Social representations (SRs) have been understood as social thought forms. Unlike some other theories that do not accept this kind of thinking in society, SRs are beliefs in a reflexive community that constantly communicates its thoughts in an attempt to account for its everyday problems through representations that are created and shared through interpersonal interactions (Moscovici, 1979).
In scenarios such as family life, life on the streets, meeting points, markets, street corners, and schools, people exchange ideas about their visions of the world, which in turn influence their social relationships. Moscovici (1979), who created this theory, argues that there are two knowledge universes: a reified universe and a consensual universe. Such a distinction is intended to place the type of knowledge according to the sphere where it is developed: scientific knowledge and common sense knowledge. In the reified universe, both forms of knowledge and individuals are integrated in a comprehensive, systematized, and hierarchical structure. Thought systems evolving in this universe impose truth criteria that constitute the "official reality." Because not every individual has the qualifications to be a part of the reified universe, it is an exclusive one. Individuals who have acquired certain competencies are welcomed into this universe in such a way that they can present themselves as psychologists, physicians, or researchers. They display their activities in organizations that possess their own communication channels and they share a specialized linguistic and conceptual repertoire. In other words, this knowledge universe is none other than that of science.
In contrast, the consensual universe is the sphere where common sense communications produced by the thinking society flow. An expert role is not necessary to be a part of it, because individuals who perceive themselves as equals, are free to express any thought and to construct with this their own theories. Thus, people may play the roles of amateur psychologists or physicians (Moscovici, 1979).
This study was conducted in an effort to comprehend a phenomenon that derives from common sense, where a group of parents of adolescent illegal drug users explained the onset of their children's drug use.
The literature regarding scientific explanations about the onset of adolescent drug use provides some background data. Petraitis, Flay, and Miller (1995) proposed a conceptual model to understand the etiology of drug use where they considered three types of influences: cultural and attitudinal, social, and interpersonal. In turn, these take into account three influence levels: proximal, distal, and remote. Another model included 50 onset-related factors, including the social, familial and demographic environments, the individual backgrounds, and the availability and distribution of drugs (Castro-Sarinana, 2001).
Other studies have found an association between the onset of drug use and familial substance use (Medina-Mora, Villatoro, Lopez, Berenzon, Carreno, & Juarez, 1995; Sanchez-Huezca, Guisa-Cruz, Ortiz-Encinas, & De Leon-Pantoja, 2002; Hopfer, Crowley, & Hewitt, 2003), poor and triangulated communication styles (Klein, Forehand, Armistead, & Long, 1997, family problems (Sokol, Dunham, & Zimmerman, 1997; Friedman & Glassman, 2000), marital conflicts and lack of common agreements (Klein et al., 1997), conflicts and fights between parents and offspring (Klein et al., 1997; Sokol et al., 1997), intergenerational alliances and coalitions (Graham, 1996; Straus & Kaufman, 1994; Yeh & Hedgespeth, 1995), domestic violence (Sanchez-Huezca et al., 2002; Graham, 1996; Straus & Kaufman, 1994), familial patterns that perpetuate addiction (Tomori, 1994), environment (Voelkl & Frone, 2000), family atmospheres where the members lack affection and do not express appreciation to each other (Yeh et al., 1995), unsuccessful problem-solving patterns (Klein et al., 1997; Sokol et al., 1997), low familial satisfaction (Yeh et al., 1995; Choquet, Kovess, & Poutignat, 1993), low familial cohesion and adaptability (Arellanez-Hernandez, Diaz-Negrete, Wagner-Echegaray, & Perez-Islas, 2004), family perception oriented toward negative aspects (Anderson & Henry, 1994; Denton & Kampfe, 1994; Foxcroft & Lowe, 1995), family breakup (Hagell & Newburn, 1996), religious practices (Foshee & Hollinger, 1996), poor parental monitoring of children's activities (Hawkins, Catalana, & Miller, 1992), and lack of support and affection bonds (Arellanez-Hernandez et al., 2004).
Other variables associated with drug use onset include behavior disorders (Weinberg & Glantz, 1999), psychiatric diseases (Agrawal, Gardner, Prescott, & Kendler, 2005), affective problems (Lopes & Schieri, 2002), peer influence (Friedman & Glassman, 2000; D'Amico, Phyllis, Ellickson, Collins, & David, 2005), a history of physical and sexual abuse (Turner, Russell, & Brown, 2003; Freeman, Collier, & Parillo, 2002), adverse experiences in childhood (Dube, Felitti, Dong, Chapman, Gilrd, & Anda, 2003), and low school performance and tobacco and alcohol use (Diego, Field, & Sanders, 2003).
Considering all this, how do the parents of adolescent drug users explain the situation? Are there differences between male and female adolescent users? Which SRs are involved in the explanation given by parents about the onset of drug use? The aim of this study was to identify the SRs used by a group of parents of adolescent drug users to explain the drug use onset and to establish changes in thinking when the user was male and when the user was female.
An analytic-interpretative study was designed which had three transversal phases with a quanti-qualitative analysis level (Borgatti, 1996a), and was SRS theory-oriented (Moscovici, 1979; Abric, 2001). The population under study included 60 parents (mothers: 78%; fathers: 11%; couples: 11%; median age: 42 years; average schooling: 7.8 years; all were inhabitants of marginal urban neighborhoods; family background of alcohol use in male figures: 90%, and illegal drug use: 72%), who accompanied their drug-using adolescent children (13-19 years old; median age: 16.3 years; males: 57%; females: 43%; average formal schooling: 8.7 years; cocaine users: 30%; marihuana: 25%; inhalants: 14%; tranquilizers: 5%; sedatives: 4%; and hallucinogens: 2%, during the previous month; 42% were attending school and 39% had jobs) to treatment at four ambulatory rehabilitation centers in Guadalajara, Mexico in 2004.
In the first phase there were 69 parents, but in the second phase 18 participants abandoned treatment. We were able to locate only 11 of them. However, we had to exclude two mothers, whom we referred to the psychiatry wing for severe depressive symptoms. For these reasons, only 60 parents participated in the second phase. For the third phase, a subsample of 15 parents was chosen for in-depth interviews (seven were the parents of male adolescents; eight were the parents of female adolescents). All were asked for a signed consent to safeguard participants' identities. The project was approved by a research and ethics committee from the National Institute of Social Security.
Phase I: Free Lists
A free association technique (Borgatti, 1996a; Abric, 2001) was applied with an inducting term that explored beliefs associated with the onset of drug use. The following situation was posed: Please imagine that, on leaving the rehabilitation center, you watch a group of teenagers taking drugs on the corner. As quickly as possible, tell me in a few words, why you think these teenagers started taking drugs. Answers were written down in a five-space questionnaire. A list of associated descriptors was calculated according to the order in which they were mentioned, their frequency, and cultural weight (CW) (co-relation between frequency and order of mention) (Borgatti, 1996a), using the Anthropac 4.9 software package (Borgatti, 1996b). Descriptors were classified by the participating population by dimensions. An interpretative analysis was conducted to formulate premises about how the explanative model was objectified. From this, the parents chose 12 descriptors as the most important to collect phase II data: 1. familial problems, 2. they notice the example in their family, 3. parental neglect, 4. belief that they are not considered important, 5. peer influence, 6. they see someone else doing it, 7. neighborhood atmosphere, 8. friends" pressure, 9. curiosity, 10. it is forbidden, 11. weakness of character, and 12. loneliness.
Phase II: Pile Sort
A card was created for each descriptor chosen in Phase I. The cards were shown to each participant, who was asked to choose the four forms which, according to his or her point of view, better represented why adolescents started taking drugs. These descriptors were assigned a + 2 rating. Participants were then asked to choose the four forms which, according to them, least represented why adolescents started taking drugs. These were given a -2 rating. Thus, there remained four nonchosen cards, which were placed somewhere between more or less important and were given a 0 rating. Similarity rates were calculated for the analysis (Degenne & Verges, 1984) with the SIMIL-C software package (De la Torre-Fernandez, 1999), which is expressed through distance rates. A similitude analysis enables us to understand the relationship between the elements and to generate a set organization (graph) from which to elaborate a theoretical reflection. The following formulation is used to calculate the distance rates:
D = 2(Em - Eo) - 1 / Em
where Em is the maximum expected distance and Eo is the observed distance (Degenne & Verges, 1984).
Once the explicative graphs were produced (Figures 1, 2, and 3), an interpretative analysis was applied to pose new premises as to the way these explanations were anchored in daily life and under which SRS they operated. An interview guide was elaborated with these premises for Phase III data recollection.
Even though in Phases I and II informants were asked why they thought, on the whole, adolescents started using drugs, participants answered from their own experiences because the associative techniques allowed them to learn uncensored inquiries by not focusing these directly on the informants' experience (Nuno-Gutierrez, 2004).
Phase III: In-depth Interviews
Each interview was conducted during three, 30-minute sessions. Three phases were followed: (a) Rapport, where the format of the session was explained and a written consent to an anonymous audio recording was solicited; (b) interview, through a semistructured guide that explored a two-generation family history of drug use, family problems, influences leading to drug use, and impact and responses in the family concerning the son's or daughter's drug use; and (c) cessation, where the main ideas found were exposed so participants could confirm, clarify, or deny them. Once recordings were transcribed with the Atlas Ti program (Muhr, 1998), two readings were conducted to identify thematic codes and create code families. An interpretative analysis was then undertaken.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
I Free Lists
Forty-eight descriptors were associated with drug use onset. Participants organized these into four dimensions: 1. attributed to the family with a frequency of 52, a 1.042 CW, and accounted for 39% of the descriptors total; 2. individual-related, with a frequency of 46, a CW of .827, and accounted for 34%; 3. related to the influence of friends, and amounted to a frequency of 25, a CW of .414, and accounting for 19%; 4. social environment-related, amounted to a frequency of 11, a .171 CW, and accounted for 8% of the set (see Table 1).
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
In this initial exploration, we hypothesized that parents would objectify the drug use onset in terms of a power relation: the internal level of weakness (familial, individual) and external level influences (environments, friends). In this case, such a "weakness" would be characterized by a family that is not satisfying the adolescent's needs, which in turn would give as a result the picture of a vulnerable and disoriented person in terms of his or her relationship to peers and the social environment.
II Pile Sort
Figure I presents the model used by parents, on the whole, to explain the onset of their children's drug use. This model was organized in two blocks. Block A gathered the greatest number of elements. However, both blocks similarly explained the drug use in terms of a struggle between exogenous versus endogenous factors.
In a more detailed analysis, we then found that descriptor 10, "it is forbidden," established five connections: "they notice the example in the family," "weak character," "they feel lonely." "they see someone else doing it," and "parental neglect," were all placed in the higher block (A) with positive values. On the one hand, a numerical positive value expresses a proximity or similitude among descriptors; on the other, a negative sign value represents an estrangement or lack of similitude. (There is a distance value range from + 2, + 1, 0, -1 to -2.)
The "see someone else doing it" descriptor stood out from the others because of its high value (.42), which may be interpreted, according to parents, as meaning practically the same as "it is forbidden." We hypothesize that doing what "is forbidden" would be directly attributable to the adolescent, which in turn could be due to his or her inexperience or to being highly impressionable. In the third phase, such a reason was clarified more precisely. There was, in addition, another three-connection element: "family problems," which was associated with "feeling lonely" and "curiosity," even though the latter was placed outside the blocks.
The set was organized around the descriptors "it is forbidden," "feeling lonely," and "family problems." All three descriptors referred to endogenous factors that were related in turn to some other endogenous factors, without disregarding social influence.
Considering all this, we decided to propose the hypothesis that parents would likely explain the drug use onset through two RSs: a neglectful family and a son or daughter being different from the adult world. Both RSs would support the fact that, during his or her upbringing, the son or daughter would be exposed to failures in the familial system that would have made him or her vulnerable to the influence of the social environment and that this whole set would be reflected in the drug use onset. First, the male users' parent model (Figure 2) turned out a well-structured description. There were four remarkable elements in this: In the first place, the "they notice the example in the family," led in turn to four connections: "they feel they are not taken into account," "weak character," "neighborhood atmosphere," and "parental neglect." The last two descriptors pointed to three connections. Of the four elements, three refer to family-related matters and only one comes from an exogenous source. In fact, the descriptor, "they notice the example in the family" was related to endogenous elements; that is, family matters, and to an exogenous nonfamilial matter. Such a characterization represented an efficient description about the drug use: a family-centered description, which did not rule out environmental aspects.
Elements located in the inner part of Figure 2 block organized such a description emphasizing the family. As a consequence, descriptors that were omitted from the block may be ignored.
In brief, the parents of male drug users explained drug use through a family RS. Still, to integrate their reasoning schemes, the family was also represented as a figure acting as a mirror that reflects outside world influences.
On the other hand, Figure 3 presents the explicative model developed by the parents of female drug users. Unlike their male counterparts, this thought scheme lacks structure. In this instance, only the "they see someone else doing it" descriptor had any other connections. In the series of elements, a pair with a higher proximity rate, "having family problems" and "feeling lonely" (0.52), was also observed. That is, family matters were still relevant in explaining why daughters were taking drugs. In this instance, 'Raving family problems" and "feeling lonely" represented the same.
However, "see someone else doing it" was the only organizing element, which would point out that, according to their reasoning, they explained their drug use in terms of doing something that was forbidden, out of imitation, or learned through observation. Nevertheless, it also speaks to the image parents had about their daughters. It seemed that they considered them to be small children, as if they refused to believe they had grown up, as if they belonged to a "different world" and, as a result, they would be victims of their inexperience and immaturity. This presents an interesting point: on the whole, the group of parents' perspective involves both the representation of a "neglectful family" that of the "son or daughter as a child" (Farr, 1986) seen as a "world apart" from that of the adults.
These schemes of structured versus unstructured thought revealed by the parents of male and female drug users allowed us to advance another hypothesis: female drug use would have a higher resonance and would tend to disorganize the family more, probably because of the image that is socially constructed around the drug user and because of the social roles attributed to Mexican women.
III In-depth Interviews
At this qualitative phase, we were able to note that the "neglectful family" representation derived from two closely linked situations: on the one hand, the drug use modeling inside the family; on the other, the parents' feelings of guilt for not being able to achieve a different life for their children.
The fact that 90% of the interviewed families had a history of legal drug use and another 72% had a history of illegal drug use on the part of the male authority figures defined familial tolerance attitudes toward drug use. Still, parents believed their children would avoid repeating the same drug use pattern if they observed the associated problems. According to this train of thought, parents believed familial drug use would work in the opposite direction by setting a bad example:
You have the hope that, on growing up, children will be productive
people, that they're going to be honest, with values and ideals. I
used to tell my son. Look at your father. How bad he gets, how much
he suffers; you should not do the same. I was wrong with him., I
didn't know how to deal with him. Now, I don't want to make the
same mistake with my son. [Male adolescent's mother]
We were able to tell that illegal drug use was higher among the nuclear families than in the grandparents' generation, and we did not find any differences in drug use pattern between the female and male adolescents' families.
"Parental role failure" was another belief associated with adolescent drug use. This caused feelings of guilt by the parents because, from their standpoint, they were responsible for raising and looking after their children, and their drug use was thus interpreted as a challenge to the adequacy of their parental role. The "parental role failure" was more emphasized in the case of female adolescents' parents; the behavior of male drug users added the figure of a pernicious friend who induced their sons to take drugs:
It devastated me, it utterly struck me because I'd never imagined
some thing like this happening in my life. I could have expected
something else, like pregnancy, but never drugs, because I've never
myself seen any and I didn't think he would ever try such a thing.
The castle I had constructed for her came tumbling down. No, I
didn't expect anything like this! It might be I haven't been a good
mother, or maybe I didn't know how to be friends with her. [Female
It all started with friends, it is my belief that's the way it all
started. Maybe I haven't been able to satisfy all of his needs.
I've restricted him in many ways. Maybe we didn't know how to raise
him. But, then, what about his older brothers? We didn't fail with
them. Those friends of his are the ones who gave him the drugs.
[Male adolescent's father]
Following are the familial environment characteristics reported by parents: conflictive marital relationship; a semiperipheral father and a mother with overprotective tendencies; parental styles with diffuse rules; distanced families; low income; parents with low schooling levels; conflictive relationship between drug-taking parents and children.
From a therapeutic point of view, the overall effect of these variables suggested to us an unstable family environment as a continuous source of stress. Parents and adolescents apparently dealt with this situation with avoidance reflected in substance abuse. This would explain why they, as a family, recognize themselves as the source of the drug taking when they speak about their sons' emotional vulnerability resulting from family tensions. Together with their own experience, sons are influenced by the social context and their so-called pernicious friends.
In the case of male adolescents' families, parents reported having looked for extracurricular or job activities for their sons to keep them busy and away from friends.
I tell my son that he has to do something, to dedicate himself and
keep his mind and time busy with something else. He just can't
spend afternoons doing nothing, just thinking about drugs: He
should find a job or practice some sport, something productive.
There are other things in life besides friends. And these are not
even beneficial friends! [Male adolescent's father]
More severe family problems surfaced with the families of female adolescents. These were characterized by more rejection and stigmatization on the part of parents and siblings, more disregard, and less tolerance for the adolescent to express her opinions. There were also more feelings of guilt and depressive symptoms by the mothers.
My husband had reached the point of telling her that she's nothing
but the scum of society, that she's the worst kind of person, that
everybody notices she's different, as a drug addict. And sometimes,
when she fights with her brothers, they shout at her: "Shut up,
stupid drug addict, your opinions are worthless." I reprimand them
and ask them not to call her that. I'm the only one who stands up
for her. It's very burdensome and sometimes I feel I cannot stand
it anymore. [Female adolescent's mother]
The unstructured thinking of the female adolescents' parents was anchored, as we had predicted, on the kind of impact the situation had on the family. Two ratiocinations were identified: (1) family drug taking had been eminently defined as masculine and for authority figures; thus, tolerance toward women doing the same was low; and (2) such a low tolerance derived, in turn, from two culturally constructed figures: the woman-wife and the woman-mother.
The first implies, as a prerequisite, a selection on the part of the man. In the parents' eyes, a married woman possesses a higher social status than a single one. Thus, it is very important for them that their daughters marry. On the other hand, a woman's image as a mother implies that she should develop certain abilities which, as subjective as they are, are not drug use-related, because their role involves formative, educational, and affective tasks for their own children.
As future providers, men must develop their own skills away from home; women, as future mothers, must develop them at home.
I ask myself: What did I do to deserve this? If she were at least a
man ... But she's going to suffer more as a woman. Who is going to
want to marry a drug addict? I do not smoke, I do drink. I'm a
grown man, but her ...? [Female adolescent's father]
As these cultural ratiocinations have a greater impact on the response levels of the daughters' drug use, female drug users looked for help earlier (six months on average) at health care institutions than do male adolescents (12 months on average), although this first attempt was unsuccessful.
We went to this church where I was told therapy was given and where
they helped people with drug and alcohol problems. I took her to a
meeting and I started getting therapy. They put her on some
homeopathic medicine. I thought she was improving. Then they told
me she was smoking marihuana and she was expelled. She had a
remission and we had to look for other treatment. [Female
On the other hand, "the inexperienced son as a child" representation was embodied in the fact that the drug users were adolescents, not adults, which placed them, at least in their parents' eyes, in a position closer to that of a child, as they were still growing up and were economically and emotionally dependent on their parents. Most of all, adolescents were perceived as inexperienced, which in turn gives rise to their being perceived as vulnerable and impressionable.
How is it that a 16-year-old girl, who's still growing, developing,
is already using drugs and living through that disgusting thing? I
just can't get things like that into my head! [Female adolescent's
How come he's only 12 years old and he's already taking drugs! I
tell him such a thing is just not right. I ask him if he would like
his kid brothers doing the same. Now I have to look more aider them
so that they don't get hooked on the same. [Male adolescent's
In the male adolescents' fathers' way of thinking, an image prevailed of having rebellious, daring, and preposterous sons, who nevertheless had familial and emotional problems. This, together with parental neglect and familial disorientation, made them vulnerable to the influence of pernicious friends.
My husband beat him up several times. I didn't actually defend him
because I knew it was wrong. I told him: "Son, you asked for it.
You're very stubborn. You have never followed my advice. [Male
The image parents constructed about their daughters was centered around an adolescent with emotional vacuums, such as lack of tenderness, attention, and understanding (see Table 2).
It may be I'm much too aggressive with her because I have always
been the same with them [with her daughter/son]. I feel I haven't
treated her very well: on that I've been mistaken because I can't
control my nerves. I was always mean to her. I couldn't understand
her and it may be she's resentful because at home all she ever got
were shouts, no caring or loving. In fact, it's not a good life we
live at home. [Female adolescent's mother]
The overall explanation about the drug use onset was embodied in social representations: "the neglectful family" and '%he inexperienced son or daughter as a child." Such explanation synthesizes the two movements of the representational process: what is known and how it is known about a daily life phenomenon. How it is known depends on the way of thinking and on our condition as observers (Moscovici, 1979). An onlooker establishes relationships and connections, and attempts to discover the phenomena of which they are a part and, through a set of connections, advances arguments to explain their reality. In other words, the observer produces an epistemology of his or her own. In the descriptions, observers attempt to elaborate an "etiology of drug use." To perceive the family as the first cause is a reflection of the parent's cognitive effort to explain why their children take drugs.
The second cognitive effort refers to the meanings anchored in the context more immediate to the parents: representing their own family as neglected. Such a movement helped to reveal the causes and to make operable the function of the "neglectful family" representation as the root cause of the drug use. A convincing explanation of the drug use onset derived from such a process of cognitively linking what they know and how they know it. Thus, parents propose that the sons and daughters from neglectful families have reasons to take drugs because they are emotionally vulnerable.
On analyzing this explanation in the face of scientific models (Petraitis et al., 1995; Castro-Sarinana, 2001), we found similarities and differences. On the one hand, both models coincide in defining a problem with familial influences (Medina-Mora et al., 1995; Sanchez-Huesca et al., 2002; Klein et al., 1997; Sokol et al., 1997; Graham, 1996; Straus et al., 1994; Yeh et al., 1995; Tomori, 1994; Voekl et al., 2002; Choque et al., 1993; Arellanez-Hernandez et al., 2004; Anderson et al., 1994; Denton et al., 1994; Foscroft et al., 1995; Hagell et al., 1996; Foshee et al., 1996; Hawkins et al., 1992) and social ones (Petraitis et al., 1995; Castro-Sarinana, 2001).
Substantial differences were found on two aspects: first, the cognitive process characteristics (Moscovici, 1979) that are used to explain why adolescents use drugs and, second, defining the type of family that gives rise to illegal drug use.
The cognitive processes are unlike scientific processes. In using common sense, where SRs are formed, knowledge and thoughts do not need to be verified. For this group of parents, common sense established a connection between the neglectful family and the inexperienced son or daughter and the onset of drug use. In science, processes must be abstracted from their connections to transform and prove findings: the form is separated from the content. In common sense, form and content are fused and the lines between them practically disappear. Parents need not verify whether what they think is a duly justified connection, for the needs are different. Parents limit themselves to communicating their ideas and with these they organize the explanations they give about the word, their immediate environment, and everyday events. (Moscovici & Vignaux, 2001).
Regarding the second difference, the literature has pointed out the problem family (Medina-Mora et al., 1995; Sanchez-Huezca et al., 2002; Klein et al., 1997; Sokol et al., 1997; Friedman et al., 2000; Graham, 1996; Straus et al., 1994; Yeh et al., 1995; Tomori, 1994; Voekl et al., 2002; Choque et al., 1993; Arellanez-Hernandez et al., 2004; Anderson et al., 1994; Denton et al., 1994; Foxcroft et al., 1995; Hagell et al., 1996; Hawkins et al., 1992) in relation to the onset of drug use; parents who participated in the study perceived the family as neglectful.
Our findings coincide partially with these reports because parents, rather than perceiving themselves as having many problems, consider themselves as unable to guide their children. A son's or daughter's addiction seems to challenge a core element of the family function: their parental role. Parents feel there is little they can do and consider they did not know how to take care of their children well enough to stop them from taking drugs. As family heads, parents seem to have a tendency to avoid dealing with the stress that derives from internal and external sources through drug use. This might be what Tomori (1994) meant when he proposed that, within families, styles prevail that perpetuate drug addiction and that we believe are part of the knowledge that links one generation to the next. Rather than being aware of having problems in the family, parents feel they have been neglectful, which marks a second difference in the scientific model explanation about drug use.
On the other hand, behavioral differences between male and female adolescent drug users are reported in the literature. Mexican literature has pointed out that women have more associated problems (Nuno-Gutierrez, 2004) and receive more criticism and rejection, in addiction to being more stigmatized. In light of this, families tend to protect girls more than they protect boys (Lara, Stern, Santamaria, Obregon, & Sosa, 1991), which leads them to look for help at healthcare centers earlier.
From the early phases of the study, we were surprised to find more disorganized thinking on the part of the female adolescents' fathers because we expected not to find differences until the in-depth interview phase. Our findings indicate that female adolescents' drug use brings more structural and cognitive disorganization into the family, which is reflected in the parents' thinking. They are not prepared to deal with a daughter's addiction because, according to family tradition, this use should be eminently masculine and power-related. However, it is also due to the roles that are culturally invested in Mexican women. According to Flores-Palacios (2001), socialization depends not only on biological differences, but also on the culture's interpretation system, so the history and tradition that determine these constructions must be acknowledged. Thus, addiction seems to place female adolescents at risk of not being able to plan their own families and unable to reach a socially valued and desired status. This may explain why their families tolerate their drug use less and tend to protect them more (Lara et al., 1991) in such a way that it activates optimal response levels that lead to earlier visits to healthcare centers, even if such a step does not necessarily bring about an efficacious solution.
Because drug use is seen as eminently masculine, perhaps women's drug use derives from an attempt to seize the power men have traditionally held in the family. It may also derive from the absence of valued and admired female models. This hypothesis may be worth exploring in terms of power distribution in the family. Another matter worth studying in more depth is the contrast between the narratives of fathers and mothers of female adolescents. Even though the mother may have the same general views as the father, the father may add insights.
In brief, parents' explanations of adolescent drug use were defined according to two SRs: the neglectful family, which engenders emotionally vulnerable offspring, under a peer influence, and the son or daughter as an inexperienced child. Still, we consider the drug use etiology as going beyond the neglectful family representation. As Petraitis et al. (1995) suggest, many influences can be taken into account, from the individual background, which was almost ignored by these parents, to the cultural, including familial and gender issues.
All in all, this does not mean that paternal explanations are not valid--at least to the parents in question it is because precisely under these social settings that they take actions, interact with their adolescent children, and look for solutions. We think that parents who feel they are part of the problem and responsible for their children's drug use may be willing to participate in guidance and treatment groups. Despite the physical and emotional distance that adolescents feel they need to keep from their families, it is still one of the main environments of their lives, and healthcare service may have direct access to them.
In addition, we cannot continue to think that adolescents' illegal drug use has unique motivations and dynamics for boys and girls. We must understand the gender-related differences that have to be taken into account in prevention and rehabilitation.
Finally, these findings should be considered with caution, as this population was selected in drug rehabilitation centers. The SRS may explain--from the standpoint of the social actors' subjectivity--that drug use may be different in other populations.
Abric, J. C. (2001). Practicas sociales y representaciones [Social practices and representations]. Mexico, D. F.: Ed. Coyoacan.
Agrawal, A., Gardner, C. O., Prescott, C. A., & Kendler, K. S. (2005). The differential impact of risk factors on illicut drug involvement in females. Social Psychiatric Epidemiology, 40, 454-466.
Anderson, A., & Henry, C. (1994). Family system characteristics and parental behaviors as predictors of adolescent substance use. Adolescence, 29, 405-420.
Arrellanez-Hernandez, J. L., Diaz-Negrete, D. B., Wagner-Echegaray, F., & Perez-Islas, V. (2004). Factores psicosociales asociados con el abuso y la dependencia de drogas entre adolescentes: Analisis bivariado dee un estudio de casos y controles [Psychological factors associated with the abuse and dependency on drugs among adolescents. Study of case-cantrol]. Salud Mental, 27(3), 54-64.
Borgatti, S. (1996a). Anthropac 4.9 Methods guide. EE.UU.: Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, S. (1996b). Anthropac 4.9 Software.EE.UU.: Natick (MA). Analytic Technologies.
Castro-Sarinana, M. E. (2001). Factores de proteccion asociados al riesgo del consumo de sustancias [Protection factors associated with risk consumption of substances]. In R. Tapia-Conyer (Ed.), Las adicciones: Dimension, impacto y perspectivas. [The addiction: Dimension, impact and perspectives] (pp. 277-289). Mexico DF.: Manual Moderno.
Choquet, M., Kovess, V., & Poutignat, N. (1993). Suicidal thoughts among adolescents: An intercultural approach. Adolescence, 28, 649-659.
D'Amico, E. J., Phyllis, L. E., Ellickson, R. L., Collins, S. M., & David, J. K. (2005). Processes linking adolescent problems to substance-use problems in late young adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 2005, 766-775.
De la Torre-Fernandez, D. A. (1999). SIMIL-C Software. Mexico, D.F.: UAM-I.
Degenne, A., & Verges, P. (1984). Introduccion al analisis de similitud [Introduction to the analysis of similarity]. In de Alba L. Gonzalez (Ed.), Teoria de los grafos en ciencias sociales [Graphs theory in social science]. Mexico, D.F.: UNAM.
Denton, R., & Kampfe, H. (1994). The relationship between family variables and adolescent substance abuse: A literature review. Adolescence, 29, 475--495.
Diego, M. A., Field, T. M., & Sanders, C. E. (2003). Academic performance, popularity, and depression predict adolescent substance use. Adolescence, 38, 35-49.
Dube, S. R., Felitti, V. J., Dong, M., Chapman, D. P., Gilrd, W. H., & Anda, R. F. (2003). Childhood abuse, neglect and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: The adverse childhood experiences study. Pediatrics, 111, 564-572.
Farr, R. (1986). Las representaciones sociales [The social representations]. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Psicologia Social II. Pensamiento y Vida Social. Psicologia Social y Problemas Sociales [Social psychology II. Thought and social life. Social psychology and social problems]. Madrid, Spain: Paidos.
Flores-Palacios, F. (2001). Psicologia social y genero. El sexo como objeto de representacion social [Social psychology and gender. The gender as social representations' object]. Mexico, D.F.: McGraw Hill.
Foshee, A., & Hollinger, R. (1996). Maternal religiosity, adolescent social bonding, and adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 451-468.
Foxcroft, D., & Lowe, G. (1995). Adolescent drinking, smoking and other substance use involvement: Links with perceived family life. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 159-177.
Freeman, R. C., Collier, K., & Parillo, K. M. (2002). Early life sexual abuse as a risk factor for crack cocaine use in a sample of community-recruited women at risk for illicit drug use. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 28, 109-131.
Friedman, A. S., & Glasman, K. (2000). Family risk factors versus peer risk factors for drug abuse. A longitudinal study of an African American urban community sample. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 8, 267-275.
Graham, N. (1996). The influence of predictors on adolescent drug use. An examination of individual effects. Youth & Society, 28, 215-235.
Hagell, A., & Newburn, T. (1996). Family and social contexts of adolescent re-offenders. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 5-18.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol use and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance use prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.
Hopfer, C. J., Crowley, T. J., & Hewitt, J. K. (2003). Review of twin and adoption studies of adolescent substance use. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 710-719.
Klein, K., Forehand, R., Armistead, L., & Long, P. (1997). Delinquency during the transition to early adulthood: Family and parenting predictors from early adolescence. Adolescence, 32, 61-80.
Lara, A., Stern, S., Santamaria, C., Obregon, S., & Sosa, R. (1991). Entrevistas a jovenes pertenecientes a una banda juvenil en una comunidad marginada [Interviews with young people belonging to a juvenile gang in a marginal community]. Revista del Departamento de Psicologia, 4, 78-95.
Lopes, C. S., & Schieri, R. (2002). A case control study on alcohol and psychiatric disorders as risk factors for drug abuse patterns. Cadernos de Saude Publica, 18, 1571-1575.
Medina-Mora, M. E., Villatoro, J., Lopez, E., Berenzon, S., Carreno, S., & Juarez, F. (1995). Los factores que se relacionan con el inicio, el uso continuado y el abuso de sustancias psicoactivas en adolescentes Mexicanos. [The factors associated with initiation, continued used and psychoactive substance abuse of substances among Mexican adolescents] Gaceta Medica de Mexico, 131, 383-387.
Moscovici, S. (1979). El psicoanalisis, su imagen y su publico. The psychoanalyst, his image and his public]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Huemul.
Moscovici, S., & Vignaux, G. (2001). The concept of themata. In G. Duveen (Ed.), Social representations explorations in social psychology. New York, EEUU: University Press.
Muhr, T. (1998). Atlas Ti. Scientific software development. Washington, DC., EE.UU: SAGE Publications
Nuno-Gutierrez, B. L. (2004). De la representacion a la accion: Modelos de toma de decisiones con los que intentan resolver el consumo de drogas ilegales adolescentes consumidores y sus padres. [Tesis para obtener el grado de doctora en psicologia]. [From the representation to the action: Decision-making model that the adolescents and their parents confront concerning drug consumption]. Mexico, D. F.: Facultad de Psicologia, UNAM.
Petraitis, J., Flay, B., & Miller, T. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 67-88.
Sanchez-Huezca, R., Guisa-Cruz, V. M., Ortiz-Encinas, R. M., & de Leon-Pantoja, G. (2002). Deteccion temprana de factores de riesgo para el consumo de sustancias ilicitas [Early detection of risk factors for the consumption of illitic substances]. Salud Mental, 5, 1-11.
Sokol, J., Dunham, R., & Zimmerman, R. (1997). Family structure versus parental attachment in controlling adolescents' deviant behavior: A social control model. Adolescence, 32, 199-215.
Straus, M., & Kaufman, G. (1994). Corporal punishment of adolescents by parents: A risk factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and wife beating. Adolescence, 29, 543-561.
Tomori, M. (1994). Personality characteristics of adolescents with alcoholic parents. Adolescence, 29, 949-959.
Turner, C., Russell, A., & Brown, W. (2003). Prevalence of illicit drug use in young Australian women, patterns of use and associated risk factors. Addiction, 98, 1419-1426.
Voelkl, K. E., & Frone, M. R. (2000). Predictors of substance use at school among high school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 583-592.
Weinberg, N. Z., & Glantz, M. D. (1999). Child psychopathology risk factors for drug abuse: Overview. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 290-297.
Yeh, L., & Hedgespeth, J. (1995). A multiple case study comparison of normal private preparatory school and substance abusing/mood disordered adolescents and their families. Adolescence, 30, 413-428.
This study was supported by a grant from the Fondo de Fomento a la Investigacion from the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.
Bertha Lidia Nuno-Gutierrez is a senior researcher and chief at the Unidad de Investigacion Epidemiologica y en Servicios de Salud del Adolescente from the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social and is a professor at the Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico.
Jose Alvarez-Nemegyei is an associate researcher at the Unidad de Investigacion Medica from the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Merida Yucatan.
Oscar Rodriguez-Cerda is a researcher and professor at the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana Iztapalpa. Mexico, D.F.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Bertha Lidia Nuno-Gutierrez, Unidad de Investigacion Epidemiologica y en Servicios de Salud del Adolescente, IMSS, Av. Tonala No. 121. Planta alta, Tonala Jalisco, Mexico. CP 45400. E-mail: email@example.com
Table 1 Descriptors associated with drug use according to the parents
of adolescent users, classified by dimensions
Descriptors Frequency % Order of Cultural
Family problems 10 19 2.1 0.208
Lack of communication 6 12 1.9 0.111
Incomprehension 5 10 2 0.103
Lack of attention 5 10 2.2 0.094
Not enough love shown 4 8 3 0.073
Familial desintegration 3 6 2.3 0.061
Parental neglect 3 6 2.2 0.061
Parental guilt 2 4 1 0.058
Domestic violence 3 6 2.5 0.056
Lack of support 2 4 2.5 0.043
Problems with parents 2 4 2 0.038
Not having someone to look after 2 4 2 0.038
Problems with boy/girlfriend 1 2 1 0.029
Lack of family union 1 2 1 0.029
They feel they are worthy enough 1 2 3 0.016
Notice the example in the family 2 4 4 0.016
52 100 0.7 1.034
DIMENSION: FRIENDS' INFLUENCE
Descriptors Frequency % Order of Cultural
Because of friends 23 92 3.9 0.374
Because of the pressure 1 4 1 0.029
To do the same as the others 1 4 4 0.011
25 100 0.4 0.414
DIMENSION: SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
Descriptors Frequency % Order of Cultural
Neighborhood atmosphere 4 36 3.6 0.073
Communication media 2 18 2 0.046
Easy access 3 27 3.7 0.032
Economy of the country 2 18 3.5 0.020
11 100 1.2 0.171
Descriptors Frequency % Order of Cultural
Curiosity 6 13 2.3 0.182
Loneliness 3 7 2.3 0.063
Experimentation 7 15 3.3 0.061
Having problems 3 7 1.7 0.060
Love deception 2 4 1.5 0.048
They feel rejected 2 4 2 0.046
Unemployed 3 7 3.7 0.043
Misguided 3 7 4 0.042
Out of sheer pleasure 1 2 1 0.029
Laziness 1 2 1 0.029
Weak character 1 2 1 0.029
Having too much freedom 1 2 2 0.020
To run away from problems 1 2 2 0.020
Temptation 1 2 2 0.020
Having money 1 2 2 0.020
To feel important 1 2 3 0.016
Live life quickly 1 2 3 0.016
To feel they are the greatest 1 2 3 0.016
To feel out of touch 1 2 3 0.016
They feel special 1 2 4 0.011
Frustration 1 2 4 0.011
Wrong use of their rights 1 2 4 0.011
To show they are capable of doin 1 2 5 0.006
As a mens of escape 1 2 5 0.006
To call attention to themselves 1 2 5 0.006
46 100 1.5 0.827
Table 2 Gender differences in paternal narratives about the illegal
drug use onset from male and female adolescent offspring
Category Total of informants Informants
Drug use in Drug use by masculine No
the family authority figures. differences
Higher use in nuclear families
than in the grandparents'.
Family Untied families, low income No
and parents' low schooling differences
atmosphere levels, conflictive marital
father, mother with overprotective
tendencies, parental style
with diffuse rules, conflictive
relationship between parents
and drug using children.
Paternal They hoped that the drug use No
expectations and problematic behavior from differences
relatives would stop adolescent
children from taking drugs.
Etiology Failure and neglect in their Pernicious
expectations parental roles. friends'
Son and daughters were perceived influences
as having an image closer
to that of a girl-boy given
their emotional and economic
dependence, and their inexpe-
rience, which made them
vulnerable to the influence
of the other people.
Paternal Emotional deception and Search for an
response in feeling of guilt. extracurricular
the face of activity or job
drug use for a son
Category Informants with daughters
Drug use in No differences
Family More severe family problems: more rejection
atmosphere and familial stigma and higher disregard
Paternal A daughter's coming of age as wife and
expectations mother; drugs being an obstacle to such an
Etiology Parents did not know how to protect and
expectations satisfy their daughters' emotional needs.
Paternal Lower tolerance to drug use, higher presence
response in of feelings of guilt and depressive symptoms
the face of in the mothers. Higher family impact from
drug use drug use. All of this resulted in an earlier
attendance to health care services.
Source: In-depth interviews to the mothers and fathers of male (n=7)
and female (N=8) illegal drug-taking adolescents