Peer Influence and Context: The Interdependence of Friendship Groups, Schoolmates and Network Density in Predicting Substance Use

Journal of Youth and Adolescence

Volumn 43, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1436-1452

  McGloin, Jean Marie ^a   Sullivan, Christopher J ^b   Thomas, Kyle J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

Peer influence; Social networks; Substance use

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; CHILD; FEMALE; FRIEND; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH; PEER GROUP; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOLOGY; SCHOOL; SOCIAL NETWORK; STATISTICAL MODEL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; CHILD; FEMALE; FRIENDS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NATIONAL LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH; PEER GROUP; SCHOOLS; SOCIAL NETWORKING; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84929128347     PISSN: 00472891     EISSN: 15736601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10964-014-0126-7     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. Abbott, A. (1997). Of time and space: The contemporary relevance of the Chicago school. Social Forces,75, 1149–1182.
2. Acton, G. S. (2003). Measurement of impulsivity in a hierarchical model of personality traits: Implications for substance use. Substance Use and Misuse,3, 67–83.
3. Ai, C., & Norton, E. C. (2000). Standard errors for the retransformation problem with heteroscedasticity. Journal of Health Economics,19, 697–718.
4. Ai, C., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters,80, 123–129.
5. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
6. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. Philadelphia: W. W. Norton & Company.
7. Beaver, K. M., Schutt, J. E., Boutwell, B. B., Ratchford, M., Roberts, K., & Barnes, J. C. (2009). Genetic and environmental influences on levels of self-control and delinquent peer affiliation results from a longitudinal sample of adolescent twins. Criminal Justice and Behavior,36(1), 41–60.
8. Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., & DeLisi, M. (2008). Delinquent peer group formation: Evidence of a gene × environment correlation. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,169(3), 227–244.
9. Bissett, S., Markham, W., & Aveyard, P. (2007). School culture as an influencing factor on youth substance use. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,61, 485–490.
10. Brown, B. (1990). Peer groups and peer cultures. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 171–196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Brown, B. (2004). Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In R. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 363–394). New York: Wiley.
12. Buis, M. L. (2010). Stata Tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in non-linear models. The Stata Journal,10, 305–308.
13. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review,56, 836–849.
14. Burt, R. S. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In R. S. Burt, K. Cook, & N. Lin (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 148–190). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
15. Chantala, K. (2006). Guidelines for analyzing AddHealth data. Retrieved March 12, 2013. http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/files/wt_guidelines.pdf.
16. Chantala, K., & Tabor, J. (1999). Strategies to perform a design-based analysis using the Add Health data. Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
17. Chassin, L., Cho, Y., Lee, M., Presson, C., & Macy, J. T. (2013). Methodological Issues in developmental research on substance use. In H. DeWit (Ed.), Handbook of addiction psychopharmacology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
18. Chein, J., Albert, D., O’Brien, L., Uckert, K., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain’s reward circuitry. Developmental Science,14, F1–F10.
19. Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly,17, 178–184.
20. Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: The Free Press.
21. Dion, K. L. (1973). Cohesiveness as a determinate of in-group—Outgroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,28, 163–171.
22. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., et al. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist,48, 90–101.
23. Ennett, S. T., & Baumam, K. E. (1993). Peer group structure and adolescent cigarette smoking: A social network analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,34, 226–236.
24. Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Hussong, A., Faris, R., Foshee, V. A., Cai, L., et al. (2006). The peer context of adolescent substance use: Findings from social network analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence,16, 159–186.
25. Ennett, S. T., Faris, R., Hipp, J., Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Hussong, A., et al. (2008). Peer smoking, other peer attributes, and adolescent cigarette smoking: A social network analysis. Prevention Science,9, 88–98.
26. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: WW Norton & Company.
27. Feld, S., & Carter, W. C. (1998). Foci of activities as changing contexts for friendship. In R. G. Adams & G. Allen (Eds.), Placing friendship in context (pp. 136–152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Felson, R. B., Liska, A. E., South, S. J., & McNulty, T. L. (1994). The subculture of violence and delinquency: Individual vs. school context effects. Social Forces,73, 155–173.
29. Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Social interactions and smoking: Evidence using multiple student cohorts, instrumental variables and school fixed effects. Health Economics,19, 466–484.
30. Fowler, J. H., Dawes, C. T., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Model of genetic variation in human social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,106, 1720–1724.
31. Friedkin, N. E. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32. Fujimoto, K., Unger, J. B., & Valente, T. W. (2012). A network method of measuring affiliation-based peer influence: Assessing the influence of teammates’ smoking on adolescent smoking. Child Development,83, 442–451.
33. Fujimoto, K., & Valente, T. W. (2013). Alcohol peer influence of participating in organized school activities: A network approach. Health Psychology,32, 1084–1092.
34. Gaviria, A., & Raphael, S. (2001). School-based peer effects and juvenile behavior. The Review of Economics and Statistics,83, 257–268.
35. Gest, S. D., Osgood, D. W., Feinberg, M. E., Bierman, K. L., & Moody, J. (2011). Strengthening preventive program theories and evaluations: Contributions from social network analysis. Prevention Science,12, 349–360.
36. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University.
37. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
38. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,78, 1360–1380.
39. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory,1, 201–233.
40. Greene, W. (2010). Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Economics Letters,107, 291–296.
41. Harding, D. (2007). Culture context, sexual behavior, and romantic relationships in disadvantaged neighborhoods. American Sociological Review,72, 341–364.
42. Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology,106, 1013–1057.
43. Haynie, D. L. (2002). Friendship networks and adolescent delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,18, 99–134.
44. Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter? Social Forces,84, 1109–1130.
45. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
46. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
47. Huang, C., & Shields, T. G. (2000). Interpretation of interaction effects in logit and probit analyses: Reconsidering the relationship between registration laws, education, and voter turn out. American Politics Quarterly,28, 80–95.
48. Hussong, A. M. (2002). Differentiating peer contexts and risk for adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,31, 207–220.
49. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London, UK: MacMillan and Co.
50. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford, UK: Houghton Miffin.
51. Karaca-Mandic, P., Norton, E. C., & Dowd, B. (2012). Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Services Research,47, 255–274.
52. Kemper, T. D. (1968). Reference groups, socialization and achievement. American Sociological Review,33, 31–45.
53. Kiuru, N., Burk, W. J., Laursen, B., Salmela-Aro, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2010). Pressure to drink but not to smoke: Disentangling selection and socialization in adolescent peer networks and peer groups. Journal of Adolescence,33, 801–812.
54. Kolasinski, A. C., & Siegal, A. F. (2010). On the economic meaning of interaction term coefficients in non-linear binary response regression models. Working paper available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1668750.
55. Kreager, D. (2007). Unnecessary roughness? School sports, peer networks, and male adolescent violence. American Sociological Review,72, 705–724.
56. Kreager, D. A., & Haynie, D. L. (2011). Dangerous liaisons? Dating and drinking diffusion in adolescent peer networks. American Sociological Review,76, 737–763.
57. Kreager, D. A., Haynie, D. L., & Hopfer, S. (2013). Dating and substance use in adolescent peer networks: A replication and extension. Addiction,108, 638–647.
58. Krohn, M. D. (1985). The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems,33, 81–93.
59. Kumar, R., O’Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., Schulenberg, J. E., & Bachman, J. G. (2002). Effects of school-level norms on student substance use. Prevention Science,3, 105–124.
60. Manksi, C. F. (1995). Identification problems in the social sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
61. Marks, S. R., & MacDermid, S. A. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and Family,58, 417–432.
62. Marsden, P. V., & Freidkin, N. E. (1993). Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods and Research,22, 127–151.
63. Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology,97, 1577–1611.
64. McGloin, J. M. (2009). Delinquency balance: Revisiting peer influence. Criminology,47, 439–477.
65. McGloin, J. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). On the relationship between co-offending network redundancy and offending versatility. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,47, 63–90.
66. McGloin, J. M., Sullivan, C. J., & Kennedy, L. W. (Eds.). (2012). When crime appears: The role of emergence. New York: Routledge.
67. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashers, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review,71, 353–375.
68. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
69. Moeller, F. G., Barratt, E. S., Dougherty, D. M., Schmitz, J. M., & Swann, A. C. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. The American Journal of Psychiatry,158, 1783–1793.
70. Norton, E. C., Wang, H., & Ai, C. (2004). Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal,4, 154–167.
71. Paternoster, R., McGloin, J. M., Nguyen, H., & Thomas, K. (2013). The causal impact of exposure to deviant peers: An experimental investigation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,50, 476–503.
72. Paternoster, R., Pogarsky, G., & Zimmerman, G. (2011). Thoughtfully reflective decision making and the accumulation of capital: Bringing choice back in. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,27, 1–26.
73. Payne, D., & Cornwell, B. (2007). Modeling peer influences on delinquency: Beyond the direct contact hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,23, 127–150.
74. Pearson, M., Sweeting, H., West, P., Young, R., Gordon, J., & Turner, K. (2006). Adolescent substance use in different social and peer contexts: A social network analysis. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy,13, 519–536.
75. Peng, Y. (2010). When formal laws and informal norms collide: Lineage networks versus birth control policy in China. American Journal of Sociology,116, 770–805.
76. Perkins, H. (2003). The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators, counselors, and clinicians. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
77. Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. (2012). Going back to the beginning: Crime as a process. In J. M. McGloin, C. J. Sullivan, & L. W. Kennedy (Eds.), When crime appears: The role of emergence (pp. 39–52). New York: Routledge.
78. Rees, C., & Pogarsky, G. (2011). One bad apple may not spoil the whole bunch: Best friends and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,27, 197–223.
79. Richmond, M. J., Mermelstein, R. J., & Metzger, A. (2012). Heterogeneous friendship affiliation, problem behaviors, and emotional outcomes among high-risk adolescents. Prevention Science,13, 267–277.
80. Royston, P., & White, I. R. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in STATA. Journal of Statistical Software,45, 1–20.
81. Scott, J. (2002). Social networks: Critical concepts in sociology, volume 3. New York: Routledge.
82. Shaw, C., & McKay, H. D. (1931). Report on the causes of crime Vol. II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
83. Shaw, C., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
84. Sheriff, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology,63, 349–356.
85. Smangs, M. (2010). Delinquency, social skills and the structure of peer relations: Assessing criminological theories by social network theory. Social Forces,89, 609–631.
86. Smetana, J. G., Campionne-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology,57, 255–284.
87. Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology,40, 361–395.
88. Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology,2, 55–87.
89. Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. V. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly,63, 224–237.
90. Stets, J. E., & Carter, M. J. (2011). The moral self: Applying identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly,74, 192–215.
91. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly,63, 284–297.
92. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
93. Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review,51, 273–286.
94. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American,223, 96–102.
95. Urberg, K. A., Değirmencioğlu, S. M., & Pilgrim, C. (1997). Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology,33, 834–844.
96. Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C., & Van Zalk, M. H. W. (2013). Network-behavior dynamics. Journal of Research on Adolescence,23, 399–412.
97. Villanti, A., Boulay, M., & Juon, H. S. (2011). Peer, parent and media influence on adolescent smoking by developmental stage. Addictive Behavior,36, 133–136.
98. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime. New York: Cambridge University Press.
99. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
100. Weerman, F. M. (2011). Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology,49, 253–286.
101. Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology,84, 1201–1231.
102. Wikström, P. O. H. (2006). Individuals, settings, and acts of crime: Situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. In P. O. H. Wickström & R. J. Sampson (Eds.), The explanation of crime: Context, mechanisms, and development (pp. 61–106). New York: Cambridge University Press.
103. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology,44, 1–24.
104. Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated theory in criminology. London: Tavistock Publications.
105. Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2010). Neighborhood context and non-linear peer effects on Adolescent violent crime. Criminology,49, 873–903.
106. Zimmerman, G. M., & Vazquez, B. E. (2011). Decomposing the peer effect on adolescent substance use: Mediation, nonlinearity, and differential nonlinearity. Criminology,49, 1235–1273.