Table 5.

Cluster analyses based on drunkenness and alcohol problems at ages 20 and 22

Variable	Full sample (N = 331)	Whites (n = 168)	Blacks (n = 163)
Solution quality	Good	Good	Good
Number of clusters	2	2	2
Cluster labels (n)	Never/Rarely Drunk (223)a	Never/Rarely Drunk (85)	Never/Rarely Drunk (100)
	Frequently Drunk (108)a	Frequently Drunk (83)	Frequently Drunk (63)
ANOVAb	F(1, 329)	F(1, 166)	F(1, 161)
Family factors
Parental guidelines	0.77	0.09	4.20*
Parental monitoring	9.45**	8.17**	6.15*
Attachment to parents	3.74	5.13*	1.76
Parental normsc	4.89*	1.81	1.69
Consistent discipline	0.77	0.09	4.10*
Parental alcohol usec	7.40**	0.01	3.83
Individual factors
Religious conservatism	5.78*	0.02	0.34
Ethnic identity exploration	1.98	0.38	0.81
Ethnic identity affirmation	7.28**	0.25	0.02
Delinquency	12.55***	10.20**	4.09*

Notes: ANOVA = analysis of variance.

^aClusters revealed race differences in membership;

^bdetailed results of ANOVA post hoc analyses are available from the authors on request;

^cchi-square tests were conducted on these dichotomous outcomes; the reported parameter for the full sample is χ²(1, 331), χ²(1, 168) for Whites, and χ²(1, 163) for Blacks. All other validation analyses were conducted using ANOVAs.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01;

^***p < .001.