status

differentials and womens relationships orientation suggests that women are likely more

influenced by romantic partners, particularly in committed relationships. Gender roles

and relationship type should be important moderators in understanding how drinkingamong young adult women and men are affected by their romantic dating, cohabiting,

and married partners.

Hypotheses

This study addresses how young adult drinking is associated with selection and socia-

lization effects for men and women in romantic relationships. We pose six hypotheses.

(1) A selection effect will appear as participants adolescent drinking will be positively

related to romantic partners young adulthood drinking. (2) A selection/socializationeffect will appear as participants young adult drinking would be positively related to

romantic partners young adult drinking. (3) A socialization effect will occur where

partners drinking would be associated with change from participants adolescent

drinking to young adult drinking. Relationship type (dating, cohabiting, married) and


186



7/20

gender will moderate these effects. (4) Relationship type will interact with partner

drinking to predict participant change in drinking. (5) Gender will interact with partner

drinking to predict participant change in drinking. (6) Socialization effects, where

partner drinking predicts change in participant drinking, will vary by relationship typeand gender. Other recognized predictors of young adult drinking, sensation seeking

(Magid et al., 2007), peer and parental alcohol use (Fromme & Ruela, 1994; Poelen et al.,

2007), and college enrollment (Arnett, 2005), were included as control variables. Length

of relationship was controlled in testing socialization hypotheses.

Method

Data were drawn from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add

Health), a school-based, longitudinal study of adolescents health-related behaviors andtheir effects in young adulthood (see Udry, 2003). Wave 1 (N 20,745) was collected

between April and December of 1995. Approximately one year later, Wave II data col-

lection occurred (N 14,738). Wave III data (N 15,197) were collected approximately

six years later, when participants were young adults (1826 years old). Wave III data

included measures of attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes in late adolescence and young

adulthood, particularly focusing on romantic relationships. A random selection of parti-

cipants romantic partners participated in Wave III, yielding 1507 romantic couples.

We used data from Wave I, Wave II, and the couple subsample from Wave III. After

deleting participants and partners with missing drinking data, 1132 participants

remained, and after deletions due to missing control variables data, the final sample size

was n 852. The core sample (n 1132), the socialization hypotheses sample (n

852), and the entire romantic partner subsample (n 1507) did not differ on study

variables.

Nearly half (47%) of participants were males and ages ranged from 18 to 28. For the

core sample (n 1132), the ethnic makeup was White/Caucasian (60%), African

American (15%), Hispanic (12%), Native American (5%), and Asian/Pacific Islander

(8%). Primary respondents age was approximately 15 years old at Wave I (ranging from

12 to 18), 16 at Wave II (1319), and 22 at Wave III (1827; 21.73,SD 1.61). Partner

age ranged from 18 to 30 (M 22.45,SD 2.82).

Both partners reported the month and year that the relationship began to determine

relationship duration. Averaged relationship length (r .55,p< .001) was 24.01 months

(SD 19.80, range 192) for dating couples, 28.02 months (SD 22.60, range 1144)

for cohabitating couples, and 45.03 months (SD 25.52, range 1131) for married

couples. At Wave III, 366 couples were dating (32%), 404 were cohabitating (36%), and

362 were married (32%).

Measures: Control variables

Demographic controls.Control variables included age, race, and education, biological sex,

and length of the relationship. Additional control variables included sensation seeking,

both adolescent and young adult peer drinking, parental drinking, and university

enrollment.

Wiersma et al. 187

187



8/20

Sensation seeking was assessed only at Wave III. For each of seven paired-choice

items, participants chose the sentence that best described them (e.g., I like wild, unin-

hibited parties or I like quiet parties with good conversation. High scores reflected

greater sensation seeking. Scores were averaged (M

.38,SD

.28, a

.67).Parental alcohol use was assessed by two items focusing on participants primary

parent during adolescence (e.g., How often in the last month have you [the parent] had

5 or more drinks on one occasion?) with responses ranging from 1 never, to 6 five

or more times. Items were averaged and only assessed at Wave I (M 1.61,SD .86).

Peer alcohol use was assessed across all three waves by a single item (i.e., Of your

3 best friends, how many drink alcohol at least once a month. Waves I and II report on

adolescent peer drinking (M 1.16,SD 1.01), indicated that 26% of participants had

non-drinking peers, 31% had one drinking peer, 21% had two drinking peers, and for

20%, all three peers were drinkers. At Wave III, with the same measure, 27% of parti-

cipants had non-drinking peers, 20% had one, 16% had two, and 37% had three drinking

peers (M 1.62,SD 1.23). The romantic partner may have been a friend.

Measures: Predictors and outcomes

Alcohol consumption. Participants drinking was assessed at three waves. Wave I and II

data (i.e., adolescence) were averaged (a .89). Partner drinking was assessed only at

Wave III (young adulthood). Frequency, quantity of alcohol consumption, binge

drinking, and getting drunk were assessed. Frequency of alcohol consumption was

assessed with: During the past 12 months, on how many days did you drink alcohol?

(Adolescence: M 1.20,SD 1.35, range 06;Young Adulthood:M 1.97,SD 1.68,

range 06;Partner: M 1.97,SD 1.73, range 06). Binge drinking was assessed with:

During the past 12 months, on how many days did you drink five or more drinks in a

row? (Adolescence: M .75,SD 1.19, range 06;Young Adulthood:M 1.05,SD

1.48, range 06; Partner: M 1.05, SD 1.50, range 06) and getting drunk was

assessed similarly: During the past 12 months, on how many days have you been drunk

or very high on alcohol? (Adolescence: M .75, SD 1.16, range 0 6; Young

Adulthood:M .96,SD 1.29, range 06;Partner: M .60,SD 1.20, range 06).

Response scales ranged from 1 neverto 6 every day or almost every day. Quantity ofalcohol consumption was assessed with: Think of all the times you have had a

drink during the past 12 months. How many drinks did you usually have each time?

(Adolescence: M .24,SD .43, range 05.6;Young Adulthood:M 1.22,SD 1.37,

range 07.02;Partner: M 1.21,SD 1.41, range 07.02). A drink was defined as a

glass of wine, a can of beer, a wine cooler, a shot glass of hard liquor, or a mixed drink.

These measures of drinking (frequency, quantity, binging, drunkenness) offer dif-

ferent information and provide more information than any item alone. Frequency and

quantity assess different elements, but are often used together to assess quantity fre-

quency (Rehm, 1998; Sobell & Sobell, 1995). We included both binging and gettingdrunk in the past 12 months to assess excessive drinking. These four measures accurately

reflect participants drinking levels.

The Wave I and Wave II four drinking measures were standardized and averaged to

assess adolescent drinking, where higher scores indicate more drinking. Young adult


188



9/20

(i.e., Wave III) drinking (a .88) and partner drinking (a .85) were similarly

constructed. Participant drinking change between adolescence and young adulthood was

assessed by entering adolescent drinking as a predictor and young adult drinking as an

outcome. Although change scores and repeated measures were possible, given ourregression analyses, this approach was warranted.

No outliers or excessive skew were found. Demographic variables were centered and

all other variables standardized to avoid multicollinearity in interaction terms. Table 1

presents intercorrelations, means, and standard deviations for all variables.

Results

Preliminary analyses

Couples similarity in sociodemographic characteristics was assessed through absolutedifference scores between partners (Luo et al., 2008). Difference scores on race indicated

whether couples were the same race (e.g., scored as 0) or interracial (1). Participants and

partners were generally similar in race, education, and drinking behavior. Age differ-

ences were significant across all three relationship types. One partner was older by two to

three years.

Hypothesis tests

Hierarchical regression tested hypotheses, including demographic and other control

variables as appropriate.

Young adult drinking. Hypothesis 1 predicted that participants adolescent drinking will

positively predict romantic partners young adulthood drinking. Difference scores on

demographic variables were entered in step 1 and participant adolescent drinking and

participant young adult drinking were added in step 2. Demographic differences

explained little variance (


10/20

Table1.Cor

relations,means,andstandard

deviationsofdemographic,independent,anddependentvar

iables.

1.Diff

inage

2.Diffin

race

3.Diffin

educ

4.Length

5.Rel

type

6.Sex

7.Sensation

seeking

8.Adol

peerdrink

9.YA

peerdrink

10.C

ollege

11.Parent

alcoholuse

12.Adol

drink

13.YA

drink

14.Partner

YA

drink

1

.02

.08*

.004

.10*

.23*

.09*

.03

.12*

.12*

.03

.07*

.06*

.03

2

.03

.06

.05

.04

.01

.02

.004

.04

.003

.02

.01

.001

3

.05

.004

.02

.02

.06*

.002

.01

.03

.04

.01

.01

4

.27*

.06*

.06*

.16*

.04

.12*

.01

.12*

.02

.02

5

.05*

.21*

.09*

.15*

.32*

.09*

.07*

.16*

.16*

6

.22*

.08*

.17*

.08*

.01

.14*

.24*

.18*

7

.16*

.37*

.002

.14*

.26*

.47*

.23*

8

.23*

.15*

.12*

.66*

.24*

.07*

9

.06*

.11*

.21*

.53*

.24*

10

.02

.13*

.05

.12*

11

.10*

.16*

.15*

12

.29*

.11*

13

.30*

14

M (SD)

2.45

(2.78)

.45

(1.01)

1.28

(1.35)

48.59

(26.40)

.99

(.80)

1.55

(.50)

.39

(.28)

1.16

(1.01)

1.63

(1.23)

.31

(.46)

1.62

(.88)

.73

(.94)

1.33

(1.25)

1.27

(1.26)

No

te:n

1132;Diff

Difference,Rel

Relation

shipType,Sex

Biologicalsex,A

dol

Adolescence,YA

Young

Adult.

*p

Selection and Socialization of Drinking Among Young Adult Dating, Cohabiting, And Married Partners

Documents

Transcript of Selection and Socialization of Drinking Among Young Adult Dating, Cohabiting, And Married Partners