Social network influences on adolescent substance use: Disentangling structural equivalence from cohesion

被引:89
|
作者
Fujimoto, Kayo [1 ]
Valente, Thomas W. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr, Sch Publ Hlth, Div Hlth Promot & Behav Sci, Houston, TX USA
[2] Univ So Calif, Inst Prevent Res, Dept Prevent Med, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
关键词
Social network analysis; Peer influence; Adolescent; Alcohol; Smoking; Structural equivalence; Cohesion; USA; CIGARETTE-SMOKING; PEER INFLUENCE; SELECTION; INNOVATION; BEHAVIOR; CONTEXT; DELINQUENCY; ASSOCIATION; HOMOGENEITY; SIMILARITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.02.009
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
This study investigates two contagion mechanisms of peer influence based on direct communication (cohesion) versus comparison through peers who occupy similar network positions (structural equivalence) in the context of adolescents' drinking alcohol and smoking. To date, the two contagion mechanisms have been considered observationally inseparable, but this study attempts to disentangle structural equivalence from cohesion as a contagion mechanism by examining the extent to which the transmission of drinking and smoking behaviors attenuates as a function of social distance (i.e., from immediate friends to indirectly connected peers). Using the U.S. Add Health data consisting of a nationally representative sample of American adolescents (Grades 7-12), this study measured peer risk-taking up to four steps away from the adolescent (friends of friends of friends of friends) using a network exposure model. Peer influence was tested using a logistic regression model of alcohol drinking and cigarette smoking. Results indicate that influence based on structural equivalence tended to be stronger than influence based on cohesion in general, and that the magnitude of the effect decreased up to three steps away from the adolescent (friends of friends of friends). Further analysis indicated that structural equivalence acted as a mechanism of contagion for drinking and cohesion acted as one for smoking. These results indicate that the two transmission mechanisms with differing network proximities can differentially affect drinking and smoking behaviors in American adolescents. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1952 / 1960
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Social influences adolescent substance use
    Simons-Morton, Bruce
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH BEHAVIOR, 2007, 31 (06): : 672 - 684
  • [2] The roles of neighborhood social cohesion, peer substance use, and adolescent depression in adolescent substance use
    Pei, Fei
    Wang, Yixuan
    Wu, Qi
    McCarthy, Karla Shockley
    Wu, Shiyou
    [J]. CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES REVIEW, 2020, 112
  • [3] STRUCTURAL COHESION AND EQUIVALENCE EXPLANATIONS OF SOCIAL HOMOGENEITY
    FRIEDKIN, NE
    [J]. SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH, 1984, 12 (03) : 235 - 261
  • [4] The peer context of adolescent substance use: Findings from social network analysis
    Ennett, ST
    Bauman, KE
    Hussong, A
    Faris, R
    Foshee, VA
    Cai, L
    DuRant, RH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 2006, 16 (02) : 159 - 186
  • [7] Social Network Influences on Adolescent E-cigarette Use
    Valente, Thomas W.
    Piombo, Sarah E.
    Edwards, Katie M.
    Waterman, Emily A.
    Banyard, Victoria L.
    [J]. SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE, 2023, 58 (06) : 780 - 786
  • [8] Disentangling adolescent substance use and problem use within a clinical sample
    Stice, E
    Kirz, J
    Borbely, C
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH, 2002, 17 (02) : 122 - 142
  • [9] Adolescent substance use in different social and peer contexts: A social network analysis
    Pearson, Michael
    Sweeting, Helen
    West, Patrick
    Young, Robert
    Gordon, Jacki
    Turner, Katrina
    [J]. DRUGS-EDUCATION PREVENTION AND POLICY, 2006, 13 (06) : 519 - 536
  • [10] Families and risk: Prospective analyses of familial and social influences on adolescent substance use
    Pomery, EA
    Gibbons, FX
    Gerrard, M
    Cleveland, MJ
    Brody, GH
    Wills, TA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FAMILY PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 19 (04) : 560 - 570