Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addict Behav. 2009 May 19;34(9):769–771. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2009.05.002

The Influence of Neighborhood Disadvantage and Perceived Disapproval on Early Substance Use Initiation

Paula J Fite 1, Porche' Wynn 2, John E Lochman 3, Karen C Wells 4
PMCID: PMC2702863  NIHMSID: NIHMS118509  PMID: 19473772

Abstract

The current study examined the role of neighborhood disadvantage, perceived caregiver disapproval, and perceived peer disapproval in early initiation of substance use in a sample of 126 aggressive 9th graders (66% male; 79% African American). Findings suggested that perceived caregiver and peer disapproval as well as neighborhood disadvantage were associated with early substance use initiation. However, when associations were simultaneously examined, neighborhood disadvantage was the only factor related to early substance use initiation. Implications for findings are discussed.

Keywords: neighborhood disadvantage, disapproval, substance use initiation

Early substance use initiation is associated with an increased risk for substance abuse and abuse related problems (e.g., Hoffman, Sussman, Unger, & Valente 2006; Pitkanen, Lyyra, Pulkkinen, 2005), and therefore understanding factors that influence early initiation is important for substance abuse prevention. Ecological theories posit that many contextual factors contribute to the development of complex behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000), and as such it is important to consider a multitude of factors when attempting to understand early substance use initiation. Moreover, from a social learning perspective, the social environment (i.e., caregivers, peers, and neighborhood; Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002) is believed to contribute to development of problem behavior. Indeed, there is ample research supporting the role of parental and peer influence (e.g., Kandel, 1980) as well as neighborhood influence (e.g., Smart, Adlaf, & Walsh, 1994) on adolescent substance use. However, only a handful of studies have examined the unique contributions of caregivers, peers, and neighborhood (e.g., Hawkins, Catalano, Miller, 1992), and no research has specifically examined perceived caregiver disapproval, perceived peer disapproval, and neighborhood disadvantage within the same model. Moreover, previous studies have primarily focused on substance use in late adolescence. It is important to understand how these factors relate to early substance use initiation, given that early initiation is associated with later more severe substance using behavior. This information would help professionals identify important targets for prevention interventions. Accordingly, the current study examined perceived caregiver and peer disapproval and neighborhood disadvantage as predictors of early initiation of substance use.

1.1. Perceived Disapproval

Empirical research suggests that perceived caregiver disapproval is an important predictor of adolescent substance use. Parental disapproval of substance use has been found to be positively associated with higher levels of youth disapproval (Wallace & Fisher, 2007) and negatively associated with actual use (Butters, 2004; Toweberman & McDonald, 1993) amongst high school students. Thus, caregiver disapproval appears to play a role in the prevention in adolescent substance use. However, caregiver attitudes are not the only influence on early substance use. Peer disapproval is also influential in substance use.

Youth perceptions of peer disapproval are related to youth disapproval of substances (Wallace & Fisher, 2007). Perceived peer use has also been associated with heavy drinking at 17 years of age (Adalbjarnardottir & Hafsteinsson, 2001) and marijuana use in adolescence (Hemmelstien, 1996). Moreover, perceived peer attitudes are associated with experimentation and frequency of drug use in adolescence (Butters, 2004; Towberman & McDonald, 1993). Yet these studies do not directly speak to the relation between perceived disapproval and early substance use initiation. Accordingly, the current study examined the effects of both perceived caregiver and peer disapproval on early substance use initiation.

1.2. Neighborhood Disadvantage

Neighborhood disadvantage also appears to be an important factor to consider when attempting to understand early substance use. Neighborhood disadvantage is a chronic stressor that has been found to lead to negative behaviors, such as substance use and abuse (Lambert, Brown, Philips, Ialongo, 2004; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). In fact, there is a large body of research suggesting a link between neighborhood disadvantage and adolescent substance use (e.g., Fauth, Leventhal, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007; Winstanley, Steinwachs, Ensminger, Latkin, Stitzer, & Olsen, 2008). Thus, neighborhood disadvantage appears to be another important factor to consider when examining adolescent substance use. However, previous research does not inform us about the relation between neighborhood disadvantage and early substance use initiation. Accordingly, the current study examined the association between neighborhood disadvantage and early substance use initiation.

1.3. The Current Study

In sum, the current study examined the influence of perceived caregiver and peer disapproval and neighborhood disadvantage on early substance use initiation. The current study advances previous research by simultaneously examining the influence of these factors on early substance use initiation (by 9th grade). All 3 factors were expected to contribute to early initiation of substance use; however, it was unclear which factor(s) would be most strongly related to early initiation.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedures

Participants come from a larger longitudinal study designed to evaluate the Coping Power intervention for childhood aggression (see Lochman and Wells, 2002). This study included the control groups (N = 126) of the larger study so that findings were not affected by the intervention. Children (66% male) were recruited into the study at the end of 4th grade (mean age = 10.4 years, SD = .51) and data were collected annually over 6 years. Caregivers were compensated $40 and children were compensated $10 for their participation. The study maintained an 87% retention rate. The racial composition of the sample was 79% African-American, 17% Caucasian, and 4% of other ethnicities. Caregivers were mostly mothers (90%), and based on Hollingshead index of social status (Hollingshead, 1975), 17.74% of the families were unskilled workers, 15.32% were semi-skilled workers, 14.52% were skilled workers, 29.84% were minor professionals, and 22.58% were major professionals.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Substance Use Initiation

Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use was assessed using 3 child self-reported yes-no items from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Student survey (Pentz, Dwyer, MacKinnon, Flay, Hansen, and Wang, 1989). A sample item is “Have you EVER had a drink of alcohol”. If students responded positively to any of the 3 items they were coded as having initiated substance use by 9th grade.

2.2.2. Perceived Caregiver Disapproval

Perceived caregiver disapproval of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use was assessed using child self-reports of 3 items from CSAP Student survey (Pentz et al., 1989). A sample item is “How would your parents feel if they found out you smoked cigarettes, or used chewing tobacco, snuff or dip sometimes?” Internal consistency of this measure was modest in the current sample (α = .65). Mean scores were computed and used for analyses.

2.2.3. Perceived Peer Disapproval

Perceived peer disapproval was assessed using child self-reports of 3 items that were included in the CSAP Student survey (Pentz et al., 1989). A sample item is “If your friends found out that you smoked cigarettes or used chewing tobacco, snuff or dip, how do you think they'd feel?” Internal consistency of this measure was high in the current sample (α = .85). Mean scores were computed and used for analyses.

2.2.4. Neighborhood Disadvantage

Participants' homes were geo-coded into aggregated census tracts using 2000 Census data. For the current subsample, 22 neighborhoods were represented, with the number of children per neighborhood ranging from 1 to 16. High values indicate high levels of neighborhood disadvantage.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Correlations, means, and standard deviations are reported in Table 1. Fifty-seven percent of participants reported having tried substances by the 9th grade. Perceived caregiver and peer disapproval and neighborhood disadvantage were all associated with substance use.

Table 1. Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Study Variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Neigh Disad
2. Caregiver Disapp -.08
3. Peer Disapp -.05 .43*
4. Sub Use Init .17+ -.21* -.25*
5. Gender .09 .01 .15 -.03
6. Race .37* .03 .06 -.04 .15
M .42 2.56 .70 .57 1.34 1.83
SD 1.00 .60 .54 .50 .48 .38
Open in a new tab

Note. Neigh disad = neighborhood disadvantage, Caregiver disapp= perceived caregiver disapproval, Peer disapp= perceived peer disapproval; Sub use init = substance use initiation by 9th grade; gender: male = 1, female = 2; race: Caucasian = 1, African American = 2;

*

p < .05,

+

p < .07

3.2. Random Effects Regression Model

A random effects regression model using the PROC GENMOD procedure was estimated in order to take into account the nesting of children within neighborhood. Substance use initiation was simultaneously regressed on perceived caregiver approval, perceived peer approval, neighborhood disadvantage, gender, and race. As seen in Table 2, race was marginally significantly related to substance use initition1, such that Caucasian youth were more likely to have tried substances than African American youth. Neighborhood disadvantage was also related to substance use initiation, such that high levels of neighborhood disadvantage were associated with an increased likelihood of substance use initiation by 9th grade. However, all other variables were unrelated to substance use initiation.2

Table 2. Simultaneous Regression Model.

B SE χ2
Gender -.02 .09 .06
Race -.26 .14 3.60†
Perceived Caregiver Disapproval -.10 .08 1.56
Perceived Peer Disapproval -.14 .09 2.43
Neighborhood Disadvantage .10 .05 4.30*
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05,

†

p < .07.

4. Discussion

The current study examined the role of perceived caregiver and peer disapproval and neighborhood disadvantage on early substance use initiation. Consistent with research examining substance experimentation and use in late adolescence (e.g., Butters, 2004), perceived caregiver and peer disapproval were negatively associated with early substance use initiation. However, when simultaneously examining these risk factors, neither perceived caregiver or peer disapproval were significantly related to early substance use initiation. Findings suggest that although perceived caregiver and peer disapproval is associated with early substance use initiation at the bivariate level, perceived disapproval is not the strongest predictor of early substance use initiation.

Neighborhood Disadvantage was found to be strongly and robustly associated with increased risk for early substance use initiation, which is consistent with previous research (e.g., Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992). From an ecological perspective, the larger environment in which a child is embedded will influence the development of behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). It may be that disadvantaged neighborhoods provide a model in which substance using behavior is viewed as an acceptable behavior (Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002), thus leading to early substance use initiation. Living in disadvantaged neighborhoods is associated with fewer prosocial recreational activities and substances are more readily available than in more advantaged neighborhoods (e.g., Lambert et al, 2004; Wallace & Muroff, 2002), increasing children's risk for early substance use initiation. Thus, findings suggest the need to target neighborhood disadvantage for the prevention of early substance use initiation.

4.1. Limitations and Conclusions

There are limitations regarding the generalizability of the current study that need to be noted. The current sample was comprised of a sample of high risk aggressive children, and relations may not be consistent across other sample types. The current sample was also predominantly African American, which is representative of the region in which the data was collected. Nonetheless, findings should be replicated in a more culturally diverse sample. An additional limitation of the study is the modest internal consistency associated with perceived caregiver approval of substance use measure. Note, however, that findings were in the expected direction. Nonetheless, findings should be replicated using a more internally consistent measure of perceived caregiver disapproval.

Despite limitations, the current study has implications for intervention. Although caregiver and peer disapproval is associated with substance use initiation when considered individually, findings suggest that neighborhood disadvantage is a particularly important factor to target for intervention. Findings may suggest the need to target: the accessibility of substances within neighborhoods in addition to general disorganization and disadvantage of neighborhoods. If we can limit children's access to substances as well as attempt to improve the quality of neighborhood (e.g., provide extracurricular activities for youth), then we may be able to reduce the risk for early substance use initiation. Furthermore, parents and communities may need to monitor what children are exposed to within their neighborhood as well as educate children on the negative effects of what they see within the neighborhood. Perhaps if children are further exposed to the negative effects of substance use they may delay substance use initiation, ultimately decreasing the risk for substance use and abuse problems.

Future directions in research should include exploring the mechanisms (e.g., accessibility of substances and whether or not the child has witnessed drug use and drug sales) found within disadvantaged neighborhoods that may account for the relation between disadvantaged neighborhoods and early substance use. This information could help to even further refine prevention and intervention programs.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Grants UR6 5907956 and KD1 SP08633 awarded to the third author. We would like to thank members of the research group and families who participated in the study.

Footnotes

1

Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana were originally examined independently; however, findings were similar across the substances. Accordingly, a composite measure was created and used in analyses.

2

Interactions between independent variables were examined; however, no significant interactions were indicated.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributor Information

Paula J. Fite, University of Tennessee

Porche' Wynn, University of Tennessee.

John E. Lochman, University of Alabama

Karen C. Wells, Duke University Medical Center

References

  1. Adalbjarnardottir S, Hafsteinsson LG. Adolescents' perceived parenting styles and their substance use: Concurrent and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2001;11(4):401–423. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bronfenbrenner U, Evans GW. Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and emprical findings. Social Development. 2000;9:115–125. [Google Scholar]
  4. Butters JE. The impact of peers and social disapproval on high-risk cannabis use: Gender differences and implications for drug education. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy. 2004;11:381–390. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fauth R, Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. Welcome to the neighborhood? Long term impacts of moving to low poverty neighborhoods on poor children's and adolescents' outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2007;17(2):249–284. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hoffman BR, Sussman S, Unger JB, Valente TW. Peer influences on adolescent cigarette smoking: A theoretical review of the literature. Substance Use and Misuse. 2006;41:103–155. doi: 10.1080/10826080500368892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hollingshead AB. Working paper. Department of Sociology, Yale University; 1975. Four factor index of social status. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hawkins J, Catalano R, Miller J. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implication for early adulthood prevention. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112:64–105. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hemmelstein N. Adolescent Marijuana Use and Perception of Risk. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education. 1996;41:1–15. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kandel DB. Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Annual Review of Sociology. 1980;6:235–385. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lambert S, Brown T, Philips C, Ialongo N. The relationship between perceptions of neighborhood characteristics and substance use among urban African American adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2004;34(34) doi: 10.1007/s10464-004-7415-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lochman JE, Wells KC. The coping power program at the middle school transition: Universal and indicated prevention effect. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 2002;16:S40–S54. doi: 10.1037/0893-164x.16.4s.s40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Pentz MA, Dwyer JH, MacKinnon DP, Flay BR, Hansen WB, Wang EY, et al. A multicommunity trial for primary prevention of adolescent drug abuse: Effects on drug use prevalence. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1989;262:3259–3266. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pitkanen T, Lyyra A, Pulkkinen L. Age of onset of drinking and the use of alcohol in adulthood: A follow-up study from age 8-42 for females and males. Addiction. 2005;100:652–661. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01053.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Reid JB, Patterson GR, Snyder J. Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents: A Developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  16. Smart RG, Adlaf EM, Walsh GW. Neighborhood socio-economic factors in relation to student drug use and programs. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. 1994;3:37–46. [Google Scholar]
  17. Towberman DB, McDonald RM. Dimensions of adolescent drug-avoidant attitude. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 1993;10:45–52. doi: 10.1016/0740-5472(93)90097-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wallace SA, Fisher CB. Substance use attitudes among urban black adolescents: The role of parent, peer, and cultural factors. J Youth Adolescence. 2007;36:441–451. [Google Scholar]
  19. Wallace JM, Muroff JR. Preventing substance abuse among African American children and youth: Race differences in risk factor exposure and vulnerability. Journal of Primary Prevention. 2002;22:235–261. [Google Scholar]
  20. Winstanley EL, Steinwachs DM, Ensminger ME, Latkin CA, Stitzer ML, Olsen Y. The association of self reported neighborhood disorganization and social capital with adolescent alcohol and drug use, dependence, and access to treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;92:173–182. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.07.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES