1 / 33

Collaborators : Maryfrances Porter, Ph.D. Penny Marsh Kathleen McElhaney, Ph.D.

Predicting Who Will be Most Susceptible to Peer Influence Regarding Substance Use: Individual, Familial, and Peer Risk Factors Joseph P. Allen Joanna Chango Megan Schad David E. Szwedo University of Virginia. Farah Williams, Ph.D. Katie Little Jill Antonishak , Ph.D . Katy Higgins .

kyrie
Download Presentation

Collaborators : Maryfrances Porter, Ph.D. Penny Marsh Kathleen McElhaney, Ph.D.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Predicting Who Will be Most Susceptible to Peer Influence Regarding Substance Use: Individual, Familial, and Peer Risk FactorsJoseph P. AllenJoanna ChangoMegan SchadDavid E. SzwedoUniversity of Virginia Farah Williams, Ph.D. Katie Little Jill Antonishak, Ph.D. Katy Higgins Claire Stephenson Mindy Schmidt, Ph.D. Glenda Insabella, Ph.D. Erin Miga Amanda Hare Collaborators: Maryfrances Porter, Ph.D. Penny Marsh Kathleen McElhaney, Ph.D. F. Christy McFarland, Ph.D. Jessica Meyer, Ph.D. Copies of this and related papers are available at:WWW.TEENRESEARCH.ORG

  2. Characteristics of Peer Influence in Adolescence • Inevitable • Not Restricted to Low Functioning Teens • Can be Positive or Negative • Questionable Magnitude: Selection vs. Influence

  3. Key Premise • Peer Influence Processes May Only Show Up Powerfully Under Certain conditions. Key Question • When Will a Teen be MOST likely to be influenced by Peers?

  4. Theoretical Framework • Managing Peer Influence as an Autonomy Process • As teens gain autonomy from parents, at first they sacrifice some autonomy with peers • Autonomy development will be key to understanding peer influence • Autonomy development must be viewed in context

  5. Hypotheses • Susceptibility to Peer Influence Will be Linked to: Family Context Individual Skills Peer Context Autonomy/Relatedness Struggles Refusal Skills with Peers Peer Social Status Susceptibility to Peer Influence

  6. Sample • 184 Adolescents, their Parents, Best Friends, and Other Friends • Intensive Interviews and Observations with all parties (Total N over first 10 years ~ 1600). • Equal numbers of Males and Females • We’ll focus on period of peak influence: ages 15 to 16 • Socio-economically Diverse (Median Family Income= $40- $60K) • 31% African American; 69% European American • Very Low Attrition (< 1%)

  7. Defining Influence • Becoming More Like One’s Peers • Focus on Actual Behavior • We focused on Substance Use • Problematic • Quintessential example of peer influence concerns

  8. Measures: Substance Use • Alcohol and Drug Use Questionnaire (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1987, “Monitoring the Future” surveys) • Combined Frequency of Alcohol & Marijuana Use in Past 30 days • Self-report measure obtained from both target teen and the target teen’s closest friend.

  9. Assessing Peer Influence • Examine Change in Substance Use from Age 15 to 16 for Target Teen • Can this Change be Predicted from Close Friend’s Baseline Substance Use at Age 15? • In other words: Does a teen’s level of use change to become more like what their friend’s use was at 15? • In context of general pattern of increasing substance use in the sample as a whole during this period.

  10. Hypothetically Modeling Peer Influence Flat Line = No Prediction from Baseline Peer Use to Change in Target Teen Use

  11. Hypothetically Modeling Peer Influence Positive Slope = Baseline Peer Use Predicts Future Change in Target Teen Use (i.e., Peer Influence)

  12. Actual Peer Influence Baseline Peer Use Predicts Future Change in Target Teen Use (i.e., Peer Influence is Present)

  13. Predicting Target Teen Substance Use Age 15 Age 16 Teen Substance Use Teen Substance Use .70*** .46*** .28*** Peer Substance Use Gender & Income

  14. Key Question • Will some youths be more susceptible to this peer influence process? • Which youths?

  15. Hypotheses • Susceptibility to Peer Influence Will be Linked to: Family Context Individual Skills Peer Context Autonomy/Relatedness Struggles Refusal Skills with Peers Peer Social Status Susceptibility to Peer Influence

  16. Autonomy Measures: Recantations with Mother (Undermined Autonomy at Age 13) • Autonomy & Relatedness Coding System (Allen et al., 2000) • Observed 8-minute parent-teen interaction • Focus is resolving an actual ongoing disagreement • Adolescent Recantations – A teen backs down without having been given any reasons to do so, and without appearing convinced. • A marker of fundamental autonomy difficulties

  17. Predicting Target Teen Substance Use Age 15 Age 16 Teen Substance Use Teen Substance Use .70*** .46*** .28*** Peer Substance Use -.00 Gender & Income Recantations .-19** Recantations X Peer Use

  18. Recantations with Mother as a Moderator of Peer Influence High Teen Recantations Low Teen Recantations

  19. Measures: Maternal Support(Teen Age 13) • Supportive Behavior Task Coding System– (Allen, et al., 2001; Crowell, et al., 1998; Julie et al., 1997) • Observed 6-minute parent-teen interaction • Teen asks for help with a problem • Maternal Support Score: Maternal demonstration of warmth, positivity, and valuing of the teen during the interaction

  20. Maternal Support as a Moderator of Peer Influence Low Maternal Support High Maternal Support

  21. Hypotheses • Susceptibility to Peer Influence Will be Linked to: Family Context Individual Skills Peer Context Autonomy/Relatedness Struggles Refusal Skills with Peers Peer Social Status Susceptibility to Peer Influence

  22. Measures: Refusal Skills • Adolescent Problem Inventory (Freedman & McFall, 1978) • Analogue measure • Coded competence of teen responses to hypothetical problems • Administered in two ways • 5 items administered with no prompts • followed by: • 5 items administered AFTER telling teen of a deviant hypothetical peer response. • Peer Refusal Skills Score: How much does the teen’s competence-score deteriorate from the first to the second 5 items

  23. Measures: Refusal SkillsSample Item • UNPROMPTED ITEM: • Your with a friend in a department store who suggests stealing a sweater. • What would you do? • PROMPTED ITEM: • Describes a similar situation but teen is told: • Another teen said that in this situation, they would take the sweater and run, • What would you do? • Peer refusal skills score: The DIFFERENCE between responses on the two different types of items.

  24. Refusal Skills as a Moderator of Peer Influence Low Refusal Skills High Refusal Skills

  25. Hypotheses • Susceptibility to Peer Influence Will be Linked to: Family Context Individual Skills Peer Context Autonomy/Relatedness Struggles Refusal Skills with Peers Peer Social Status Susceptibility to Peer Influence

  26. Measures:Best Friend’s Popularity • Sociometric Assessment – • List 10 kids with whom you would most like to spend time on a Saturday night. • A preference-based, not status-based measure. • i.e., who other teens would like to spend time with rather than who they view as high in popularity/status. • Best Friend Popularity: Number of times best friend named by other peers as someone with whom they would like to spend time.

  27. Peer Popularity as a Moderator of Peer Influence More Popular Peer Less Popular Peer

  28. Creating a Composite Measure of Susceptibility to Peer Influence • Summing Standardized Scores Family Context Individual Skills Peer Context Recantations Maternal Support (-) Refusal Skills with Peers (-) Peer Social Status Susceptibility to Peer Influence

  29. Composite Marker of Susceptibility to Peer Influence High Susceptibility Low Susceptibility

  30. Predicting Target Teen Substance Use Age 15 Age 16 Teen Substance Use Teen Substance Use .70*** .46*** .28*** Peer Substance Use -.05 Gender & Income Composite Susceptibility Interaction accounts for 11% of Variance in Teen Substance Use (and 22% of Change Variance) Main effect + Interaction accounts for 16% of variance (32% of change variance) .33*** Susceptibility X Peer Use

  31. Limitations • Error/random variation “noise” in assessing substance use • Only looking at one peer’s influence • One-year time frame • Susceptibility may not be all bad • Influence ≠ Negative Influence • Findings apply to one period in adolescence (age15-16) Copies of this and related papers are available at:www.TeenResearch.org

  32. Conclusions • We CAN identify predictors of susceptibility to peer influence • Need to consider susceptibility contextually • Not just individual factors (e.g., refusal skills) • But family factors (lack of autonomy, maternal support) • And Peer factors (friend popularity within the peer group) • Susceptibility to Peer Influence Can Explain Significant Additional Variance in Teen Substance Use Copies of this and related papers are available at:www.TeenResearch.org

More Related