Social distance and homophily in adolescent smoking initiation

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

Volumn 124, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 347-354

  Go, Myong Hyun ^a   Tucker, Joan S ^b   Green, Harold D ^b   Pollard, Michael ^b   Kennedy, David ^b  

^a UCLA Center for Biomedical Modeling   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescent; Influence; Longitudinal; Propensity score; Selection; Smoking; Social network

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT SMOKING; ARTICLE; DEMOGRAPHY; EFFECT SIZE; FEMALE; FRIENDSHIP; HOMOPHILY; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; PEER GROUP; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROPENSITY SCORE; SCHOOL; SOCIAL DISTANCE; SOCIAL INTERACTION; SOCIAL NETWORK;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FRIENDS; HUMANS; MALE; PEER GROUP; SMOKING; SOCIAL DISTANCE; SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT;

EID: 84864000901     PISSN: 03768716     EISSN: 18790046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.02.007     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Abel G., Plumridge L., Graham P. Peers, networks or relationships: strategies for understanding social dynamics as determinants of smoking behaviour. Drug-Edu. Prev. Policy 2002, 9:325-338.
2. Alexander C., Piazza M., Mekos D., Valente T. Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. J. Adolesc. Health 2001, 29:22-30.
3. Bates D., Maechler M., Dai B. lme4: Linear Mixed-effects Models Using S4 Classes 2008, http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/.
4. Bearman, P.S., Jones, J., Udry, J.R., 1997. The national longitudinal study of adolescent health: research design (retrieved February 2003). http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design.
5. Bradley A. The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recogn. 1997, 30:1145-1159.
6. Calvó-Armengol, A., Patacchini, E., Zenou, Y., 2005. Peer effects and social networks in education and crime. C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers (accessed January 2010). http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/5244.html.
7. Chen X., Stanton B., Fang X., Li X., Lin D., Zhang J., Liu H., Yang H. Perceived smoking norms, socioenvironmental factors, personal attitudes and adolescent smoking in China: a mediation analysis with longitudinal data. J. Adolesc. Health 2006, 38:359-368.
8. Christakis N.A., Fowler J.H. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 357:370-379.
9. Christakis N.A., Fowler J.H. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358:2249-2258.
10. de Leeuw R., Scholte R., Harakeh Z., van Leeuwe J., Engels R. Parental smoking-specific communication, adolescents smoking behavior and friendship selection. J. Youth Adolesc. 2008, 37:1229-1241.
11. Dishion T.J., McCord J., Poulin F. When interventions harm: peer groups and problem behavior. Am. Psychol. 1999, 54:755-764.
12. Dornbusch S., Erickson K., Laird J. The relation of family and school attachment to adolescent deviance in diverse groups and communities. J. Adolesc. Res. 2001, 16:396-422.
13. Engels R., Knibbe R.A., Drop M.J., deHaan Y.T. Homogeneity of cigarette smoking within peer groups: influence or selection?. Health Educ. Behav. 1997, 24:801-811.
14. Ennett S.T., Bauman K.E. Peer group structure and adolescent cigarette smoking: a social network analysis. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1993, 34:226-236.
15. Fawcett T. An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 2006, 27:861-874.
16. Flay B.R., Hu F.B., Richardson J. Psychosocial predictors of different stages of cigarette smoking among high school students. Prev. Med. 1998, 27:A9-A18.
17. Go M.-H., Green H.D., Kennedy D.P., Pollard M., Tucker J.S. Peer influence and selection effects on adolescent smoking. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010, 109:239-242.
18. Guo G. Genetic similarity shared by best friends among adolescents. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 2006, 9:113-121.
19. Hall J.A., Valente T.W. Adolescent smoking networks: the effects of influence and selection on future smoking. Addict. Behav. 2007, 32:3054-3059.
20. Honaker J., King G., Blackwell M. Amelia: Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data 2008, (accessed January 2010). http://gking.harvard.edu/amelia.
21. Kandel D.B. Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am. J. Sociol. 1978, 84:427.
22. King G., Honaker J., Joseph A., Scheve K. Analyzing incomplete political science data: an alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2001, 95:49-69.
23. Kirke D.M. Chain reactions in adolescents' cigarette, alcohol and drug use: similarity through peer influence or the patterning of ties in peer networks?. Soc. Networks 2004, 26:3-28.
24. Kobus K. Peers and adolescent smoking. Addiction 2003, 98:37-55.
25. Krauth B.V. Peer effects and selection effects on smoking among Canadian youth. Can. J. Econ. 2005, 38:735-757.
26. Leatherdale S.T., Brown K.S., McDonald P.W., Cameron R. Social modeling in the school environment, student characteristics, and smoking susceptibility: a multi-level analysis. J. Adolesc. Health 2005, 37:330-336.
27. Leatherdale S.T., McDonald P.W., Cameron R., Brown K.S. A multilevel analysis examining the relationship between social influences for smoking and smoking onset. Am. J. Health Behav. 2005, 29:520-530.
28. Mariano K.A., Harton H.C. Similarities in aggression, inattention/hyperactivity, depression, and anxiety in middle childhood friendships. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2005, 24:471-496.
29. McCaffrey D.F., Ridgeway G., Morral A.R. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol. Methods 2004, 9:403-425.
30. Mercken L., Snijders T., Candel M., Steglich C., De Vries H. Why adolescents start to smoke: peer influence versus peer selection processes. Psychol. Health 2005, 20(Supp. 1):170.
31. Morral A.R., McCaffrey D.F., Ridgeway G. Effectiveness of community-based treatment for substance-abusing adolescents: 12-month outcomes of youths entering Phoenix Academy or alternative probation dispositions. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2004, 18:257-268.
32. Perreira K., Deeb-Sossa N., Harris K. What are we measuring-an evaluation of the CES-D across race/ethnicity and immigrant generation. Soc. Forces 2005, 83:1567-1602.
33. Ridgeway G. Assessing the effect of race bias in post-traffic stop outcomes using propensity scores. J. Quant. Criminol. 2006, 22:1-29.
34. Ridgeway G. gbm: Generalized Boosted Regression Models 2007, (accessed January 2010). http://www.i-pensieri.com/gregr/gbm.shtml.
35. Rosenbaum P.R., Rubin D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
36. Rosenquist J.N., Murabito J., Fowler J.H., Christakis N.A. The spread of alcohol consumption behavior in a large social network. Ann. Intern. Med. 2010, 152:426-433.
37. Rubin D.B., Thomas N. Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. Biometrics 1996, 52:249-264.
38. Scarr S., McCartney K. How people make their own environments: a theory of genotype, environment effects. Child Dev. 1983, 54:424-435.
39. Schafer J. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data 1997, Chapman and Hall/CRC, London.
40. Snijders T., Pearson M. Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence. Soc. Methodol. 2010, 40:329-393.
41. Snijders T. The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Soc. Methodol. 2001, 31:361-395.
42. Urberg K., Deĝirmencioĝlu S.M., Pilgram C. Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Dev. Psychol. 1997, 33:834-844.
43. Wang M.Q., Eddy J.M., Fitzhugh E.C. Smoking acquisition: peer influence and self-selection. Psychol. Rep. 2000, 86:1241-1246.
44. Zeileis A. Econometric computing with HC and HAC covariance matrix estimators. J. Stat. Softw. 2004, 10:1-17.