This dissertation tests the ability of four rival criminological theories to explain adolescent substance use: differential association/social learning theory, social bond theory, self-control theory, and general strain theory. Special attention is paid to whether the theories are general, as the inventors of the theories claim, or gender-specific to males, as critics of the theories claim. To undertake this theoretical assessment, a secondary analysis was conducted using data from the Rural Substance abuse and Violence Project (RSVP). The respondents, drawn from grades 7 to 12, were pooled across four waves. The N for this study is 9,488.
The empirical test revealed three main conclusions. First, measures of the components of differential association/social learning theory, social bond theory, self-control theory, and general strain theory were able to explain substance use among adolescents. Second, the theories had general effects across males and females and thus were not gender-specific. Third, because all perspectives earned some empirical support, they might best be seen not as theoretical rivals but as complementary theories that all contribute to our understanding of the sources of substance use among youths.
However, given the modest amount of variation explained in the analyses, future research on substance use may benefit from two extensions. First, most studies, including this dissertation, operationalize only parts of theories. The next generation of empirical tests should seek to measure all components of the major theories, thus truly assessing the models’ explanatory potential. Second, a truly complete theory of substance use must build upon but not be limited to the major perspectives. Therefore, a need exists to examine the causal impact of factors—such as those unique to women or biological traits that shape conduct from childhood onward—that lie outside the traditional theories of crime.