Brief Report

Emerging Adulthood
2023, Vol. 11(3) 698–703
Alcohol and Cannabis Use Within Emerging © 2023 Society for the
Study of Emerging Adulthood
Adults’ Committed Romantic Relationships: and SAGE Publishing
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Associations With Relationship Functioning DOI: 10.1177/21676968221149079
journals.sagepub.com/home/eax
and Quality of Life

Joan S. Tucker1 , Wendy M. Troxel2, Anthony Rodriguez3, Rachana Seelam1, and

Elizabeth J. D’Amico1

Abstract
This study examines alcohol and cannabis use within emerging adults’ committed romantic relationships and its association with
relationship functioning (satisfaction, stability) and well-being (life satisfaction, anxiety, depression). Participants completed
surveys in 2020 and 2021 (N = 1214). Latent profile analysis identified four classes of couples’ substance use patterns:
concordant (similar) infrequent use (81.9% of sample), near-daily partner cannabis use (6.0%), near-daily respondent cannabis
use (6.5%), and concordant moderate alcohol and near-daily cannabis use (5.5%). Cross-sectionally, respondents who reported
concordant infrequent use had significantly higher well-being than those who reported concordant heavier use; there were no
class differences involving the two types of discordant couples. In general, class membership did not predict changes in well-
being or relationship functioning over a 1-year period. Results provide new insights into patterns of both alcohol and cannabis
use within committed romantic relationships of emerging adults that may have implications for well-being during this de-
velopmental period.

Keywords
alcohol, cannabis, relationship functioning, emerging adults, well-being

Introduction Studies have primarily focused on either alcohol or (to a

Heavy alcohol use and cannabis use tend to peak during
emerging adulthood (Schulenberg et al., 2021) and have been
associated with lower well-being and worse functioning
(D’Amico et al., 2022; Tucker et al., 2021). For emerging
adults in a committed romantic relationship, their well-being
may not only be affected by their own substance use, but also
their partner’s substance use (Muyingo et al., 2020; Rodriguez
et al., 2014). For example, studies tend to find better rela-
tionship functioning among partners with more similar alcohol
and cannabis use (Crane et al., 2016; Testa et al., 2018; Torvik
et al., 2015). One common explanation is that shared sub-
stance use (or non-use) is reflective of the partner’s shared
values, interests, and activities (Fischer & Wiersma, 2012).
For example, partners with similar use may spend more leisure
time together, resulting in better relationship functioning,
compared to couples in which one partner engages in heavy
use and the other does not. Consistent with this idea, diary
studies show that drinking or using cannabis together appears
to promote intimacy in couples where both partners use the
substance regularly (Testa et al., 2019a, 2019b).
lesser degree) cannabis use, rarely examining both sub-
stances. One of the few studies assessing both alcohol and
cannabis use found that discordant (but not concordant)
heavy drinking newlyweds were more likely to divorce than
non-heavy drinking newlyweds, whereas risk of divorce
associated with concordant and discordant cannabis use
weakened to non-significance when controlling for alcohol
and tobacco use (Leonard et al., 2014). These results in-
dicate a need for more research assessing both alcohol and
cannabis use to gain a clearer understanding of their relative
effects on relationship functioning, including studies of
younger unmarried couples. Further, Leonard et al. (2014)
1
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
2
RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
3
RAND Corporation, Boston, MA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Joan S. Tucker, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA
90407, USA.
Email: jtucker@rand.org
Tucker et al.
examined effects of alcohol and cannabis use separately,
controlling for use of the other, rather than explicitly ex-
amining how patterns of alcohol and cannabis co-use within
couples are associated with relationship functioning. As
such, virtually nothing is currently known about how re-
lationship functioning may differ for couples who are
discordant in their use of both substances, only one sub-
stance, or neither substance.
The present study significantly extends the existing
literature by addressing three aims using data from a large
and racially/ethnically diverse cohort of emerging adults.
First, it uses latent profile analysis to identify patterns of
past month alcohol and cannabis use frequency within
committed romantic relationships of emerging adults.
Second, it compares these relationship classes on two
important and interrelated domains of functioning expected
to be affected by a couple’s pattern of substance use: current
relationship functioning and respondent well-being (i.e.,
life satisfaction, anxiety, and depression). Finally, it uses
longitudinal data to examine whether these relationship
classes differ in terms of changes in relationship stability,
relationship functioning, and respondent well-being over a
1-year period.
Method
Participants and Procedures
Participants were from two cohorts of sixth and seventh
grade students enrolled in 2008 (wave 1: mean age 11.5),
recruited from 16 middle schools across three school dis-
tricts in Southern California as part of an evaluation of a
prevention program (CHOICE) that took place in 2008–
2009 (D’Amico et al., 2012). Participants completed
waves 1–5 (wave 1: Fall 2008; wave 2: Spring 2009; wave
3: Fall 2009; wave 4: Spring 2010; wave 5: Spring 2011)
through paper-pencil surveys during PE class. Following
wave 5, participants transitioned to over 200 high schools,
and were re-contacted and re-consented to complete annual
web-based surveys. Wave-to-wave retention rates average
85% across all 13 waves, and 90% from age 18 forward
(waves 8–13). Participants who do not complete a particular
survey do not “drop out” of the study; rather, we field the
full sample at every wave so that all participants can par-
ticipate in each individual survey. Current analyses use data
from waves 12 and 13 (collected in 2019–2020 and 2020–
2021, heretofore referred to as T1 and T2, respectively). At
wave 12, 88.7% of the sample resided in California, where
cannabis was legalized for recreational use in 2016. Fifty-
two percent of the T1 sample was selected out as they were
not in a committed relationship, resulting in an analytic
sample of 1214 at T1. Committed relationship was defined
as being married (5.75% of analytic sample at T1), engaged
(5.09%), living with their partner (0.90%), or dating their
partner exclusively (88.25%). There were no significant
699
differences between individuals who were and were not
selected out based on relationship status on covariates or
substance use variables with one exception: males were
more likely than females to select out based on their report
of not being in a committed relationship. At T1, the analytic
sample was age 22.5 on average, 37% male, and racially/
ethnically diverse (48% Hispanic, 22% non-Hispanic
White, 23% Asian, 2% Black, and 4% multiracial/other).
All study materials and procedures were approved by the
study’s IRB.
Measures
Covariates. Analyses comparing emergent classes on out-
comes controlled for demographic characteristics that may be
associated with substance use and outcomes of interest: sex
assigned at birth (male, female), sexual orientation
(heterosexual/straight vs. lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning,
or asexual), mother’s education (as a proxy for socioeconomic
status; college graduate vs. not), and race/ethnicity. For race
and ethnicity, participants were classified as non-Hispanic
White (reference group), non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic,
Asian, and Multi-ethnic/Other. We also controlled for
CHOICE intervention status, although the program was
conducted over 12 years ago and did not show intervention
effects beyond 1 year.
Substance Use by Respondent and Partner at T1. Respondents
reported on number of days of alcohol and cannabis use in the
past month for themselves and their partner (0–30 days).
These four items were used in a latent profile analysis to
identify substance use relationship types.
Relationship Characteristics at T1 and T2. Relationship quality
was assessed with the 7-item Quality of Marriage Index
(Norton, 1983; α = .83). Items are rated on a scale from 1 =
not much to 5 = very much, reverse scored (as appro-
priate), and averaged. We also assessed relationship
stability between wave 12 and 13. Respondents were
assumed to be in the same relationship over the 1-year
period between waves if, at wave 13, they reported being
married, engaged, or had dated their current partner for
more than a year.
Well-Being at T1 and T2. We assessed overall life satis-
faction with the 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale
(Diener et al., 1985; α = 0.92), rated from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree and summed (range = 5–35,
mean = 23.10, SD = 7.64). Two other measures assessed
mental health symptoms in the past 2 weeks on a scale
from 0 = not at all to 3 = nearly every day. The Patient
Health Questionnaire-8 item (PHQ-8; Kroenke et al.,
2009; α = 0.91) assessed depression (range = 0–24,
mean = 5.35, SD = 5.38) and the Generalized Anxiety
700 Emerging Adulthood 11(3)

Disorder-7 item (GAD-7; Spitzer et al., 2006; α = 0.95)
assessed anxiety (range = 0–21, mean = 5.12, SD = 5.46).
Analytic Plan
We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to extract heterogeneity
in couples’ substance use patterns. LPA identifies heteroge-
neity within a sample (or groups) and classifies individuals
based on patterns of class-specific means. We used four items
(i.e., frequency of past month alcohol and cannabis use by
respondent and partner) in our LPA. Models were estimated in
Mplus v8.1 using the default method with equal variances
across classes assumed. We fit models ranging from one to five
classes and examined fit statistics to determine if adding an
additional class improved model fit. To assess model fit, we
used decreases in the negative two log likelihood (-2LL),
Akaike Information Criteria (AIC), Bayesian Information
Criteria (BIC), and the sample size adjusted Bayesian In-
formation Criteria (aBIC). Further, we used non-significant
Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin Likelihood Ratio Test (VLMRT)
and the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test
(LMRT) to indicate that a k–1 class solution (e.g., 4 vs. 3 class)
is a better fit to the data. We then used generalized linear
models to compare the extracted classes on relationship
functioning and well-being, controlling for background
covariates.
Results
Class Enumeration
Model fitting results for the LPA are shown in Table 1. Across
information criteria indexes values decreased with each se-
quential solution; however, VLRT and LMRT values were not
significant for the 5-class solution, indicating that the 4-class
solution may fit the data best. Classes were named according
to type of substance use reported in that class. Emergent
classes are presented in Figure 1. The “Concordant Infrequent
Use” class represented 81.9% (n = 994) of the sample, re-
flecting relationships characterized by less than 5 days of
alcohol use and little to no cannabis use by both partners. Two
other classes emerged reflecting “Near-Daily Respondent
Cannabis Use” (6.5%; n = 79) and “Near-Daily Partner
Cannabis Use” (6.0%; n = 74), with otherwise low levels of
alcohol and cannabis use in the relationship. Finally, 5.5% (n =
67) of the sample was represented by the Concordant

Table 1. Model Fit Indices for Substance Use Latent Profile Analysis.

Number of classes 2 LL AIC BIC aBIC Entropy VMLRT P LRT p

1 class 32,396.90 32,412.90 32,453.72 32,428.30

2 class 30,261.14 30,287.14 30,353.47 30,312.17 0.991 2135.76 <.001 2077.26 <.001
3 class 29,538.05 29,574.05 29,665.88 29,608.71 0.986 723.09 .016 703.29 .014
4 class 28,662.44 28,708.44 28,825.78 28,752.73 0.992 869.60 <.001 845.78 <.001
5 class 28,166.26 28,222.26 28,365.11 28,276.17 0.990 496.19 .377 482.59 .370

Figure 1. Days of past month alcohol and cannabis use by Respondent (R) and their Partners (P) at T1 by class membership.
Tucker et al. 701

Moderate Alcohol and Near-Daily Cannabis Use class, re-
flecting relationships in which both partners engaged in, on
average, 10 days per month of alcohol use and >25 days per
month of cannabis use.
Comparisons on Relationship Functioning
and Well-Being
Cross-sectional analyses (Table 2, top) indicated no sig-
nificant class differences on relationship satisfaction. For
well-being, the Concordant Infrequent Use class reported
significantly higher life satisfaction, lower anxiety, and
lower depression compared to the Concordant Moderate
Alcohol and Near-Daily Cannabis Use class. There were no
other significant differences. In the longitudinal analysis,
76% of the sample was classified as being in the same
relationship at T1 and T2. Logistic regression analysis
predicting relationship stability at T2 by relationship al-
cohol and cannabis use class membership at T1 (reference
group: Class 3) found no significant class differences. Other
longitudinal analyses (Table 2, bottom) indicated no sig-
nificant class differences on change in relationship satis-
faction for respondents who remained in the same
relationship at both time points. For anxiety, there was a
non-significant increase in anxiety from T1 to T2 for the
Near-Daily Respondent Cannabis Use class and a non-
significant decrease in anxiety for the Concordant Mod-
erate Alcohol and Near-Daily Cannabis Use class. This
directional difference between classes was statistically
significant. No other class differences in well-being were
found.
Discussion
Despite widespread use of alcohol and cannabis among
emerging adults (Schulenberg et al., 2021), this study shows
that infrequent use by both partners is the normative pattern
among those in committed romantic relationships. Further, a
key finding from this study is that the remaining three classes
were all characterized by near-daily cannabis use – either by
the respondent, the partner, or both – whereas alcohol use
never exceeded moderate frequency. This may be at least
partly due to declining perceptions in this age group of the
harmfulness of regular cannabis use (Schulenberg et al.,
2021), combined with legal access to recreational cannabis
in this largely California sample. Results highlight the im-
portance of simultaneously examining alcohol and cannabis
use within the same study to gain a more complete under-
standing of heterogeneity in patterns of use among emerging
adults and their romantic partners.

Table 2. Class Differences at T1 (Cross-sectional; Full Sample) and in Change from T1-T2 (Longitudinal; Respondents Who Remained in
Same Relationship).

Class

1 2 3 4

Near-Daily
Near-Daily Partner Respondent Cannabis Concordant Concordant Moderate Alcohol
Cannabis Use Use Infrequent Use and Near-Daily Cannabis Use
Significant Pairwise
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Comparisons

T1
Relationship 4.34 (0.59) 4.27 (0.77) 4.38 (0.66) 4.34 (0.62)
satisfaction
Life satisfaction 22.04 (7.84) 21.44 (7.88) 23.46 (7.57) 20.88 (7.70) 3>4
Depression 5.80 (5.19) 5.85 (5.51) 5.14 (5.31) 7.46 (6.06) 3<4
Anxiety 5.66 (5.09) 5.47 (5.38) 4.89 (5.38) 7.51 (6.58) 3<4
N= 74 79 994 67

Change from T1-T2

Relationship 0.02 (0.57) 0.10 (0.72) 0.02 (0.65) 0.21 (0.59)
satisfaction
Life satisfaction 0.37 (5.53) 0.74 (5.87) 0.20 (6.25) 1.47 (6.91)
Depression 0.25 (3.65) 0.48 (5.45) 0.06 (4.69) 1.21 (5.98)
Anxiety 0.68 (5.16) 1.13 (5.41) 0.03 (4.55) 0.84 (6.52) 2 versus 4
N= 57 46 652 38

Note. Due to missing data Ns range from 1208–1210 across cross-sectional models and 789-791 across longitudinal models. Table reports unadjusted dif-
ferences. Significance tests are from analyses that control for covariates (sex at birth, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, mother’s education, CHOICE condition).
Change scores were computed as T2 minus T1. Positive change scores indicate higher scores at T2 and negative scores indicate lower scores at T2.
702
Prior studies have tended to find better relationship
functioning among partners with more similar substance use
(Crane et al., 2016; Testa et al., 2018; Torvik et al., 2015).
However, we found similar levels of concurrent relationship
satisfaction and rates of stability over time among couples in
which both partners used infrequently, couples who were
concordant in their use, and couples who were discordant in
that one partner engaged in near-daily cannabis use and the
other did not. This lack of differences on relationship func-
tioning may be due to partner classes largely being defined by
the use of cannabis rather than alcohol (e.g., the former may be
relatively less impairing in the context of a relationship). This
interpretation would be consistent with results from the only
other study examining both substances whereby discordant
drinking was more predictive of relationship functioning than
cannabis use (Leonard et al., 2014). Given the dearth of
studies examining couples’ use of multiple substances, re-
search is needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn
about similarities and differences in distinct patterns of co-use
in terms of relationship functioning and stability. This is
particularly important as more than one-third of the US
population lives in states that have passed laws allowing retail
sales of cannabis for adults (aged 21 + years) for nonmedical
purposes.
Regarding class differences on well-being, emerging adults
in concordant relationships where both partners engaged in
near-daily cannabis use and moderate drinking initially re-
ported greater anxiety (as well as depression and lower life
satisfaction) compared to those in relationships characterized
by infrequent use. However, of note, over time this concordant
group trended towards a decrease in anxiety, whereas
emerging adults in relationships where only the respondent
engaged in near-daily cannabis use trended towards an in-
crease in anxiety. Findings are complex, but raise interesting
hypotheses for future longitudinal studies. For example, it may
be that emerging adults with poorer mental health are at higher
risk for alcohol and cannabis use, and thus tend to seek
partners with similar patterns of regular use; however, over
time, this pattern of concordant regular use is less of a risk
factor for increased mental health problems than being in a
relationship where your own substance use is much heavier
than that of your partner.
Two study limitations are worth noting. First, it was beyond
the scope of the study to recruit partners for these surveys; thus,
relationship classes are based solely on data provided by the
respondent. However, it is also the case that an individual’s
perception of their partner’s use may be as important -or even
more important- than actual use in terms of the outcomes ex-
amined in this study. Second, results are based on emerging
adults predominantly residing in California, where recreational
cannabis use is legal for adults age 21 and older; thus, results may
not generalize to other age groups or emerging adults in other
geographic locations.
In conclusion, findings provide new insights into patterns
of both alcohol and cannabis use within the romantic
Emerging Adulthood 11(3)
relationships of emerging adults. That three of the classes, or
18% of the sample, were characterized by near daily cannabis
use by one or both partners indicate how frequent cannabis use
is common among this age group. For example, recent data
from Monitoring the Future indicate that 11% of young adults
age 23–24 report past month daily cannabis use (Schulenberg
et al., 2021). Yet emerging adults still report numerous
problems from use (D’Amico et al., 2022), including higher
rates of cannabis use disorder (CUD) than other age groups
(Hasin et al., 2015), but are the least likely to obtain treatment
for CUD (Wu et al., 2017). Thus, future work must continue to
examine both alcohol and cannabis use among couples during
this important developmental period, particularly longitudinal
research to understand how couples’ patterns of use affect
their trajectories of individual well-being, relationship sta-
bility, and related functional outcomes during and beyond the
transition to young adulthood.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Jen Parker and the RAND Survey Research
Group for overseeing the data collection.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work
was supported by the grants from the National Institute of Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA016577, R01AA020883,
R01AA025848; PI: D’Amico).
Open Practice
Data and materials for this study have not been made publicly
available. The design and analysis plans were not preregistered.
ORCID iD
Joan S. Tucker  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5024-0887
References
Crane, C. A., Testa, M., Schlauch, R. C., & Leonard, K. E. (2016).
The couple that smokes together: Dyadic marijuana use and
relationship functioning during conflict. Psychology of Addic-
tive Behaviors, 30(6), 686–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/
adb0000198
D’Amico, E. J., Rodriguez, A., Tucker, J. S., Dunbar, M. S., Pedersen,
E. R., & Seelam, R. (2022). Disparities in functioning from alcohol
and cannabis use among a racially/ethnically diverse sample of
emerging adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 234, 109426.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2022.109426
D’Amico, E. J., Tucker, J. S., Miles, J. N. V., Zhou, A. J., Shih, R. A.,
& Green, H. D. J. (2012). Preventing alcohol use with a
Tucker et al.
voluntary after school program for middle school students:
Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of CHOICE.
Prevention Science, 13(4), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11121-011-0269-7
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,
49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Fischer, J. L., & Wiersma, J. D. (2012). Romantic relationships and
alcohol use. Current Drug Abuse Reviews, 5(2), 98–116. https://
doi.org/10.2174/1874473711205020098
Hasin, D. S., Saha, T. D., Kerridge, B. T., Goldstein, R. B., Chou,
S. P., Zhang, H., Jung, J., Pickering, R. P., Ruan, W. J., Smith,
S. M., Huang, B., & Grant, B. F. (2015). Prevalence of mari-
juana use disorders in the United States between 2001-2002 and
2012-2013. JAMA Psychiatry, 72(12), 1235–1242. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.1858
Kroenke, K., Strine, T. W., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Berry,
J. T., & Mokdad, A. H. (2009). The PHQ-8 as a measure of
current depression in the general population. Journal of Af-
fective Disorder, 114(1–3), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jad.2008.06.026
Leonard, K. E., Smith, P. H., & Homish, G. G. (2014). Concordant
and discordant alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use as predictors
of marital dissolution. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,
28(3), 780–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034053
Muyingo, L., Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., McEachern, E., Leonard,
K. E., & Stewart, S. H. (2020). Relationships on the rocks: A
meta-analysis of romantic partner effects on alcohol use. Psy-
chology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(6), 629–640. https://doi.org/
10.1037/adb0000578
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the
dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45(1),
141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302
Rodriguez, L. M., Neighbors, C., & Knee, C. R. (2014).
Problematic alcohol use and marital distress: An interde-
pendence theory perspective. Addiction Research & The-
ory, 22(4), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.3109/16066359.
2013.841890
Schulenberg, J. E., Patrick, M. E., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M.,
Bachman, J. G., & Miech, R. A. (2021). Monitoring the Future
national survey results on drug use, 1975–2020: Volume II,
College students and adults ages 19–60. Institute for Social
Research, The University of Michigan.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Lowe, B. (2006). A
brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder. Ar-
chives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097. https://doi.
org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
703
Testa, M., Wang, W., Derrick, J. L., & Leonard, K. (2018). Marijuana
use by intimate partners: Does discrepant use impair relationship
functioning? Psychology of Addictive Behaviors: Journal of the
Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 32(4),
475–574. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000357
Testa, M., Wang, W., Derrick, J. L., & Leonard, K. (2019a). Does drinking
together promote relationship intimacy? Temporal effects of daily
drinking events. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 80(5),
537–545. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2019.80.537
Testa, M., Wang, W., Derrick, J. L., & Leonard, K. E. (2019b).
Marijuana use episodes and partner intimacy experiences: A
daily report study. Cannabis, 2(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.
26828/cannabis.2019.01.002
Torvik, F. A., Gustavson, K., Røysamb, E., & Tambs, K. (2015).
Health, health behaviors, and health dissimilarities predict di-
vorce: Results from the HUNT study. BMC Psychology, 3(1),
13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0072-5
Tucker, J. S., Rodriguez, A., Davis, J. P., Klein, D., & D’Amico, E. J.
(2021). Simultaneous trajectories of alcohol and cannabis use
from adolescence to emerging adulthood: Associations with role
transitions and functional outcomes. Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors, 35(6), 628–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb000074
Wu, L.-T., Zhu, H., Mannelli, P., & Swartz, M. S. (2017). Prevalence
and correlates of treatment utilization among adults with can-
nabis use disorder in the United States. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 177, 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
drugalcdep.2017.03.037
Author Biographies
Joan S. Tucker, PhD, is a Senior Behavioral Scientist at
RAND. Her research focuses on substance use and sexual risk
behavior, particularly during emerging adulthood.
Wendy M. Troxel, PhD, is a Senior Behavioral Scientist at
RAND. Her research focuses on how the social environment
influences sleep and other health behaviors and outcomes.
Anthony Rodriguez, PhD, is a Quantitative Psychologist/
Psychometrician and Behavioral Scientist at RAND. His
methodological research has focused on structural equation
modeling, item response theory, and latent growth models.
Rachana Seelam, MPH, is a Research Programmer at RAND
with over a decade of experience in SAS programming and
quantitative data analysis.
Elizabeth, J. D’Amico, PhD, is a Senior Behavioral Scientist
at RAND. Her research focuses on developing and evaluating
interventions for adolescents and young adults.