The consideration of drug use in the context of a more general socialpsychological framework grew out of a larger interest in exploring the utility of a social-psychological theory of problem behavior and development in youths.

Formulated initially to account for deviant behavior, especially heavy alcohol use, in a triethnic community (Jessor et al. 1968), the framework was modified and extended to bear on problem behavior among youths in contemporary American society--drug use; drinking and problem drinking; sexual experience; activist protest; and general deviance, including lying, stealing, and aggression.

The most recent formulation is referred to as “problem behavior theory” (Jessor and Jessor 1977). The theory is made up of specific concepts that are organized into three explanatory systems--personality, environment, and behavior--interrelated and organized so as to generate a resultant: a dynamic state designated “problem behavior proneness” that has implications for a greater or lesser likelihood of occurrence of problem behavior.

When a behavior such as drug use is embedded in such a network of concepts, the theoretical framework makes it possible to see the logical relation of drug use to other behaviors and to variations in personality and environmental characteristics as well.

This paper, prepared by Deborah Willoughby and reviewed by Richard Jessor, is based largely on three previously published sources. (1) R. Jessor and S.L. Jessor, Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development (New York: Academic Press, 1977). pp. 17-42. (2) R. Jessor and S.L. Jessor, “Theory Testing in Longitudinal Research on Marijuana Use,” in Longitudinal Research on Drug Use, ed. D.B. Kandel (Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1978). (3) R. Jessor, “Marihuana: A Review of Recent Psychosocial Research,” in Handbook on Drug Abuse, eds. R.L. DuPont, A. Goldstein, and J. O’Donnell (Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979).

The conceptual structure of problem-behavior theory consists, therefore, of the personality system, the perceived-environment system, and the behavior system. The variables in all three of the systems lie at what is essentially a social-psychological level of analysis.

The concepts that constitute personality (values, expectations, beliefs, attitudes, orientations toward self and others) are cognitive and reflect social meaning and social experience.

The concepts that constitute the environment (supports, influence, controls, models, expectations of others) are those that are amenable to logical coordination with the personality concepts and that represent environmental characteristics capable of being cognized or perceived; that is, they are socially organized dimensions of potential meaning for actors.

Behavior, too, is treated from a social-psychological perspective, emphasizing its socially learned purposes, functions, or significance rather than its physical parameters.

The actual occurrence of behavior is considered to be the logical outcome of the interaction of personality and environmental influence; in this respect, the formulation represents a socialpsychological field theory, assigning causal priority neither to person nor to situation.

A schematic representation of the overall socialpsychological framework appears in figure 1. [Not shown here - see article source below] 

STRUCTURE OF THE PERSONALITY SYSTEM

In problem-behavior theory, the personality system is represented by a number of specific variables belonging to three component structures-- a motivational-instigation structure, a personal belief structure, and a personal control structure.

The theoretical concern of the variables in the motivational-instigation structure is with the directional orientation of action, that is, with the goals toward which a person strives and with the motivational sources or pressures that instigate particular behaviors.

Both the value placed on goals and the expectation of attaining goals have motivational properties that influence whether behavior in the direction of those goals is likely to occur. High value on a goal, for example, the goal of achievement, implies a higher likelihood of action in that direction than does low value.

Among the variety of sociopsychological goals that animate action, three are considered central and salient for school-aged youths and relevant to problem behavior--the goals of academic achievement, independence, and peer affection. The value placed on each of these goals, and the expectation of being able to attain each of them, constitute variables in the motivational-instigation structure.

An additional variable represents the relative value placed on the goals of academic achievement and independence, since the relation between these two goals appears to have especially clear and direct consequences for youthful problem behavior. The theoretical concern of the variables in the personal belief structure is with cognitive controls of a more general nature that are exerted against the occurrence of problem behavior.

The variables in this structure refer to those restraints on engaging in nonconformity that originate in a variety of beliefs about self, society, and self in relation to society.

The conceptual role of such variables is to constrain against the instigations to engage in problem behavior that derive from the variables in the preceding motivational-instigation structure.

Four variables are included in the personal belief structure--social criticism, alienation, self-esteem, and internal-external locus of control-- and, depending on whether they are high or low, each is interpreted as controlling against engaging in problem behavior.

The theoretical concern of the variables in the personal control structure is with more specific controls against engaging in nonnormative behavior. There are three variables in the personal control structure-- attitudinal tolerance of deviance, religiosity, and the discrepancy between positive and negative functions of (reasons for and against engaging in) behaviors such as drug use, premarital sexual intercourse, or drinking.

These personal control variables are more directly and obviously linked to the behavior involved. Of primary importance for the personality system as a whole is the dynamic relation between instigations and controls; their interaction yields a theoretical resultant reflecting the balance between personalitysystem pressure toward engaging in problem behavior and personalitysystem constraints against it.

The main characteristics of proneness to problem behavior in the personality system include lower value on academic achievement; higher value on independence; greater value on independence relative to value on achievement; lower expectations for academic achievement; greater social criticism and alienation; lower self-esteem and an orientation toward an external locus of control; greater attitudinal tolerance of deviance; lesser religiosity; and more importance attached to the positive, relative to the negative, functions of problem behavior.

The more these personality characteristics obtain for a person at a given point in time--the more that they constitute a coherent pattern, constellation, or syndrome--the more personality proneness to problem behavior they theoretically convey.

STRUCTURE OF THE PERCEIVED-ENVIRONMENT SYSTEM

The conceptual focus in the environmental system is on the environment as perceived, as it has meaning for the actor, the social-psychological rather than the physicogeographic or social structural or demographic environment.

Logically, the perceived environment is the one that has the most invariant relation with behavior because it is the environment of immediate meaning and the one to which the actor is responding. Within the perceived environment, an important distinction between “regions” is made in terms of their proximal versus distal relation to behavior.

Proximal variables (for example, peer models for marijuana use) directly implicate a particular behavior, whereas distal variables (for example, the degree of normative consensus between parents and peers) are more remote in the causal chain and therefore require theoretical linkage to behavior.

This distinction helps make clear why some environmental variables are likely to be more powerfully related to problem behavior than others. (The same distinction can be applied also in the personality system; the motivational-instigation variables and the personal belief variables are more distal from problem behavior, while the personal control variables are more proximal to problem behavior.)

In the distal structure of the perceived environment, the variables serve mainly to characterize whether the social context in which a youth is located is one that is more parent and family oriented than friends or peer oriented, or vice versa.

Location in or orientation toward an adult or parental context is interpretable as being less problem-behavior prone than location in a peer context. In the former, there would be more involvement with conventional norms, less exposure to models for problem behavior, and greater social control over transgression.

Six variables are included in the distal structure of the perceived environment: perceived support from parents and from friends, perceived controls from parents and from friends, compatibility or consensus between parents and friends in the expectations they hold for a given adolescent, and the perceived influence on the adolescent of parents relative to that of friends.

Together, these six variables represent a patterned social environment that is more or less conducive to problem behavior, depending on whether supports and controls are perceived to be present, whether more influence comes from parents or peers, and whether there is concordance or conflict between these two reference groups, the two that have the most regulatory significance for youths.

When the pattern of variables in the distal structure is such that it defines an attenuated reference orientation to parents, that is, when it suggests that a youth is located in a peer rather than a parental context, it defines greater proneness to problem behavior.

The variables included in the proximal structure of the perceived environment concern the degree to which an adolescent is located in a social context where problem behavior is prevalent and where there is social support for its occurrence.

Three major variables are included in the proximal structure of the perceived environment: friends approval-disapproval for problem behavior, parental approval-disapproval of problem behavior, and friends models for problem behavior.

Of all the variables in the overall social-psychological framework, it is reasonable to expect that those in the proximal structure of the perceived environment should be among the most powerful.

A context in which one’s friends are perceived as engaging in problem behavior and as providing potential approval (if not pressure) for it is likely to be of direct and substantial influence. High prevalence of friends models and support constitutes not only a direct influence on problem behavior but is probably also an indirect reflection of other problem-prone factors--those that would also account for an adolescent’s membership in a friendship network that has these particular characteristics rather than in one that is more conventionally oriented.

It would require the perception of strong parental disapproval, or the presence of strong personality-system controls, to offset such problem-behavior proneness in the proximal structure of the perceived environment.

The primary dynamic relation within the perceived-environment system is between the perception of social controls against problem behavior, on the one hand, and the perception of models and supports for problem behavior on the other. The balance of these perceptions determines the resultant contribution of the perceived-environment system to the likelihood of problem behavior.

Problem-behavior proneness in the distal structure of the perceived environment system consists of low parental support and controls; low peer controls; low compatibility between parent and peer expectations; and low parent, relative to peer, influence.

In the proximal structure, problem-behavior proneness includes low parental disapproval of problem behavior and both high friends models for and high friends approval of engaging in problem behavior.

STRUCTURE OF THE BEHAVIOR SYSTEM

The specification of behavior relies upon a variety of considerations beyond the physical parameters of the act itself--its personal meaning, its social definition, its relation to age and status, the context of its occurrence, and its time in history.

The behavior system is differentiated into a problem-behavior structure and a conventional behavior structure. Problem behavior refers to behavior socially defined either as a problem, as a source of concern, or as undesirable by the norms of conventional society or the institutions of adult authority; it is behavior that usually elicits some kind of social-control response.

The latter, of course, may be as minimal as an expression of disapproval or as extreme as incarceration.

The possibility that phenotypically very different behaviors (for example, smoking marijuana, engaging in sexual intercourse, or taking part in a peaceful demonstration) may all serve the same social-psychological function (for example, overt repudiation of conventional norms or expressing independence from parental control) is what underlies the notion of a structure of problem behavior.

Conventional behavior, e.g., church attendance or working hard at school, is behavior that is socially approved, normatively expected, and codified and institutionalized as appropriate for adolescents and youths.

Problem behavior can function in a variety of ways.

It may represent an instrumental or goal-directed effort to attain goals that seem otherwise unattainable. (The youth who is unable to secure autonomy from parental supervision may gain a sense of independence through the use of drugs.) Its purpose may be to express opposition to conventional society, whose norms and values have been rejected.

It may represent an affirmation of maturity or a negotiation for transformation of status from adolescent to adult. Its meaning may lie in defining, for self and others, important attributes of personal identity (being able to hold one’s liquor, being a nonvirgin).

It can function also to establish solidary relations with peers, or to enable access to youth subgroups, or to permit identification with the youth subculture. Or, finally, it can serve as a way of coping with frustration and anticipated failure (drowning one’s sorrows in alcohol).

The primary dynamic in the behavior system is that between the problembehavior structure and the conventional behavior structure, with engagement in either serving as a constraint upon or an alternative to engaging in the other.

High involvement in church activities or participation in academic activities should relate negatively to engagement in drug use, or problem drinking, or other problem behaviors, and vice versa. Within either the problem-behavior structure or the conventional behavior structure. there should be a positive relation among the various behaviors that are included; that is, the different problem behaviors should covary and the different conventional behaviors should covary.

PROBLEM-BEHAVIOR THEORY AND DEVELOPMENT IN ADOLESCENCE

The logical implications in problem behavior theory for development and change can be drawn by elaborating the notions of age grading, age norms, and age expectations in relation to problem behavior.

The logic of applying the same conceptual framework to development in adolescence rests on several key points: that there is stratification of society in terms of age; that access to valued roles, statuses, and rewards varies with different age strata; that adolescence, especially early adolescence, can be characterized as an age stratum of relatively limited access to certain valued goals, whether autonomy, status, sex, or mobility; that age strata have associated norms and expectations that regulate what behaviors are considered to be appropriate; and that many of the behaviors we have referred to as problem behaviors are normatively age-graded, that is, the behavior may be permitted or even prescribed for those who are older, while being proscribed for those who are younger.

Drinking, as one example, is proscribed for those under legal age but is permitted and even institutionally encouraged for those who are beyond that age; sexual intercourse, normatively acceptable for adults, is a normative departure for a young adolescent, and one that is likely to elicit social controls.

Consensual awareness among youths of the age-graded norms for such behaviors carries with it, at the same time, the shared knowledge that occupancy of a more mature status is characterized by actually engaging in such behavior.

Thus, engaging in certain behaviors for the first time can mark a transition in status from “less mature” to “more mature,” from “younger” to “older,” or from “adolescent” to “youth” or “adult.”

Many of the important transitions that mark the course of adolescent development involve behaviors that depart from the regulatory age norms defining what is appropriate or expected behavior for that age or stage in life.

It is important in this context to emphasize that behavior that departs from regulatory norms is precisely what problembehavior theory IS meant to account for, and this becomes the basis for the systematic application of problem-behavior theory to developmental change in adolescence.

By mapping the developmental concept of transition proneness onto the theoretical concept of problem-behavior proneness, it becomes possible to use problem-behavior theory to specify the likelihood of occurrence of developmental change through engaging in age-graded, norm-departing, transition-marking behaviors.

EMPIRICAL TESTING OF PROBLEM-BEHAVIOR THEORY IN RELATION TO MARIJUANA USE

Problem-behavior theory has been employed in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of marijuana use, in both local and national samples, and with respect to both males and females. (See Jessor and Jessor 1977, 1978; Jessor et al., in press.)

In the content of the findings, there is quite impressive coherence, whether considering the crosssectional differences between marijuana users and nonusers, or the longitudinal predictive differences between those likely to begin use in the near future and those not.

A single summarizing dimension underlying the differences between users and nonusers might be termed conventionality-unconventionality. With respect to personality, the adolescent less likely to engage in marijuana use is one who values and expects to attain academic achievement, who is not much concerned with independence, who treats society as unproblematic rather than as an object for criticism, who maintains a religious involvement and a more uncompromising attitude toward normative transgression, and who sees little attraction in problem behavior relative to its anticipated negative consequences.

The adolescent more likely to be involved with marijuana shows an opposite pattern: a concern with personal autonomy, a lack of interest in the goals of conventional institutions like church and school, a jaundiced view of the larger society, and a more tolerant view of transgression. With respect to the environment, the youth likely to be involved with marijuana perceives less parental support, less compatibility between parents’ and friends’ expectations, greater influence of friends relative to parents, and greater approval of and models for drug use from friends.

These variables reflect the importance of whether the reference orientation of a youth is toward parents or peers, and the importance of the models and reinforcements available in the peer context. With respect to behavior, the adolescent likely to use marijuana is one who is likely to be more involved in other problem behaviors as well and less involved in conventional behavior than his or her non-drug-using counterpart.

The research findings are generally similar for both males and females, a fact worthy of emphasis. There is also similarity between high school and college youths, but it is attenuated, particularly in the personality system and in the distal structure of the perceivedenvironment system, suggesting that development is not homogeneous throughout the early-to-late stages of adolescence and youth.

Overall, support for the utility of problem-behavior theory as a socialpsychological framework for the study of drug use can be found not only in the research carried out by the Jessors and their colleagues, but in the findings from a wide variety of studies done by other investigators as well. (For a review of recent studies of marijuana use, see Jessor 1979.) 

------

From N.I.D.A. Monograph 30 - Theories on Drug Abuse: Selected Contemporary Perspectives