Table 1.
Studies† examining moderators of the effect of peer association on adolescent substance use by level of moderating factor and study design.
| Moderator Level | Study Design | Authors, Year | Sample | Measures
|
Results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer association | Moderator | Outcomes | |||||
| Individual | Experimental | Cohen & Prinstein, 2006 | 43 Caucasian boys (age 16–17 years) from USA. | High vs low status Peers, experimental conditions |
Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A) |
Public and private self-reported conformity with regard to aggressive and health risk behavior, including substance use; hypothetical scenario instrument | Low status peers exerted influence on public conformity to health risk behaviors only for adolescents high in social anxiety. While high status peers exerted influence on all participants regardless of social anxiety. |
| Chein et al., 2011 | 40 girls and boys, 3 groups: adolescent (mean age 15.7), young adult (mean age 20.6) and adult (mean age 25.6) | Presence of peers during experiment vs. alone | Target’s age | Risk taking assessed with a stop driving task. Activation in reward-related brain regions. |
Adolescents, but not adults, took more risks when observed by peers. Adolescents demonstrated greater activation in reward-related brain regions when observed by peers. |
||
| Longitudinal | Henry et al., 2005 | 1065 boys and girls (mean age 12.35 at baseline) from the USA | Self-report proportion of friends that drink |
Perceived Harm: beliefs about the effect of alcohol use on future aspirations. Risk-taking: willingness to engage in risky activities. |
Self-reported drinking frequency, intoxication, number of drinks, extent of typical drinking, self identification as a user, intention to use alcohol in the future. | The link between friends’ and targets’ alcohol use was lower with increases in perceived harm, but greater with increases in risk-taking. | |
| Allen et al., 2005 | 185 girls and boys (mean age 13.36) from the USA | Self-reported peer valuing of behavioral misconduct: Peer Pressure Inventory | Popularity: adolescents named 10 individuals they most and least would like to spend time with on weekend | Self-reported alcohol and substance use frequency (last 30 days) | Stronger link between perceived peer valuing of behavioral misconduct and targets’ alcohol and substance use frequency with high popularity. | ||
| Rabaglietti et al., 2012 | 457 girls and boys, aged 14 to 20 years old (M = 16.1) from Italy | Peer reported alcohol Intoxication Frequency |
Regulatory Self-efficacy (RSE) Gender |
Alcohol Intoxication Frequency | Lower levels of alcohol intoxication in adolescents with alcohol using friends who had higher RSE, compared to those with average or low RSE. No significant interaction with gender. |
||
| Fallu et al., 2010 | 1037 Caucasian boys (from ages 6 to 15 years) from Canada | Self-reported Peer conventionality: Friends’ school liking and Friends having trouble with the police (reversed). | Childhood disruptiveness: Teacher-rated Social Behavior Questionnaire. | Self-reported heavy Substance use: Frequency of tobacco and drug use by frequency of alcohol intoxication episodes in the past 12 months, at 14–15 years. | Stronger link between low peer conventionality and targets’ heavy substance use with childhood disruptiveness. | ||
| Larsen et al., 2010 | 1,232 girls and boys (11- to 15-year-old) from the Netherlands. | Friend’s reported alcohol use. | Gender Self-esteem and self control: assessed via the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale | Self-reported number of alcoholic beverages consumed in the last week | No significant interaction. | ||
| Marshal & Chassin, 2000 | 300 girls and boys (mean age 12.7) from the USA | Self-reported peer group affiliation assed by peer substance use and peer tolerance of adolescents’ substance use | Gender Consistency of Parental Discipline: Parent-reported, adapted from the Children’s Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory | Self-reported alcohol use frequency | In a three-way interaction only: link between peer influence on future substance use decreased for girls but increased for boys as a function of good parental discipline. | ||
| Guo et al., 2002 | 808 boys and girls (mean age 10.8) from USA | Self-reported peer antisocial activities | Gender | Self-reported illicit drug use and alcohol use (yes/no): crack, cocaine, amphetamines, tranquilizers, sedatives, psychedelics, alcohol, tobacco | No significant interaction. | ||
| Crosnoe et al., 2002 | 3,046 adolescent girls and boys (grades 9 to 12) from USA | Friend-reported Deviancy and substance use, alcohol use and marijuana | Gender | Self-reported delinquency including: substance use cigarette use, alcohol use and marijuana | Stronger link between friend’s alcohol use and target’s Delinquency in boys | ||
| Duncan et al., 1994 | 517 girls and boys (mean age 13.11) from the USA | Self-reported peer encouragement of alcohol use. | Age | Self-reported alcohol use frequency and present alcohol use | Stronger link between deviant peer affiliation and targets’ alcohol abuse/dependence in early as opposed to later adolescence. | ||
| Fergusson et al., 2002 | 1,265 girls and boys (followed from 14 to 21 years) from New Zealand | Self-reported deviant peer affiliation: friends’ substance use, truancy and/or law braking | Age | Self-reported alcohol abuse/dependence assed with the Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI: White & Labouvie, 1989) | Stronger link between deviant peer affiliation and targets’ alcohol problems in mid as opposed to later adolescence/early adulthood. | ||
| Li et al., 2002 | 188 girls and boys (mean age 14) from the USA | Self-reported exposure to Deviant Peers (including alcohol and substance use) | Alcohol trajectory: initial low levels of alcohol use frequency from 14 to 18 years | Self-reported alcohol use: composite measure of 3 items | Stronger link between peer influence and target’s alcohol use across adolescence in those who showed low levels of alcohol use at age 14. | ||
| Ge et al., 2006 | 896 girls and boys (mean age 11.10) from the USA | Self-reported number of friends who use substances | Pubertal timing using the Pubertal Development Scale (self-report) | Self-reported intention and willingness to use substances. | Stronger link between friends’ substance use and intention and willingness to use substances in early puberty. | ||
| Costello et al., 2007 | 1420 girls and boys (aged 9–13) from the USA | Association with self-reported deviant peers | Early maturation: tanner stage IV by age 12 | Alcohol use onset and disorder over the past 3 months assessed by diagnostic interview of parents and adolescents | Stronger link between deviant peers and targets’ alcohol use with early maturation. | ||
| Mrug et al., 2009 | 500 girls and boys (followed from 11 to 13 years) from the USA | Teacher-rated peer deviancy | Childhood antisocial behavior: Parent-reported targets’ oppositional behavior and conduct problems at 11 years | Self-reported externalizing behaviors: 27 different delinquent acts in the past 12 months including substance use at 13 years | Stronger link between peer deviance and targets’ externalizing behaviors with a history of childhood antisocial behavior. Gender, n.s. | ||
| Allen et al., 2012. | 157 adolescents (M= 13.35) from Southeastern US. | Self-reported friends alcohol and marijuana use frequency (past 30 days). |
Gender Observed autonomy difficulties with mothers (recantation from original point of view). Autonomy difficulties (in general) Self-reported social skills in handling deviancy Susceptibility to peer influence (composite measure of all other measures). |
Alcohol and marijuana use frequency (past 30 days). | Weaker link between peer substance use and target substance use for those with better skills in handling deviance. Stronger link between peer substance use and target substance use for those who more easily recanted on their position (Autonomy difficulties). Stronger link between peer substance use and target substance use for those who had higher scores on the composite susceptibility risk measure. |
||
| Westling et al., 2008 | 528 boys and girls from the US (mean= 10.5) | Deviant peer association (target, parent and teacher reported) | Gender | Alcohol use initiation (yes/no) | No significant interactions with peer association were found. | ||
| Longitudinal and Cross-sectional | Stattin et al., 2011 | 634 (cross-sectional) and 434 girls for Sweden (longitudinal; mean age= 14.42) | Peer involvement |
Pubertal timing (age of first menarche) Youth center participation (Attending youth center in town) |
Delinquency (including cannabis use.) | Longitudinal: no significant interactions were found. Cross-sectional: Higher delinquency in girls that spent more time with peers and were early matures. Higher delinquency in girls that spent more time with peers and frequented more regularly the youth center, especially those that were early matures. |
|
| Cross-sectional | Denault et al., 2012 | 185 8th and 9th graders (M= 14.34) from Quebec Canada | Deviancy in the activity peer group (including alcohol and drug use). |
Gender Age |
Substance use frequency in the past month (alcohol, drugs and cigarettes) | No significant interactions. | |
| Epstein & Botvin, 2002 | 2400 early adolescent boys and girls (mean age 12.4) from the USA | Self-report proportion of friends that drink |
Risk-taking (RT): 7 items from the Eysenck IVE scale. Refusal assertiveness (RA): 3 items from the Gambrill-Richey Assertion Inventory |
Self-reported drinking quantity, drinking frequency and drunkenness | Stronger link between friends’ alcohol use and drinking quantity and frequency with high RT and poor RA. Stronger link between peer alcohol use and target drunkenness with poor RA. |
||
| Fergusson et al., 2007 | 265 early adolescent boys and girls (mean age 13.4) from Canada | Friend’s reported delinquent and SU behaviors | Puberty: Pubertal Development Scale (self-report) | Self-reported delinquent and SU behavior | Stronger link between peer delinquency and target delinquency with earlier pubertal development. | ||
| Wills et al., 2011 | 1 307 boys and girls from the US | Friends substance use (alcohol, marijuana and cigarette) | Good behavioral self-control Poor behavioral regulation Good emotional self-control Poor emotional regulation Academic involvement Negative life events | Substance use level (alcohol, marijuana and cigarettes) | Lower substance use in those with lower behavioral regulation. No other significant interactions were found. |
||
| MacNeil et al., 1999 | 779 adolescents (mean age 12.81) from the US | Self-report proportion of friends use alcohol, or drugs | Future expectations: Scale created by Brooks, Stuewig, and LeCroy (1998). | Self-reported lifetime Substance Use scale from the Youth Plus Survey | Weaker link between friend’s substance use and targets Lifetime substance use with higher future expectations. | ||
| Knyazev et al, 2004 | 4501 students (14 to 25 years old) from Russia | Self-reported friends’ drug use |
Behavioral activation system (BAS): self-reported impulsivity and sensation seeking using the Gray–Wilson Personality Questionnaire Extraversion: self reported using a shorted Russian version of the Eysenck’s personality factors. |
Self-reported composite score of having used drugs, wanting to use drugs, type of drug use and frequency of drug use | Stronger link between friends’ drug use and targets’ (composite) drug use at both high BAS and Extraversion. | ||
| Clark et al., 2012. | 567 9 to 21 year old African Americans from the USA (M=15.27) | Peer problem behavior (including substance use). |
Drug and Alcohol Refusal Efficacy, Gender |
Past 30-day alcohol use and past 30-day marijuana use. | Stronger link between deviant peers and marijuana for males. | ||
| Bergh et al., 2011. | About 9900 adolescents (aged 15–16) from Sweden. | Peer activity level (how often the targets spend time with their friends; does not asses if friend use substances) |
Gender Academic orientation Year of investigation. |
Alcohol use frequency past year. | No significant interactions were found. | ||
| Dumas et al., 2012 | 1070 adolescents aged from 14 to 17 years old (M= 15.45) from Canada | Peer group pressure, 2 items (to do things the target didn’t want or to drink, smoke and try drugs) Peer group control, 5 items (assessing to what extent some members of the group try to control the other members.) |
Identity commitment (16 items). Items included information on: future occupation, religion, politics, relationships, family, friends, dating partners, sex roles, and personal values. | Substance use (frequency of alcohol use, binge drinking and marijuana use over the past three months). | Weaker link between peer group pressure and substance use in those with high identity commitment. Higher substance use in adolescents with both controlling groups and high identity commitment. | ||
| Trucco et al., 2011 | 387 girls and boys (mean age 11.60) from the USA | Self-report Perceived peer approval of alcohol and tobacco use. | Agentic and Communal Goals: Self-report using revised version of the Interpersonal Goals Inventory for Children | Self-reported intention to use alcohol and cigarettes: 4 items from the Monitoring the Future Project | Agentic goals, n.s. A trend for a stronger link between perceived peer approval of alcohol use and target’s intention to use alcohol with high communal goals. | ||
| Guo et al., 2009 | 600 pairs of same sex siblings (mean age 16.1) from the US | Friends’ reported drinking | Genetic Heritability calculated through twin modeling | Self-reported drinking frequency | The genetic contribution to target alcohol use is stronger at higher levels of friends’ drinking. | ||
| Harden el al., 2008 | 1,636 sibling pairs (mean age 16.1) from the US | Best friend’s-reported drinking and smoking | Genetic Heritability | Self-reported drinking and smoking frequency | Stronger link between and target substance use in adolescents with high genetic liability to substance use. | ||
| (the study is longitudinal but was analyzed Cross-sectionally) | Dick et al., 2007 | 2918 same sex twins (17 years) from Finland | Self-report proportion of friends that drink | Genetic Heritability | Self-reported alcohol use frequency at 17 years | Stronger genetic heritability for alcohol use in adolescents with many alcohol using friends. | |
| Miranda et al., 2013 | 104, boys and girls 12 to 19 years old (M = 15.60, SD = 1.77). | Self-reported deviancies (i.e., friends substance use, and perceived friends reaction to targets’ substance use) | Genotype OPRM1 (A and G allele carriers) | Alcohol use disorder (AUD) | Higher links between G allele carriers an AUD in adolescents with delinquent peers. | ||
| Cross-sectional | Kendler et al., 2011. | 1796 adult male twins from the US. | Peer group deviance | Genetic risk for AUDs (history of alcohol abuse and dependence by the target’s parents and co-twin) | Alcohol use frequency by month. | At 12 to 14 years old there was higher alcohol use for those with both the genetic risk-factor and deviant peers. | |
| Anderson et al., 2011 | 1571 girls and boys (13 years) from the USA | Self-report proportion of friends that drink |
Gender Social Anxiety Assessed with the Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents– Revised (SAS-A) |
Self-reported alcohol use quantity (30 day period) | Stronger link between perceived peer alcohol use and target’s alcohol use quantity in girls. Stronger link between peer and target alcohol use, in adolescents that had a strong need for affiliation and were high in social anxiety. Stronger link between peer alcohol use and target binge drinking in boys who were socially anxious. |
||
| Bobakova et al., 2012. | 1052 boys and girls (M= 14.68) from Eastern Slovakia. | Friends alcohol use (at least once a week) |
Gender Ethnicity |
Having been drunk in the past month (yes/non) | No significant interactions were found. | ||
| Mennis et al., 2012 | 254 adolescent primary care patients at a Philadelphia Department of Public Health (ages 13 to 20) | Social network quality (Perceived friends substance use, if friends have tried to influence their substance use and positive activities with these friends). |
Gender Age |
Alcohol and Drug Involvement | Higher substance use in adolescents which both have low social network quality and are older. | ||
| Burk et al., 2012. | 950 4th, 7th and 10th graders from Sweden | Self-reported past year frequency of alcohol intoxication. |
Gender Grade |
Past year frequency of alcohol intoxication. | No significant interactions were found. | ||
| Gaughan, 2006 | 2980 best friend dyads (boy-boy, girl-girl and girl-boy; mean age 16.55) from the USA | Peer reported drunkenness frequency assed by one item | Friend’s Gender | Self-reported drunkenness frequency assed by one item | Positive link between male alcohol using peers and female targets’ drunkenness, but no link between female alcohol using peers and male targets’ drunkenness. | ||
| Ferguson et al., 2011 | 8,256 girls and boys (mean age 14) from the USA | Self-reported peer delinquency, assed by 11 items including 4 items on substance use | Age | Self-reported alcohol use (7 items) and illegal substance use (14 items) | Stronger link between peer delinquency and target substance use when targets were between the ages of 13 and 16 years old as opposed to older. | ||
| Kelly., 2012 | 7064 adolescents in grade 6 (M= 11 years old) and grade 8 (M= 13 years old) from Australia. | Number of friends which have tried alcohol without their parent’s knowledge in the past 12 months (0 to four). | Age (grade 6 or 8) | Past 30 days alcohol use frequency | In 8th grade: weaker link between having one peer who tried alcohol and targets alcohol use. No significant interaction between grade level and having two, three or four friends who have tried alcohol. |
||
| Miranda et al., 2012 | 429 boys and girls (M = 15.74 and SD = 0.82) from Québec, Canada | Peer reported Substance Use (Alcohol, Cannabis and cigarette) | Fantasizing while listening to music | Substance Use (Alcohol, Cannabis and cigarette) | Lower Substance Use in highly musically involved adolescents with substance using peers who fantasized while listening to music. No significant interaction effect in adolescents who were moderately musically involved. |
||
| Peer | Experimental | Teunissen et al., 2012 | 74 male adolescents from the Netherlands | pro-alcohol and anti-alcohol norms in a simulated chat-room | Classroom Peers’ popularity | Willingness to Drink | Higher willingness to drink when pro-alcohol norms were given by more popular peers. Lower willingness to drink when anti-alcohol norms were given by more popular peers. |
| Longitudinal | Bot et al., 2005 | 1276 girls and boys (12–14 years) from the Netherlands | Best friend’s reported number of alcoholic beverages consumed in the past week |
Unilateral friendships: Non-reciprocated friendship Popularity: 5 most and least popular adolescents as nominated by the class. |
Self-reported number of alcoholic beverages consumed in the past week | Stronger link between peer alcohol use and target alcohol use in unilateral friendships. Stronger link between peer alcohol use and target alcohol use when peer is of higher status. |
|
| Urberg et al., 1997 | 1,028 girls and boys (in 6th, 8th, and 10th grades) from the USA, followed for one school year | Friend’s reported alcohol use. |
Friendships stability: Target’ nominated best friend at wave 1 and wave 2. Quality/closeness of friendship: friendship qualities scale. |
Target’s self-reported alcohol use and drinking to intoxication. | Friendship stability, n.s. Stronger link between peer and target alcohol use as a function of increased quality/closeness of friends. | ||
| Poelen et al, 2007 | 416 girls and boys (13 to 16 years) from the Netherlands | Self-reported friends frequency and quantity of alcohol used. |
Quality of friendship: Quality of Friendship Scale Friend’s popularity: 5 items from Differential Peer Popularity Scale. A subscale of the sibling inventory of differential experience |
Self-reported number of alcoholic beverages consumed in the past week | Quality of friendship and Friend popularity, n.s. | ||
| Fallu et al, 2010 | 1037 boys (6 to 15 years) from Canada | Self-reported peer conventionality: Friends’ school liking and Friends having trouble with the police (reversed) | Attachment to friends: Communication, affective assimilation and support between friends | Self-reported frequency of tobacco and drug use by frequency of alcohol intoxication episodes in the past 12 months, at 14–15 years. | Stronger link between peer conventionality and future target substance use as a function of attachment to friends. | ||
| Allen et al., 2012. | 157 adolescents (M= 13.35) from Southeastern US. | Self-reported friends alcohol and marijuana use frequency (past 30 days). | Close friend social acceptance (using a limited nomination sociometric procedure) | Alcohol and marijuana use frequency (past 30 days). | Stronger association between peer substance use and target substance use for those with socially accepted peers. | ||
| Cross-sectional | Denault et al., 2012 | 185 8th and 9th graders (M= 14.34) from Quebec Canada | Deviancy in the activity peer group (including alcohol and drug use). | Type of activity (sport vs non sport), | Substance use frequency in the past month (alcohol, drugs and cigarettes) | Higher substance use in those adolescents with deviant peers and participating in sport activities | |
| Burk et al., 2012. | 950 4th, 7th and 10th graders from Sweden | Self-reported past year frequency of alcohol intoxication. | Reciprocity of the relationship | Past year frequency of alcohol intoxication. | No significant interactions were found. | ||
| Parents/Family | Longitudinal | Kiesner et al., 2010 | 151 girls and boys (mean age 14) from Canada | Self-reported substance co-use with friends | Parental monitoring: Parent Monitoring measure (Kerr & Stattin, 2000) | Self-reported substance use frequency | Weaker link between substance co-use between friends’ and targets’ substance use frequency as a function of good parental monitoring. |
| Mason et al., 1994 | 148 girls and boys (mean age 14) from the USA | Self-reported peer’s problem behavior from Problem behavior scale | Parental monitoring: Mother-rated subscale of the inventory of parent and peer attachment. | Self-reported problem behavior from problem behavior scale, including gang activity, drug use, stealing. | Weaker link between peer’s and target’s problem behavior as a function of good parental monitoring. | ||
| Nash et al., 2005 | 2573 girls and boys (mean age 15.5) from the USA | Self-reported Peer influence: 3 items on peer acceptance of alcohol use and 1 item on number of friends who drink alcohol. | Parental monitoring: Adolescent version of the Assessment of Child Monitoring Scale. | Target self-reported drinking behavior: Alcohol use frequency, quantity and frequency of alcohol use problems | Weaker link between peer influence and adolescent drinking behavior as a function of good parental monitoring. | ||
| Mounts et al., 1995 | 1000 girls and boys (9th to 12th grade) from the USA | Friend’s reported drug use | Perceived Authoritative parenting: Acceptance-Involvement and Strictness-Supervision. | Self-reported drug use frequency | Weaker link between peer and target drug use as a function of authoritative parenting. | ||
| Sullivan et al., 2004 | 1,282 girls and boys (6th grade) from the USA | Self-reported Witnessing violence: 6 item scale from the Children’s Report of Exposure to Violence | Parental monitoring: monitoring scale from the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire | Self-reported substance use initiation: Cigarettes, beer, wine and liquor | Weaker link between witnessing peer violence and target substance use initiation as a function of parental monitoring. | ||
| Mrug et al., 2009 | 500 girls and boys (followed from 11 to 13 years) from the USA | Teacher-rated peer deviancy: the Social Behavior Questionnaire (Tremblay et al., 1991) | Negative parenting: 13 items reverse coded on (nurturance, harsh discipline, and inconsistent discipline) | Self-reported externalizing behaviors: 27 different delinquent acts in the past 12 months including substance use | Stronger link between peer deviancy and target’s externalizing behaviors as a function of negative parenting. | ||
| Allen et al., 2012. | 157 adolescents (M= 13.35) from Southeastern US. | Self-reported friends alcohol and marijuana use frequency (past 30 days). | Maternal support (supportive behavior interaction task) | Alcohol and marijuana use frequency (past 30 days). | Weaker link between peer substance use and target substance use for those with maternal support. | ||
| Lee., 2012 | 3,125 high school students from south Korea, (10 graders assessed for 3 years) | Peer substance use (number of friends who use alcohol and tobacco) |
Parent– adolescent relationship quality (6 items) Parental monitoring (4 items) |
Substance use frequency (alcohol and tobacco) | Weaker link between peer substance use and targets substance use in teens with a better parent-adolescent relationship. No significant moderating effect for parental monitoring. | ||
| Trucco et al., 2011. | 371 girls and boys (11 to 13 years old) from the US. | Perceived peer approval and use of alcohol. | Parental control and Parental warmth | Alcohol use initiation (yes/no) | No significant interactions were found. | ||
| Cross-sectional | Denault et al., 2012 | 185 8th and 9th graders (M= 14.34) from Quebec Canada | Deviancy in the activity peer group (including alcohol and drug use). | Degree of adult supervision during activity. | Substance use frequency in the past month (alcohol, drugs and cigarettes) | No significant interactions. | |
| Wood et al., 2004 | 578 girls and boys (mean age 18) from the USA | Self-reported peer influence: Alcohol offers (4 items), social modeling (3 items) and perceived norms (10 items) |
Parental monitoring: modified version of the Strictness–Supervision scale (Steinberg et al., 1992). Parental permissiveness toward alcohol: targets perception of what parents consider an appropriate amount of drinking. Parental attitudes and values: perceived parental disapproval for heavy drinking, and permissiveness for alcohol use |
Self-reported binge drinking: 5 or more drinks in one sitting. | Weaker link between peer influence and binge drinking as a function of parental monitoring, low parental permissiveness and parental attitudes and values. | ||
| Clark et al., 2012. | 567 9 to 21 year old African Americans from the USA (M=15.27) | Peer problem behavior (including substance use). | Parental Attitudes Toward Substance use Parental monitoring, | Past 30-day alcohol use and past 30-day marijuana use. | Weaker link between deviant peers and alcohol and marijuana use in those with higher parental monitoring. No other significant interactions were found. | ||
| Bergh et al., 2011. | About 9900 adolescents (aged 15–16) from Sweden. | Peer activity level (how often the targets spend time with their friends; does not asses if friend use substances) | Parental monitoring (1 item assessing how often the target tells parents where he or she is). | Alcohol use frequency past year. | Stronger link between peer activity frequency and alcohol use frequency in those with lower parental supervision. | ||
| Bobakova et al., 2012. | 1052 boys and girls (M= 14.68) from Eastern Slovakia. | Friends alcohol use (at least once a week) | Parental monitoring | Having been drunk in the past month (yes/non) | Higher odds of drunkenness in girls with both alcohol using peers and low parental monitoring. | ||
| Warr, 1993 | 1,726 girls and boys (13 to 19 years old) from the USA | Self-reported number of friends that commit delinquent acts: cheating at School, marijuana, burglary, alcohol use, petty larceny and grand larceny |
Time spent with family: during afternoons, evenings, and weekends Attachment to parents: 3 items created by researchers |
Target’s self-reported delinquency: cheating at School, marijuana, burglary, alcohol use, petty larceny and grand larceny | Weaker link between friends’ and targets’ delinquency as a function of time spent with family. Attachment to parents, n.s. | ||
| Broader Context | Longitudinal | Mrug et al., 2009 | 500 girls and boys (followed from 11 to 13 years old) from the USA | Teacher-rated peer deviancy: the Social Behavior Questionnaire (Tremblay et al., 1991) | School connectedness: three items from the Attitudes Toward School Scale (Institute of Behavioral Science, 1987) and five items from the School Connectedness Scale (Sieving et al., 2001) | Self-reported externalizing behaviors: 27 different delinquent acts in the past 12 months including substance use | School connectedness, n.s. Ethnicity, n.s. |
| Crosnoe et al., 2002 | 3,046 girls and boys (grades 9 to 12) from USA | Friend reported deviance including substance use alcohol marijuana | Ethnicity School connectedness: bonding to teachers, Academic achievement and orientation to School | Self-reported delinquency including substance use: cigarette, alcohol marijuana. | Weaker link between peer and target delinquency as a function of bonding to teachers, academic achievement and orientation to school. | ||
| Zimmerman et al, 2011 | 1 639 boys and girls from the US (9 to 17 years old). | Friends substance use (alcohol, marijuana tobacco) | Neighborhood opportunities for crime | Substance use (alcohol, marijuana, tobacco and illicit drugs) | Within neighborhoods with low opportunities for crime, the effect of peers was initially small, but as peer substance use increased, the effect of peers increased multiplicatively. Within neighborhoods with more opportunities for crime, the effect of peers was initially strong, but decreased as peer substance use increased, suggesting a ceiling or saturation effect. | ||
| Cross-sectional | Dickens et al., 2012 | 2 582 American Indian and/or Alaskan Native Students from the USA (11 to 19 years old) | Peer alcohol use (tree items assessing number of friends who get drunk, get drunk once in a while and almost every week-end). | School bonding (4 items assessing if the target likes school, is liked by teachers, likes his teachers and finds school fun). | Alcohol use (composite measure of lifetime alcohol use, alcohol use frequency, drunkenness and alcohol use consequences) | For those under 16 years old: Weaker link between peer alcohol use and target’s alcohol use in those with higher school bonding. No significant interaction with school bonding for those who are over 16 years old. |
|
| Snedker et al., 2009 | 2,006 girls and boys (13 to 21 years old) from USA. | Self-reported peer deviancy, including substance use. | Disadvantaged Neighborhood: percentages of residents below the federal poverty level, female-headed households, residents receiving public assistance, and unemployment) | Self-reported substance use frequency: alcohol and marijuana | Weaker link between peer deviancy and target substance use frequency in disadvantaged neighborhoods. | ||
†
Studies are repeated if they included moderators at different levels of analyses (e.g., if individual and contextual moderating factors are included in the study, it will appear under both sections)