Abstract
Recent research has affirmed the need to examine contextual influences on adolescent substance use in a multilevel framework. This study examined the role of neighborhood opportunities for substance use in promoting adolescent substance use. Data came from two components of the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: the Longitudinal Cohort Study, consisting of interviews with youth and their primary caregivers across three waves of data with an average span of 4.5 years; and a Community Survey of neighborhood residents. Analysis used an Item-Response Theory-based statistical approach on 6556 substance use item responses from 1639 youth (49.0 % female) within 80 neighborhoods to assess the extent to which neighborhood opportunities for substance use had direct and indirect effects on adolescent substance use. Neither direct nor mediated effects of neighborhood opportunities for substance use on adolescent substance use were detected. But, analyses revealed moderating effects such that higher levels of neighborhood opportunities for substance use: (1) amplified the detrimental effects of parental substance use and peer substance use on youth substance use; and (2) attenuated the protective effect of adolescents’ perceived harm of substance use on adolescent substance use. The results suggest that the ways in which neighborhood characteristics impact adolescent behavior are nuanced. Rather than impact individual-level outcomes directly, neighborhood context may be particularly relevant by conditioning the effects of salient individual-level risk and protective factors for substance use.
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. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Allison, K. W., Crawford, I., Leone, P. E., Trickett, E., Perez-Febles, A., Burton, L. M., & Le Blanc, R. (1999). Adolescent substance use: Preliminary examinations of school and neighborhood context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 111–141.
Amaro, H. (2014). The action is upstream: Place-based approaches for achieving population health and health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), 964.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: Norton.
Bachman, J. G., Johnston, L. D., & O’Malley, P. M. (1998). Explaining recent increases in students’ marijuana use: Impacts of perceived risks and disapproval, 1976 through 1996. American Journal of Public Health, 88(6), 887–892.
Barkin, S. L., Smith, K. S., & DuRant, R. H. (2002). Social skills and attitudes associated with substance use behaviors among young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(6), 448–454.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, Q. L., Milam, A. J., Smart, M. J., Johnson, R. M., Linton, S. L., Furr-Holden, C. D., & Ialongo, N. S. (2014). Objective and perceived neighborhood characteristics and tobacco use among young adults. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 134, 370–375.
Cleveland, M. J., Feinberg, M. E., Bontempo, D. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2008). The role of risk and protective factors in substance use across adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 157–164.
Donovan, J. E. (2004). Adolescent alcohol initiation: A review of psychosocial risk factors. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(6), 529.e7–529.e18.
Duncan, D. T., Palamar, J. J., & Williams, J. H. (2014). Perceived neighborhood illicit drug selling, peer illicit drug disapproval and illicit drug use among U.S. high school seniors. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy,. doi:10.1186/1747-597x-9-35.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1986). Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy (with discussion). Statistical Science, 1, 54–75.
Fagan, A. A., Lee, M., Horn, V., Hawkins, D., & Jaki, T. (2013). Differential effects of parental controls on adolescent substance use: For whom is the family most important? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(3), 347–368.
Fagan, A. A., Wright, E., & Pinchevsky, G. M. (2015a). A multi-level analysis of the impact of neighborhood structural and social factors on adolescent substance use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 153(1), 180–186.
Fagan, A. A., Wright, E. M., & Pinchevsky, G. M. (2015b). Exposure to violence, substance use, and neighborhood context. Social Science Research, 49, 314–326.
Gibson, C. L., Sullivan, C. J., Jones, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Does it take a village? Assessing neighborhood influences on children’s self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 31–62.
Hansell, S., & White, H. R. (1991). Adolescent drug use, psychological distress, and physical symptoms. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 288–301.
Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to delinquency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6, 73–97.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Hoffmann, J. P. (2002). The community context of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 314–330.
Hussong, A. M. (2002). Differentiating peer contexts and risk for adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, 207–220.
Jackson, A., Browning, C., Krivo, L., Kwan, M.-P., & Washington, H. (2016). The role of immigrant concentration within and beyond residential neighborhoods in adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(1), 17–34.
Jackson, N., Denny, S., & Ameratunga, S. (2014). Social and socio-demographic neighborhood effects on adolescent alcohol use: A systematic review of multi-level studies. Social Science and Medicine, 115, 10–20.
Jayasekara, H., English, D. R., Room, R., & MacInnis, R. J. (2014). Alcohol consumption over time and risk of death: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179, 1049–1059.
Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In L. E. Lynn & M. F. H. McGeary (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., Crago, R. V., & Theobald, D. (2014). The intersections of drug use continuity with nonviolent offending and involvement in violence over the life course: Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,. doi:10.1177/1541204014559524.
Leifheit, K. M., Parekh, J., Matson, P. A., Moulton, L. H., Ellen, J. M., & Jennings, J. M. (2015). Is the association between neighborhood drug prevalence and marijuana use independent of peer drug and alcohol norms? Results from a household survey of urban youth. Journal of Urban Health, 92(4), 773–783.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309–337.
Little, R., & Schenker, N. (1995). Missing data. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 39–76). New York: Plenum Press.
Lynskey, M., & Hall, W. (2000). The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: A review. Addiction, 95, 1621–1630.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
Mayberry, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. (2009). Multilevel modeling of direct effects and interactions of peers, parents, school, and community influences on adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1038–1049.
Miech, R. A., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2015). Monitoring the future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2014: Volume I, secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs.html#monographs.
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22.
Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2007). Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Musick, K., Seltzer, J. A., & Schwartz, C. R. (2008). Neighborhood norms and substance use among teens. Social Science Research, 37(1), 138–155.
Ohannessian, C. M. (2012). Parental problem drinking and adolescent psychosocial adjustment: The mediating role of adolescent-parent communication. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 498–511.
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.
Poorolajal, J., Haghtalab, T., Farhadi, M., & Darvishi, N. (2015). Substance use disorder and risk of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and suicide death: a meta-analysis. Journal of Public Health,. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv148.
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77–98.
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. London: Sage.
Raudenbush, S. W., Johnson, C., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). A multivariate, multilevel Rasch model with application to self-reported criminal behavior. Sociological Methodology, 33, 169–211.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1999). Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology, 29, 1–41.
Ritchwood, T. D., Ford, H., DeCoster, J., Sutton, M., & Lochman, J. E. (2015). Risky sexual behavior and substance use among adolescents: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 52, 74–88.
Royston, P. (2005). Multiple imputation of missing values: update. Stata Journal, 5(2), 188–201.
Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32, 777–804.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processs and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443–478.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95(2), 224–232.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.
Scheer, S. D., Borden, L. M., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000). The relationship between family factors and adolescent substance use in rural, suburban, and urban settings. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 105–115.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software]. http://quantpsy.org/.
Shoptaw, S., Montgomery, B., Williams, C. T., El-Bassel, N., Aramrattana, A., Metsch, L., et al. (2013). Not just the needle: The state of HIV-prevention science among substance users and future directions. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 63, S178–S184.
Snedker, K. A., Herting, J. R., & Walton, E. (2009). Contextual effects and adolescent substance use: Exploring the role of neighborhoods. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 1272–1297.
Sunder, P. K., Grady, J. J., & Wu, Z. H. (2007). Neighborhood and individual factors in marijuana and other illicit drug use in a sample of low-income women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 167–180.
Tapert, S. F., Granholm, E., Leedy, N. G., & Brown, S. A. (2002). Substance use and withdrawal: Neuropsychological functioning over 8 years in youth. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 873–883.
Thrash, C. R., & Warner, T. D. (2016). The geography of normative climates: An application to adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0444-z.
Urberg, K. A. (1992). Locus of peer influence: Social crowd and best friend. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 439–450.
Van Horn, M. L., Hawkins, J. D., Arthur, M. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2007). Assessing community effects on adolescent substance use and delinquency. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(8), 925–946.
Warner, T. (2016). Up in smoke: Neighborhood contexts of marijuana use from adolescence through young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(1), 35–53.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wikstrom, P.-O. H. (2004). Crime as alternative: Towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In J. McCord (Ed.), Beyond Empiricism (pp. 1–38). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Wright, E. M., Fagan, A. A., & Pinchevsky, G. M. (2014). Penny for your thoughts? The protective effect of youth’ attitudes against drug use in high-risk communities. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,. doi:10.1177/1541204014562074.
Zimmerman, G. M., & Vasquez, B. E. (2011). Decomposing the peer effect on adolescent substance use: Mediation, nonlinearity, and differential nonlinearity. Criminology, 49(4), 1235–1273.
Acknowledgments
This research uses data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, obtained from the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Author contributions
GMZ conceived of the study, participated in its design, conducted all statistical analyses, constructed the methods and results sections, and edited the introduction and discussion sections. CF participated in the design of the manuscript, drafted the introduction and discussion sections, and edited the methods and results sections. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors report no conflict of interests.
Ethical approval
The use of PHDCN data for this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Northeastern University.
Informed consent
No data identifiable to a person were collected by the researchers. Gregory M. Zimmerman is an Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. He received his doctorate in Criminal Justice from the University at Albany, SUNY. His research focuses on the interrelationships among individual and contextual causes of criminal offending. Chelsea Farrell is a Doctoral student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. Her research focuses on neighborhood effects, victimization, and gendered relationships in the etiology of offending.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Variable descriptions and summary statistics
Outcome measure (Wave 3) | |||
Substance use | |||
In the past 12 months, have you… | |||
… had a drink of beer, wine, wine coolers, or liquor? (n = 505; 30.8 %) | |||
… smoked cigarettes? (n = 321; 19.6 %) | |||
… used marijuana? (n = 261; 15.9 %) | |||
… used cocaine, crack, inhalants, psychedelics, heroin, amphetamines, barbiturates, or tranquilizers? (n = 38; 2.3 %) | |||
Note The items were taken from the Substance Use questionnaire at wave 3 of the study. The dichotomous items, which conformed to a unidimensional scale (α = .67), were incorporated into a scale of substance use, a latent variable representing each person’s propensity for substance use, in the first level of a multilevel item response model | |||
Focal independent variables | |||
Neighborhood opportunities for substance use (1994–1995 CS) | |||
How much of a problem is… | |||
…drinking in public [in your neighborhood]? | |||
… people selling or using drugs [in your neighborhood]? | |||
Mean = 3.7 | SD = 0.9 | Range 2.1–5.4 | r = .90 |
Note: Responses ranged from 1 (“Not a problem”) to 3 (“A big problem”). The measure is the sum of the highly correlated items. Higher values on the scale represent higher levels of substance use in the neighborhood. The standardized scale ranges from −1.87 to 1.99 | |||
Parental substance use (Wave 1) (n = 243; 14.8 %) | |||
Note: Youths’ primary caregivers were asked two filter questions in the wave 1 Family Mental Health and Legal History protocol: (1) Has drinking ever caused any of the people in your family to have problems with health, family, job, or police? (2) Has drug use ever caused any of the people in your family to have problems with health, family, job, or police? The measure of parental substance use was coded in the affirmative if the primary caregiver answered yes to at least one of these questions and indicated that the family member was the youth’s mother and/or father | |||
Peer substance use (Wave 2) | |||
In the previous 12 months, have any of your friends… | |||
… had a drink of beer, wine, wine coolers, or liquor? | |||
… smoked cigarettes? | |||
… used marijuana? | |||
Mean = 4.2 | SD = 1.8 | Range 3–12 | Reliability = .80 |
Note In the wave 2 deviance of peers questionnaire, respondents reported their friends’ substance-using behaviors on a scale from 1 (“None of them”) to 4 (“All of them”). Higher values represent higher levels of peer substance use. The standardized scale ranges from −.65 to 4.24 | |||
Perceived harm of substance use (Wave 2) | |||
Do you think a person would hurt themselves if they… | |||
… smoked one or more pack of cigarettes a day? | |||
… smoked marijuana regularly? | |||
… smoked marijuana now and then? | |||
… tried marijuana once or twice? | |||
… used inhalants regularly? | |||
… tried inhalants once or twice? | |||
… used heroin regularly? | |||
… tried heroin once or twice? | |||
… used cocaine regularly? | |||
… used cocaine now and then? | |||
… tried cocaine once or twice? | |||
… had one or two drinks of alcohol (i.e., beer, wine, or liquor) nearly every day? | |||
… had four or five drinks of alcohol nearly every day? | |||
… had five or more drinks of alcohol twice a week? | |||
Mean = 42.7 | SD = 6.9 | Range 14–56 | Reliability = .88 |
Note In the wave 2 Perceptions of Drug Risk instrument, respondents reported their perceptions of the harm of substance use on a scale from 1 (“Definitely no”) to 4 (“Definitely yes”). Higher values represent higher levels of perceived harm of substance use. The standardized scale ranges from −4.27 to 1.89 | |||
Control variables—demographic characteristics (Wave 1) | |||
Male (n = 836; 51.0 %) | |||
Age (Mean = 10.6; SD 1.5; Range 7.8–13.2) | |||
Race/ethnicity | |||
Hispanic (n = 755; 46.1 %) | |||
Black (n = 587; 35.8 %) | |||
White (reference) (n = 227; 13.9 %) | |||
Other (n = 70; 4.2 %) | |||
Immigrant generational status | |||
First (n = 195; 11.9 %) | |||
Second (n = 532; 32.5 %) | |||
Third or higher (reference) (n = 912; 55.6 %) | |||
Note These variables were taken from the wave 1 Master File, except for Immigrant Generational Status, which was constructed primarily from information in the wave 1 Demographic File | |||
Control variables—family background factors (Wave 1) | |||
Years at residence (Mean = 6.0; SD 6.7; Range .1–59) | |||
Household socioeconomic status (SES) (Mean = –.1; SD 1.4; Range –3.6–3.7) | |||
Note Household SES was constructed as the first principal component of (1) the maximum of the PC’s total annual personal income and the subject’s total annual household income; (2) the maximum of the PC’s education level and the PC’s partner’s education level; and (3) the maximum of the PC’s occupational status and the PC’s partner’s occupational status | |||
Number of siblings (Mean = 2.3; SD 1.7; Range 0–10) | |||
Family size (Mean = 5.4; SD 2.0; Range 2–14) | |||
Primary caregiver employed (n = 967; 59.0 %) | |||
Family structure | |||
Two parents, both biological (reference) (n = 780; 47.6 %) | |||
Two parents, one or both non-biological (n = 340; 20.7 %) | |||
One parent, biological (n = 462; 28.2 %) | |||
One parent, non-biological (n = 58; 3.5 %) | |||
Note The family-level variables were taken from the wave 1 Master File. | |||
Control variables—behavioral and cognitive factors | |||
Low self-control (Wave 1) | |||
Lack of inhibitory control | |||
Has trouble controlling impulses | |||
Usually cannot stand waiting | |||
Can tolerate frustration better than most (reverse-coded) | |||
Has trouble resisting temptation | |||
Finds self-control easy to learn (reverse-coded) | |||
Present-orientation | |||
Often says the first thing that comes into head | |||
Likes to plan things way ahead of time (reverse-coded) | |||
Often acts on the spur of the moment | |||
Always likes to make detailed plans before doing something (reverse-coded) | |||
Often has trouble making up mind (reverse-coded) | |||
Sensation seeking | |||
Feels happiest in familiar surroundings (reverse-coded) | |||
Generally seeks new and exciting experiences and sensations | |||
Will try anything once | |||
Sometimes does “crazy” things just to be different | |||
Tends to get bored easily | |||
Lack of Persistence | |||
Generally likes to see things through to the end (reverse-coded) | |||
Tends to give up easily | |||
Unfinished tasks really bother (reverse-coded) | |||
Once gets going on something hates to stop (reverse-coded) | |||
Tends to hop from one interest to another | |||
Mean = 2.7 | SD = .6 | Range 1.0–4.6 | Reliability = .75 |
Note These items were in the emotionality, activity, sociability, and impulsivity temperament survey, administered to respondents’ primary caregivers during the wave 1 interview. Item responses ranged from 1 (“Uncharacteristic”) to 5 (“Characteristic”). The measure is the average of the items | |||
Prior substance use (Wave 2) | |||
Have you ever… | |||
… had a drink of beer, wine, wine coolers, or liquor? | |||
… smoked cigarettes? | |||
… used marijuana? | |||
… used cocaine, crack, inhalants, psychedelics, heroin, methamphetamine, amphetamine, barbiturates, or tranquilizers? | |||
Mean = .4 | SD = .8 | Range 0–4 | Reliability = .65 |
Note These items were asked during the Substance Use questionnaire at wave 2 of the study. The measure is the count of the items | |||
Control variables—additional person-level covariates | |||
Age 17 at wave 3 (n = 175; 10.7 %) | |||
Moved between study waves (n = 617; 37.6 %) | |||
Unit-level missing data due to attrition across study waves (n = 474; 28.9 %) | |||
Item-level missing due to non-response (n = 227; 13.8 %) | |||
Control variables—1990 census neighborhood variables | |||
Concentrated disadvantage | |||
Percentage of families below the poverty line | |||
Percentage of households receiving public assistance | |||
Percentage of female-headed families with children | |||
Percentage of population unemployed | |||
Median household income in 1989 | |||
Mean = 0.0 | SD = 1.0 | Range –1.7 to 2.2 | |
Note The variables were combined using a weighted factor regression score (all loadings ≥ 0.83 using principal components analysis with oblique rotation) such that high levels reflect high levels of disadvantage | |||
Ethnic heterogeneity (Mean = 0.0; SD 1.0; Range –3.1 to 1.9) | |||
Note The standardized scale was constructed using Blau’s equation: 1 − ∑p 2 i , where p i is the proportion of the population in each racial/ethnic group (White, Black, Native American, Asian, Hispanic, Other). The resulting variable takes into account both the relative sizes of the groups and the number of groups in the population. Higher values reflect greater levels of heterogeneity | |||
Residential stability | |||
Percentage of residents living in the same house as 5 years earlier | |||
Percentage of owner-occupied homes | |||
Mean = 0.0 | SD = 1.0 | Range –1.7 to 2.2 | |
Note The items were summed and then standardized. The items were highly correlated across neighborhood clusters (r = .89, p < .001). Higher levels on the scale represent higher levels of residential stability in the neighborhood | |||
Control variables—1994/1995 community survey neighborhood variables | |||
Tolerance of substance use | |||
How wrong is it for teenagers around 13 years of age to… | |||
… smoke cigarettes? | |||
… use marijuana? | |||
… drink alcohol? | |||
How wrong is it for teenagers around 19 years of age to… | |||
… use marijuana? | |||
… drink alcohol? | |||
Mean = 0.0 | SD = 1.0 | Range –2.0 to 2.8 | Reliability = .89 |
Note Responses ranged from 1 (“Extremely wrong”) to 5 (“Not wrong at all”). The measure is the standardized sum of the items. Higher values on the scale represent higher levels of tolerance of substance use in the neighborhood | |||
Collective efficacy | |||
Shared expectations for social control | |||
How likely is it that people in your neighborhood would… | |||
… do something about kids skipping school? | |||
… do something about kids defacing a building? | |||
… scold a child for not showing respect? | |||
… break up a fight in front of their house? | |||
… organize to keep a local fire station? | |||
Social cohesion/trust | |||
This is a close-knit neighborhood | |||
People are willing to help their neighbors | |||
People in the neighborhood can be trusted | |||
People don’t get along (reverse-coded) | |||
People in the neighborhood do not share the same values (reverse-coded) | |||
Mean = 0.0 | SD = 1.0 | Range –1.9 to 2.5 | |
Note Responses on the shared expectations for social control scale ranged from 1 (“Very unlikely”) to 5 (“Very likely”). Responses on the social cohesion/trust scale ranged from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). Cronbach’s alpha for the shared expectations for social control scale was .78. Cronbach’s alpha for the social cohesion/trust scale was .78. The scales were strongly related across neighborhood clusters (r = 0.80) and constructed following accepted procedures (see Sampson et al. 1997) as follows: first, “don’t know” responses were recoded into the middle category of “neither agree nor disagree” or “neither likely nor unlikely.” Then, for respondents answering all ten questions, their responses were averaged. For respondents who answered at least one but not all of the questions, a linear item-response model was used to account for the number and difficulty of the answered items. The ecometric or aggregate-level reliability (see Raudenbush and Sampson 1999) of the collective efficacy scale was 0.85 | |||
Appendix 2
Sensitivity analysis regressing the disaggregated outcomes on cross-level interactions between neighborhood opportunities for substance use and parental substance use, peer substance use, and the perceived harm of substance use
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana | Alcohol | Tobacco | Marijuana | Illicit drug use |
Parental substance use | 1.36* | 1.29 | 1.46* | 1.27 | 1.00 |
×Neighborhood opportunities for substance use | 1.23† | 1.14 | 1.41* | 1.18 | 1.41 |
Peer substance use | 1.47*** | 1.60** | 1.46*** | 1.40*** | 1.42* |
×Neighborhood opportunities for substance use | 1.12** | 1.14* | 1.12† | 1.08 | 1.00 |
Perceived harm of substance use | .74* | .85* | .68** | .67*** | .77** |
×Neighborhood opportunities for substance use | 1.07† | 1.03† | 1.10† | 1.14† | 1.14† |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zimmerman, G.M., Farrell, C. Parents, Peers, Perceived Risk of Harm, and the Neighborhood: Contextualizing Key Influences on Adolescent Substance Use. J Youth Adolescence 46, 228–247 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0475-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0475-5