Drug and Alcohol Review (i99o) 9, 3Ix-319

Perceptions of legal and illegal drugs: comparisons of parents, adolescents, and best friends

JEFFREY WILKS & VICTOR J. CALLAN

Key Centre in Strategic Management, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane and Graduate School of Management, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Abstract

The topic of drugs is a sensitive issue and an area where considerable conflict and disagreement may exist between parents and children. In this study, 50 family groups (consisting of father-mother-adolescent- adolescent's friend) responded to questions about a range of legal and illegal drugs used in Australia. A multidimensional scaling analysis revealed that parents, adolescents, and adolescents' best friends had similar perceptions about drugs, especially distinctions between legal and illegal substances, and drugs used more by younger people. LSD, cocaine and heroin were judged by all groups as causing personal and family problems, being strong and dangerous, not socially acceptable, bad for one's health and associated with crime. Marihuana, tobacco and alcohol were judged in opposite terms, as well as being perceived as popular, widespread and used by youth. Subjects' perceptions of drugs were very similar to representative state and national community samples, but were inaccurate when compared to official figures for drug prevalence and morbidity. In particular, respondents showed little appreciation of the problems associated with widely available legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

Introduction

Studies of adolescent drug use within a socialization framework have highlighted the importance of social learning in the development and maintenance of behaviour patterns. According to Maloff and her colleagues [i] children learn cultural recipes which explain how to use certain chemical substances to attain desired results. Cultural recipes also describe where, when, why, how much and what type of substance is socially sanctioned.

Of central importance to this learning of drug use behaviours and attitudes is the modelling and reinforce- ment provided by primary reference groups, especially parents and peers. An extensive literature has developed comparing the drug use patterns of parents and those of their offspring [u-i2]. While the drug of choice may

differ between parents and their children, the social learning mechanisms which underlie drug use, like modelling and reinforcement, remain the same. In studies where the same drug is being compared across generations, the similarities in patterns of use are striking [2, 4].

A smaller, but still substantial number of studies have compared parent and child attitudes toward various drugs and their use [2, i% I2-I4]. Here the similarity of attitudes and beliefs between parents and children tend to diverge. Alcohol tends to be the drug with most shared beliefs and expectations [i2, 14] and marihuana the drug where parents and children may find most disagreement [~3, I5, i6]. Indeed, Jessop [i7] reports that across a range of individual behaviours and

Jeffrey Wilks, PhD, Key Centre in Strategic Management, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, Queensland 4OOl, Australia. Victor J. Callan, PhD, Graduate School of Management, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4072 , Australia. Correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr Wilks. An earlier version of this paper was presented by the first author at the Biennial National Conference of the Australian Association for Adolescent Health, Brisbane, September, i988.

3II

312 Jeffrey tVilks & Victor Z Callan

attitudes, agreement between parents and their children is lowest on drug topics. Agreement was slightly higher for more socially accepted drugs, and lowest for illicit substances.

One explanation for this finding is that many parents are totally unfamiliar and often quite frightened about illicit drugs [18]. Users of illicit drugs (e.g. cannabis, narcotics, cocaine) are consistently assigned a negative stereotype [i9, 2o]. Stronger legal and social sanctions are also more often advocated for the illicit drug user [21-23]. In the present study it was predicted that parents would conceptualize different types of drugs according to their legality and perceived danger of use. Adolescents, on the other hand, were expected to perceive drugs in groups or clusters that reflect more their pharmacological properties and social use. Such differences in perceptions of drugs between parents and children might be suggestive of areas where health education efforts could be focused.

Drug use is considered to be a major problem in Australian society. The community, however, does make distinctions between the problems caused by various drugs. In one national study, illegal drugs, together with unemployment, were rated as the major problems society currently faced [24]. Excessive use of alcohol ranked ninth on the list of 18 problems, while excessive use of medicinal drugs rated fourteenth. Tobacco smoking was judged seventeenth, even though official statistics clearly show that smoking is the largest cause of drug-related deaths [25]. Besides identifying the perceptions of drugs held by parents and their children, the present study also considers the accuracy of these perceptions by comparison with official statistics on the prevalence, use and dangers of the various substances.

Given that the general public, and parents in particular, are not very knowledgeable about illicit drugs [15, 18, 26], it is not surprising that adolescents turn to their peers for information, advice and support in drug matters [27, 28]. Considering the importance of peers as a social reference group for young people [29], the present study included a matched sample of best friends. By including this group it was possible to examine the similarity of drug perceptions shared by young people, in comparison to those held by parents. It was predicted that parents and adolescents would attribute quite different characteristics to drags and drug users. Young people were expected to share similar perceptions with their friends, especially less concern about the dangers, addictive potential and legality of various drug types [23, 3 0 ] •

Method

Subjects

Fifty students enrolled in introductory psychology

courses at the University of Queensland volunteered to participate in this study. Students were told that their parents and a close friend of the same sex would also be requested to complete a brief questionnaire on family relations and perceptions of legal and illegal drug use. The sample of 2o0 respondents consisted of 3 ° father-mother-daughter-female friend groups and 2o father-mother-son-male friend groups.

In the sons' group, the fathers' mean age was 51.3 years, and the mothers on average were 47.5 years of age. Sons and their male friends were of similar ages (means of 19a and 19. 9 years, respectively). Families were of predominantly middle-class backgrounds; 60% of fathers were employed in professional or managerial positions as measured by the ANU scale for occupa- tional status [3i]. All parents were currently married. The sons' male friends were all single and most (80%) reported that they were still studying. Religious affilia- tion was predominantly Catholic (30%) or Anglican 08%).

In the daughters' group, the fathers' mean age was 5o.5 years and the mothers were on average 47.4 years. Daughters and their female friends were of similar ages (means of 17. 9 and 18.o years, respectively). These families were also from middle-class backgrounds; 70% of fathers were employed in professional/managerial occupations. All parents were still married. The daugh- ters' friends were all single and most were also studying (80%), although many were in other institutions and schools throughout the State. Anglican (42o/0) and Catholic (20%) were again the most frequently reported religions.

Instruments and procedures

Students, their parents and friends all completed schedules that contained core questions on background characteristics, family relationships, and perceptions of legal and illegal drug use.

Students completed their questionnaires in small groups at the university. When they reported to the laboratory, they were told that the purpose of the study was to determine what people thought about legal and illegal drugs. They were shown a list of lO drug types: caffeine, pain killers, marihuana, inhalants, tran- quillizers, heroin, alcohol, cocaine, tobacco, LSD. Each drug was accompanied by a brief description or example. For tranquillizers the examples given included the brandnames Valium and Serepax. The io drug types were chosen to best represent chemical substances used in Australia, though their availability and extent of use varies considerably [25].

After they read through the list of drugs, students were asked to rate the similarity of all 45 pairs of drugs on a nine-point scale, where a rating of ~ represented a judgment that the two drugs were as similar as any in

the list, 5 represented average similarity, and 9 repre- sented a judgment that the two drugs were as different as any in the list. Students were asked to use any dimensions they believed were relevant in making the similarity judgments.

When they had completed the paired-comparison judgments, students were asked to rate each drug on i6 nine-point descriptive scales, where a rating of I represented a judgment of 'very . . . (or very m u c h . . . ) ' , a rating of 5 represented 'average', and 9 represented ' n o t . . . (or not much)' . The scales were: difficult to give up, easily obtainable, a problem in Australia, use is widespread, socially acceptable, used by young people, causes personal problems, addictive, dangerous, popular, expensive, associated with crime, bad for user's health, likely to be abused, causes family problems, and I would not use it. A further five scales were anchored with bipolar descriptors: strong/weak, legal/illegal, depres- sant action/st imulant action, hard drug/soft drug, and long-term effects/short-term effects. These scales repre- sented dimensions often used to characterize drugs and drug users [i8, i9, 23, 32-34 ] . All adjective scales were presented to subjects in random order.

Each parent received their questionnaire in a sealed envelope, together with a return-addressed envelope, and a letter outlining the aims of the research and requesting their participation. Detailed instructions on how to answer the questions were included. Parents were asked to complete the schedule individually and without discussion with their adolescent or partner. The same procedure was followed for the student's friend. Current friends were chosen as they appear to have more influence on drug use than do childhood or past friends [35], and same sex friends are nominated by adolescents as people most important in their lives [29].

All parents and friends were assured of strict confidentiality. They were asked not to write their names or other identifying information on the sche- dules. Parent -chi ld-f r iend responses were matched using identical codes. I f the student did not expect to see their parents or friend within a two week period, the questionnaires were mailed out; otherwise the student delivered them. All students received course credit for taking part in the study.

Resuks

Data analysis

The similarity ratings were analysed by means of a non- metric individual differences model of multidimensional scaling. The program used for the analysis was ALSCAL [36]. This model assumes that subjects' similarity judgments can be described using the same underlying cognitive dimensions. By scaling the data for each subject individually, ALSCAL also allows for the

Perceptions of drugs 313

possibility of individual differences in the rdevance of each dimension to the subjects. ALSCAL allows for measurement at the nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio levels. In this study, data were assumed to be ordinal and continuous.

ALSCAL constructs a multidimensional space which describes the stimuli based on similarity ratings aver- aged across all subjects, and, in addition, a subject space that represents the relative weight given to each dimension by each subject.

Dimensionality and stimulus space

The four groups of fathers, mothers, adolescents, and their friends were analysed separately. A series of solutions were obtained, and a two-dimensional solution was selected for each as most readily interpretable and as providing an adequate fit to the data. For the fathers' group, the two-dimensional solution accounted for 4o% of the variance in judgments (Kruskal's s t ress=o.33 ) [37]. Similarly, for mothers (35 % of variance; s tress=o.34), adolescents (42% of variance; s t ress= o.3i), and friends (38% of variance; s t ress=o.3o) , a two-dimensional solution was accepted since three dimensions represented a very small improvement in fit for the data.

Fig. i presents, for the group of 5 ° fathers, (a) the location of the drug stimuli in the two-dimensional space and (b) the location of the vectors derived from the adjective scales. Examination of the location of the drugs reveals a rough horseshoe or near-circle within the stimulus space. There is a cluster of illicit drugs (heroin, cocaine and LSD) on the top right, and below inhalants and marihuana are together. The legal drugs of tobacco and caffeine are grouped together, with alcohol above near pain killers and tranquillizers.

In order to better understand how the stimulus space is conceptualized, fathers' judgments of the drugs on each of the 2i adjective scales were related to the multidimensional space by means of a series of multiple regression analyses. Predictors were the stimulus coordi- nates of each drug in the two-dimensional space, and the criterion in each case was the mean rating across all subjects on the particular adjective scale. This analysis allows the positioning of a series of vectors in the space along which the stimuli (in this case, the drugs) are rank-ordered. The strength of the relationship, in terms of the multiple R, may be conveniently represented by the length of each vector. In all figures, only one side of the vector is represented, but vectors can be considered as bi-polar, running through the origin. In addition, drugs can be positioned along any of these bi-polar vectors by dropping a perpendicular line from the drug to the vector. In this way, drugs can be rank ordered along each vector.

314 Jeffrey II~ilks & Victor Z Callan

- 2 -1 1 I I I I I I I I I ~ ~ r I I I

PAIN KILLERS

~o~t ~ TRANQUILLIZERS

• C A F F E I N E i ~ • TOBACCO •MARIHUANA

2 i i I i

HEROIN ,~c~ ~ • = ~ • COCAINE ~ ; , ~ .

IP - Not socially u~t=*~,~, Causes family problems

~ ould nol use it

Illegal

olNHALANTS

J I J) I I I _ ~ I I I _ I I I ~ I I I 2~

Figure x. Two-dimensional representation of the stimulus space for fathers and vectors of adjective ratings.

Dimensions used by fathers

In the fathers' group, x6 of the 2z adjective scales showed multiple correlations with the stimulus space which were significant at the 0.0 5 level or better. Vectors representing these z6 adjectives are presented in Fig. i. The five adjective scales with non-significant multiple correlations were: expensive, difficult to give up, a problem in Australia, addictive and has depressant action.

As can be seen, most vectors ran close to the first dimension on the right hand side of the stimulus space. Here the distinction between legal and illegal drugs is most noticable. Heroin, cocaine and LSD were per- ceived as strong, hard, dangerous drugs. Fathers believed these drugs were associated with crime, bad for the user's health, likely to be abused, and that they caused family and personal problems. Fathers consider these drugs to be illegal, socially unacceptable and personally they would not use them.

On the left side of the space, caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, pain killers and tranquillizers were considered as easy to obtain, popular and their use widespread. Alcohol, pain killers and tranquillisers were perceived to have long-term effects as drugs. The only vector running close to the second dimension was 'used by young people'. Fathers believed that marihuana, to-

bacco, caffeine and inhalants were most used by young people.

Dimensions used by mothers

In the mothers ' group, 15 of the 2x adjective scales showed multiple correlations with the stimulus space which were significant at the 0.o 5 level or better. The location of the various drugs in the stimulus space and the vectors are presented in Fig. 2. The six adjective scales with non-significant multiple correlations were: expensive, difficult to give up, a problem in Australia, addictive, has depressant action and I would not use it.

Examination of the stimulus space for mothers reveals a very similar configuration to that of the fathers' group. As predicted, the main distinctions were again between legal and illegal drugs along the first dimension. Heroin, cocaine and LSD were perceived as illegal, hard, dangerous drugs, with a large number of negative characteristics. These drugs caused personal and family problems, they were likely to be abused and were associated with crime. Alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, on the other hand, were considered to be soft drugs, widespread in their use, and the cause of less trouble. Alcohol and the pharmaceutical sedatives were again

Perceptions of drugs 315

- 2 - 1 I i i i I

INHALANTS

N°t soelelly cause ece~table taro@ ~rOble

Bad for UserS,heal~ tt ~egal Causes personal problems

SVong ~

L{kely tO be abused Hard dr~g 41"

HEROIN

1 2 i I i I i i , I

,! 8

.TOBACCO eCAFFEINE

eMARIHUANA o~X~o~o \e

~ j / / / / ~ e . . . . _ . ~ Use is widespread

~ Popular

A L C O H O L ~e=TRANQUILLIZERS

".q,PA, N KILLERS

l ~ I I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I L - 2 - 1 1 2

Figure u. Two-dimensional representation of the stimulus space for mothers and vectors of adfective ratings.

perceived to have most long-term drug effects. Mothers were similar to fathers in believing that marihuana, tobacco, caffeine and inhalants were drugs most used by young people.

Dimensions used by sons and daughters

In the adolescent group, the ratings of sons and daughters were analysed together. Fourteen of the zi adjective scales showed multiple correlations with the stimulus space (p<o.o5). The location of the drugs in the stimulus space and significant vectors are presented in Fig. 3. Seven adjective scales had non-significant multiple correlations with the stimulus space: expensive, difficult to give up, a problem in Australia, addictive, likely to be abused, has depressant action and illegal.

The adolescent stimulus space is very similar to those of fathers and mothers. Again, cocaine, LSD and heroin form a cluster, but alcohol and tobacco are grouped together, and caffeine moves to a mid-point closer to pain killers and tranquillizers. The distinction between legal and illegal drugs emerges again, although adole- scents did not use that particular adjective scale. Similar to the parents' results, adolescents rated the legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) as popular, easily obtainable and widespread, and in contrast to heroin, LSD and cocaine, not dangerous, not associated with crime, not causing

personal or family problems and socially acceptable. Marihuana was again considered to be a drug used by young people. Sons and daughters, however, compared to their parents, had more positive perceptions of marihuana, placing ahead of it in terms of negative characteristics all drugs except alcohol and tobacco. Adolescents perceived caffeine, pain killers and tran- quillizers to have most long-term drug effects. Heroin, cocaine and LSD were again attributed most negative characteristics.

Dimensions used by best fro'ends

In the friends' group, z6 of the 2z adjective scales showed multiple correlations with the stimulus space which were significant at the o.o 5 level or better. The stimulus space and vectors representing these i6 adjectives are presented in Fig. 4-

The five adjective scales with non-significant multiple correlations were: difficult to give up, a problem in Australia, addictive, has depressant action and illegal.

Examination of the stimulus space reveals a con- figuration similar to the other subject groups. Like parents, the friends perceived caffeine and tobacco as clustered together, with alcohol toward pain killers and tranquillizers. The duster of illegal drugs (heroin, cocaine and LSD) is again obvious, though cocaine has

316 Jeffrey WilLs ~ Fictor I. Callan

-2 -1 i r ] i i i I i t I

Used by young people~ \

MARIHUANf INHALANTS • /

COCAINE

s ~ ~ • LS D ~ J "

¢/-

1 2 i n i I n i u [

/..-'7 /ALCOHOL

c c °

CAFFEINE te,-~ ~,%

ePAIN KILLERS

• TRANQUILLIZERS

a I t i I I I I t I I I I I I t I I t - 2 -1 1 2

Figure 3. Two-dimensional representation of the stin~ulus space for adolescents and vectors of adjective ratings.

-2 -1 1 2 u ] ~ i i ~ i t t I i i f [ , i

• , TRANQUelLLIZERS

% ,~ "~o'~... ~ ~ :1] • INHALANTS ~la t ~ s

A L C O H ~ ~:'~ ~ TM a ~

• CAFFEINE e~% eTOBACCO

L t I I r n I -2 -1

• MARIHUANA

t r u F i ~ r t i '1 2

Figure 4. Two-dimensional representation of the stimulus space for best friends and vectors of adjective ratings.

moved closer to marihuana. Friends also differ from the other groups in positioning inhalants well away from marihuana and closer to the pharmaceutical sedatives.

Heroin, LSD and cocaine were again perceived as hard, dangerous drugs which were most likely to be abused and cause personal and family problems. Interes- tingly, friends were the only group to use the label 'expensive'. They considered cocaine to be the most expensive of the drugs presented. In contrast, alcohol, pain killers and finally tranquillizers were perceived as the least expensive, but easy to obtain, popular and widespread in their use. These legal central nervous system depressants were also viewed as having long-term drug effects. While parents and adolescents considered marihuana to be the drug most used by young people, friends disagreed. They considered sedatives and inha- lants to be more popular among youth.

Individual differences in perceptions of drugs

In addition to the stimulus space, the ALSCAL individual differences analysis produces a subject space in which each subject is represented by a weight on each dimension--that is, two coordinates. The weights are an indication of the importance of each dimension to the individual subject, relative to other subjects. These coordinates for groups of subjects can be entered into analyses of variance to determine if different types of subjects are using the two dimensions similarly. In this study there was an interest in the use of the dimensions by sons and daughters, and also by male and female friends. Analyses of variance revealed that sons and daughters did not differ in their use of dimension i (F<I) or dimension 2 (F<I). Also, male and female best friends use the first (F<I) and second dimensions (F=2.2, n.s.) in highly similar ways.

Accuracy of perceptions

One way to examine the accuracy of subjects' percep- tions about drugs is to rank order the drugs along the significant vectors (e.g. danger) that are represented in the subject spaces of mothers, fathers, sons-daughters, and male-female best friends. For each group, these rankings of drugs can be correlated with rankings from official sources on the danger of using the drugs listed. There are, however, two main problems in the use of this methodology in the area of drug use. First, there is still very little official information available about patterns of illicit drug use in Australia [25]. Second, where lists can be identified, there is considerable variation in the types of drugs included. For example, sedatives and tranquillizers are sometimes included in the same list even though they both describe the same drug group. On the other hand, two of the most commonly used drugs (caffeine and analgesics) are quite

Perceptions of drugs 317

often left out of drug lists. Finally, it is very difficult to identify lists where both legal and illegal drugs are compared.

Danger

A Spearman correlation coefficient was first calculated between subjects' rank order of the drugs on the dimension of danger, and a ranking of drugs according to their hazards provided by Irwin [34]. Hazard, in this case, includes a drug's potential for psychological and physical dependence, tissue damage, tolerance develop- ment, impaired judgment, death by overdose and legal status. Irwin's rank ordering assumes a high level of abuse since many drugs taken infrequently and in low doses may not be dangerous. Results showed low positive relationships for fathers (rs=o.o6), mothers (rs = o.24), adolescents (rs = o.2i) and friends (rs = 0.20). Thus, subjects were quite inaccurate in their perceptions of the relative danger or hazard associated with the drugs presented to them.

To test whether these inaccurate perceptions were unique to the present sample, comparisons were made between the rank orderings of drugs by our subjects and a representative sample of North Queensland residents [23]. While different methodologies were employed for the two studies, it was possible to calculate correlation coefficients for the dimension of danger. Results revealed high positive relationships for fathers (rs = o.88; p<o.ol) , mothers (rs=o.92; p<o.oi) , adolescents (rs=o.87; p<o.o i ) and friends (rs=o.88; p<o.ox). As an additional check, adolescents and their friends were then compared to similar aged university students from a separate sample [23]. Again drug rankings revealed high positive correlations for adolescents (rs=o.81~ p<o.os) and their friends (rs=o.91 i p<o.oi) . That is, the inaccurate perception of drug danger held by our sample is shared by the larger community.

Hard drug/soft drug

The rankings of drugs by parents, their adolescents and the adolescents' best friends were also compared with a nationally representative sample [24] on the dimension hard drug/soft drug. In the national sample, factor analysis was employed to distinguish between drugs. The ranking of drugs from hard to soft was very similar between the national sample and ours: fathers (rs = 0.82; p<o.oi) , mothers (rs=o.88~ p<o.oi) , adolescents (rs=o.9o; p < o . o 0 and friends (rs=o.85; p<o.o,) . This pattern of correlations also emerges for dimensions of crime, family and personal problems, likelihood of abuse, negative health aspects of use, and legality. That is, the community makes very definite distinctions between what it perceives to be the harder drugs (e.g. heroin, cocaine and LSD) and the more socially

318 feffrey lgZilks ~ .Victor Z Callan

acceptable and legal drugs (e.g. alcohol, tobacco and caffeine).

Used by .young people

While family and friend groups had perceptions similar to more representative samples about the popularity and availability of drugs, the present sample did hold inaccurate beliefs about the extent to which drugs were used by young people. Comparisons with prevalence rates for high school students [38 ] revealed low correlations for fathers (rs=o.28), mothers (rs=o.o8), adolescents (rs=o.25) and friends (rs=o.o7). As with perceptions of danger, inaccuracies were due to respon- dents believing that illegal drug use is widespread. At the same time, few repondents were aware that the drugs most frequently used by young people are alcohol, analgesics and tobacco [25, 38].

Discussion

The results of this study highlight the importance of socialization and social learning in the development of attitudes and beliefs about drugs. Independent reports from fathers, mothers, their adolescents and the adolescents' best friends revealed essentially the same pattern of drugs in each two-dimensional stimulus space. As predicted, parents conceptualized different types of drugs according to their legality and peceived danger of use. Parents, adolescents and their friends all perceived heroin, LSD and cocaine as strong, hard drugs, associated with crime, not socially acceptable, dangerous, bad for the user's health and the cause of personal and family problems. This attribution of negative characteristics to these illegal drugs is a finding common to a number of community studies [i9, 23, 24].

The horizontal axis or first dimension of the subjects' stimulus space was very much a distinction between the hard and soft drugs. At one end of this dimension were heroin, LSD and cocaine, and at the other pole were caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, pain killers and tranquillizers. For all groups, the adjective 'used by young people' was closest to the vertical axis or second dimension. Marihuana was consistently perceived as a young people's drug and was placed midway between the main clusters of legal and illegal substances.

The prediction that adolescents and their friends would perceive drugs in groups or clusters that reflect more pharmacological properties and social use was not supported. Adolescents perceived drugs in a pattern similar to their parents. Sons' and daughters' drug perceptions were generally more similar to their fathers' than their mothers' perceptions (see also ref. i2), but their similarity to mothers' perceptions was also strong. As reported elsewhere It3, I6], parents and children did disagree in their perceptions of marihuana. Mothers and

fathers judged marihuana to share many more of the qualities of heroin, cocaine and LSD than did their sons and daughters. While on the vector 'I would not use it' fathers ranked marihuana very close to LSD, heroin and cocaine, adolescents on the same vector perceived marihuana to be more like alcohol, and would use it.

Along the first dimension, adolescents and their friends had very similar perceptions. On the second dimension, the placement of drugs was also very similar, except for inhalants which were judged to be more like alcohol and sedatives by friends. Adolescents, however, like their parents, perceive inhalants as more like tobacco and marihuana.

Within each group's two-dimensional stimulus space, the most important factors used in judgments about drugs, as determined by the largest R 2, were social acceptance, danger, popularity, the prevalence of use, health consequences, association with crime, and whether the drug was perceived as hard or soft. For all groups the factors not used to distinguish between drugs were: a problem in Australia, difficult to give up, depressant action/stimulant action, and addictive. The friends group alone used expensive in their description of drugs. While all groups made strong distinctions between legal and illegal substances (especially heroin, cocaine and LSD), the adjective scale of legal-illegal was only significant in the parents' stimulus space.

The main advantage of the multidimensional scaling methodology is that the researcher does not initially impose any structure on subjects' judgments. The similarity ratings for the various drugs provide a 'cognitive map' on which subjects attach adjective labels according to the dimensions they used in conceptualiz- ing the stimulus space. The adjective scales are useful for comparisons with other subject groups and official statistics. In this study, comparisons with an indepen- dent report revealed that parents and adolescents were inaccurate in their perceptions of the relative hazard or danger of various drugs. Similarly, comparisons with official statistics on the prevalence of drug use by high school students showed that subjects were not aware of which drugs were most often used by young people. Indeed, across most dimensions, subjects tended to greatly over-estimate the negative characteristics and prevalence of illegal drug use.

At the same time, comparisons with representative state and national community samples revealed strong similarities in drug perceptions. This suggests that most Australians are still more concerned about illegal drugs such as heroin, cocaine and LSD and less aware that abuse of legal drugs (alcohol and tobacco) is the greater community problem [24]. Parents, adolescents and their friends judged alcohol as popular, widespread and not causing personal or family problems to the same extent as hard drugs. The challenges for health professionals is to raise community awareness about the relative dangers

Perceptions ofdrugs 319

of various legal and illegal drugs and to educate the public in the moderate use of all substances.

Rcfcrcnccs

[I] Maloff D, Becker HS, Fonaroff A, Rodin J. Informal social controls and their influence on substance use. J Drug Issues i979;9:16i-84.

[2] Barnes GM. Drinking among adolescents: a subcultural phenomenon or a model of adult behaviors. Adolescence I981;I6:2H-29.

[3] Feldman B, Rosenkrantz A. Drug use by college students and their parents. Addict Diseases 1977;3:235-42.

[4] Fontane PE, Layne NR. The family as a context for developing youthful drinking patterns. J Alcohol Drug Educ i979;24:19-29.

[5] Glynn TJ. From family to peer: a review of transitions of influence among drug-using youth. J Youth Adol I981;lO:363-83 .

[6] Harburg E, Davis DR, Caplan R. Parent and offspring alcohol use: imitative and aversive transmission. J Stud Alcohol i982;43:497-516.

[7] Kandel DB. Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Ann Rev Sociol i98o;6:235-85.

[8] Kandel DB, Andrews K. Processes of adolescent sociali- zation by parents and peers. Int J Addict i987;22:319-42.

[9] Newcomb MD, Huba GJ, Bentley PM. Mothers' influence on the drug use of their children: confirmatory tests of direct modeling and mediational theories. Devel Psychol 1983;i9:714-26.

[io] O'Connor J. The young drinkers: a cross-national study of social and cultural influences. London: Tavistock Publications, 1978.

In] Smart RG, Fejer D. Drug use among adolescents and their parents: closing the gap in mood modification. J Abnorm Psychol 1972;79:153-6o.

[12] Wilks J, Callan vj. Similarity of university students' and their parents' attitudes toward alcohol. J Stud Alcohol 1984i45:326-33[

[13] Friedman AS, Santo Y. A comparison of attitudes of parents and high school senior students regarding cigarette, alcohol and drug use. J Drug Educ I984;I4:37-51.

[14] Wilks J, Callan vJ. Expectations about appropriate drinking contexts: comparisons of parents, adolescents and best friends. Br J Addict i988;83:1o55-62.

[i5] Anderson CD, McDermott D, Gardner JM. Public attitudes to marihuana. Aust J Alcohol Drug Depend I978~5:92-5.

[16] Wilks j . Youth in crisis: a profile of drug-related telephone counselling calls in Brisbane. Aust Child Fam Welfare 1984;9:3-6.

[i7] Jessop DJ. Topic variation in levels of agreement between parents and adolescents. Pub Opin Q 1982;46:538-59.

[18] Gidley C, Gidley M. Drugs: you and your family. Sydney: William Collins, 1979 .

[19] Douse M. Drugtakers: a study of stereotypes. Ment Health Aust 1972;5:26- 9.

[20] Hines GH. Attitudes and practices of university students related to tobacco, alcohol and marihuana use. NZ MedJ 1974;8o:1- 5 .

[21] Brown RA. A preliminary survey of drug use among law students in New South Wales: attitudes and habits. J Drug Issues 1977;7:439-55.

[22] Bunbury J, Cowling j. Drug use and drug users: attitudes and behaviors of a group of Western Australian Rotar- ians. J Drug Educ 198o;Io:355-66.

[23] Grichting WL, Barber JG, Walsh C. The Drug Offensive at work in North Queensland 1986. Townsville: James Cook University of North Queensland, 1986.

[24] McAllister I, Makkai T, Jones R. Attitudes towards drugs and drug use in Australia. Canberra: Common- wealth Department of Health, 1986.

[25] Commonwealth Department of Health. Statistics on drug abuse in Australia. Canberra: Australian Govern- ment Publishing Services, 1987 .

[26] StuartJ. Families ofalcohol and drug dependent persons. In: Santamaria, JN, ed. 1982 autumn school of studies on alcohol and drugs: proceedings of seminars. Melbourne: Department of Community Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, ~982;x29-33 .

[27] Sheppard MA. Sources of information about 'drugs'. J Drug Educ 198O;lO:257-62.

[28] Wilks J. Credible sources of information about alcohol and drugs. Aust Child Fam Welfare i987;~2:i7-19.

[29] Wilks J. The relative importance of parents and friends in adolescent decision making. J Youth Adol 1986;I5:321-32.

[3 o] Champion RA, Bell DS. Attitudes toward drug use: trends and correlates with actual use. Int J Addict I98O;I5:551-67.

[3 I] Broom L, Duncan-Jones P, Jones FL, McDonnell P. Investigating social mobility. Canberra: Department of Sociology, Australian National University, i977 .

[32 ] Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol. An Australian handbook on drug use. Can- berra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1984 .

[33] Health Commission of New South Wales. The use and abuse of drugs. Canberra: Australian Government Pub- lishing Service, i978.

[34] Irwin S. Drugs of abuse: an introduction to their actions and potential hazards. Phoenix, Arizona: DIN Publica- tions, I98L

[35] Apsler R, Blackman C. Adults' drug use: relationship to perceived drug use of parents, friends while growing up, and present friends. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse I979;6:29I-3oo.

[36] Takane Y, Young F, De Leeuw J. Nonmetric individual differences multidimensional scaling: an alternating least squares method with optimal scaling features. Psychome- trika 1976~42:7-67.

[37] Kruskal JB, Wish M. Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1978.

[38] Baker W, Homel P, Haherty B, Trebilco P. The 1986 survey of drug use by secondary school students in New South Wales. Sydney: New South Wales Drug and Alcohol Authority, 1987 .