Prevention Science

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 65–74 | Cite as

Attitude Ambivalence, Friend Norms, and Adolescent Drug Use

  • Zachary P. Hohman
  • William D. Crano
  • Jason T. Siegel
  • Eusebio M. Alvaro
Article

Abstract

This study assessed the moderating effects of attitudinal ambivalence on adolescent marijuana use in the context of the theory of planned behavior (TPB). With data from the National Survey of Parents and Youth (N = 1,604), two hierarchical multiple regression models were developed to examine the association of ambivalent attitudes, intentions, and later marijuana use. The first model explored the moderating effect of ambivalence on intentions to use marijuana; the second tested the moderation of ambivalence on actual marijuana use 1 year later. Results across both analyses suggest that ambivalence moderated the association of friend norms and subsequent adolescent marijuana use: friend norms were better predictors of marijuana intentions (β = 0.151, t = 2.29, p = 0.02) and subsequent use when adolescents were attitudinally ambivalent about marijuana use (β = 0.071, t = 2.76, p = 0.006). These results suggest that preventive programs that affect the certainty with which adolescents holds pro- or antimarijuana attitudes may influence the likelihood of their resistance to, initiation, or continuance of marijuana use.

Keywords

Adolescence Marijuana use Attitudinal ambivalence Friend norms 

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality and behavior. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I., & Cote, N. G. (2008). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 289–311). New York: Psychology.Google Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armitage, C. J., & Arden, M. A. (2007). Felt and potential ambivalence across the stages of change. Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 149–158. doi:10.1177/1359105307071749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1421–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2004). The effects of attitudinal ambivalence on attitude–intention–behavior relations. In G. Haddock & G. R. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 121–143). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bassili, J. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: the case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blanton, H., & Burkley, M. (2008). Deviance regulation theory: Applications to adolescent social influence. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 94–121). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  11. Blanton, H., & Christie, C. (2003). Deviance regulation: A theory of action and identity. Review of General Psychology, 7, 115–149. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Block, R. I., & Ghoneim, M. M. (1993). Effects of chronic marijuana use in human cognition. Psychopharmachology, 110, 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyer, C. B., Tschann, J. M., & Shafer, M.-A. (1999). Predictors of risk for sexually transmitted diseases in ninth grade urban high school students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 448–465.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Brook, J. S., Adams, R. E., Balka, E. B., & Johnson, E. (2002). Early adolescent marijuana use: Risks for the transition to young adulthood. Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences, 32, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, J. S., & Farber, I. E. (1951). Emotions conceptualized as intervening variables—with suggestions toward a theory of frustration. Psychological Bulletin, 48, 465–495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (2008). Attitude ambivalence. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 261–288). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  18. Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2002). Ambivalence and attitudes. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 37–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conner, M., Povey, R., Sparks, P., & James, R. (2003). Moderating role of attitude ambivalence within the theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 75–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Converse, P. E. (1995). Foreword. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. xi–xvii). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Cooke, R., & Sheeran, P. (2004). Moderation of cognition–intention and cognition–behaviour relations: A meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 159–186. doi:10.1348/0144666041501688.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Cottrell, J. (2007). Social networks in youth and adolescence (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Crano, W. D. (2010). Experiments as reforms: Persuasion in the nation’s service. In J. P. Forgas, J. Cooper, & W. D. Crano (Eds.), The psychology of attitudes and attitude change (pp. 231–248). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  24. Crano, W. D. (2012). The rules of influence. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  25. Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Crano, W. D., Gilbert, C., Alvaro, E. M., & Siegel, J. T. (2008). Enhancing prediction of inhalant abuse risk in samples of early adolescents: A secondary analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 33, 895–905. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.02.006.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Crano, W. D., Siegel, J. T., Alvaro, E. M., Lac, A., & Hemovich, V. (2008). The at-risk marijuana nonuser: Expanding the standard distinction. Prevention Science, 9, 129–137.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Crano, W. D., Siegel, J. T., & Alvaro, E. A. (2013). The siren’s call: Mass media and drug prevention. In J. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The persuasion handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. David, S., Hornik, R., & Maklan, D. (2010). National Survey of Parents and Youth (NSPY), 1998–2004—restricted use files [computer file]. ICPSR27868-v1. Ann Arbor: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2010-06-17. doi:10.3886/ICPSR27868.Google Scholar
  30. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude structure, and resistance to change. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 413–432). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Erceg-Hurn, D. M. (2008). Drugs, money, and graphic ads: A critical review of the Montana Meth Project. Prevention Science, 9, 256–263. doi:10.1007/s11121-008-0098-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude–behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 398–408. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(78)90035-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  35. Fishbein, M., Cappella, J., Hornik, R., Sayeed, S., Yzer, M., & Ahern, R. K. (2002). The role of theory in developing effective antidrug public service announcements. In W. D. Crano & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Mass media and drug prevention: Classic and contemporary theories and research (pp. 89–117). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Gavin, L. A., & Furman, W. (1989). Age differences in adolescents’ perceptions of their peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 25, 827–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hartup, W. W. (2005). Peer interaction: what causes what? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 387–394.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore, L. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hornik, R., Jacobsohn, L., Orwin, R., Piesse, A., & Kalton, G. (2008). Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media campaign on youths. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 2229–2236. doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.125849.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnston, K. L., & White, K. M. (2003). Binge-drinking: A test of the role of group norms in the theory of planned behavior. Psychology and Health, 17, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2010). Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings, 2009 (NIH publication no. 10–7583). Bethesda: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  42. Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence–indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Keyes, K. M., Schulenberg, J. E., O'Malley, P. M., Johnston, L. D., Bachman, J. G., Li, G., et al. (2011). The social norms of birth cohorts and adolescent marijuana use in the United States, 1976–2007. Addiction, 106, 1790–1800.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Lac, A., & Crano, W. D. (2009). Monitoring matters: Meta-analytic review reveals the reliable linkage of parental monitoring with adolescent marijuana use. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 578–586.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lac, A., Alvaro, E. M., Crano, W. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2009). Pathways from parental knowledge and warmth to adolescent marijuana use: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Prevention Science, 10, 22–32.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Liebkind, K. (1982). The Swedish-speaking Finns: A case study of ethnolinguistic identity. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lundqvist, T. (2005). Cognitive consequences of cannabis use: Comparison with abuse of stimulants and heroin with regard to attention, memory and executive functions. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 81, 319–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Lynskey, M., & Hall, W. (2000). The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: A review. Addiction, 95, 1621–1630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Lynskey, M. T., Heath, A. C., Bucholz, K. K., Slutske, W. S., Madden, P. A., & Martin, N. G. (2003). Escalation of drug use in early-onset cannabis users vs co-twin controls. Journal of American Medical Association, 289, 427–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  52. Moore, M. (1973). Ambivalence in attitude measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 481–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moore, M. (1980). Validation of attitude toward any practice scale through use of ambivalence as a moderator. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006). InfoFacts on adolescent drug trends. New York: NIH.Google Scholar
  55. Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. P. (2008). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? In R. H. Fazio & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Attitudes: Their structure, function, and consequences (pp. 199–213). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Palmonari, A., Pombeni, M. L., & Kirchler, E. (1989). Peer groups and evolution of the self-system in adolescence. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 3–15. doi:10.1007/BF03172757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Palmonari, A., Pombeni, M. L., & Kirchler, E. (1990). Adolescents and their peer groups: A study on the significance of peers, social categorization processes and coping with developmental tasks. Social Behaviour, 5, 33–48.Google Scholar
  59. Penning, M., & Barnes, G. E. (1982). Adolescent marijuana use: A review. The International Journal of Addictions, 17, 749–791.Google Scholar
  60. Petraitis, J., Flay, B. R., & Miller, T. Q. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces of the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 67–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  62. Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  63. Priester, J. R. (2002). Sex, drugs, and attitude ambivalence: How feelings of evaluative tension influence alcohol use and safe sex behaviors. In W. D. Crano & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Mass media and drug prevention: Classic and contemporary theories and research (pp. 145–162). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  64. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431–449.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Extending the bases of subjective attitude ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 19–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2001). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 22, 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Siegel, J. T., Alvaro, E. M., Patel, N., & Crano, W. D. (2009). '…you would probably want to do it. Cause that's what made them popular': Exploring perceptions of inhalant utility among young adolescent nonusers and occasional users. Substance Use & Misuse, 44, 597–615. doi:10.1080/10826080902809543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Skenderian, J. J., Siegel, J. T., Crano, W. D., Alvaro, E. M., & Lac, A. (2008). Expectancy change and adolescents' intentions to use marijuana. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 563–569.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1992). Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior—assessing the role of identification with green consumerism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 388–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sparks, P., Conner, M., James, R., Shepherd, R., & Povey, R. (2001). Ambivalence about health related behaviors: An exploration in the domain of food choice. British Journal of Health Psychology, 6, 53–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Suls, J., & Wheeler, L. (2000). Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tarrant, M. (2002). Adolescent peer groups and social identity. Social Development, 11, 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitude) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361–386). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  74. Ullrich, J., & Krueger, J. I. (2010). Interpersonal liking from bivariate attitude similarity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 214–221.Google Scholar
  75. Ullrich, J., Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Böttcher, B. (2008). The moderator effect that wasn't there: Statistical problems in ambivalence research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 774–794. doi:10.1037/a0012709.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Attitude–behavior consistency: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 432–440. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.3.432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhao, X., Sayeed, S., Cappella, J., Hornik, R., Fishbein, M., & Ahern, R. K. (2006). Targeting norm-related beliefs about marijuana use in an adolescent population. Health Communication, 19, 187–196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zachary P. Hohman
    • 1
  • William D. Crano
    • 1
  • Jason T. Siegel
    • 1
  • Eusebio M. Alvaro
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Behavioral and Organizational SciencesClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA

Personalised recommendations