Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Health Educ Behav. 2019 Feb 20;46(4):656–665. doi: 10.1177/1090198119826259

Religious Affiliation, Informal Participation, and Network Support Associated With Substance Use: Differences Across Age Groups

Tuba Demir-Dagdas 1, Stephanie T Child 2
PMCID: PMC6625869  NIHMSID: NIHMS1035548  PMID: 30786755

Abstract

Background.

Associations between religious involvement and substance use are well established. However, limited research examines the effects of religious affiliation, informal participation, and network support on substance use among two distinct age cohorts.

Objectives.

This study aims to examine whether religious affiliation, informal participation, and network support are associated with alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use among young and late middle-age adults.

Method.

The UC Berkeley Social Networks Study (Wave 1, 2015) offers novel cohort data on young (21–30 years old, n = 483) and late middle-age (50–70 years old, n = 673) adults. Poisson regression models were used to predict alcohol use, while logistic regression models were used to predict odds of smoking and marijuana use.

Results.

Among young adults, membership in a religious organization was associated with less alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use. Conversely, participating in informal organizations was associated with more alcohol and marijuana use. Desiring more people to talk to and get together with were associated with more smoking and drinking, respectively. However, wishing more people to ask for help was associated with less substance use altogether. In a similar pattern, among older adults, religious involvement was associated with less alcohol and marijuana use. Desiring more people to ask for help was also related to less marijuana use.

Conclusion.

Younger adult participation in informal groups serves to encourage social substance use. In contrast, older people are more involved in religious groups, which support social behaviors that do not include substance use.

Keywords: informal participation, network satisfaction, religious affiliation, social support, substance use

Despite decreasing participation in religious organizations, continued evidence suggests that people who are involved with religious organizations are less likely to engage in risky health behaviors (e.g., smoking and drinking) and more likely to build positive social relationships (Berkman & Breslow, 1983; Hill, Burdette, Ellison, & Musick, 2006; Krause, Hill, Emmons, Pargament, & Ironson, 2017; Umberson & Montez, 2010). Potential explanations for this relationship are that religion promotes a health-conscious lifestyle and is likely to be reinforced by members of the organization (i.e., parishioners). Additionally, people with religious ties may have lower exposure to health risks, such as substance use and social disconnectedness (Bowie et al., 2017; Dermatis & Galanter, 2016; Strawbridge, Shema, Cohen, & Kaplan, 2001; Umberson, Crosnoe, & Reczek, 2010).

Previous research pointing to the benefits of religious involvement indicate that religion and religious organizations play a key role not only in developing health behaviors but also in having social support for those behaviors from the religious community (Bowie et al., 2017). Similarly, emerging evidence suggests that affiliation with nonreligious organizations, such as community-based and informal organizations, may influence health through involvement in volunteer work and establishing relationships with community ties (Musick & Wilson, 2007). Indeed, evidence suggests that participation in social organizations can enhance an individuals’ social networks such that individuals who are involved with formal or informal organizations may have more social support from their communities (Talò, Mannarini, & Rochira, 2014). Taken together, it is unclear whether the established association between religious affiliation and substance use is less about a religious focus on a healthy lifestyle per se, or the social control mechanisms that condemn substance use, versus the benefits of adequate social support that is provided through involvement with both formal and informal organizations alike. Accordingly, in this article, we will examine substance use by comparing involvement in formal religious organizations with involvement in informal social organizations, in concert with perceived social support.

Previous research suggests that social network characteristics (i.e., affiliations) and subsequent experiences of the network change throughout the life span (Wrzus, Hänel, Wagner, & Neyer, 2013) and that these transitions may affect individuals’ health behaviors. However, we are unaware of any prior research that examines associations between religious affiliation, informal participation, network support, and substance use from a life course perspective. This study is uniquely situated to make comparisons between young and older adults: (1) to accurately show the social participation of two age groups and (2) to identify the links among formal and informal ties, social support, and risky health behaviors among young and older adults.

Researchers agree that both formal and informal ties benefit individuals’ well-being through three dimensions of health: behavioral, psychosocial, and physiological (Umberson & Montez, 2010). Socioecological models propose that social relationships have important effects on individuals’ health behaviors through modeling and social control, including alcohol, tobacco, or drug use; exercise; and a healthy diet. Psychosocial explanations suggest that social or emotional support from others affects one’s physical and mental health (Thoits, 1995) directly and indirectly. Because the physiological aspects of health involve the effects of social relationships on the body (e.g., cardiovascular disease) (Umberson & Montez, 2010), a large body of research has shown that social ties influence individuals’ mental and physical health, health behaviors, and mortality risk (Ellison & Levin, 1998; Musick, House, & Williams, 2004; Thoits, 1995; Umberson & Montez, 2010).

There are several theories that underscore the protective effects of social relationships in individuals’ lives, including social support theory, social control theory, social learning theory, and stress and coping theory (Moos, 2007). In this study, we are informed by social support theory and social control theory to examine mechanisms linking individuals’ religious affiliation, participation in informal organizations, and, separately, network satisfaction in association with substance use. Social support is an exchange process between at least two individuals: exchanging resources, values, interests and skills, and so on— and is essential to positive health and lifestyle behaviors both in the short and long term (Feeney & Collins, 2015; Shumaker & Brownell, 1984). These lifestyle behaviors include physical activity, diet, and substance use. In addition, social control theory proposes that strong social relationships with informal (e.g., friends, family) and formal ties (e.g., membership in religious organizations) encourage individuals to develop responsible behaviors and discourage engaging in substance use and other deviant behaviors (Moos, 2007). Conversely, in the absence of such social ties, or if the social ties are weak, individual’s health behaviors are inversely affected so that they struggle to develop positive health behaviors and in turn may engage in risky behaviors, such as substance use. Some of the significant factors for struggling to maintain strong social ties is a lack of social support from family as well as having friends who engage in unhealthy behavior (Hirschi, 1969; Mason, Mennis, Linker, Bares, & Zaharakis, 2014).

Additional evidence depicts the potential negative influence of socialization and substance use as well. Socialization theory suggests that individuals’ health behaviors are influenced by their peers who are substance users through social learning (Osgood et al., 2013). Prominent reasons associated with frequent social drinking and marijuana use among young and older adults include having fun with friends by getting drunk and high and feeling excitement (Patrick, Schulenberg, O’Malley, Johnston, & Bachman, 2011) and suggest that these behaviors are influenced by the presence of friends. Substance use behaviors may also be modeled behavior, as young adults who have social networks with social drinkers and marijuana users are more likely to engage in alcohol and marijuana use in later adulthood (Mennis & Mason, 2012; Patrick et al., 2011). Among older adults, similar evidence suggests that having friends who drink alcohol is associated with a higher propensity to drink (Rosenquist, Murabito, Fowler, & Christakis, 2010), that having more extensive social networks is associated with a greater risk for binge drinking (Child, Stewart, & Moore, 2017), and, further, that encouragement of substance use by family and friends is associated with higher substance involvement (Tucker, Cheong, Chandler, Crawford, & Simpson, 2015). Conversely, while family discouragement of substance use was not associated with decreased use, peer discouragement did have protective effects (Tucker et.al, 2015). Thus, social networks, and in particular peer relationships may have both positive and negative effects on alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use among both young and older adults (Gibson, Perley, Bailey, Barbour, & Kershaw, 2015; Mennis & Mason, 2012; Pacek, Malcolm, & Martins, 2012).

Furthermore, studies on substance use and misuse emphasize that compared with mature adults, young adults are more vulnerable to the use of alcohol and drugs (Velleman, Templeton, & Copello, 2005). Risky substance use may be harmful for the substance users as well as their family members and wider community ties. Emerging evidence suggests that social engagement, including family involvement and school- and community-based intervention programs, play key roles in reducing substance use, or encouraging healthy lifestyles and behaviors (Nation et al., 2003; Velleman et al., 2005). Thus, the social control and social support of religious involvement may have a positive influence on decreasing risky substance use.

Taken together, although the association between religious affiliation and health behaviors is well theorized and conceptualized in previous literature, it is still unknown whether affiliation with formal organizations (e.g., religion) differs in its association with multiple dimensions of substance use (e.g., drinking, smoking, marijuana use) and whether affiliation with formal organizations, including religious involvement, differs substantively from social participation in less formal organizations. Finally, while different types of social ties and participation in social organizations may have a positive influence on health (House, 2001), this issue is infrequently studied simultaneously among young and older adults. Comparisons drawn from these groups may be useful, in particular, given recent evidence to indicate that declining rates of religious participation among young adults may be offset by increasing rates of informal participation (Fischer, 2011; Wuthnow, 2002).

Therefore, this study aims to examine associations between religious affiliation, informal participation, and reported satisfaction with network social support in association with substance use (e.g., drinking, smoking, and marijuana use) among two distinct age cohorts. We hypothesize that similar to religious affiliation among older adults, informal participation will also be associated with lower substance use among young adults. Conversely, low levels of network satisfaction will be associated with higher substance use among both young and older adults.

Data and Methods

Sample

Data came from the first wave of the UC Berkeley Social Networks Study (UCNets), which was collected between 2015 and 2016. The UCNets is a three-wave panel survey that aims to examine how an individuals’ social network changes as a result of the major life events, including retirement, marital status, and health issues. UCNets researchers drew participants from two distinct age groups—21- to 30-year-olds and 50- to 70-year-olds—to increase the number of life changes that they could capture between the waves. The original aims of the UCNets were to (1) to accurately test the social networks of young adults and older adults; (2) to measure life changes, health issues, and social relationships between two distinct age groups; and (3) to assess whether or not social network changes through life events, including job transitions and marriage among younger and older groups (UCNets, 2018). As such, the current study did not include adults who were between the ages of 31 and 49 years or those who were older than 70 years. Respondents were sampled using stratified address-based sampling across six Bay Area counties: San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. While this was sufficient for the older sample, address-based sampling was supplemented with a small snowball sample (n = 32) and a large Facebook ad campaign (n = 234) among the younger cohort. A screening procedure randomly assigned respondents from the household address and snowball sample to either a face-to-face interview (75% of cases) or a web survey (25%). Facebook-recruited respondents were all directed to the web-based survey. The final study sample included 1,156 people (n = 483, 21- to 30-year-olds; n = 673, 50- to 70-year-olds).

Measurements

Dependent Variables.

The main outcome of interest is substance use. We conceptualized this as the reported frequency of alcohol and marijuana use and history of smoking status. To reduce bias from the social desirability effect owing to stigma around the reporting of substance use, all participants who completed the face-to-face interviews were asked about substance use using a self-guided portion of the survey, in which participants were handed a laptop and asked to record their answers privately.

Alcohol use.

To assess alcohol use, the survey asked participants to report the number of drinks they consume, on average, on the days when they drink. Reported number of drinks ranged from 0 to 8. Those who reported “never drink” in a previous question to assess frequency of alcohol use were treated as “0” on this scale.

Marijuana use.

Marijuana use was dichotomized as either yes (1) or no (0) in response to the following survey item: “In the past year or so, have you used marijuana?”

Smoking status.

History of cigarette smoking was assessed by using a standard question: “Do you smoke cigarettes?” The response categories were yes = 1, I used to, but I quit = 2, and no = 3. Because very few participants reported currently smoking, this variable was recoded to assess whether a participant had ever smoked cigarettes. Cigarette use was dichotomized as either yes and I used to, but I quit (1) or no (0).

Independent Variables

Religious affiliation.

Membership in a religious organization was assessed using an item that asks, “Do you belong to or are you active in a particular church, synagogue, temple, or other religious organization?” Response categories were coded as yes = 1 and no = 0.

Informal participation.

Involvement with an informal organization was assessed by asking participants “Are you active in any informal kinds of groups—such as getting together regularly with a group of people to do things like discuss books, play sports, do bible study, go to the movies, play cards, or meet at a bar?” Response categories were coded as yes = 1 and no = 0.

Network satisfaction.

Participants’ perceptions about their network was assessed by using three questions (Child & Lawton, 2017). The first question asks, “Do you sometimes wish you knew more people you could talk with about your personal concerns or do you feel you already know enough people to talk with right now? The second question is “Do you sometimes wish you knew more people you could get together with to have a good time, or do you feel you already know enough people to have a good time with?” Finally, the third question is “What about wishing you knew more people who could help you with things like work around the home or shopping for you if you’re sick, or do you already know enough people to rely on for help?” Response categories were know enough already = 0 and wish I knew more =1.

Control Variables.

In predicting substance use and perceptions of the network, numerous sociodemographic and network variables were controlled for, including gender (male, female), race and ethnicity (White, Black, Latino, Asian, and other), marital status (married, widowed, divorced or separated, and never married), education (less than bachelor degree, bachelor degree, more than bachelor degree), personal income (categories ranging from less than $15,000 to more than $75,000), and employment status. Because previous research indicates that social network compositions may be associated with physical health and health behaviors (e.g., alcohol use) (Berkman, 1984; Rosenquist et al., 2010), general network characteristics, including the proportion of ties who are kin versus nonkin, were included in the models. Each model also controls for recruitment method and survey administration mode.

Analytic Strategy

Weighted descriptive statistics are examined for each age group. T tests and chi-square tests are performed to examine significant differences across cohorts, and a correlation matrix examines dependence between each of the predictor variables. Next, a series of Poisson and logistic regression models are used to examine associations between religious and informal group affiliation, social support, and substance use separately for each age group. Poisson regression is used for the positively skewed continuous outcome (alcohol use), and logistic regression is used for the binary outcomes (marijuana use and smoking history).

To account for missing data, multiple imputation using chained equations is conducted for variables such as income (n = 22), educational attainment (n = 6), and network composition variables (i.e., number of kin; n =3). Each regression model was conducted across 40 imputations. All analyses employed poststratification sampling weights to represent the sociodemographic characteristics of the broader Bay Area and are conducted in STATA v.14.

Results

As seen in Table 1, young adults are significantly less involved in religious organizations (22%) than are older adults (34%). However, no difference is observed in young and older adults’ involvement with informal organizations, at 60% and 55%, respectively. On the occasions when they do drink, 21- to 30-year-olds report an average consumption of M = 1.82 (SD = 1.46) alcoholic beverages, while 50- to 70-year-olds report significantly less, with an average beverage consumption of M = 1.35 (SD = 1.17). Approximately 20% of young adults report current or former cigarette smoking, while late-middle-age adults report significantly more (33%). Conversely, nearly 40% of young adults report current marijuana use, while older adults report significantly less (24%).

Table 1.

Weighted Sample Characteristics (UCNets Wave 1, 2015).

Characteristic 21- to 30-year-olds (n = 483) 50- to 70-year-olds (n = 673)
Affiliated with religious organization** 21.5 34.4
Frequency of religious attendance**
 Never 43.2 40.7
 A few times a year or less 28.4 22.9
 Several times a year 8.9 8.5
 A couple of times a month 6.7 8.6
 About every week or more 12.8 19.3
Participates in informal organization 59.4 54.9
Average number of drinks, M (SD)** 1.82 (1.46) 1.35 (1.17)
Current or former smoker** 19.8 32.5
Current marijuana use** 39.0 23.7
Social support
 Wishes more people to talk to* 35.1 25.4
 Wishes more people to get together with** 64.2 49.9
 Wishes more people to ask for help 31.9 27.3
 Female 51.6 52.7
Race/ethnicity**
 White 39.7 57.5
 Black 9.1 9.6
 Latino/a 21.5 12.2
 Asian 28.8 20.3
 Other 0.9 0.4
Educational attainment
 Less than a bachelor’s degree 57.5 55.6
 Bachelor’s degree 29.7 25.4
 More than a bachelor’s degree 12.8 18.9
Income**
 Under $15,000 40.3 19.3
 $15,000-$44,999 31.3 27.3
 $45,000-$74,999 14.3 22.2
 $75,000+ 14.1 31.2
Employed (full-time)** 42.0 33.1
Open in a new tab

Note. T test or chi-square test of differences between age groups.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

In terms of social support, young adults reported a significantly greater desire for more people to talk to or get together with. Specifically, 35% of young adults desire more people to talk to, while 25% older adults want more people to talk to. Moreover, while 64% of young adults reported wishing more people to get together with, only half of the 50- to 70-year-olds reported wishing for more. A fewer percentage of both young and older adults reported wishing for more people to ask for help—32% and 27%, respectively.

No differences were found between age cohorts in terms of sex distribution or educational attainment. However, the older cohort, which included significantly more Whites, had a higher income distribution and were less likely to be employed full time.

Affiliation, Social Support, and Substance Use Among Young Adults

Poisson and logistic regression models predicting substance use (average rate of alcohol consumption, current or former smoking, and current marijuana use) among young adults in the UCNets cohort are presented in Table 2. Religious affiliation was associated with lower rates of drinking (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.48, 0.91], p < .05) and lower odds of smoking (odds ratio [OR] = 0.10, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50], p < .05) and marijuana use (OR = 0.10, 95% CI [0.02, 0.50], p < .01). Conversely, participation with an informal organization was associated with a higher rate of alcohol consumption (IRR = 1.34, 95% CI [1.10, 1.65], p < .01) and more than double the odds of marijuana use (OR = 2.03, 95% CI [1.11, 3.70], p < .05). Young adults who reported wishing they knew more people to talk to were three times more likely to be current or former smokers (OR = 3.99, 95% CI [1.55, 10.25], p < .01). Among the young cohort, desiring more people to get together with was related with more alcohol consumption (IRR = 1.28, 95% CI [1.01, 1.63], p < .05). Interestingly, reporting a desire for more people to ask for help was associated with lower substance use for each of alcohol consumption (IRR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.60, 0.95], p < .05), former or current smoking (OR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.09, 0.67], p < .05), and current marijuana use (OR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.21, 0.85], p < .05).

Table 2.

Poisson and Logistic Regression Estimates for Substance Use Among 21 to 30-Year-Olds (N = 483; UCNets Wave 1, 2015).

Study variable Alcohol consumption Former or current smoking Current marijuana use
IRR [95% CI] OR [95% CI] OR [95% CI]
Religious affiliation 0.66 [0.48, 0.91]* 0.10 [0.02, 0.50]* 0.10 [0.04, 0.25]**
Participates in informal organization 1.34 [1.10, 1.65]** 0.74 [0.34, 1.63] 2.03 [1.11, 3.70]*
Social support
 Wishes more people to talk to 0.97 [0.76, 1.23] 3.99 [1.55, 10.25]** 1.48 [0.70, 3.13]
 Wishes more people to get together with 1.28 [1.01, 1.63]* 1.17 [0.48, 2.86] 1.43 [0.73, 2.79]
 Wishes more people to ask for help 0.75 [0.60, 0.95]* 0.25 [0.09, 0.67]* 0.42 [0.21, 0.85]*
Open in a new tab

Note. IRR = incidence rate ratio; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval. All models control for continuous age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, income, marital status, employment status, network composition, recruitment method, and survey mode.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Affiliation, Social Support, and Substance Use Among Older Adults

Poisson and logistic regression models predicting substance use (average rate of alcohol consumption, current or former smoking, and current marijuana use) among older adults in the UCNets cohort are presented in Table 3. Compared with young adults, we found fewer significant relationships between religious affiliation, informal participation, social support, and substance use among 50- to 70-year-olds. Similar to young adults, older adults who reported a religious affiliation consumed alcohol at a lower rate than those who did not report an affiliation (IRR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.58, 0.98], p < .05) and were half as likely to report marijuana use (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.27, 0.97], p < .05). However, involvement in informal organizations had no significant effects. In terms of network support, older adults who reported a desire for more people to ask for help were also half as likely to report current marijuana use (OR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.25, 0.95], p < .05), similar to young adults.

Table 3.

Poisson and Logistic Regression Estimates for Substance Use Among 50- to 70-Year-Olds (N = 673; UCNets Wave 1, 2015).

Study variable Alcohol consumption Former or current smoking Current marijuana use
IRR [95% CI] OR [95% CI] OR [95% CI]
Religious affiliation 0.76 [0.58, 0.98]* 0.97 [0.57, 1.66] 0.52 [0.27, 0.97]*
Participates in informal organization 0.96 [0.78, 1.20] 0.84 [0.51, 1.36] 0.63 [0.38, 1.04]
Social support
 Wishes more people to talk to 1.10 [0.88, 1.37] 1.13 [0.62, 2.06] 0.87 [0.42, 1.79]
 Wishes more people to get together with 0.86 [0.70, 1.06] 0.90 [0.54, 1.50] 1.06 [0.61, 1.84]
 Wishes more people to ask for help 0.92 [0.73, 1.14] 0.69 [0.38, 1.25] 0.49 [0.25, 0.95]*
Open in a new tab

Note. IRR = incidence rate ratio; OR = odds ratio; CL = confidence interval. All models control for continuous age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, income, marital status, employment status, network composition, recruitment method, and survey mode.

*

p < .05.

**

p < .01.

Sensitivity Analysis

To test the robustness of the associations seen across age cohort, posthoc analyses with interaction terms for age were conducted on the pooled sample. We examined a series of interaction terms between each predictor variable and a dichotomous variable for the age group for each of the three outcomes. In general, the results indicate that the differences seen in the associations between participation, whether formal or informal, and substance use by age cohort are statistically significant. For example, there is a significant interaction between participating in informal organizations and age group for alcohol consumption, such that informal participation was positively and significantly associated with alcohol consumption among young adults but not among older adults. Additionally, the differences in association between religious involvement and smoking seen across the two age groups was confirmed as statistically significant in the interaction model. Finally, there were significant interactions between membership in religious and informal organizations and age group among people who are current marijuana user, indicating that marijuana use was affected by religious and socially active people’s age. However, the results also showed that the interaction terms between network satisfaction and age were not significant, and therefore, we proceed with caution when interpreting differences across age cohort with these particular associations.

Discussion

In this study, we aimed to analyze whether membership in a religious organization, involvement with an informal organization, and satisfaction with available network social support are independently associated with substance use (e.g., drinking, smoking, and marijuana use) among two distinct age cohorts. Consistent with previous research linking religious involvement with healthier lifestyles (Hill et al., 2006; Krause et al., 2017; Umberson & Montez, 2010), we found that religious affiliation was associated with lower substance use. Specifically, among young adults, membership in a religious organization was associated with less drinking, lower odds of being a current or former smoker, and lower odds of marijuana use. Similarly, the results show that older adults who have religious affiliations drink less and are less likely to use marijuana. On the other hand, this study revealed that participation in informal organizations may be associated with higher rates of alcohol consumption and marijuana use among young adults. Taken together, the findings indicate that religious affiliation may have protective effects on both young and older adults’ health behaviors for reasons beyond the support that social involvement may provide. The results also suggest that social control may be at play, and further, that the social contexts of these substances are not alike. For instance, smoking is antisocial in an environment where smoking is uncommon. On the other hand, social drinking is supported by informal organizations (Chuang & Chuang, 2008; Seid, Hesse, & Bloomfield, 2016) yet drinking’s negative side may be apparent in the results for feeling unsupported. Marijuana is a social drug and is generally supported through informal ties. Potential explanations for this include peer influence and increased social opportunity for engaging in substance use among both young and older adults (Child et al., 2017; Guo, Li, Owen, Wang, & Duncan, 2015).

While prior studies have examined perceived amounts of received support in association with substance use (Hill et al., 2006; Wills & Cleary, 1996), the UCNets survey asked a slightly different set of questions—that is, whether or not participants desired more support across specific dimensions, including people to talk to about personal matters, people to get together with socially, and people to ask for help. Thus, the responses indicate a desire for support regardless of the amount of support received. Indeed, a previous study on the UCNets cohorts revealed that while younger adults had larger social networks, on average, than the older cohort, a larger percentage of young adults reported a desire for more people to have to talk to and get together with (Child & Lawton, 2017). The current results, that young adults who wished for more people to have to talk to about personal problems are more likely to be current or former smokers, suggest that young former or current smokers may need more social support from their networks, or that smoking behavior may reduce the availability of like-minded social network partners. Indeed, previous data indicate that social isolation is associated with increased risk of smoking relapse over time (Moore, Teixeira, & Stewart, 2014). Moreover, we found that among young adults, a desire for more social companions (e.g., people to get together with) was associated with higher rates of alcohol consumption. This finding suggests that alcohol consumption can be incompatible with meaningful social relationships, something that supports our hypotheses linked to the theories of social support and social control such that social relationships have protective effects against risky health behaviors (Moos, 2007; Umberson & Montez, 2010). Unexpectedly, we found the opposite association between the desire for more people to ask for help and substance use. Specifically, reporting a desire for more people to provide help, or in other words, not having enough tangible support, was associated with lower levels of alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, and marijuana use among young adults. Likewise, desiring more people to ask for help was associated with less marijuana use among older adults. While counterintuitive to the theory of social support, a further inspection of the literature revealed a recently published study of young men in Switzerland, which found a similar, albeit opposite, pattern: higher levels of social support from friends was associated with higher rates of drinking and marijuana use (Studer et al., 2017). Similar to the role of informal participation, plausible explanations for the association between low network satisfaction and low substance use may involve reduced opportunities for social drinking or marijuana use. This may be particularly true for reporting a desire for more people to get together with socially; however, it was unexpected to see this association among a desire for more people to receive help from. Other possible explanations may be due to the cross-sectional nature of the data and potential confounders, in which people who are seeking to reduce or abstain from substance use are also more likely to report a desire (or a need) for help, either from peers or from professionals. Indeed, prior research has indicated a strong relationship between substance-specific support and reduced use (Longabaugh, Wirtz, Zywiak, & O’Malley, 2010; Moore et al., 2014). Further research is needed to clarify potential mechanisms linking distinct types of network support with substance use among both young and older adults.

Finally, one of the main goals of this study was to examine the associations between religious affiliation, informal participation, network satisfaction, and substance use among two distinct age cohorts. Prior research highlighting the developmental aspects of young and older adults indicate that younger adults are more likely to use substances and engage in risky health behaviors than older adults (Velleman et al., 2005). Due to the distinct life experiences of these two age groups, the majority of research on substance use has been conducted on young adults and adolescents rather than on older adults. However, recent research suggests that changing policies and attitudes toward substances like marijuana are leading to increased use, particularly among current tobacco smokers and adults older than 50 years (Schauer, Berg, Kegler, Donovan, & Windle, 2015). Additional research suggests that religious affiliation among young adults is declining (Schwadel, 2013) and perhaps is being replaced by participation in less formal organizations. The current findings indicate that older adults are more likely to have a history of cigarette smoking while other types of substance use are higher among young adults. Consistent with prior research, young adults were less likely to report a religious affiliation but were equally as likely to be involved with informal organizations as older adults. Of interest however is that while informal participation had no association with substance use among older adults, post hoc analyses confirmed a significant interaction effect, such that informal participation had a significant and positive association with both alcohol consumption and marijuana use among young adults. From these distinctions, we can conclude that the association between informal participation and health risk behaviors vary by age. Since this is a new avenue for social relationships and health, future research should look at the differences between social involvement, distinct age groups, and other health risk behaviors.

Although the present study has several strengths, the results should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, this is a cross-sectional study, and therefore, we cannot be sure about the direction of the associations seen here. There is much debate in the literature regarding the role of influence versus selection effects (Steglich, Snijders, & Pearson, 2010), the latter of which may explain greater substance use found among young adults involved with informal organizations. In future, we hope to examine these associations using the second and third waves of the UCNets data. Second, we hypothesized that religious affiliation would be associated with less substance use among both younger (n = 483) and older cohorts (n = 673). Even with a small Bay Area sample, we found that many of the younger cohort’s health behaviors were associated with their membership in religious organizations and informal participation. Among the older adults, we found similar patterns but fewer significant results than among the young cohort. To achieve more robust results, future research should reassess these relationships with a larger, nationally representative sample. Finally, we found an unexpected direction in the associations between social support and substance use; specifically, young and old cohorts who want help from their networks report less substance use. Previous studies that parse out social support from friends versus significant others (i.e., romantic partners) have found distinct effects on substance use patterns (Studer et al., 2017; Tartaglia, 2014). While our models controlled for relationship status, we did not distinguish between the different sources of received support. Thus, we might further investigate these relationships by separating the types of social support from different social ties, including friends and relatives.

Despite these limitations, the findings show the importance of and varied associations between religious involvement, informal participation, and network support on substance use among both young and older adults. Research indicates that families, friends, and community ties (e.g., religious organizations, book clubs) have protective effects against health risk behaviors (Nation et al., 2003; Velleman et al., 2005). The current study indicates that both social support and social control mechanisms may be at play, and future research is warranted. Having positive social relationships with communities provide opportunities for individuals to develop strong and positive lifestyles and family relationships and school- and community-based intervention programs may be effective against substance use.

Conclusions

Findings from the current study suggest that membership in religious organizations is associated with less substance use (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, marijuana) among young adults and less drinking among older adults. Conversely, among the young cohort, participation in informal organizations was associated with greater alcohol consumption and marijuana use, indicating potential consequences of social involvement. To our knowledge, the UCNets survey is the first to examine network satisfaction in association with substance use. The findings were mixed, indicating that more research is needed to further understand potential mechanisms, including social support and social control, linking network support and substance use among both young and older adults. To conclude, the associations between religious affiliation, informal participation, network satisfaction, and substance use are more complex than previously studied, suggesting greater attention to be given to the quality of religious and informal ties, network support satisfaction, and healthy lifestyles.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging (Grant No. R01AG041955). Principal Investigator: Claude Fischer.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Berkman LF (1984). Assessing the physical health effects of social networks and social support. Annual Review of Public Health, 5, 413–432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berkman LF, & Breslow L (1983). Health and ways of living: The Alameda County study. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bowie JV, Parker LJ, Beadle-Holder M, Ezema A, Bruce MA, & Thorpe RJ (2017). The influence of religious attendance on smoking among Black men. Substance Use & Misuse, 52, 581–586. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2016.1245342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Child S, Stewart S, & Moore S (2017). Perceived control moderates the relationship between social capital and binge drinking: Longitudinal findings from the Montreal Neighborhood Networks and Health Aging (MoNNET-HA) panel. Annals of Epidemiology, 27, 128–134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Child ST, & Lawton L (2017). Loneliness and social isolation among young and late middle-age adults: Associations with personal networks and social participation. Aging & Mental Health. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2017.1399345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Chuang Y-C, & Chuang K-Y (2008). Gender differences in relationships between social capital and individual smoking and drinking behavior in Taiwan. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 1321–1330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dermatis H, & Galanter M (2016). The role of twelve-step-related spirituality in addiction recovery. Journal of Religion & Health, 55, 510–521. doi: 10.1007/s10943-015-0019-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Ellison CG, & Levin JS (1998). The religion-health connection: Evidence, theory, and future directions. Health Education & Behavior, 25, 700–720. doi: 10.1177/109019819802500603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Feeney BC, & Collins NL (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19, 113–147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fischer CS (2011). Still connected: Family and friends in America since 1970. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibson C, Perley L, Bailey J, Barbour R, & Kershaw T (2015). Social network and census tract-level influences on substance use among emerging adult males: An activity spaces approach. Health & Place, 35, 28–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Guo G, Li Y, Owen C, Wang H, & Duncan GJ (2015). A natural experiment of peer influences on youth alcohol use. Social Science Research, 52, 193–207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hill TD, Burdette AM, Ellison CG, & Musick MA (2006). Religious attendance and the health behaviors of Texas adults. Preventive Medicine, 42, 309–312. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hirschi T (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Krause N, Hill PC, Emmons R, Pargament KI, & Ironson G (2017). Assessing the relationship between religious involvement and health behaviors. Health Education & Behavior, 44, 278–284. doi: 10.1177/1090198116655314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Longabaugh R, Wirtz PW, Zywiak WH, & O’Malley SS (2010). Network support as a prognostic indicator of drinking outcomes: The COMBINE study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 837–846. doi: 10.15288/jsad.2010.71.837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mason MJ, Mennis J, Linker J, Bares C, & Zaharakis N (2014). Peer attitudes effects on adolescent substance use: The moderating role of race and gender. Prevention Science, 15, 56–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mennis J, & Mason MJ (2012). Social and geographic contexts of adolescent substance use: The moderating effects of age and gender. Social Networks, 34, 150–157. [Google Scholar]
  19. Moore S, Teixeira A, & Stewart S (2014). Effect of network social capital on the chances of smoking relapse: A two-year follow-up study of urban-dwelling adults. American Journal of Public Health, 104, e72–e76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Moos RH (2007). Theory-based active ingredients of effective treatments for substance use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88, 109–121. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Musick MA, House JS, & Williams DR (2004). Attendance at religious services and mortality in a national sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 198–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Musick MA, & Wilson J (2007). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Nation M, Crusto C, Wandersman A, Kumpfer KL, Seybolt D, Morrissey-Kane E, & Davino K (2003). What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58, 449–456. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Osgood DW, Ragan DT, Wallace L, Gest SD, Feinberg ME, & Moody J (2013). Peers and the emergence of alcohol use: Influence and selection processes in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 500–512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pacek LR, Malcolm RJ, & Martins SS (2012). Race/ethnicity differences between alcohol, marijuana, and co-occurring alcohol and marijuana use disorders and their association with public health and social problems using a national sample. American Journal on Addictions, 21, 435–444. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Patrick ME, Schulenberg JE, O’Malley PM, Johnston LD, & Bachman JG (2011). Adolescents’ reported reasons for alcohol and marijuana use as predictors of substance use and problems in adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72, 106–116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rosenquist JN, Murabito J, Fowler JH, & Christakis NA (2010). The spread of alcohol consumption behavior in a large social network. Annals of Internal Medicine, 152, W426–W141. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-152-7-201004060-00007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Schauer GL, Berg CJ, Kegler MC, Donovan DM, & Windle M (2015). Assessing the overlap between tobacco and marijuana: Trends in patterns of co-use of tobacco and marijuana in adults from 2003–2012. Addictive Behaviors, 49, 26–32. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.05.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Schwadel P (2013). Changes in Americans’ strength of religious affiliation, 1974–2010. Sociology of Religion, 74, 107–128. [Google Scholar]
  30. Seid AK, Hesse M, & Bloomfield K (2016). “Make it another for me and my mates”: Does social capital encourage risky drinking among the Danish general population? Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 44, 240–248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Shumaker SA, & Brownell A (1984). Toward a theory of social support: Closing conceptual gaps. Journal of Social Issues, 40(4), 11–36. [Google Scholar]
  32. Steglich C, Snijders TA, & Pearson M (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329–393. [Google Scholar]
  33. Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Cohen RD, & Kaplan GA (2001). Religious attendance increases survival by improving and maintaining good health behaviors, mental health, and social relationships. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 23, 68–74. doi: 10.1207/S15324796abm2301_10 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Studer J, Baggio S, Dupuis M, Mohler-Kuo M, Daeppen J-B, & Gmel G (2017). Substance use in young Swiss men: The interplay of perceived social support and dispositional characteristics. Substance Use & Misuse, 52, 798–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Talò C, Mannarini T, & Rochira A (2014). Sense of community and community participation: A meta-analytic review. Social Indicators Research, 117, 1–28. [Google Scholar]
  36. Tartaglia S (2014). Alcohol consumption among young adults in Italy: The interplay of individual and social factors. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 21, 65–71. [Google Scholar]
  37. Thoits PA (1995). Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 53–79. doi: 10.2307/2626957 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Tucker JA, Cheong J, Chandler SD, Crawford SM, & Simpson CA (2015). Social networks and substance use among at-risk emerging adults living in disadvantaged urban areas in the southern United States: A cross-sectional naturalistic study. Addiction, 110, 1524–1532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. UCNets. (2018). About the study. Retrieved from http://ucnets.berkeley.edu/about-the-study/
  40. Umberson D, Crosnoe R, & Reczek C (2010). Social relationships and health behavior across the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 139–157. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Umberson D, & Montez JK (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(Suppl.), S54–S66. doi: 10.1177/0022146510383501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Velleman RD, Templeton LJ, & Copello AG (2005). The role of the family in preventing and intervening with substance use and misuse: A comprehensive review of family interventions, with a focus on young people. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24, 93–109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wills TA, & Cleary SD (1996). How are social support effects mediated? A test with parental support and adolescent substance use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 937–952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wrzus C, Hänel M, Wagner J, & Neyer FJ (2013). Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 53–80. doi: 10.1037/a0028601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wuthnow R (2002). The United States: Bridging the privileged and the marginalized? In Putnam RD (Ed.), Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 59–102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES