Abstract
Many evaluation studies assess the direct effect of an intervention on individuals, but there is an increasing interest in clarifying how interventions can impact larger social settings. One process that can lead to these setting-level effects is diffusion, in which intervention effects spread from participants to non-participants. Diffusion may be particularly important when intervention participation rates are low, as they often are in universal family based prevention programs. We drew on socialization and diffusion theories to articulate how features of peer networks may promote the diffusion of intervention effects. Then, we tested the measurement properties of ten social network analytic (SNA) measures of diffusion potential. Data were from 42 networks (n = 5,784 students) involved in the PROSPER intervention trial. All families of sixth-grade students were invited to participate in a family based substance use prevention program, and 17 % of the families attended at least one session. We identified two dimensions of network structure—social integration and location of intervention participants in their peer network—that might promote diffusion. Analyses demonstrated that these SNA measures varied across networks and were distinct from traditional analytic measures that do not require social network analysis (i.e., participation rate, how representative participants are of the broader population). Importantly, several SNA measures and the global network index predicted diffusion over and above the effect of participation rate and representativeness. We conclude by recommending which SNA measures may be the most promising for studying how networks promote the diffusion of intervention effects and lead to setting-level effects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Campbell, R., Starkey, F., Holliday, J., Audrey, S., Bloor, M., Parry-Langdon, N., & Moore, L. (2008). An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): A cluster randomised trial. The Lancet, 371, 1595–1602. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60692-3.
Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adolescents friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373–390. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80023-2.
Freeman, L. C. (1978). Segregation in social networks. Sociological Methods and Research, 6, 411–429. doi:10.1177/004912417800600401.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7.
Gest, S. D., Osgood, D. W., Feinberg, M. E., Bierman, K. L., & Moody, J. (2011). Strengthening prevention program theories and evaluations: Contributions from social network analysis. Prevention Science, 12, 349–360. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0229-2.
Heinrichs, N., Bertram, H., Kuschel, A., & Hahlweg, K. (2005). Parent recruitment and retention in a universal prevention program for child behavior and emotional problems: Barriers to research and program participation. Prevention Science, 6, 275–286. doi:10.1007/s11121-005-0006-1.
Kelly, J. A., Murphy, D. A., Sikkema, K. J., McAuliffe, T. L., Roffman, R. A., Solomon, L. J., & Kalichman, S. C. (1997). Randomized, controlled, community-level HIV-prevention intervention for sexual-risk behaviour among homosexual men in US cities. The Lancet, 350, 1500–1505. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)07439-4.
Kiesner, J., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2004). “Very Important Persons” in adolescence: Going beyond in-school, single friendships in the study of peer homophily. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 545–560. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.06.007.
Kreager, D. A., Rulison, K. L., & Moody, J. (2011). Delinquency and the structure of adolescent peer groups. Criminology, 49, 95–127. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00219.x.
Latkin, C. A. (1998). Outreach in natural settings: The use of peer leaders for HIV prevention among injecting drug users’ networks. Public Health Reports, 113, 151–159. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1307737.
Miller-Johnson, S., & Costanzo, P. (2004). If you can’t beat ’em…induce them to join you: Peer-based interventions during adolescence. In J. B. Kupersmidt & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Children’s peer relations: From development to intervention (pp. 209–222). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Molgaard, V., Kumpfer, K., & Fleming, E. (1987). Strengthening families program. Ames: Iowa State University Research Foundation.
Moody, J. (2009). Network structure and diffusion (Paper ID No. PWP-DUKE-2009-004). Retrieved from California Center for Population Research website: http://papers.ccpr.ucla.edu/papers/PWP-DUKE-2009-004/PWP-DUKE-2009-004.pdf
Moody, J., & White, D. R. (2003). Structural cohesion and embeddedness: A hierarchical concept of social groups. American Sociological Review, 68, 103–127. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088904.
Newcomb, T. M. (1950). Social psychology. New York: Dryden.
Osgood, D. W., McMorris, B. J., & Potenza, M. T. (2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance I: Item response theory scaling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 267–296. doi:10.1023/A:1016008004010.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Sherif, M. (1948). Outline of social psychology. New York: Harper and Row.
Spoth, R. L., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER community university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science, 5, 31–39. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013979.52796.8b.
Spoth, R. L., & Redmond, C. (2000). Research on family engagement in preventive interventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention practice. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 267–284. doi:10.1023/A:1007039421026.
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Lepper, H. (1999). Alcohol initiation outcomes of universal family-focused preventive interventions: One- and two-year follow-ups of a controlled study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl 13), 103–111. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10225494
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 627–642. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.69.4.627.
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Greenberg, M., Clair, S., & Feinberg, M. (2007). Substance-use outcomes at 18 months past baseline: The PROSPER community–university partnership trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 395–402. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.014.
Temkin, D. A., Gest, S. D., Osgood, D. W., Feinberg, M. E., & Moody, J. (2012). Social network implications of normative school transitions in non-urban school districts. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Tseng, V., & Seidman, E. (2007). A systems framework for understanding social settings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 217–228. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9101-8.
Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 55–67. doi:10.1177/000271629956600105.
Valente, T. W., Gallaher, P., & Mouttapa, M. (2004). Using social networks to understand and prevent substance use: A transdisciplinary perspective. Substance Use & Misuse, 39, 10–12. doi:10.1081/JA-200033210.
Valente, T. W., Hoffman, B. R., Ritt-Olsan, A., Lichtman, K., & Johnson, C. A. (2003). Effects of a social-network method for group assignment strategies on peer-led tobacco prevention programs in schools. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1837–1843. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.11.1837.
Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C., & Van Zalk, M. (2013). Network–behavior dynamics. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 399–412. doi:10.1111/jora.12070.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wyman, P. A., Brown, C. H., LoMurray, M., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Petrova, M., Yu, Q., & Wang, W. (2010). An outcome evaluation of the Sources of Strength suicide prevention program delivered by adolescent peer leaders in high schools. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1653–1661. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.190025.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the W.T. Grant Foundation (8316) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (RO1-DA08225; T32-DA-017629; F31-DA-024497), and uses data from PROSPER, a project directed by R. L. Spoth and funded by grant RO1-DA013709 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary materials
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rulison, K.L., Gest, S.D. & Osgood, D.W. Adolescent Peer Networks and the Potential for the Diffusion of Intervention Effects. Prev Sci 16, 133–144 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0465-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0465-3