Multiplex congruity: Friendship networks and perceived popularity as correlates of adolescent alcohol use

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 125, Issue , 2015, Pages 173-181

  Fujimoto, Kayo ^a   Valente, Thomas W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescent alcohol use; Decomposed network exposure model; Friendship network; Network multiplexity; Peer status; Perceived popularity; Social network analysis

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENCE; ALCOHOL; DRINKING; NETWORK ANALYSIS; SOCIAL NETWORK;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRINKING BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FRIENDSHIP NETWORK; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; MALE; MULTIPLEX CONGRUITY; PEER GROUP; PERCEIVED POPULARITY; SOCIAL NETWORK; UNITED STATES; CALIFORNIA; FRIEND; HUMAN RELATION; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY;

CALIFORNIA; LOS ANGELES [CALIFORNIA]; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; ALCOHOL DRINKING; FEMALE; FRIENDS; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; LOS ANGELES; MALE; SOCIAL DESIRABILITY; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84919948367     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: 18735347     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.023     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Akers R.L., Krohn M.D., Lanza-Kaduce L., Radosevich M. Social learning and deviant behavior: a specific test of a general theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1979, 44(4):636-655.
2. Akers R.L., Lee G. Alongitudinal test of social learning theory: adolescent smoking. J.Drag. Issues 1996, 26:317-343.
3. Alexander C., Piazza M., Mekos D., Valente T.W. Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. J.Adolesc. Health 2001, 29(1):22-30.
4. Allen J.P., Porter M.R., McFarland C.F., Marsh P.A., McElhaney K.B. The two faces of adolescents' success with peers: adolescent popularity, social adaptation, and deviant behavior. Child. Dev. 2005, 76:747-760.
5. Bandura A. Social Learning Theory 1977, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
6. Bearman P., Parigi P. Cloning headless frogs and other important matters: conversation topics and network structure. Soc. Forces 2004, 83(2):535-557.
7. Becker B.E., Luthar S.S. Peer-perceived admiration and social preference: contextual correlates of positive peer regard among suburban and urban adolescents. J.Res. Adolesc. 2007, 17(1):117-144.
8. Brown B.B. Peer groups and peer cultures. At the Threshold: the Developing Adolescent 1990, 171-196. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. S.S. Feldman, G.R. Elliott (Eds.).
9. Burgess R.L., Akers R.L. Adifferential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Soc. Probl. 1966, 14:128-147.
10. Cameron A.C., Gelbach J.B., Miller D.L. Robust inference with multiway clustering. J.Bus. Econ. Stat. 2011, 29(2):238-249.
11. Christakis N.A., Fowler J.H. Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Stat. Med. 2013, 32:556-577.
12. Cillessen A.H.N., Marks P.E.L. Conceptualizing and measuring popularity. Popularity in the Peer System 2011, 25-56. The Guilford Press, New York, NY. A.H.N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, L. Mayeux (Eds.).
13. Cleveland H.H., Wiebe R.P. The moderation of adolescent-to-peer similarity in tobacco and alcohol use by school levels of substance use. Child. Dev. 2003, 74(1):279-291.
14. Coie J.D., Dodge K.A., Coppotelli H. Dimensions and types of social status: a cross-age perspective. Dev. Psychol. 1982, 18:121-132.
15. Coleman J. The Adolescent Society 1961, The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, NY.
16. Crosnoe R. The connection between academic failure and adolescent drinking in secondary school. Sociol. Educ. 2006, 79(1):44-60.
17. Crosnoe R., Muller C., Frank K.A. Peer context and the consequences of adolescent drinking. Soc. Probl. 2004, 51(2):288-304.
18. Dekker D., Krackhardt D., Snijders T.A.B. Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika 2007, 72(4):563-581.
19. Dijkstra J.K., Cillessen A.H.N., Borch C. Popularity and adolescent friendship networks: selection and influence dynamics. Dev. Psychol. 2012, 49:1242-1252.
20. Doreian P. Network autocorrelation models: problems and prospects. Spatial Statistics: Past, Present, Future 1989, Michigan Document Services, Ann Arbor, MI. D.A. Griffith (Ed.).
21. Dow M.M. Abi-parametric approach to network autocorrelation: Galton's problem. Sociol. Methods Res. 1984, 13:201-217.
22. Dow M.M. Network autocorrelation regression with binary and ordinal dependent variables. Cross-Cultural Res. 2008, 42(4):394-419.
23. Ennett S.T., Bauman K.E., Hussong A., Faris R., Foshee V.A., Cai L., DuRant R.H. The peer context of adolescent substance use: findings from social network analysis. J.Res. Adolesc. 2006, 16(2):159-186.
24. Fujimoto K. Using mixed-mode networks to disentangle multiple sources of social influence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LCNS) 2012, vol. 7227:214-221. Springer, Verlag, Germany. S.J. Yang, A.M. Greenberg, M. Endsley (Eds.).
25. Fujimoto K., Valente T.W. Decomposing the components of friendship and friends' influence on adolescent drinking and smoking. J.Adolesc. Health 2012, 51:136-143.
26. Fujimoto K., Valente T.W. Network influence on adolescent substance use: disentangling structural equivalence from cohesion. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 74(12):1952-1960.
27. Fujimoto K., Valente T.W. Alcohol peer influence from participating in organized school activities among U.S. adolescents: a network approach. Health Psychol. 2013, 32(10):1084-1092.
28. Fujimoto K., Wang P., Valente T.W. The decomposed affiliation exposure model: a network approach to segregating peer influences from crowds and organized sports. Netw. Sci. 2013, 1(2):154-169.
29. Hartup W.W. Friendships and their developmental significance. Child. Dev. 1996, 67:1-13.
30. Haynie D.L. Delinquent peers revisited: does network structure matter?. Am. J. Sociol. 2001, 106:1013-1057.
31. Hoff P., Fosdick B., Volfovsky A., Stovel K. Likelihoods for fixed rank nomination networks. Netw. Sci. 2013, 1(3):253-277.
32. Hosmer D.W., Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression 2000, Wiley, New York, NY.
33. Kobus K., Henry D.B. Interplay of network position and peer substance use in early adolescent cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana. J.Early Adolesc. 2010, 30(2):225-245.
34. Koehly L.M., Pattison P. Random graph models for social networks: multiple relations or multiple raters. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis 2005, 162-214. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. P.J. Carrington, J. Scott, S. Wasserman (Eds.).
35. Krohn M.D. The web of conformity: a network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Soc. Probl. 1986, 33(6):S81-S93.
36. Krohn M.D., Massey J.L., Zielinski M. Role overlap, network multiplexity, and adolescent deviant behavior. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1988, 51(4):346-356.
37. Latendresse S., Rose R.J., Viken R.J., Pulkkinen L., Kaprio J., Dick D.M. Parenting mechanisms in links between parents' and adolescents' alcohol use behaviors. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2008, 32(2):322-330.
38. Lazega E., Pattison P. Multiplexity, generalized exchange and cooperation in organizations. Soc. Netw. 1999, 21:67-90.
39. Lindgren K.O. Dyadic regression in the presence of heteroscedasticity-an assessment of alternative approaches. Soc. Netw. 2010, 32:279-289.
40. Lyons R. The spread of evidence-poor medicine via flawed social-network analysis. Stat. Polit. Policy 2011, 2(1):1-26.
41. Mathys C., Burk W.J., Cillessen A.H.N. Popularity as a moderator of peer selection and socialization of adolescent alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco use. J.Res. Adolesc. 2013, 23(3):513-523.
42. Mayeux L., Sandstrom M.J., Cillessen A.H.N. Is being popular a risky proposition?. J.Res. Adolesc. 2008, 18:49-74.
43. Michell L., Amos A. Girls, pecking order and smoking. Soc. Sci. Med. 1997, 44(12):1861-1869.
44. Moody J., Brynildsen W.D., Osgood D.W., Feinberg M.E., Gest S. Popularity trajectories and substance use in early adolescence. Soc. Netw. 2011, 33(2):101-112.
45. National Institute on Drug Abuse Monitoring the Future: National Results on Adolescent Drug Use 2011, Retrieved from. http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2011.pdf.
46. Osgood D.W., Ragan D.T., Wallace L., Gest S.D., Feinberg M.E., Moody J. Peers and the emergence of alcohol use: influence and selection processes in adolescent friendship networks. J.Res. Adolesc. 2013, 23(3):500-512.
47. Parkhurst J.T., Hopmeyer A. Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: two distinct dimensions of peer status. J.Early Adolesc. 1998, 18:125-144.
48. Payne D.C., Cornwell B. Reconsidering peer influences on delinquency: do less proximate contacts matter?. J.Quant. Criminol. 2007, 23:127-149.
49. Pearson M., Sweeting H., West P., Young R., Gordon J., Turner K. Adolescent substance use in different social and peer contexts: a social network analysis. Drugs Educ. Prev. Policy 2006, 13(6):519-536.
50. Peters E., Cillessen A.H.N., Riksen-Walraven J.M., Haselager G.J.T. Best friends' preference and popularity: associations with aggression and prosocial behavior. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2010, 34(5):398-405.
51. Robertson C., Boyle P., Hsieh C., MacFarlane G.J., Maisonneuve P. Some statistical considerations in the analysis of case-control studies when the exposure variables are continuous measurements. Epidemiology 1994, 5(2):164-170.
52. Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata J. 2004, 4(3):227-241.
53. Sandstrom M.J. The power of popularity: influence processes in childhood and adolescence. Popularity in the Peer System 2011, 219-244. The Guilford Press, New York, NY. A.H.N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, L. Mayeux (Eds.).
54. Schaefer D.R., Haas S.A., Bishop N.J. Adynamic model of US adolescents' smoking and friendship networks. Am. J. Public Health 2012, 102(6):E12-E18.
55. Schwartz D., Gorman A.H. The high price of high status: popularity as a mechanism of risk. Popularity in the Peer System 2011, 245-273. The Guilford Press, New York, NY. A.H.N. Cillessen, D. Schwartz, L. Mayeux (Eds.).
56. Skvoretz J., Agneessens F. Reciprocity, multiplexity, and exchange: measures. Qual. Quantity 2007, 41:341-357.
57. Snijders T.A.B., Lomi A., Torlò V.J. Amodel for the multiplex dynamics of two-mode and one-mode networks, with an application to employment preference, friendship, and advice. Soc. Netw. 2013, 35:265-276.
58. Sutherland E.H. Principles of Criminology 1947, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA. fourth ed.
59. Sutherland E.H., Cressey D.R. Criminology 1978, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA.
60. Urberg K.A., Değirmencioğlu S.M., Pilgrim C. Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Dev. Psychol. 1997, 33(5):834-844.
61. Valente T.W. Network models and methods for studying the diffusion of innovations. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis: Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences 2005, 98-116. Cambridge University Press, New York. P.J. Carrington, J. Scott, S. Wasserman (Eds.).
62. Valente T.W. Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications 2010, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
63. Valente T.W. Network interventions. Science 2012, 337(6):49-53.
64. Valente T.W., Fujimoto K., Soto D., Ritt-Olson A., Unger J.B. Acomparison of peer influence measures as predictors of smoking among predominately Hispanic/Latino high school adolescents. J.Adolesc. Health 2013, 52(3):358-364. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.014.
65. Valente T.W., Fujimoto K., Unger J.B., Soto D., Meeker D. Variations in network boundary and type: a study of adolescent peer influences. Soc. Netw. 2013, 35(3):309-316.
66. Valente T.W., Gallaher P., Mouttapa M. Using social networks to understand and prevent substance use: a transdisciplinary perspective. Subst. Use Misuse 2004, 39:1685-1712.
67. Valente T.W., Unger J.B., Johnson C.A. Do popular students smoke? The association between popularity and smoking among middle school students. J.Adolesc. Health 2005, 37(4):323-329.
68. VanderWeele T.J., Ogburn E.L., Tchetgen E.J.T. Why and when "flawed" social network analyses still yield valid tests of no contagion. Stat. Polit. Policy 2012, 3:1-11.
69. Wang P., Robins G., Pattisona P., Lazega E. Exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Soc. Netw. 2013, 35(1):96-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.01.004.
70. Zhang B., Thomas A.C., Doreian P., Krackhardt D., Krishnan R. Contrasting multiple social network autocorrelations for binary outcomes, with applications to technology adoption. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2013, 3(4). 18:11-18:21.