Original article
A Comparison of Peer Influence Measures as Predictors of Smoking Among Predominately Hispanic/Latino High School Adolescents

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.014Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

Consistent evidence has shown that one of the most significant influences on adolescent smoking is peer influence. There is considerable variation, however, in how peer influence is measured. This study constructs social network influence and selection variables from egocentric and sociometric data to compare their associations with smoking, with considerations of perceived smoking norms and adolescent popularity.

Methods

Longitudinal data were collected in the 9th and 10th grades in October 2006 and 2007 from predominantly Hispanic/Latino adolescents in seven Southern California schools; among these adolescents, 1,950 completed surveys at both waves. Both cross-sectional (separately for 9th and 10th graders) and longitudinal models were estimated.

Results

An egocentric measure of perceived friend smoking was strongly and consistently associated with individual smoking (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] ≈ 1.80, p < .001), whereas its sociometric counterpart of friend self-report smoking was only associated with smoking in the 9th-grade cross-sectional models (e.g., AOR = 1.56, p < .001) and rarely in longitudinal models. Popularity, measured by proportion of nominations received by class size, was associated with smoking and becoming a smoker (AOR = 1.67, p < .001), whereas perceived norms were not, in longitudinal models. Friend selection was also associated with becoming a smoker (AOR = 1.32, p = .05).

Conclusions

This study illustrates the utility of egocentric data for understanding peer influence and underscores the importance of perceptions and popularity as mechanisms that influence adolescent smoking.

Section snippets

Data and Method

Survey data were collected from students attending seven predominately Hispanic/Latino high schools in the Los Angeles area in the fall of their 9th and 10th grade years in 2006 and October 2007. Some 3,218 students were invited to participate, and 2,420 (75%) provided parental consent and student assent. Of those, 2,221 (92%) completed the survey in the 9th grade. At 1-year follow-up (10th grade), 1,950 (87.8%) completed the survey, with 236 students no longer enrolled in the participating

Results

Table 2 reports univariate statistics (means and percentages). In the 9th grade, 25.6% of students reported smoking. Students named as their friend an average of 4.1 students in their school, with 1.75 of them being identified in their grade. The remaining students were either in different grades in the same school, in different schools, or could not be matched to a name in the grade roster for another reason (e.g., incomplete name specified or illegible). Of the friends named, respondents

Discussion

This study set out to clarify and compare measures of peer norms, peer influence and selection, on adolescent smoking. The results generally supported the hypothesis that egocentric measures of perceived friend smoking were more strongly associated with smoking than the sociometric ones based on friends' self-report. These conclusions are tempered by some limitations.

First, the data from this study were collected, by design, from schools that are predominately Hispanic/Latino and so may not be

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (grant # DA016310).

References (37)

  • T.W. Valente et al.

    Do popular students smoke?The association between popularity and smoking among middle school students

    J Adolesc Health

    (2005)
  • S.T. Ennett et al.

    Peer smoking, other peer attributes, and adolescent cigarette smoking: A social network analysis

    Prev Sci

    (2008)
  • B.R. Hoffman et al.

    Peer influence on adolescent smoking: A theoretical review of the literature

    Subst Use Misuse

    (2006)
  • K. Kobus

    Peers and adolescent smoking

    Addiction

    (2003)
  • Fujimoto K, Valente TW. Decomposing the components of friendship and friends' influence on adolescent drinking and...
  • R.J. Ianotti et al.

    Perceived vs. actual friends' use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and cocaine: Which has the most influence?

    J Youth Adolesc

    (1992)
  • R.E. Rice et al.

    Peer network, sensation seeking, and drug use among junior and senior high school students

    Connections

    (2003)
  • D.B. Henry et al.

    Accuracy and bias in adolescents' perceptions of friends' substance use

    Psychol Addict Behav

    (2011)
  • Cited by (48)

    • Egocentric social network correlates of physical activity

      2020, Journal of Sport and Health Science
    • Peer social network processes and adolescent health behaviors: A systematic review

      2020, Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      The health behaviors investigated were alcohol drinking (n = 5) (Kreager and Haynie, 2011; Mercken et al., 2012b; Mundt et al., 2012; Long et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017); cigarette smoking (n = 7) (Huisman and Bruggeman, 2012; Valente et al., 2013; Aloise-Young et al., 1994; Go et al., 2010; Go et al., 2012; Mercken et al., 2010; Schaefer et al., 2012); both drinking and smoking (n = 2) (Kiuru et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2016); substance use (n = 4) (Mathys et al., 2013; Pearson et al., 2006a; Poulin et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2018); PA (n = 2) (Simpkins et al., 2013; de la Haye et al., 2011) and dietary/weight-related behaviors (n = 2) (De la Haye et al., 2013; Shoham et al., 2012) (Table 4). These included nine ‘good quality’ (Kreager and Haynie, 2011; De la Haye et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2018; Simpkins et al., 2013; Mercken et al., 2012b; Mundt et al., 2012; Go et al., 2012; Mercken et al., 2010), three ‘fair quality’ (Mathys et al., 2013; de la Haye et al., 2011; Valente et al., 2013) and nine ‘poor quality’ (Kiuru et al., 2010; Pearson et al., 2006a; Poulin et al., 2011; Huisman and Bruggeman, 2012; Aloise-Young et al., 1994; Long et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017; Go et al., 2010; Schaefer et al., 2012) studies. The majority of studies acknowledged the presence of both homophilic social selection and social influence processes, but did not disentangle the relative contribution of either process (Kreager and Haynie, 2011; De la Haye et al., 2013; Shoham et al., 2012; Long et al., 2017; Go et al., 2010; Go et al., 2012; Schaefer et al., 2012; Kiuru et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2016; Pearson et al., 2006a; Poulin et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2018; Huisman and Bruggeman, 2012; Valente et al., 2013; Aloise-Young et al., 1994).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text