Buffering Effects of Positive Family and Peers Influences on Substance Use By Urban American Indian Adolescents

Purpose: Although most American Indian (AI) families now live in cities, rigorous research is lacking on the social determinants of their health. Urban AI youth report higher rates, earlier initiation, and more severe consequences of substance use than their non-AI counterparts. Family disruption, adult family substance use, stresses related to migration and poverty, and difficulties in sustaining cultural connections are frequently cited factors in substance use among urban AI youth. This presentation employs an ecodevelopmental framework to explore how family and peer factors interact to influence urban AI youth. Specifically, the analysis utilizes latent variable interaction modeling to test whether and how positive family and peer influences moderate, or buffer, negative family and peer influences on substance use (alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana) among a large sample of urban AI youth.

 Methods: Data come from the 2012 Arizona Youth Survey, a state-wide self-report survey of 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students from over 300 schools, which includes 2,407 urban AI youth. Using Mplus, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) tested the direct and interaction effects of positive and negative family and peer influences on reports of last 30-day alcohol, cigarette and marijuana use. Outcomes were residualized to control for any differences in substance use by gender, age, grade level, educational performance, family composition, and family socioeconomic status. 

 Results: The CFA verified four latent variables: two negative influences—substance users in the family and associations with anti-social peers; and, two positive influences—a supportive family environment and involvement with pro-social peers (Χ²= 235.8 (34), p<.001; RMSEA=.05; CFI=.95). For each substance, three SEM models were examined: (1) direct effects only; (2) a model including latent variable interactions for family substance users X supportive family environment, and family substance users X pro-social peers; and (3) a model including latent variable interactions for anti-social peers X supportive family environment, and anti-social peers X pro-social peers. The SEM results showed significant direct effects for only the negative latent constructs of family and peers, which significantly increased use of all three substances, but no directs effects of the positive family and peer influences. When latent variable interactions were included, the positive influences—supportive family environment and involvement with pro-social peers—significantly buffered the negative latent effects of both family substance users and anti-social peers on substance use.

 Conclusions: The emerging patterns and relationships between ecodevelopmental factors on substance use help to identify issues that urban AI youth face when navigating within larger socio-environmental contexts that influence the youth’s vulnerability to substance use. In the presence of strong positive family and peer ecodevelopmental influences, the effects of negative family and peer influences are significantly reduced. Understanding moderators that provide countervailing influences for urban AI youth who live in vulnerable family and peer environments can be useful in designing and delivering strengths-based prevention programs that enhance their health and wellbeing.