Abstract

Research indicates that peer and maternal bonds play important but sometimes
contrasting roles in the outcomes of children. Less is known about attachment
bonds to these 2 reference groups in young adults. Using a sample of 351
participants (18 to 20 years of age), the research integrated two theoretical
traditions: attachment theory and theory of planned behavior (TPB). The predictive
contribution of both theories was examined in the context of underage adult alcohol
use. Using full structural equation modeling, results substantiated the hypotheses
that secure peer attachment positively predicted norms and behavioral control
toward alcohol, but secure maternal attachment inversely predicted attitudes and
behavioral control toward alcohol. Alcohol attitudes, norms, and behavioral control
each uniquely explained alcohol intentions, which anticipated an increase in alcohol
behavior 1 month later. The hypothesized processes were statistically corroborated
by tests of indirect and total effects. These findings support recommendations for
programs designed to curtail risky levels of underage drinking using the tenets of
attachment theory and TPB.
KEYWORDS:
attachment theory, theory of planned behavior, young adults, underage drinking
Examining how parents influence their young adult offspring is important for
understanding whether parenting efforts yield pervasive protective effects extending
into adulthood (Love & Murdock, 2004) or relatively ephemeral outcomes (Harris,
1995). Parents are responsible for socializing their children and to help them develop
the repertoire of skills necessary for dealing with problems and obstacles in life
(Grossmann, Grossmann, Kindler, & Zimmermann, 2008; McHale, Dariotis, & Kauh,
2003). Cultivation of this bond enables parents to impart personally and socially
important worldviews onto their children (Garnier & Stein, 2002; Hardy, PadillaWalkera, & Carlo, 2008; Knafo & Schwartz, 2003). Internalization of such information
is expected to yield a secure psychological and behavioral foundation to

schematically help manage the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Bonds with
mothers are especially important. Offspring tend to develop more secure attachment
bonds to mothers than fathers (Doyle, Lawford, & Markiewicz, 2009), and mothers
usually serve as the pivotal parental figure in attachment theories and frameworks
(Bowlby, 1988).
Young adults encounter many forces that capture their social attention (N. L. Collins
& Read, 1990; W. A. Collins, Laursen, Mortensen, Luebker, & Ferreira, 1997). As
young adults are forming an independent self-identity, they might be less reliant on
parents (Cassidy & Trew, 2001; Thomason & Winer, 1994). The university
experience, in particular, affords additional opportunities to make independent
decisions (Abar & Maggs, 2010; Walls, Fairlie, & Wood, 2009). Parental expectations
for their childrens emotional and functional autonomy during the transition to college
or university have been found to be significantly higher than their childrens own
expectations of autonomy (Kenyon & Koerner, 2009). If a paramount goal of
parenting is to help children develop the foundation to eventually become competent
adults, then expectations for their autonomy in decision making are not incongruous
with healthy parenting practices (Bell, Forthun, & Sun, 2000; W. A. Collins et al.,
1997; Kenyon & Koerner, 2009). With the current research, we investigate whether
the motheroffspring bond continues to wield a guiding force against underage
alcohol use in adult college students. The research is guided by two major
theoretical frameworks: attachment theory and theory of planned behavior (TPB).
These two theoretical traditions are sequentially linked in a predictive model using
attachment theory factors as precursors to the TPB factors.
Attachment Theory
Attachment theories are based on the view that human beings have an intrinsic and
universal desire to be accepted by others. Parent attachment is broadly
conceptualized as the overall level of parental responsiveness toward the offspring
(Bowlby, 1988).The youths internalization of the security of attachment is expected
to be imprinted heuristically through interaction with the caregiver, in time becoming
relatively resistant to change, showing enduring effects across the lifespan (Bowlby,
1988). Through formation of secure bonds to parents, children acquire a healthy
internal working model of themselves and others. Youth with secure attachmentto

parents develop the skills necessary to regulate their emotions and manage their
impulses (Grossmann et al., 2008). Those withinsecure attachment to parents have
problems with emotional regulation and impulse control (van der Kolk & Fisler, 1994),
acting on immediate rewards at the expense of long-term goals (Gailliot, Mead, &
Baumeister, 2008).
Attachment security is thought to be fostered through the formation and maintenance
of three pivotal and interrelated processes: trust, communication, and nonalienation
(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). These three components of attachment security are
embodied in much of the modern research on the ways in which parents are
protective against delinquent behaviors. The literature has shown that the parent
child factors of trust (Borawski, Ievers-Landis, Lovegreen, & Trapi, 2003),
communication (Lac et al., 2011), and nonalienation (Baker, 2005) attenuate
internalizing and externalizing problems in youth. These three components of
attachment underlie the conceptual definitions of many other parenting constructs.
Trust is embedded in the operational definition offamilism, the importance placed on
maintaining family ties and the commitment and loyalty to family (Ramirez et al.,
2004). The communication of information regarding the childs activities and
whereabouts is necessary for parental monitoring, sometimes more aptly referred to
as parental knowledge (Hemovich, Lac, & Crano, 2011; Lac & Crano, 2009).
Nonalienation toward the parent promotes feelings of unconditional acceptance, but
alienation or anger stems from parental rejection of the child, leading to the childs
rejection of the parent in response (Dwairy, 2010).
Armsden and Greenberg (1987) proposed that these same three critical components
of attachmenttrust, communication, and nonalienationcould be used to advance
the understanding of attachment to peers. In their research involving university
students, peer attachment positively correlated with the frequency that students
sought out their peers for emotional support. Peer attachment was positively
associated with self-esteem, locus of control, and optimism, but these variables
tended to be more strongly associated with parental attachment (Fass & Tubman,
2002). Accordingly, achieving secure attachment to both parents and peers could
result in greater social competency and adoption of a resilient outlook (Benson,
McWey, & Ross, 2006). Inadequate bonding to a parental figure, however, might
produce a risky shift to overreliance on peers engaged in nonnormative behaviors
(Bell et al., 2000).

TPB
Ajzen and Fishbeins (1980) theory of reasoned action (TRA) and TPB were
developed to explicate how persuasive forces and motivational beliefs drive
intentions and behavior. The TRA posits that attitudes (evaluation of anticipated
behavioral outcomes) andsubjective norms (the normative influence of important
others regarding a behavior) simultaneously affect intentions (action tendencyto
perform a behavior). Intentions, in turn, are postulated to impinge directly on
subsequent behavior. In an addendum to the theory (Ajzen, 1991), the TPB
incorporated the construct of perceived behavioral control (ease in performing the
behavior) to predict both intentions and behavior. Behavioral control has
incremental predictive validity over intentions if the behavior in question is not
completely under volitional control, such as physical obstacles hindering behavioral
implementation (Ajzen, 1991; Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). Another distinction is
that the intentions construct is postulated to be fully mediating in TRA but only
partially mediating in TPB.
Numerous studies have applied the TPB to understand an array of behaviors in
adolescents and young adults (Cha, Doswell, Kim, Charron-Prochownik, & Patrick,
2007; Kassem & Lee, 2004; Lac, Alvaro, Crano, & Siegel, 2009). Lending support to
the predictive validity of the TPB is a meta-analytic review of 185 studies that
involved application of the theory (Armitage & Conner, 2001). The TPB is relevant in
the current study owing to potential persuasive forces impinging on young adults
beliefs about alcohol. Furthermore, behavioral control in accessing alcohol is not
completely under volitional control among underage drinkers because of minimum
age legal restrictions.
Alcohol Use
Alcohol consumption was selected as the delinquent behavior for investigation in this
cohort because of its widespread occurrence in university environments (Pedersen,
LaBrie, & Lac, 2008), the high overestimation of peer approval of the behavior
(LaBrie, Cail, Hummer, Lac, & Neighbors, 2009), its legal and social ramifications
(Berger & Marelich, 1997), and the potential of misuse to lead to serious negative
consequences (Fiorentino, Berger, & Ramirez, 2007). In the United States,
enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (1984) made it illegal for

people under 21 years of age to purchase and publicly possess alcohol (Toomey,
Nelson, & Lenk, 2009). This law was changed largely because of initial evidence
indicating that increasing the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 years old would
substantially decrease traffic fatalities caused by young adults. The effectiveness of
this social deterrence was subsequently demonstrated by a sharp drop in alcohol
consumption and auto accidents and deaths among young adults, but debate
continues as to whether the change in law is solely responsible (Crano,
2012; McCartt, Hellinga, & Kirley, 2010;Toomey et al., 2009).
Underage drinking is a major problem on university campuses. The campus culture
affords opportunities to participate in events in which alcoholic beverages are
prevalent and serve as a social lubricant (Wechsler & Nelson, 2008). Young adults
enrolled in university drink at a higher rate than do same-aged counterparts who are
not enrolled (L. D. Johnston, OMalley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2010). As a result
of underage drinking, approximately 5,000 people under the age of 21 die annually in
the United States, with the greatest proportion attributed to motor vehicle accidents
(National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism [NIAAA], 2006).
Present Study and Hypotheses

Drawing on attachment theory and the TPB, in the current research, we examined
peer and maternal attachment in the context of alcohol consumption in underage
adults (18 to 20 years old) attending a university. Maternal attachment was assessed
as the mother is typically the primary caregiver during the childs youth. Using a full
structural equation model (SEM), we hypothesized separate peer and mother factors
of attachment theory as antecedents to the alcohol belief factors (attitudes, norms,
and behavioral control) of TPB. Incorporating attachment factors only as precursors
to the belief factors is consistent with recommendations for testing extensions to TPB
models proposed by Hennessy et al. (2010). They argued that extensions to TPB
models should not specify external variables (e.g., past behavior) as covariates that
compete with beliefs in the prediction of intentions or behavior. Doing so violates the
theoretical tenets of TPB and the theoretical sufficiency of its pathways,
because statistical control variables are not an internal feature of the theory.

Hennessy et al. contend that the inclusion of external factors as antecedents to the
belief factors is entirely compatible with the theory.
In the current research, we hypothesized that secure peer attachment should foster
pro-alcohol beliefs, because establishing close bonds with peers is achieved through
seeking typicality of membership to produce a shared collective identity with peer
members. As a result of internalization of peer belief systems for the sake of
conformity to the group and to avoid rejection (Brown, Lohr, & McClenahan, 1986),
young adults are susceptible to pro-alcohol persuasions from ingroup peer members
(Marks, Graham, & Hansen, 1992). Secure maternal attachment, in contrast, is
hypothesized to inversely predict alcohol beliefs, as strong bonds with this caregiver
impart a schematic basis to guide the adoption of more conventional antirisk beliefs
(Bell et al., 2000). Secure maternal attachment should enable young adults to better
manage their impulses and become more resistant to alcohol temptations.
Considering the research involves young adults who fail to meet the minimum age
requirement for purchasing alcohol, behavioral control was conceptualized as the
control over access to alcohol rather than control over intake when access has
already been granted. Research suggests that the accessibility of alcohol is
positively related to consumption, as difficulty in obtaining access to alcohol is a
hurdle preventing many underage individuals from drinking (Morleo, Cook, Bellis, &
Smallthwaite, 2010). Consistent with TPB, these three alcohol belief factors were
each hypothesized to predict intentions to consume alcohol, as supported by past
research (Conner, Warren, & Close, 1999; K. L. Johnston & White, 2003). Both
behavioral control and intentions were hypothesized to directly increase alcohol
behaviors longitudinally; this hypothesis was also supported by previous
investigations (Conner et al., 1999; Mcmillan & Conner, 2003).
Method
Participants
Two rounds of data were collected on 396 participants, 1820 years old, all legally
defined as adults but still under the minimum age for drinking in the United States. Of
these, 45 participants failed to complete both rounds or completed both rounds but
had missing values on the measures. This loss resulted in 351 participants (89%)
who provided complete responses longitudinally. Retention analyses between

completers and noncompleters uncovered no significant demographic differences on

the categorical variables of age, 2(2, N = 396) = 3.64, ns; gender, 2(1, N = 396) =
0.00, ns; or race, 2(3, N = 391) = 5.82, ns.
Participants used in the analyses (N = 351) averaged 18.7 years of age (SD = 0.71
years): 48.1% were 18-year-olds, 38.2% were 19-year-olds, and 13.7% were 20year-olds. Men made up 26.8% of the sample. Participants racially self-identified as
White (60.7%), Latino (17.9%), Asian (15.7%), and Black (4.6%), with 1.1% declining
to report.
Design and Procedure
Undergraduate students were recruited to participate for either extra credit or subject
pool credit. The gender distribution of the sample corresponded with the distribution
of students in these classes. In the online and hard copy bulletin announcement,
potential respondents were informed that the study would entail the completion of
two online surveys separated by 4 weeks. Participants completing the study for extra
credit were recruited by their instructor. Subject pool participants signed up for the
study via an online study administration program.
After signing up for the study, each participant received an e-mail with a unique link
to the electronic survey. They had 7 days to complete the study at their
convenience. Four weeks later, the same participants were e-mailed a link to the
Time 2 (T2) survey and again afforded 7 days to complete it. During each
measurement period, participants received at least two e-mails reminding them to
complete the measures within the allotted time. All measures were assessed at Time
1, except the three indicators of alcohol use behavior, which were assessed at T2.
Measures
Attachment theory
Quality of attachment was measured with the revised Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). This inventory contains separate
instruments, completed by the youth, to report the security of attachment to their
peers and mother, each tapped with three subscales (trust, communication, and
nonalienation). Previous validation research has evaluated the properties of these

scales using samples of children and young adolescents (Armsden & Greenberg,
1987) and older adolescents (Gullone & Robinson, 2005).
Peer attachment ( = .83)
To assess the security of attachment to peers, we had respondents answer
questions that asked about the relationship with close friends.
Cronbachs alpha values were acceptable for the subscales tapping trust ( = .92; 10
items; e.g., I trust my friends), communication ( = .91; eight items; e.g., When we
discuss things, my friends care about my point of view), and nonalienation ( = .69;
seven items; e.g., I feel angry with my friends). Response options were anchored
on a scale from 1 (almost never/never true) to 5 (almost always/always true).
Negatively phrased items were reverse scored, so that higher values represent
more secure attachment to peers.
Maternal attachment ( = .91)
To assess security of maternal attachment, we had respondents answer questions
about the relationship with their mothers. Reliability coefficients were found to be
acceptable for the subscales measuring maternal trust ( = .93; 10 items; e.g., I
trust my mother), communication ( = .93; nine items; e.g., When we discuss
things, my mother cares about my point of view), and nonalienation ( = .83; six
items; e.g., I feel angry with my mother). Responses were on a scale from 1
(almost never/never true) to 5 (almost always/always true). Negatively phrased items
were reverse scored, so that higher values reflect more secure maternal attachment.
TPB
Prior to answering questions regarding alcohol beliefs and use, participants read the
following instructions to help understand the types of beverages constituting a drink.
Questions are about drinks of alcoholic beverages. By a drink, we mean beer,
wine, wine cooler, shot of liquor, cocktail, or any beverage containing alcohol.
Attitudes ( = .86)

The attitudinal evaluation of potential outcomes associated with partaking in the

behavior of interest was represented with three items: (a) Drinking alcohol is
beneficial; (b) Drinking alcohol is relaxing; (c) Drinking alcohol is pleasurable.
Respondents indicated their level of endorsement on a scale from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Norms ( = .79)
Normative information may be divided into two related types. Descriptive norms is
the perception of how often important others engage in a behavior,
whereas injunctive norms is the perception of the extent to which important others
approve of the behavior (Jacobson, Mortensen, & Cialdini, 2011). Both types of
norms were measured only with peer reference groups, to determine whether secure
maternal attachment is predictive of lower alcohol peer norms in the model. To
assess descriptive norms, we had participants read the question, How much do the
following people drink? followed by each of three reference groups: (a) Typical
Students, (b) Friends, and (c) Closest Friends. Descriptive norms were on a 7point scale: 1 = never, 2 = less than once a month, 3 = once a month, 4 = 23 times
a month, 5 = once a week, 6 = 23 times a week, and 7 = daily. Injunctive norms
were measured using a similar format but with the question, How much do the
following people approve of drinking? followed by the same three reference groups.
The responses for injunctive norms ranged from 1 (strongly disapprove) to 7
(strongly approve). Mean composites consisting of descriptive norms ( = .74) and
injunctive norms ( = .76) also yielded acceptable reliabilities.
Behavioral control ( = .86)
The self-confidence or ability to gain access to alcoholic beverages was captured
with three statements: (a) Its easy for me to drink alcohol; (b) Its easy for me to
try a new alcoholic drink; and (c) Its easy for me to drink a lot. The options for
these items were anchored on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Intentions ( = .88)

Three items assessed the goal of engaging in the behavior in the future: (a) I intend
to drink this much in the next 30 days; (b) I intend to drink in the next 30 days; and
(c) I intend to drink more than average in the next 30 days. The first item was on a
scale from 1 (never) to 7 (daily), and the last two were on a scale from 1 (very
unlikely) to 7 (very likely).
T2 behavior ( = .86)
Assessed at the 1-month follow-up, three items tapped alcohol consumption
behaviors: (a) On how many days in the past 30 days did you drink? (frequency);
(b) On the days you drank during the past 30 days, how many drinks did you usually
consume per occasion? (quantity); and (c) On the days you drank during the past
30 days, what was the most number of drinks you consumed on any occasion?
(maximum). These three open-ended responses were each standardized.
Analytic Plan
Modeling strategy
In all analyses, higher scores on the attachment theory measures represented
greater security of attachment, and higher scores on the TPB measures represented
greater support for alcohol use. Parcels representing trust, communication, and
nonalienation served as indicators of the latent factors of peer attachment and
maternal attachment. Parcels also were constructed for descriptive and injunctive
norms. Formed by taking the mean of its individual items, each parcel was allowed to
load on its respective factor. The practice of constructing parcels parsimoniously
aggregates the many manifest items into manageable indicators for latent
approaches (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002).
All models were estimated using maximum likelihood and specified with the EQS 6.2
program (Bentler, 2001). Consistent with recommendations for testing structural
equation models proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), a two-step approach
was undertaken. In the first step, the measurement component was judged
using confirmatory factor analysis, to determine if the magnitude of the loadings
adequately represented the factors. At this step, a less than optimal measurement
component should be modified to derive psychometrically sound latent factors. The

second step involves testing the structural component by examining the predictive
factor-to-factor paths.
Confirmatory factor analyses
Two separate sets of confirmatory factor analyses were designed to evaluate
the construct validity of the factors used to represent the theoretical frameworks
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1998; Crano & Brewer, 2002). A confirmatory factor
analysis was estimated for the two factors of peer and parental attachment, each
with the parcels of trust, communication, and nonalienation as indicators. A
confirmatory factor analysis was then estimated for the five factors in TPB, with the
parcels of descriptive and injunctive norms as indicators for the norms factor.
Integrative model
After determining suitable measurement components, we ran a structural equation
model that combined factors from both theories in a predictive analysis. To rule out
additional pathways that might render a superior explanation over the hypothesized
model, we estimated an initial integrative model as follows. After correlating peer
attachment and maternal attachment, we set both factors to simultaneously predict
all the TPB factors of attitudes, norms, and behavioral control, intentions, and T2
behavior. Next, attitudes, norms, and behavioral control were specified to predict
intentions and T2 behavior. The intentions factor was set to explain variance in T2
behavior. Consistent with the tenets of TPB, attitudes, norms, and behavioral control
were allowed to intercorrelate, but as it is impossible to covary endogenous factors
directly in the BentlerWeeks model, their disturbance terms were correlated as a
proxy (Bentler, 2001). After estimation of this initial predictive framework, it was
trimmed of all nonsignificant paths and then reestimated to determine whether the
hypothesized linkages were supported.
Model evaluation criteria
Several criteria were used to evaluate the extent that the hypothesized models
approximated the data. Preferred is a nonsignificantchi-square test, indicating that
the model should not be rejected, but the test is sensitive to erroneous rejection if the

sample size is not small (Bollen, 1989). Also evaluated are the comparative fit index
(CFI) and the nonnormed fit index (NNFI), which range from 0 to 1, with higher
values indicating better fit (Ullman & Bentler, 2003). Hu and Bentler (1998) found that
the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR), a residual-based index, is
useful in detecting model misspecification and suggested that values below .08 are
desirable.
Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Attachment Theory Scale

The fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis for the attachment theory scales
were mixed, 2(8) = 89.35, p < .001, CFI = .94, NNFI = .90, SRMR = .06. The
Lagrange multiplier test (Chou & Bentler, 1990) indicated that the model could be
best improved by correlating the error terms of peer attachment nonalienation and
maternal attachment nonalienation. This single adjustment was theoretically justified
on the grounds that peoples feelings of social acceptance or rejection might be
pervasive across interpersonal interactions. The model was respecified by
incorporating this single correlation, producing a final confirmatory model with higher
fit indices (see Figure 1),

Figure 1. Confirmatory factor analysis of attachment theory scale (N = 351).

Standardized coefficients are presented. All paths are significant at p < .001.

2(7) = 22.60, p < .001, CFI = .99, NNFI = .98, SRMR = .03. Given that the original
and modified models were nested, a chi-square difference test was performed,
revealing that the updated analysis produced a significant improvement in fit,
diff2(1) = 66.75, p < .001.
The final confirmatory factor analysis for attachment theory showed that the factor
loadings, ranging from .58 to .99 (p < .001), significantly represented their respective
factors (see Figure 1). Peer and maternal attachment were shown to be positively
correlated, suggesting that young adults securely attached to their mothers also
tended to be securely attached to their peers. To test whether the peer and maternal
attachment factors might be better represented by a single latent factor of
interpersonal attachment, we constrained their correlation to be perfect (r = 1.00).
The imposition of this particular equality constraint was shown to be untenable, p < .
001, and therefore released. The finding suggested that these two attachment
factors, although correlated, were not isomorphic, thereby providing evidence of
factor discriminant validity.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of TPB Scale
The confirmatory factor analysis of TPBs five factors produced an adequate model
overall, 2(67) = 287.05, p < .001, CFI = .94, NNFI = .92, SRMR = .06. Lagrange
multiplier tests showed that the model could be statistically enhanced by correlating

the error term between quantity and maximum drinks. This was justified on the basis
that both indicators tapped level of alcohol consumption on drinking occasions. The
final confirmatory factor analysis of TPB factors, incorporating this respecification,
yielded higher fit indices (see Figure 2),
Figure 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Theory of Planned Behavior Scale (N =
351). Standardized coefficients are presented. All paths are significant at p < .001.

2(66) = 208.65, p < .001, CFI = .96, NNFI = .95, SRMR = .05. A chi-square
difference test between these two nested models found that the respecified model
produced a significant improvement, diff2(1) = 78.40, p < .001.
Factor loadings, ranging from .65 to .98 (all p < .001), were significant indicators of
their corresponding TPB latent factors (seeFigure 2). Interfactor correlations ranged
from .44 to .87, p < .001. Next, each possible interfactor correlation between the five
factors in TPB was constrained, in separate tests, to be perfectly correlated (r =
1.00). None of the equality constraint impositions proved to be statistically tenable
(all ps < .01), so all constraints were released. These tests showed that the five
factors were empirically different constructs in TPB.
Predictive Model Integrating Attachment Theory and TPB
Factors from attachment theory and TPB were linked to develop a full structural
equation model. The measurement component of the predictive model was specified
in the same manner as the final confirmatory factor analyses of attachment theory
(see Figure 1) and TPB (see Figure 2). To rule out alternative pathways, we
estimated an initial model involving all potentially plausible direct paths. Although
some paths are inconsistent with the TPB, this approach allows for a more rigorous
evaluation of the model. The initial integrated model yielded satisfactory fit indices
overall (see Figure 3),
Figure 3. Initial integrative model of attachment theory and theory of planned
behavior (N = 351). Standardized coefficients are presented. For diagrammatic
clarity, disturbance terms are not displayed, with disturbance terms correlated
between attitudes and norms (r = .45), attitudes and behavioral control (r = .69), and
norms and behavioral control (r = .45), all ps < .001. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .

001.

2(147) = 333.73, p < .001, CFI = .97, NNFI = .96, SRMR = .04. Next, to produce a
more parsimonious model to describe the data, we deleted all nonsignificant paths
and reestimated the model. Results of the final integrative model yielded desirable
indices (seeFigure 4),
Figure 4. Final integrative model of attachment theory and theory of planned
behavior (N = 351). D = Disturbance. Standardized coefficients are presented.
Disturbance terms were correlated between attitudes and norms (r = .46), attitudes
and behavioral control (r = .69), and norms and behavioral control (r = .46), all ps < .

001. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

2(155) = 344.00, p < .001, CFI = .97, NNFI = .96, SRMR = .05. A chi-square
difference test corroborated that trimming the nonsignificant paths did not
significantly degrade the model, diff2(8) = 10.27, ns.
The measurement component of the final integrative model indicated that all factor
loadings of their respective latent factors yielded reasonable magnitudes. A
Pearson correlation test of the factor loadings obtained from two CFAs (see Figures
1 and 2) with the factor loadings obtained from the final predictive model (see Figure
4) revealed an almost perfect correlation of .99 (N = 20, p < .001). Thus, factor
loadings of the final integrative model are not displayed because of redundancy in
information with the CFAs.
The structural part of the trimmed model (see Figure 4) reveals that secure peer
attachment positively predicted higher alcohol norms and behavioral control,
whereas secure maternal attachment negatively predicted alcohol attitudes and
behavioral control. Higher levels of alcohol attitudes, norms, and behavioral control
positively predicted alcohol intentions. Finally, behavioral control and intentions

uniquely explained alcohol use longitudinally. Two hypothesized paths were not
significant: (a) peer attachment to attitudes and (b) maternal attachment to norms.
Indirect Effects
The final integrative model (see Figure 4) depicts meditational processes
from exogenous factors (peer attachment and maternal attachment) to a
final endogenous outcome (T2 behavior). Thus, it was necessary to evaluate
whether the proposed meditational processes were tenable. The decomposition of
indirect and total effects for latent SEM models was then conducted (Sobel, 1987).
Tests of indirect effects are presented in Table 1.

For the sake of completeness, tests of indirect effects from intentions also were
estimated and described first. Tests of indirect effects corroborated that secure peer
attachment and insecure maternal attachment each indirectly predicted stronger
alcohol intentions through the meditational factors of attitudes, norms, and
behavioral control. Then, tests of indirect effects confirmed that secure peer
attachment, insecure maternal attachment, pro-alcohol attitudes, pro-alcohol norms,

and pro-alcohol behavioral control each indirectly predicted alcohol behavior at T2.
Furthermore, all tests of total effects, defined as the combined direct and indirect
effects on the endogenous factors, were found to be significant (see Table 1). These
results supported the meditational processes depicted in the model (see Figure 4).
Discussion

In the current research, we investigated the interpersonal and intrapersonal factors

associated with underage drinking in young adults using two major theoretical
frameworks: attachment theory and TPB. On the basis of confirmatory factor
analyses, results showed that measurement scales designed to capture constructs
from these theories yielded reasonable psychometric properties. Using these factors
for the main analyses, a structural equation model integrating both theories
supported the majority of the hypothesized pathways. Secure peer attachment was
related to young adults pro-alcohol normative perceptions and behavioral control.
Even after we statistically controlled for peer attachment, secure maternal
attachment negatively predicted attitudes and behavioral control toward alcohol.
Secure maternal attachment had indirect, but not direct, effects on intentions and
behavior, suggesting that the cultivation of parentoffspring bonds to reduce
problematic alcohol behaviors might focus on persuasively influencing young adult
alcohol beliefs rather than micromanaging their alcohol use. Furthermore, all of the
TPBs theoretical linkages were supported by the results.
Securely attached children might be more responsive to internalizing the
conventional anti-risk-taking beliefs of their parents (Garnier & Stein, 2002). A
positive parentchild bond imparts the view to the youth that the caregiver is
committed to his or her well-being even in adulthood (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).
Formation of these perceptions might make college students more resilient against
attitudes and behavioral control favoring alcohol. Thus, developing this psychological
resiliency may be manifested in the ability to delay gratification and manage the
impulse to access alcohol (Grossmann et al., 2008; van der Kolk & Fisler, 1994).
One study concerning resiliency in university students established that secure
attachment to parents fostered healthy beliefs about separation and individuation,

which, in turn, predicted three dimensions of positive transition to university:

academic adjustment,social adjustment, and personalemotional adjustment
(Mattanah, Hancock, & Brand, 2004).
As found in the integrative model, peer attachment security predicted significantly
higher normative beliefs favoring alcohol. Establishing closer peer attachment
relationships might make young adults more vulnerable to alcohol-related peer
pressure(Crawford & Novak, 2007; Robin & Johnson, 1996). The norms factor was
measured with peer norm items to assess whether maternal attachment protected
respondents against peer norms in support of alcohol, but this link was not found to
be statistically significant. A practical implication is that attachment-based maternal
efforts to manage university-aged childrens affiliation with high-risk friends and
acquaintances may be futile, so other avenues might be pursued instead.
Of the three TPB beliefs, only behavioral control was explained by both peer
attachment and maternal attachment. Peer attachment security was positively
related to perceived behavioral ability to access alcohol, but maternal attachment
security was negatively related to perceived behavioral ability to access this
substance. Among the three belief factors, behavioral control was the strongest
predictor of intentions, and it also predicted behavior at the 1-month follow-up.
Despite it being an illegal substance for use among participants in this underage
sample, the explanatory power of behavioral control is not unforeseen, considering
that alcohol is a popular and ubiquitous beverage readily found in many situational
contexts in the college culture (Chen, Gruenewald, & Remer, 2009; Komro,
Maldonado-Molina, Tobler, Bonds, & Muller, 2007).
The path from intentions to T2 behavior produced the largest magnitude of effect.
Although TPBs intentions and behavior factors were empirically distinct in tests of
constraints in the current project, as well as theoretically distinct as argued by the
theorys authors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), a rationale for the strong connection is
that the intentions construct most fully captures the immediate impetus to enact the
behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Another explanation is that when responding to questions
regarding alcohol intentions, participants recalled past alcohol behaviors to guide
their intentions for reengaging in the behavior. One study found that although past
behavior significantly correlated with intentions, the predictive connection of past
behavior to intentions was no longer statistically significant once attitudes, norms,
and behavioral control were set to predict intentions (S. E. Collins & Carey, 2007).

Not all behavioral domains applying TPB have evidenced a strong intention
behavior link, as intention implementation requires self-regulation through the ability
to inhibit an array of other impulses and behaviors competing for ones attention
(Ajzen, 2011).
A 1-month time lag was used in this research because it was thought that recall of
past alcohol use via self-reports might become less accurate with the passage of
more time. A meta-analysis of 206 TPB health studies containing a prospective
design determined that the median length of follow-up in assessing behavior was 5
weeks (McEachan, Conner, Taylor, & Lawton, 2011). The intentionbehavior link
found in our study was larger than the typical magnitude documented in this
quantitative review, which concluded that the strength of the intentionbehavior link
varies as a function of the type of behavior and the temporal interval between
measurements. Various intervening factors and circumstances arising over the
course of longer delay periods can modify the course of peoples intentions to
implement a behavior (Ajzen, 2011).
The attachment factors were assessed at the same measurement period as the
alcohol belief factors. The analyses were modeled to be logically consistent
with attachment theory and much of the research in this area, as quality of
attachment security was expected to foster development of an internal working
model to guide beliefs and behaviors (Bowlby, 1969, 1988) rather than the other way
around. Future researchers might consider expanding on our two-round approach by
using more complex multiround designs to carefully scrutinize directional processes,
for example, assessment of attachment variables prior to measurement of alcohol
beliefs followed by the measurement of a behavioral outcome.
Participants in this study were young adults not old enough to legally drink in the
United States. In most countries, the legal drinking age is around 18 years (McCartt,
Hellinga, & Kirley, 2010). In a survey of university students from the United States
and 20 European countries, including England, Germany, and France (Keller, Frye,
Bauerle, & Turner, 2009), higher legal drinking age positively correlated with
prevalence of binge drinking. That is, in countries where alcohol is restricted to older
individuals, university students were prone to heavier drinking, suggesting that
underage respondents might consume at riskier levels when alcohol is contraband.
Causality should not be implied, as unidentified cultural differences might confound
this connection. A distinction that sets the United States apart is that it has a

relatively pronounced driving culture, thus raising the possibility of serious harm
involving a vehicle (Wechsler & Nelson, 2008). In any country, whether underage
individuals consume alcohol may be due in part to whether they believe the minimum
age requirement is legitimate. The perceived illegitimacy of an alcohol control policy
corresponds to elevated drinking levels in reactance to perceived restrictions and
infringements on personal liberties, as research shows that youth who felt that
alcohol laws were unjust were more likely to use the substance (Amonini & Donovan,
2006).
Limitations
Results presented in this study should be interpreted in light of potential limitations.
The current research focused exclusively on underage drinking in a young adult
sample, without distinguishing participants in terms of clinical forms of drinking
such as alcohol abuse and addictionwhich necessitates categorizing participants
on the basis of a checklist of established criteria from theDiagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Our
goal in the current research was to focus on modeling levels of alcohol consumption
typical among underage adult drinkers, with an eye toward isolating developmental
and belief factors for prevention efforts.
A methodological limitation is the use of self-report measures, a modality of
administration susceptible to the threat of socially desirable responding (Crano &
Brewer, 2002). Given that alcohol use is relatively normative behavior among college
students and the precautions of confidentiality afforded in the Web-based survey,
such biases are likely small. Research applying the TPB has been conducted
predominantly using self-report measures, but future research should assess its
constructs in observational and field-based designs. As college students are
returning from a party, blood alcohol concentration might be measured via
breathalyzer tests that serve as a physiological indicator of alcohol use (Grant,
LaBrie, Hummer, & Lac, 2012), but this instrument is not without problems, as it only
gauges the concentration of alcohol remaining in the blood at the moment of
assessment. Although the study provided information on types of beverages
containing alcohol, the amount of alcohol constituting a standard drink was not
defined to participants. It was possible that a person who poured a generous glass of

vodka might have judged this to be a single serving. Given the different types of
alcohol beverages, each varying in percentage of ethanol, conversion information
might be confusing to participants. Experimental research shows that people have
difficulty in accurately pouring the amount of alcohol even when information about a
standard drink is provided (Dawson, 2011). Furthermore, college students
knowledge of the ethanol content of beverages is unrelated to accuracy in the
pouring task (De Visser & Birch, 2012). Part of peoples poor ability to gauge a
standard drink unit is that no universal standard exists. In the United States, a
standard drink size contains about 14 g of ethanol, but in a comparable country such
as the United Kingdom, it is only 8 g (Dawson, 2011).
Other potential factors explicating underage drinking were unmeasured and
therefore not incorporated into the model. Past alcohol use might be responsible for
driving the belief factors of attitudes, norms, and behavioral control. Additional
research should determine whether peer and maternal attachment explicate each of
the alcohol belief factors beyond past behavior. Another extension might require
underage drinkers to indicate the extent that they believe that alcohol laws and
policies are unjust, to determine whether this particular variable might be directly or
indirectly responsible for alcohol use. Incorporating these measures, however, might
have expanded the results observed in the present analyses, but it is unlikely that
they would have contradicted them.
Conclusions
The NIAAA (2006, 2009) recommended that future preventive research should strive
to examine underage drinking in terms of how developmental forces, such as peer
relationships and family dynamics, serve as risk and resilient factors. The present
project is a response to this call to action by examining both types of interpersonal
relationships in a multivariate framework. Consistent with the findings presented here
and the NIAAAs recommendation, parents could be trained to adopt protective
parenting practices that are part and parcel of the parental attachment construct,
such as engaging in familial activities that cultivate trust, encouraging bidirectional
parentchild communication, and adopting disciplinary practices that reject
delinquent behaviors yet foster unconditional acceptance of the youth.

Results from the current research demonstrate that maternal bonds continue to play
a protective role in the lives of young adults, even after controlling for peer bonds. It
is noteworthy that the attachment constructs were measured entirely with respect
toattachment theory conceptualizations, as none of the attachment items were
phrased in terms of peer or maternal beliefs regarding alcohol use. The predictive
utility of attachment bonds is underscored by the fact that these broadly defined
interpersonal constructs were shown to explain significant variance in a restricted
behavioral domain. A major implication of this point is that secure attachment bonds
to mothers could potentially serve as a defense against an array of other forms of
risk beliefs and problematic behaviors in young adulthood. Results obtained from this
research offer theoretical and practical information regarding the processes leading
to underage drinking.
References

Abar, C. C., & Maggs, J. L. (2010). Social influence and selection processes
as predictors of normative perceptions and alcohol use across the transition
to college. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 496
508.http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0005

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50, 179211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/07495978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behavior: Reactions and

reflections. Psychology & Health, 26, 1113
1127.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of

mental disorders (4th ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Amonini, C., & Donovan, R. J. (2006). The relationship between youths moral
and legal perceptions of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana and use of these
substances. Health Education Research, 21, 276
286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyh064

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in

practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned

behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40,
471499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer
attachment: Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 16, 427454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939

Baker, A. J. L. (2005). The long-term effects of parental alienation on adult

children: A qualitative research study.American Journal of Family
Therapy, 33, 289302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926180590962129

Bell, N. J., Forthun, L. F., & Sun, S.-W. (2000). Attachment, adolescent
competencies, and substance use: Developmental considerations in the
study of risk behaviors. Substance Use & Misuse, 35, 1177
1206. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826080009147478

Benson, M. J., McWey, L. M., & Ross, J. J. (2006). Parental attachment and
peer relations in adolescence: A meta-analysis. Research in Human
Development, 3, 3343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15427617rhd0301_4

Bentler, P. M. (2001). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino,

CA: Multivariate Software.

Berger, D. E., & Marelich, W. D. (1997). Legal and social control of alcoholimpaired driving in California: 19831994.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 58,
518523.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY:
Wiley.

Borawski, E. A., Ievers-Landis, C. E., Lovegreen, L. D., & Trapi, E. S. (2003).

Parental monitoring, negotiation unsupervised time and parental trust: The

role of perceived parenting practices in adolescent health risk

behaviors.Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 60
70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00100-9

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London, England:

Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parentchild attachment and healthy

human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brown, B., Lohr, M. J., & McClenahan, E. H. (1986). Early adolescents

perceptions of peer pressure. Journal of Early Adolescence, 6, 139
154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431686062005

Cassidy, C., & Trew, C. (2001). Assessing identity change: A longitudinal study
of the transition from school to college.Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 4, 4960. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430201041004

Cha, E. S., Doswell, W. M., Kim, K. H., Charron-Prochownik, D., & Patrick, T.
E. (2007). Evaluating the theory of planned behavior to explain intention to
engage in premarital sex amongst college students: A questionnaire
survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44, 1147
1157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.04.015

Chen, M.-J., Gruenewald, P. J., & Remer, L. G. (2009). Does alcohol outlet
density affect youth access to alcohol? Journal of Adolescent Health, 44,
582589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.10.136

Chou, C.-P., & Bentler, P. M. (1990). Model modification in covariance

structure modeling: A comparison among likelihood ratio, Lagrange
multiplier, and Wald tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 115
136.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2501_13

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 644663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644

Collins, S. E., & Carey, K. B. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a

model of heavy episodic drinking among college students. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 21, 498507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893164X.21.4.498

Collins, W. A., Laursen, B., Mortensen, N., Luebker, C., & Ferreira, M. (1997).
Conflict processes and transitions in parent and peer relationships:
Implications for autonomy and regulation. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 12, 178198.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743554897122003

Conner, M., Warren, R., & Close, S. (1999). Alcohol consumption and theory
of planned behavior: An examination of the cognitive mediation of past

behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1676

1704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02046.x

Crano, W. D. (2012). The rules of influence. New York, NY: St. Martins Press.

Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principles and methods of social

research (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crawford, L. A., & Novak, K. B. (2007). Resisting peer pressure:

Characteristics associated with other-self discrepancies in college students
levels of alcohol consumption. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 51,
3562.

Dawson, D. A. (2011). Defining risk drinking. Alcohol Research & Health, 34,
144156.

De Visser, R. O., & Birch, J. D. (2012). My cup runneth over: Young peoples
lack of knowledge of low-risk drinking guidelines. Drug and Alcohol
Review, 31, 206212.

Doyle, A., Lawford, H., & Markiewicz, D. (2009). Attachment style with mother,
father, best friend, and romantic partner during adolescence. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 19, 690714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15327795.2009.00617.x

Dwairy, M. (2010). Parental acceptancerejection: A fourth cross-cultural

research on parenting and psychological adjustment of children. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 19, 3035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-0099338-y

Fass, M. E., & Tubman, J. G. (2002). The influence of parental and peer
attachment on college students academic achievement. Psychology in the
Schools, 39, 561573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.10050

Fiorentino, D. D., Berger, D. E., & Ramirez, J. R. (2007). Drinking and driving
among high-risk young Mexican-American men. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 39, 1621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.05.013

Gailliot, M. T., Mead, N. L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2008). Self-regulation. In O.

P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.),Handbook of personality
psychology: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 472491). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

Garnier, H. E., & Stein, J. A. (2002). An 18-year model of family and peer
effects on adolescent drug use and delinquency.Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 31, 4556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014085016511

Grant, S., LaBrie, J. W., Hummer, J. F., & Lac, A. (2012). How drunk am I?
Misperceiving ones level of intoxication in the college drinking

environment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26, 51

58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023942

Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Kindler, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2008). A

wider view of attachment and exploration: The influence of mothers and
fathers on the development and psychological security from infancy to
young adulthood. In J.Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 857
879). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Gullone, E., & Robinson, K. (2005). The Inventory of Parent and Peer
AttachmentRevised (IPPAR) for children: A psychometric
investigation. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 67
79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.433

Hardy, S. A., Padilla-Walkera, L. M., & Carlo, G. (2008). Parenting dimensions

and adolescents internalisation of moral values. Journal of Moral
Education, 37, 205223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240802009512

Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the childs environment? A group socialization

theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458
489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.3.458

Hemovich, V., Lac, A., & Crano, W. D. (2011). Understanding early-onset drug
and alcohol outcomes among youth: The role of family structure, social

factors, and interpersonal perceptions of use. Psychology, Health &

Medicine, 16, 249267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2010.532560

Hennessy, M., Bleakley, A., Fishbein, M., Brown, L., DiClemente, R., Romer,
D., . . . Salazar, L. (2010). Differentiating between precursor and control
variables when analyzing reasoned action theories. AIDS and Behavior, 14,
225236.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-009-9560-z

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological
Methods, 3, 424453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424

Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Bodies obliged

and unbound: Differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and
descriptive social norms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100, 433448.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021470

Johnston, K. L., & White, K. M. (2003). Binge-drinking: A test of the role of

group norms in the theory of planned behaviour.Psychology & Health, 18,
6377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0887044021000037835

Johnston, L. D., OMalley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J.

E. (2010). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975
2009: Volume II. College students and adults ages 1950 (NIH Publication
No. 10-7585). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved
from http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/vol2_2009.pdf

Kassem, N. O., & Lee, J. W. (2004). Understanding soft drink consumption

among adolescents using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 27, 273
296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBM.0000028499.29501.8f

Keller, A., Frye, L., Bauerle, J., & Turner, J. C. (2009). Legal ages for
purchase and consumption of alcohol and heavy drinking among college
students in Canada, Europe, and the United States. Substance Abuse, 30,
248252.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08897070903041228

Kenyon, D. B., & Koerner, S. S. (2009). Examining emerging-adults and

parents expectations about autonomy during the transition to
college. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24, 293
320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558409333021

Knafo, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Parenting and adolescents accuracy in

perceiving parental values. Child Development, 74, 595
611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.7402018

Komro, K. A., Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Tobler, A. L., Bonds, J. R.,

& Muller, K. E. (2007). Effects of home access and availability of alcohol on
young adolescents alcohol use. Addiction, 102, 1597
1608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01941.x

LaBrie, J. W., Cail, J., Hummer, J. F., Lac, A., & Neighbors, C. (2009). What
men want: The role of reflective opposite-sex normative preferences in
alcohol use among college women. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 23,
157162.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013993

Lac, A., Alvaro, E. M., Crano, W. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2009). Pathways from
parental knowledge and warmth to adolescent marijuana use: An extension
to the Theory of Planned Behavior. Prevention Science, 10, 2232.

Lac, A., & Crano, W. D. (2009). Monitoring matters: Meta-analytic review

reveals the reliable linkage of parental monitoring with adolescent marijuana
use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 578
586.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01166.x

Lac, A., Unger, J. B., Basanez, T., Ritt-Olson, A., Soto, D. W., & BaezcondeGarbanti, L. (2011). Marijuana use among Latino adolescents: Gender
differences in protective familial factors. Substance Use & Misuse, 46, 644
655.http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2010.528121

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To

parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the
merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151
173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

Love, K. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2004). Attachment to parents and

psychological well-being: An examination of young adult college students in

intact families and stepfamilies. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 600

608.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.4.600

Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of
planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 18, 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181001

Marks, G., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1992). Social projection and
social conformity in adolescent alcohol use: A longitudinal
analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 96
101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181014

Mattanah, J. F., Hancock, G. R., & Brand, B. L. (2004). Parental attachment,

separation-individuation, and college student adjustment: A structural
equation analysis of meditational effects. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 51, 213225.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.213

McCartt, A. T., Hellinga, L. A., & Kirley, B. B. (2010). The effects of minimum
legal drinking age 21 laws on alcohol-related driving in the United
States. Journal of Safety Research, 41, 173
181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2010.01.002

McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, R. J. (2011).

Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of
planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97
144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.521684

McHale, S. M., Dariotis, J. K., & Kauh, T. J. (2003). Social development and
social relationships in middle childhood. In R. M. Lerner, M.
A. Easterbrooks, J. Mistry, & I. B. Weinder (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Vol. 6. Developmental psychology (pp. 241265). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Mcmillan, B., & Conner, M. (2003). Using the theory of planned behavior to
understand alcohol and tobacco use in students. Psychology, Health &
Medicine, 8, 317328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1354850031000135759

Morleo, M., Cook, P. A., Bellis, M. A., & Smallthwaite, L. (2010). Use of fake
identification to purchase alcohol amongst 1516 year olds: A crosssectional survey examining alcohol access, consumption and
harm. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 5,
Article Article 12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-5-12

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2006). Alcohol alert:

Underage drinking (No. 67). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services. Retrieved
from http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA67/AA67.htm

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2009). Alcohol alert: A

developmental perspective on underage alcohol use (No. 78). Rockville,
MD: U. S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved
fromhttp://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA78/AA78.htm

National Minimum Drinking Age Act, 23 U.S.C. 158. (1984).

Pedersen, E. R., LaBrie, J. W., & Lac, A. (2008). Assessment of perceived

and actual alcohol norms in varying contexts: Exploring social impact theory
among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 552
564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.11.003

Ramirez, J. R., Crano, W. D., Quist, R., Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E. M.,
& Grandpre, J. (2004). Acculturation, familism, parental monitoring, and
knowledge as predictors of marijuana and inhalant use in
adolescents. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 18, 3
11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.18.1.3

Robin, S. S., & Johnson, E. O. (1996). Attitude and peer cross pressure:
Adolescent drug and alcohol use. Journal of Drug Education, 26, 69
99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/W8QF-V3KF-N9C3-86UE

Sobel, M. E. (1987). Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation

models. Sociological Methods & Research,16, 155
176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001006

Thomason, S. L., & Winer, J. L. (1994). Career maturity and familial

independence among college freshmen. Journal of Career
Development, 21, 2335.

Toomey, T. L., Nelson, T. F., & Lenk, K. M. (2009). The age-21 minimum legal
drinking age: A case study linking past and current debates. Addiction, 104,
19581965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02742.x

Ullman, J. B., & Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. In J.

A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (pp. 607634).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0224

van der Kolk, B. A., & Fisler, R. E. (1994). Child abuse and neglect and lose of
self-regulation. Bulletin of the Messinger Clinic, 58, 145168.

Walls, T. A., Fairlie, A. M., & Wood, M. D. (2009). Parents do matter: A

longitudinal two-part mixed model of early college alcohol participation and
intensity. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 908918.

Wechsler, H., & Nelson, T. F. (2008). What we have learned from the Harvard
School of Public Health College Alcohol Study: Focusing attention on
college student alcohol consumption and the environmental conditions that
promote it.Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 481490.