DESCRIPTION OF METHODS: Participants (n=458) were Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) workers, who were previously screened for eligibility (i.e., ages 18-29 and at least one alcoholic beverage consumed in past year) using a qualification test question. We eliminated survey responses that were completed in too short a time and those that missed validity check questions. Participants completed validated measures of emerging adult status (EARS, Smith et al., 2016), SES (i.e., mother’s education, father’s education and the MacArthur scale of Subjective Social Status), and risky alcohol use (i.e., the AUDIT). A Structural Equation Model (SEM) was fitted using the Lavaan package for R (Rosseel, 2012) to test the hypothesis that the positive association between EARS and AUDIT would be diminished for those from lower SES backgrounds.
RESULTS: on average, participants were 25.39 (SD=2.84) years old, were 58.1% male and 72.7% White. The average AUDIT score was 6.38 (SD=5.69). Finally, 53.5% of participants scored lower than 5 on the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status, indicating lower SES status. Both SES (b= .21) and emerging adult status (b= .11) positively predicted risky alcohol use. However, there was no support that emerging adult status moderated the association between SES and risky alcohol use (b = .001 for the a*b path, p =.82) Model fit was excellent (i.e., GFI = 1.0, RMSE ~ 0.000, CFI ~ 1.0). The full three factor model did fit the data significantly better than the single-factor solution (X2 with p<.000).
DISCUSSION/IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: This study found support for the direct effects of SES and emerging adult status on substance use. However, there was no evidence that SES moderated the association between emerging adult status and risky alcohol use. Although the association between emerging adult status and risky alcohol use is modest in size, the effect appears to be generalizable across socioeconomic strata. Future research should check whether these findings are robust to alternative measures of SES (i.e., income based or public benefit receipt) and different sampling strategies (i.e., not an on-line sample).