1987). As density of family history has been shown to moderate alcohol outcomes(Conway et al., 2003), the definition of liability one uses may impact findings. Familial risk is defined in this study as at least one parent with alcohol abuse or dependence, in contrast to other definitions (e.g., any biological relative with a ‘significant’ drinking problem (LaBrie et al., 2010) or graduated scales (ie. Engs, 1990, Schuckit and Sweeny, 1987 and Harford et al., 2010). Importantly, another longitudinal study, which used FH criteria similar to this study, found that despite the absences of a family history effect on drinking at baseline (mean 18.5 years), FH+ subjects were less likely to transition out of heavy drinking (Jackson et al., 2001). We expect that continued longitudinal examination of outcomes, which is underway in this sample, will reveal the family history, as well as the resiliency, groups diverging as they exit the current high-usage period. We did find a trend for earlier age of onset of drinking in the FH+ sample, suggesting they are indeed at heightened liability for poor outcome.
