Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 143–180

Peer pressure and adolescent substance use

  • Mark D. Reed
  • Pamela Wilcox Rountree
Article

Abstract

Peer influence is regarded as one of the strongest determinants of juvenile delinquency and particularly adolescent substance use. A commonly held view is that social pressure from friends to use drugs and alcohol is a major contributor to substance use. Yet the notion of peer pressure, implied by the association between peer-group associations and drug behavior, is seldom tested empirically. As a crucial test of the group pressure model, this research examines the role of peer pressure in mediating the effect of differential association on individual use. Moreover, few studies examine the nature of the relationship between peers and substance use as it relates to the processes leading toand from use. Drawing on differential association and social learning theories, our research specifies the social processes (socialization, group pressure, social selection, and rationalization) which dictate particular causal pathways leading to and from substance use and then estimates the reciprocal influences among differential association, social pressure from peers, attitudes favorable toward substance use, and individual use. Using the 1977–1979 National Youth Survey panel data, we estimate a covariance structural equation model allowing for correlated measurement error. In the cross-sectional analyses, we find no main effects of overt peer pressure on substance use. Estimation of the reciprocal effects model also reveals that overt peer pressure does not significantly influence substance use and does not mediate the effect of differential association. Instead, the influences of socialization, social selection, and rationalization play significant roles in understanding substance use.

Key words

adolescent substance use peer pressure structural equation methods differential association social learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agnew, R. (1991a). The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency.Criminology 29: 47–72.Google Scholar
  2. Agnew, R. (1991b). A longitudinal test of social control theory and delinquency.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 28: 126–156.Google Scholar
  3. Akers, R. L. (1977).Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach, 2nd ed., Wadsworth, Belmont.Google Scholar
  4. Akers, R. L. (1985).Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach, 3rd ed., Wadsworth, Belmont.Google Scholar
  5. Akers, R. L. (1992).Drugs, Alcohol, and Society: Social Structure, Process and Policy, Wadsworth, Belmont.Google Scholar
  6. Akers, R. L. (1994).Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation, Roxbury, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  7. Akers, R. L., and Cochran, J. K. (1985). Adolescent marijuana use: A test of three theories of deviant behavior.Deviant Behav. 6: 323–346.Google Scholar
  8. Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory.Am. Soc. Rev. 44: 636–655.Google Scholar
  9. AMA Board of Trustees (1991). Drug abuse in the United States: Strategies for prevention.JAMA 265: 2102–2107.Google Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1977).Social Learning Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Briar, S., and Piliavin, I. (1965). Delinquency, situational inducements, and commitment to conformity.Soc. Problems 13: 35–45.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, B. B., Clasen, D. R., and Eicher, S. A. (1986). Perceptions of peer pressure, peer conformity dispositions, and self-reported behavior among adolescents.Dev. Psychol. 22: 521–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgess, R., and Akers, R. (1968). Differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior.Soc. Problems 14: 128–147.Google Scholar
  14. Burkett, S. R. and Warren, B. O. (1987). Religiosity, peer associations, and adolescent marijuana use: A panel study of underlying causal structures.Criminology 25: 109–131.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, L. E., and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach.Am. Sociol. Rev. 44: 588–608.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., and Land, K. C. (1981). Exposition and test of a formal theory.Am. Sociol. Rev. 46: 505–524.Google Scholar
  17. Cressey, D. R. (1953).Other People's Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement, Free Press, Glencoe, Il.Google Scholar
  18. Cullen, F. T. (1983).Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory, Rowman and Allanheld, Totowa, NJ.Google Scholar
  19. Dielman, T. E., Shope, J. T., Butchart, A. T., Campanelli, P. C., and Caspar, R. A. (1989). A covariance structure model test of antecedents of adolescent alcohol misuse and a prevention effort.J. Drug Educ. 19: 337–361.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dielman, T. E., Butchart, A. T., Shope, J. T., and Miller, M. (1991). Environmental correlates of adolescent substance use and misuse: Implications for prevention programs.Int. J. Addict. 25: 855–880.Google Scholar
  21. Elliott, D. S. (1976).National Youth Survey [United States]: Wave I, 1976, InterUniversity Corsortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  22. Elliott, D. S., and Menard, S. (1996). Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior: Temporal and developmental patterns. In Hawkins, J. D. (ed.),Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 28–67.Google Scholar
  23. Elliott, D. S., Knowles, B. A., and Canter, R. J. (1981).The Epidemiology of Delinquent Behavior and Drug Use Among American Adolescents. Vol. 1. The National Youth Survey Project Report No. 14, Behavioral Research Institute, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  24. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., and Ageton, S. S. (1985).Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  25. Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Torquati, J., and Fridrich, A. (1994). Ethnic and gender differences in risk for early adolescent substance use.J. Youth Adolesc. 23: 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fromme, K. (1983). Peer influence on social drinking.Bull. Soc. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2: 50–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibbons, D. C. (1971). Observations on the study of crime causation.Am. J. Soc. 77: 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., and Pugh, M. D. (1986). Friendships and delinquency.Am. J. Sociol. 91: 1170–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., and DeMaris, A. (1993). The family and peer relations of black adolescents.J. Marriage Fam. 55: 277–287.Google Scholar
  30. Glueck, S., and Glueck, E. (1950).Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency, The Commonwealth Fund, New York.Google Scholar
  31. Gonet, M. M. (1994).Counseling the Adolescent Substance User: School-Based Intervention and Prevention, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  32. Gottfredson, M., and Hirschi, T. (1987). The methodological adequacy of longitudinal research on crime.Criminology 25: 581–614.Google Scholar
  33. Gottfredson, M., and Hirschi, T. (1990).A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Hayduk, L. (1987).Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  35. Hirschi, T. (1969).Causes of Delinquency, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  36. Huizinga, D. (1978). Description of the national youth sample. Project Report Number 2. HEW Grant Number MH27552.The Dynamics of Delinquent Behavior: A National Survey, Behavioral Research Institute, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  37. Jackson, D. F., Tittle, C. R., and Burke, M. J. (1986). Offense-specific models of the differential association process.Soc. Problems 33: 335–356.Google Scholar
  38. Jacquith, S. M. (1981). Adolescent marijuana and alcohol use: An empirical test of differential association theory.Criminology 19: 271–280.Google Scholar
  39. Jensen, G. F. (1972). Parents, peers, and delinquent action: A test of the differential association perspective.Am. J. Sociol. 78: 562–575.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, R. E. (1979).Juvenile Delinquency and Its Origins: An Integrated Theoretical Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., and Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use.Criminology 25: 323–340.Google Scholar
  42. Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., and Bachman, J. G. (1995).Monitoring the Future Study [press release 13], National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. Joreskog, K. G., and Sorbom, D. (1989).LISREL VII: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by Maximum Likelihood, Instrumental Variables, and Least Squares Methods, 4th ed., Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN.Google Scholar
  44. Kandel, D. B., Kessler, R. C., and Margulies, R. Z. (1978). Antecedents of adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis.J. Youth Adolesc. 7: 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kercher, K. (1988). Criminology. In Borgatta, E. F., and Cook, K. S. (eds.),The Future of Sociology, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 294–316.Google Scholar
  46. Krohn, M. D., Akers, R. L., Radosevich, M. J., and Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1982). Norm qualities and adolescent drinking and drug behavior.J. Drug Issues 12: 343–359.Google Scholar
  47. Krohn, M. D., Skinner, W. F., Massey, J. L., and Akers, R. L. (1983). Social learning theory and adolescent cigarette smoking: A longitudinal study.Soc. Problems 32: 455–471.Google Scholar
  48. Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., and Akers, R. L. (1984). Community context and theories of deviant behavior: An examination of social learning and social bonding theories.Sociol. Q. 25: 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liska, A. E. (1969). Interpreting the causal structure of differential association theory.Soc. Problems 16: 485–492.Google Scholar
  50. Liska, A. E. (1973). Causal structures underlying the relationship between delinquent involvement and peers.Soc. Sociol. Res. 58: 23–36.Google Scholar
  51. Liska, A. E. (1978). Deviant involvement, associations and attitudes: Specifying the underlying causal structures.Soc Sociol. Res. 63: 73–88.Google Scholar
  52. Liska, A. E. (1987).Perspectives on Deviance, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  53. Liska, A. E., and Reed, M. D. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and delinquency: Estimating reciprocal effects.Am. Sociol. Rev. 50: 547–560.Google Scholar
  54. Lofland, J. (1969).Deviance and Identity, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  55. MacDonald, D. I. (1989).Drugs, Drinking and Adolescents, 2nd ed. Year Book Medical, Chicago.Google Scholar
  56. Mann, P. (1980). Marijuana: The myth of harmlessness goes up in smoke.Sat. Eve. Post July/Aug. 32–43.Google Scholar
  57. Marcos, A. C., Bahr, S. J., and Johnson, R. E. (1986). Test of a bonding/association theory of adolescent drug use.Soc. Forces 65: 135–161.Google Scholar
  58. Matsueda, R. L. (1982). Testing control theory and differential association: A causal modeling approach.Am. Sociol. Rev. 47: 489–504.Google Scholar
  59. Matsueda, R. L. (1989). The dynamics of moral beliefs and minor deviance.Soc. Forces 68: 428–457.Google Scholar
  60. Matsueda, R. L., and Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family structure, and delinquency: A test of differential association and social control theories.Am. Sociol. Rev. 52: 826–840.Google Scholar
  61. Menard, S., and Elliott, D. S. (1990). Longitudinal and cross-sectional data collection and analysis in the study of crime and delinquency.Just. Q. 7: 11–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Menard, S., and Elliott, D. S. (1994). Delinquent bonding, moral beliefs, and illegal behaviors: A three-wave panel model.Just. Q. 11: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pisano, S., and Rooney, J. F. (1988). Children's changing attitudes regarding alcohol: A cross-sectional study.J. Drug Educ. 18: 1–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Reiss, A. J., Jr., and Rhodes, A. L. (1964). An empirical test of differential association theory.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 1: 5–18.Google Scholar
  65. Short, J. F., Jr. (1957). Differential association and delinquency.Soc. Problems 4: 233–239.Google Scholar
  66. Short, J. F., Jr. (1958). Differential association with delinquent friends and delinquent behavior.Pac. Sociol. Rev. 1: 20–25.Google Scholar
  67. Short, J. F., Jr., and Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965).Group Process and Gang Delinquency, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  68. Spear, S., and Akers, R. L. (1988). Social learning variables and the risk of habitual smoking among adolescents: The Muscatine study.Am. J. Prev. Med. 4: 336–348.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Stafford, M. C., and Ekland-Olson, S. (1982). On social learning and deviant behavior: A reappraisal of the findings.Am. Sociol. Rev. 47: 167–169.Google Scholar
  70. Strickland, D. E. (1982). “Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory”: A comment and critique.Am. Sociol. Rev. 47: 162–167.Google Scholar
  71. Sutherland, E. H. (1924).Criminology, Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  72. Sutherland, E. H. (1934).Principles of Criminology, 2nd ed., Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  73. Sutherland, E. H. (1939).Principles of Criminology, 3rd ed., Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  74. Sutherland, E. H. (1947).Principles of Criminology, 4th ed., Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  75. Sutherland, E. H. (1973).On Analyzing Crime, edited with an Introduction by Schuessler, K., University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  76. Sutherland, E. H.. and Cressey, D. R. (1970).Criminology, J. B. Lippincott, New York.Google Scholar
  77. Sykes, G. M., and Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.Am. Sociol. Rev. 22: 664–670.Google Scholar
  78. Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., and Jang, S. J. (1994). Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional theory.Criminology 32: 47–83.Google Scholar
  79. Tittle, C. R. (1985). The assumption that general theories are not possible. In Meier, R. F. (ed.).Theoretical Methods in Criminology, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 93–121.Google Scholar
  80. Tittle, C. R., Burke, M. J., and Jackson, E. F. (1986). Modeling Sutherland's theory of differential association: Toward an empirical clarification.Soc. Forces 65: 405–432.Google Scholar
  81. Turner, R. H., and Killian, L. M. (1987).Collective Behavior, Prentice-Hall, New York.Google Scholar
  82. Warr, M., and Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do?Criminology 29: 851–866.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark D. Reed
    • 1
  • Pamela Wilcox Rountree
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeGeorgia State UniversityAtlanta
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations