Abstract
This article focuses on the degree to which friends’ influence on substance use is conditioned by the consistency between their behavior and that of schoolmates (individuals enrolled in the same school, but not identified as friends), contributing to the literature on the complexity of interactive social influences during adolescence. Specifically, it hypothesizes that friends’ influence will diminish as their norms become less similar to that of schoolmates. The authors also propose that this conditioning relationship is related to the density of the friendship group. This study uses data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) (n ~ 8,000, 55 % female) to examine the interactive relationship between friend and schoolmate influences on adolescent substance use (smoking and drinking). The sample contains students ranging from age 11 to 22 and is 60 % White. The findings demonstrate that, as the substance use of the friendship group becomes more dissimilar from schoolmates’ substance use, the friendship group’s influence on adolescent substance use diminishes. Further, the results demonstrate that this conditioning relationship does not emerge when the friendship group is highly dense.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In comparing those adolescents who did not have enough data to be part of the final samples to the youth who comprise our sample, excluded subjects, on average, were the same age (15 years old), but were less likely to be White (43 vs. 60 %), less likely to be female (43 vs. 55 %) and more likely to have been on public assistance (11 vs. 8 %).
Imputation procedures were used with Stata’s Imputation with Chained Equations (ICE). This method predicts values (across several iterations) using a procedure where (a) initially all missing values on a particular variable are filled in at random (x), (b) that variable is then regressed on others in the set, (c) the values on that initial variable are then replaced by draws from the posterior distribution of predicted values (x), and (d) the process is replicated across a number of cycles so that stable imputation results can be achieved (Royston and White 2011).
Our focus is on schoolmates, but some readers may wonder about grademates. Students are organized by grades within schools, but these are not fixed boundaries. Sports teams and clubs are school-based, not grade based, and some academic classes contain students at different grade levels. Indeed, research has suggested that the peers from sports teams and other organizations (which cut across grades) have an important influence on adolescent behavior (Fujimoto and Valente 2013; Fujimoto et al. 2012; Kreager 2007), and that the culture of the overall school is important for understanding individual substance use (Bisset et al. 2007). We also believe our data underscore the focus on schoolmates rather than grademates. 25 % of identified friends were not in the same grade as the subject. Importantly, this carries over even to best friends—nearly 25 % were likewise in a different grade than the subject. Still, we completed supplementary analyses looking at the conditioning effect of grademates. The results for smoking are similar to those reported in the main text. For example, the interaction term in the subsample for adolescents whose friendship group has a density score of <.80 is negative and achieves statistical significance (b = − 1.559, SE = .635, p = .016). This suggests that friends become more dissimilar from grademates with regard to smoking, the friends’ influence on the smoking behavior of the subject declines. For the subsample of adolescents whose friendship group has a density coefficient of .8 or greater, the interaction term is positive and non-significant (b = 2.718, SE = 2.773, p = .330). With regard to drinking, the pattern of results is similar, though weaker.
Hierarchical models that specify schoolmates as a second-level variable would not be appropriate for the questions under consideration. This would fix the schoolmate variable to be the same for all members of the same school, and thus the cross-level interaction between peers and schoolmates would simply reflect whether delinquent peers mattered more in schools with higher or lower levels of such behavior, on average. Still, because there is school-level variability in the smoking and drinking outcomes, we conducted sensitivity analyses in which we ran random-intercept logistic regression models (estimated in HLM), which does not force the intercept to be constant across all schools. The results from these models are consistent with those presented in the main text.
Some readers may be interested in whether there is a direct effect of schoolmates’ substance use on subjects’ own use. When accounting for friends’ substance use along with demographics, parental attachment, school attachment, parental supervision, impulsivity and (the respective) substance use at Wave 1, we found that the portion of schoolmates who smoke is not a statistically significant predictor of later smoking ((b = −.025, SE = .473, p = .957). Likewise, the portion of schoolmates who drink is not a statistically significant predictor of later drinking (b = .224, SE = .371, p = .546). Such results are interesting, as they may prompt scholars to prematurely assume that schoolmates “don’t matter” for substance use. But, our focus and analysis suggests they do matter, in an indirect way, by conditioning the influence of friends’ substance use.
Note that if the mother took the respondent to school or picked him/her up from school, this was coded as “always.”.
Some readers may be interested in age effects with regard to the relationships under study. First, because smoking and alcohol are perceived differently according to age, we investigated whether our results held for smoking with a subsample of adolescents younger than 18 (at which point individuals can legally purchase cigarettes) and for drinking with a subsample of adolescents younger than 21 (at which point individuals can legally purchase and consume alcohol). The results are substantively the same as those for the whole sample. Next, some may wonder whether our results vary across developmental periods. We did complete supplemental analyses for different subsamples clustered by age—specifically, age 15 and younger and between ages 16 and 18 (the ability to estimate models for a highly dense subgroup within an older subsample was not possible due to low sample size). It is important to note that, although participants in our sample range from 10–22 years of age, over 75 % of the sample is between ages 14 and 18. The results for the younger sub-sample were in the same direction as those presented in the main text, but the relationships are stronger (and statistically significant) for the 16–18 subsample.
Recent research on peer effects increasingly relies on stochastic actor-based (SIENA) models (Snijders 2001), which allow researchers to simultaneously model dynamic changes in network characteristics and changes in behavior to disentangle selection and socialization effects (Weerman 2011). Though we use social network data, the hypotheses posed in this inquiry are not yet translatable to a SIENA framework.
We use the following Stata command when calculating cross derivatives: margins, dydx(portion of peer group that is deviant) at (absolute different between peer group and schoolmates = (0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7)) post (see Karaca-Mandic et al. 2012).
References
Abbott, A. (1997). Of time and space: The contemporary relevance of the Chicago school. Social Forces, 75, 1149–1182.
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.
Ai, C., & Norton, E. C. (2000). Standard errors for the retransformation problem with heteroscedasticity. Journal of Health Economics, 19, 697–718.
Ai, C., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80, 123–129.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. Philadelphia: W. W. Norton & Company.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Buis, M. L. (2010). Stata Tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in non-linear models. The Stata Journal, 10, 305–308.
Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 836–849.
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.
Chantala, K. (2006). Guidelines for analyzing AddHealth data. Retrieved March 12, 2013. http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/files/wt_guidelines.pdf .
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.
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.
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.
Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 178–184.
Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: The Free Press.
Dion, K. L. (1973). Cohesiveness as a determinate of in-group—Outgroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 163–171.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: WW Norton & Company.
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.
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.
Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Social interactions and smoking: Evidence using multiple student cohorts, instrumental variables and school fixed effects. Health Economics, 19, 466–484.
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.
Friedkin, N. E. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Fujimoto, K., & Valente, T. W. (2013). Alcohol peer influence of participating in organized school activities: A network approach. Health Psychology, 32, 1084–1092.
Gaviria, A., & Raphael, S. (2001). School-based peer effects and juvenile behavior. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 257–268.
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.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.
Greene, W. (2010). Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Economics Letters, 107, 291–296.
Harding, D. (2007). Culture context, sexual behavior, and romantic relationships in disadvantaged neighborhoods. American Sociological Review, 72, 341–364.
Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013–1057.
Haynie, D. L. (2002). Friendship networks and adolescent delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 99–134.
Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter? Social Forces, 84, 1109–1130.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
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.
Hussong, A. M. (2002). Differentiating peer contexts and risk for adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 207–220.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London, UK: MacMillan and Co.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford, UK: Houghton Miffin.
Karaca-Mandic, P., Norton, E. C., & Dowd, B. (2012). Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Services Research, 47, 255–274.
Kemper, T. D. (1968). Reference groups, socialization and achievement. American Sociological Review, 33, 31–45.
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.
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.
Kreager, D. (2007). Unnecessary roughness? School sports, peer networks, and male adolescent violence. American Sociological Review, 72, 705–724.
Kreager, D. A., & Haynie, D. L. (2011). Dangerous liaisons? Dating and drinking diffusion in adolescent peer networks. American Sociological Review, 76, 737–763.
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.
Krohn, M. D. (1985). The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems, 33, 81–93.
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.
Manksi, C. F. (1995). Identification problems in the social sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
Marsden, P. V., & Freidkin, N. E. (1993). Network studies of social influence. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 127–151.
Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1577–1611.
McGloin, J. M. (2009). Delinquency balance: Revisiting peer influence. Criminology, 47, 439–477.
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.
McGloin, J. M., Sullivan, C. J., & Kennedy, L. W. (Eds.). (2012). When crime appears: The role of emergence. New York: Routledge.
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.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Payne, D., & Cornwell, B. (2007). Modeling peer influences on delinquency: Beyond the direct contact hypothesis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 127–150.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Royston, P., & White, I. R. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in STATA. Journal of Statistical Software, 45, 1–20.
Scott, J. (2002). Social networks: Critical concepts in sociology, volume 3. New York: Routledge.
Shaw, C., & McKay, H. D. (1931). Report on the causes of crime Vol. II. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Shaw, C., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sheriff, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349–356.
Smangs, M. (2010). Delinquency, social skills and the structure of peer relations: Assessing criminological theories by social network theory. Social Forces, 89, 609–631.
Smetana, J. G., Campionne-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 255–284.
Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology, 40, 361–395.
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 2, 55–87.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. V. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224–237.
Stets, J. E., & Carter, M. J. (2011). The moral self: Applying identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74, 192–215.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past, present and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284–297.
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273–286.
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.
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.
Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C., & Van Zalk, M. H. W. (2013). Network-behavior dynamics. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 399–412.
Villanti, A., Boulay, M., & Juon, H. S. (2011). Peer, parent and media influence on adolescent smoking by developmental stage. Addictive Behavior, 36, 133–136.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weerman, F. M. (2011). Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology, 49, 253–286.
Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1201–1231.
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.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44, 1–24.
Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated theory in criminology. London: Tavistock Publications.
Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2010). Neighborhood context and non-linear peer effects on Adolescent violent crime. Criminology, 49, 873–903.
Zimmerman, G. M., & Vazquez, B. E. (2011). Decomposing the peer effect on adolescent substance use: Mediation, nonlinearity, and differential nonlinearity. Criminology, 49, 1235–1273.
Acknowledgments
This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and funded by Grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). No direct support was received from Grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.
Author contributions
JMM conceived of the study, performed the statistical analysis and helped draft the manuscript. CS also conceived of the study, helped to draft the manuscript and aided in supplemental statistical analyses. KT also conceived of the study, helped to draft the manuscript and aided in supplemental statistical analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McGloin, J.M., Sullivan, C.J. & Thomas, K.J. Peer Influence and Context: The Interdependence of Friendship Groups, Schoolmates and Network Density in Predicting Substance Use. J Youth Adolescence 43, 1436–1452 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0126-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0126-7