IMPACT OF ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE USE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM 34
Impactof Adolescent Substance Use in the United Kingdom
ChapterTwo: Literature Review
Historyand current state of adolescent substance use in the U.K 4
Substanceuse and adolescent mental health and wealth well- being in the U.K 6
Socialinfluence and substance use 9
Socialselection and Socialization 9
Thesocial context 10
Socialtheories influencing substance use 11
Theoryof reasoned action 12
Thesocial identity theory 12
Thesocial network theory 12
Thetheories influencing substance use 13
Methodologyand Findings 13
Theimpact of parental monitoring on adolescents 18
Researchand theories the impact of parental monitoring on adolescents 20
Analysison previous research 22
Riskand protective factors in young people’s substance use 23
Impactof Adolescent Substance Use in the United Kingdom
Adolescent’sstage is a development stage where children are beginning at a phaseof maturity that includes physiological and mental development. Theadolescents phase has three stages starting with the early, middleand ending with the late phase. Hoffman, Sussman, Unger and Valente(2006) opine that the need for adolescents to identify with theirpeers at any of the three stages manifests itself differently amongindividuals. However, Simons-Morton and Chen (2006) note that peerpressure plays major roles in adolescents where there is a need torelate with their peers to obtain a sense of recognition andself-esteem. The rate of substance abuse in this stage exponentiallyrises, and the effects are quite dramatic. Due to the level ofcuriosity observed in adolescents, the rate of experimenting withvarious things in society is rampant.
Forinstance, Alexander et al. (2001) notes that in most countries it iscommon for adolescents to roll up used newspapers into some form ofcigarette sticks. The teens then smoke to get a feel of the habit.Further, the behavior ultimately leads to the use of the truecigarette. In the United Kingdom, the availability of varioussubstances leads to the indulgence or substance use and abusestarting at tender ages. Availability of substances is common withinlocalities. The substances include alcohol, tobacco and illegalsubstances such as heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, LSD, and variousintoxicating substances. There is a dramatic increase in substanceuse starting with the experimental phase.
However,Rise et al. (2008) hold the opinion that not all experiments end incontinued use of the substances. Cases of habituation have recentlybeen rampant in some cases reporting the death of adolescents intheir late stages due to substance use and abuse. Social factors invarious localities have led to the consistent integration ofadolescents into substance use. Influence and mostly peer pressurehave a major causative factor leading to the indulgence ofsubstances. The correlation between peer pressure and substance usein adolescents is therefore not surprising.
Thepaper will systematically review the impacts of peer pressure onadolescent substance abuse and behaviors due to substance use in theUnited Kingdom. The key factors influencing substance use will alsobe reviewed. The research will also include random interviews fromadolescents concerning their knowledge of peer pressure and theirrates of indulgence and how parental influence affects the rate ofindulgence.
ChapterTwo: Literature review
Historyand current state of adolescent substance use in the UK
Accordingto Grant et al. (2001), substance use in the United Kingdom amongadolescents has been an issue for the authorities. Cases of underageindulgence in substance use are rampant. Parker, Williams andAldridge (2002) note there is a high rate of using alcohol, marijuanaand pharmaceuticals such as LSD, crystal meth, and codeine.Statistically, the National Health Service records that 11 to15-year-old children have engaged in substance abuse. According toCorkery (2002) up to 29% of the adolescents in the United Kingdomhave used substances although indulgence rates have fallen by 12percent from the year 2001 to the year 2011.
Thenumber of adolescents engaging in alcoholic substances in the UnitedKingdom also fell by 13 percent. Due to the intervention of theauthorities, the number of adolescents engaging in substance use fellfrom 21,955 in the year 2014 to 20,688. The reduction in numbers hasoccurred since most adolescents experimenting with the substanceshave sought for intervention before habituation become irreversible.For instance, relatively fewer adolescent people are seeking therapyservices due to primary alcoholism. The number of cases in Englandand Scotland dropped from 7,053 in the 2014 to 5,883 in 2015. Thenumber of adolescents engaging in the use of Class A substances hasalso dropped. Adolescents experimenting and finally getting hookedto heroin has reduced from 320 in the year 2014 to 210 in the year2015. Substance use among pre-teens in the early adolescents` stageis lower. Further, there are cases of Class ‘A` substance use suchas heroin, cocaine and amphetamines such as ecstasy. However, themost common substances used or experimented with at the earlyadolescent stage in the United Kingdom primarily include alcohol andcigarettes. Before the banning of khat in the country, most userswere adolescents in their late stages but belong to particularmigrant communities.
Withregards to cigarette smoking and tobacco use In England, substanceuse stands at 20 percent for boys and 28 percent for girls. InScotland, the figures are slightly lower for 16 and 23 percent boysand girls respectively. In Wales, 16 percent of boys use substanceswhile 27 percent of girls use substances. According to Von Sydow etal. (2002) the average ages of initiation into substance use amongadolescents stand at 11.5 years of age. Alcohol substance usecurrently holds the record together with tobacco as the most usedsubstances within the United Kingdom.
Bernsteinet al. 2014 notes the availability of a social context that eases theinitiation of adolescents into underage drinking is common. Studiespreviously conducted note that a percentage of adolescents in theUnited Kingdom have used or experimented with substances either onceor twice during their lifetime. Williams, Holmbeck and Greenley(2002) note that habituation has also led to the use of alcoholicsubstances with individuals using the substances regularly up to 5times in a week. High prevalence rates of usage have been noted inWales where 57 percent of boys and 53% of girls showing the constantuse of the substance. Gender difference in Scotland is notsignificant as compared to the rest of the countries in the kingdom.
Substanceuse and adolescents’ mental health and well-being in UK
Accordingto Miles et al. (2014) the sample groups used in the study rangedfrom 13 to 15 years of age. Substance and the mental health ofadolescents have been linked. Tobacco use or smoking, alcohol use andthe use of marijuana have led to the development of psychiatriccases. The occurrence of a disorder due to substance use is due tothe frequency of usage. The higher the number of times a substance isused, the high the chance an individual has of developing mentalhealth problems. The use of a single substance has almost always ledto the use of other substances. Interactions between alcohol use,smoking and marijuana shows that alcohol and cigarette use have lesspsychiatric disorders as compared to constant marijuana usage. Volkowet al. (2014)
Regularuse of alcohol also indicates a high risk of adolescents developingmental health disorders. However, single use of or single experimentwith the above substances shows no cause for the development or anyeffect on the individual`s mental well-being. People with mentalhealth depressive disorders are much likely to regular substanceusers with probabilities values of five times.
Bogtet al. (2014) notes that previously, studies conducted show thatsmoking causes defective disorders among adults if they start useduring their adolescents` stage. The use of tobacco and dependence onother substances led to the development of anxiety disorders andultimately psychosis in adolescents. There is a link between thedependence of an individual on nicotine and a majority of psychiatricdisorders in the adolescents` stage.
Depressivemental health disorders and other non-emotional disorders associatedwith the constant use of marijuana among adolescents notably leads toa greater risk of developing the disorders. Similarly, researchfindings by Fontes et al. (2001) in adolescents of various peergroups show a relation between early marijuana use before the age offifteen years and the subsequent risk of developing a number ofmental health disorders and behaviors. The adolescents engaging inthe regular substance use such as psychoactive drugs are mostly usersof licit or illicit substances. There is further a challenge whiletrying to ascertain the combination of substance that leads to thedevelopment of mental health disorder among adolescents.
Boyset al. (2003) notes the dependency and usage of a single or multiplesubstances may result in anxiety and other mental health disorders.Studies show that individuals dependent on tobacco, alcohol or Class‘A` substance were likely to be diagnosed with psychiatricproblems. Further, use of Class ‘A` substance or illicit drugsshows that the development of the problems is as compared to the useof tobacco and alcohol. The use of legal and licit substancesquadruples the risk of developing mental health problems since thesubstance is available at ease.
Wileset al. 2006 note that substance use and its correlation to mentalhealth can be examined based on the combinations of varioussubstances and the social contexts in which interaction occurs. Theregular substance use of tobacco and the respondents using allsubstances are at risk of developing psychiatric disorders. Further,regular use of tobacco combined with regular drinking of alcoholicsubstances or marijuana shows a risk of increasing the occurrence ofmental health disorders. However, not all disorders may occur.Secondly, the use of substances in Class ‘A` such as cocaine andheroin show lead to the development of mental health problems if theuser fails to undergo therapeutic care.
Kandel(2002) further notes that regular use of the illegal substances withor without the combination with other substances shows a greater riskof development of disorders that are irreversible depending on thelevel of usage among the adolescents. Regular use of tobacco combinedwith regular use of marijuana shows a high-risk rate as compared tothe use of alcohol. Consistency in the links between tobacco use andvarious mental health diagnoses in show how strongly the use of thesubstance affects the adolescents` mental health and well-being inUnited Kingdom.
However,it is important to note that further study should be carried out toevaluate the link between mental health disorder and the genetictraits that make some individuals more prone to developing mentalhealth disorders as compared to other adolescent individuals. According to Tims et al. (2002) demographics are a factor thatinfluences the occurrence of mental health. Female respondents in thestudy showed they were less likely to be alcoholic substance usersand marijuana users as compared to their male adolescent peers inEngland. Adolescents from affluent families are most likely to beregular substance users of alcohol. However, there is a reduction inthe use of tobacco.
Consumptionof alcoholic substances under parental supervision during meal timesis common in social contexts of affluent families. The above factorexplains the high prevalence rates of regular alcohol intake byadolescents in higher incomes families. However, Hanson and Chen(2007) note there is use of cigarettes and marijuana occurs to anextent in positive family contexts. Adolescents living in socialwelfare accommodations are less likely develop alcohol use habits ascompared to their peers who live in private homes. Tobacco substanceuse decreased significantly with an increase in the gross income of ahousehold. However, in the greater United Kingdom, girls in theiradolescent stage show a tendency towards the use of tobacco ascompared to boys within the same age bracket. Substance use increaseswith increase in age of the adolescent.
Socialinfluence and substance use
Accordingto Galea, Nandi and Vlahov (2004), social influence manifests itselfas the peer effect that other individuals have on another person orgroup of people. The social influences also determine the type ofbehavior that an individual is likely to portray. The influences on alarge scale effect clearly show a correlation between substance usersexerted through social networking, and a need to fit into a certainorder the peer pressure effect. The norms in a given society are theacceptable patterns of beliefs, behaviors and attitudes that shapethe day to day interaction of each person in the society. Humandevelopment is notably a slow process that occurs through thedomestic front, at home. Social development also occurs in school,via religious channels and the larger community. Bandura (2001)
Socialselection and Socialization
Collectivelythe effects of the interaction between the various institutions inthe society lead to the development of social norms. In a givensociety, it is possible to correlate social constructs with the normsand finally, substance use. Selective association and socializationmay or may not breed channels for the use of substances in society.However, Steinberg and Morris (2001) note that there is a strongrelation between individuality and peer influence overlooking theindividual. While socialization may not necessarily breedhabituation, it creates a particular set of norms that eachinvoluntarily adheres and conforms. On the other hand, selectioncreates a tendency for each person to have the urge or seek the needto relate with individuals govern by a particular set of beliefs ornorms. Slomkowski et al. (2005)
Theaspect of social context refers to the availability of chance tointeract. The social context determines the extent, nature andbreadth of personal to person interactions leading to the influenceon societal norms. Valente, Gallaher and Mouttapa (2004) opine thathuman beings are social creatures residing in families found inlocalities bound to a religious organization, attend work and school.The human being also relates with other human beings via socialenterprise and welfare hence determining the social context. Notably,human beings are social creatures, and their proximal naturedetermines the rate of influence they exert on fellow human beings. Further, Valente et al. (2004) also note that various experiences andknowledge amassed over a certain period aids in shaping humanunderstanding with respect to what is termed as acceptable behaviorand norm how we relate to various social relation elements. Thecontext shapes the outcome of a social interaction and ultimately theresultant habit.
Socialnetworking creates ties between people and further, groups. Ennett etal. (2006) notes the extent of social networks occurs through theschool, religion, family and finally parental aspects. People getconnected to a certain type of manner and information that is fromvarious channels. It is prudent to note that a person is who they arebecause of the multiple interactions made over certain number ofyears. According to Molina and Pelham (2003) the frequency ofexposure to certain information or mannerisms may ultimately lead tohabituation. The need to belong to a certain group or order due tothe social creature aspect leads to the creation of a vacuum pulleffect. The effect leads to an aspect of attracting more individualsto indulge in similar practices to create a sense of fulfillment.
Goldstein,Davis-Kean and Eccles (2005) opine that Socialcontexts peg a certain importance on influence during the adolescencephase. Peer influence necessitates the need to be part of a group orclique. Peers feel the need to partake in a certain activity such assports or drugs due to the benefits such as acceptance, identity, andconformity. However, due to the rebellious nature of peers during theadolescents` stage, there is a common attraction towards substanceuse. Membership in a clique or group due to commonly shared behaviorsand attitudes are a common causative factor leading to us ofsubstances such as cocaine, LSD, bhang, alcohol, and tobacco.
Adolescent peer groups are mostly affected by the above factor.Substance use occurs mainly where groups and friends agree leading tohomogeneity. Peer pressure levels mount as the adolescent stages movefrom the early to the late stages. The rate of susceptibilityincreases with differences in gender, race and social class.
Accordingto Rimal and Real (2003), adolescents may experience a myriad ofsocial influences that show a correlation between substance use thatoccur as a result of social context and interactions. The frequencyof exposure to a substance may lead to habituation where theindividual becomes dependent on the substance at a very early stage.The strength of varying social influences depends on the level ofproximity and the rate of contact with an adolescent and his or herpeers. The closer the influence circle is, the easier the adolescentis to pick up habits from people they interact with. Parental andfamily influence is particularly an important factor that willinfluence if an adolescent will indulge in substance use.
Socialtheories influencing substance use
Hypothetically,social influences contribute to substance use in adolescents.However, reliance cannot be based on a single theory to give insightor understanding into the cause of indulgence. However, it ispossible to note the factors and pathways that lead to substance useamong adolescents. Hypothetically relating substance use inadolescents using social and relational theories may be useful. However, Macrae and Bodenhausen (2000) note that there is a need tonote the significance of social standards in the major theoriesessentially used to structure studies and explain the results of peergroup influence and indulgence. A major theory, the Social cognitivetheory places greater emphasis on the significance of socialrepresentations and the expectations about social norms that occurdue to experiential and observational. Bandura (2001)
Theoryof reasoned action
Accordingto Albarracin (2001), the theory of reasoned action places emphasison the significance of social standards on intention with respect tobehavior. First-degree socialization and social connection theoriesopine that peer groups among adolescents increase rapidly in due tolack of social bonds within the nuclear- family and educationalfronts.
Thesocial identity theory
Findingsaccording to Hogg (2006) on the Social identity theory note thatindividuals in the adolescence stage undergo an identity crisis.Therefore, the need to test out a number of identities and acquiringnorms central to the social identity of a given peer clique or groupbecomes a priority to these individuals.
Thefactors central to the social image of the group are essential inensuring that the image is maintained. Further, the social exchangetheory argues that group memberships and friendship circles requirereciprocity hence the members develop behaviors leading toconformity. However, it is important to note that relationship inpeer groups especially among adolescents are based on thereciprocity.
Thesocial network theory
Accordingto Borgatti et al. (2009), the Social network theory opines thatstandards are developed and affected by the shared information amongmembers of a given social structure. Peer influence may further be asa form of social marketing where the cohort feels a sense of benefit.The level of persuasion need not be intense since the individualseeks acceptance from the group.
Thetheories that influence substance use
Inthe case of substance use, the aspect of rebellion plays a majorrole, and the adolescents indulge voluntarily. Golub, Johnson andDunlap (2005) note that theories show a relation between individualuse and finally, use among members of a given group. They opine thatclose relationships offer the basis for social influence. Carey(2008) notes the entry of the media and other cultural aspectsprovide a significant but secondary persuasion leading to influences.Close relationships are significant due to persistence they offerwith respect to emotional contact. People often interact, spendingtime in close relationships. The time people spend together leads toa high rate of influence, an opportunity that could see substance useoccur.
Thesocial theories recognize that individuals in the adolescents’stage develop opinions concerning social standards derived from theinformation that is shared. It is prudent to note that socialinfluence is explicit based on the opinion of many social theorists. Peer influence or peer pressure offers a degree of homogeneity withrespect to substance use.
Substanceuse varies with the level of peer pressure. Therefore, it isessential to ask, to what extent does peer group substance usepredict adolescent substance use.
Adolescentsthat are members or groups are affected by peer pressure. The membersusually share characteristics with respect to substance use. There isa high rate of experimenting with tobacco, which could be to as peergroup homogeneity. It is evident that there is an association betweenpeer pressure and substance use.
Arseneaultet al (2002), notes that variousmethods have been used to study the effects of substance use invarious societies and nations. However, the findings and analysishave showed that substance use is an occurrence due to peer pressureand social contexts.
Isit essential to inquire whether peer pressure influences adolescentsubstance use in the United Kingdom? The variation between peerpressures on adolescents substance use has been noted through the useof demographic characteristics. The variations due to genderdifferences are significant in two out of the three countries in theUnited Kingdom, but rates show that girls are more prone to substanceuse than boys. According to Sussman, Skara and Ames (2008) the rateof interaction of girls with their peers is high as compared to boysat ages of 11 to 14 years. Psychologically, girls show much curiosityin their adolescent stages than boys. Progressive substance use inpeer groups 12–13 years and 13-14-year-old is noted. However, inthe 11–12 peer groups, substance use is notably lower. Further, theearly adolescent 11-year-old peer groups in the 6th grade interactingwith friends engaging in substance use were most likely to experimentwith the substance and ultimately develop habits. The findings of thereport vary with location and age is sample group.
Peerpressure influence varies from individual to individual and isdependent on genetics that provide traits that show a correlationbetween substance use and exposure in relationships. Social bondingis a key factor in the social context that determines the rate atwhich an individual may be exposed to the substance and whether theymay develop a dependency to the drug. Matthews(2004), opines that peer substance use and future use leads to thedevelopment of different behaviors due to the effects of the varioussubstance on the mental health and general health of the user.However, it is prudent to note that despite having correlated peerinfluence and substance use in adolescents, it is important to carryout empirical studies concerning the same topic. There are conflictsarising from the influences of parents on adolescents vis-à-visinfluence from their fellow peers. Grootboom(2007)
Incases of adolescent substance use, it is easier to inquire to whomthe individual responds. The adolescent stage is characterized byperiods of rebellion towards parental authority while the adolescentveers more towards action based on peer influence. There are keyareas in which the parental influence is great as compared to otherpeople in the individuals` life. However, influence may shift frompeer pressure to the parents if the authority asserted is not strongenough to check the behavior of the adolescent. According to McArdleet al. (2002), parents who are users of psychoactive substances suchas sedatives, tobacco, tranquilizers, stimulants and barbiturates andalcohol and tobacco influence the development of substance use traitsin their adolescent children.
Forinstance, most substance users sampled and found to have usedmarijuana claimed to have done so due to the influence or habit apedfrom their parents. The behavior of parents engaging in alcoholicsubstances showed a correlation of up to 16 percent use of marijuanain their adolescent children compared to 37 percent of indulgence inalcoholic substances.
However,Ledoux et al. (2002) opine that parental use of substances such astobacco and wine shows a lack of a link to adolescent substance use.The use of marijuana in adolescents escalated when their closefriends also used the substance despite the fact that their parentsdid not use the substance. However, the number of adolescents usingthe above substance stood at 22 percent when one of the parents usedalcoholic substances such as spirits. However, a drastic increase isnoted by up to 48 percent when both close friends and parents use thesubstances. When adolescents are influenced by parents concerningtheir educational choices, it is noted that peer influence had agreater effect on the aspirations of the individual.
Accordingto Jefferis, Power and Manor (2005) the above aspect shows that peerinfluence has an effect on the rate of indulgence in substance use.However, parental influence could override the influence of peer whenauthority is exerted. Social issues such as family life and otherhabits such as alcohol consumption and substance use are influentialin any societal context. However, the rate of parental influencedepends on the early, middle or late adolescent stages. Recent use ofmarijuana by adolescents in the early phase is not linked to peerinfluence. The influence manifests itself as the adolescentprogresses in age. Various other aspects affect the use of substancesamong adolescents. With respect to peer socialization, and peerselection. Various processes lead to the increment in peer pressureleading to the development of a homogeneous behavior as a result ofselection and socialization. Socialization is the tendency forbehavior and attitudes of an individual to be affected by the actualperceptions towards behavior and attitudes.
Peersocialization is termed as the effect of social relations on thedevelopment of social standards. According Hartup (2005) thatsocialization affects the formation of relationships based on sharedtraits. The adolescent feels the need to seek acceptance when he orshe conforms to the behavior or characters portrayed by a givengroup. The adolescent then adopts the behaviors and attitudes thepeer group. Overtly portrayed, peer socialization may be perceived aspeer pressure leading to change in the behavior and attitudes adoptedfrom perceived group norms.
Accordingto Prinstein, Brechwald and Cohen (2011) adolescent substance use isfacilitated by socializing. Socializing may also lead to a reductionin the use of substances. Peer pressure may be represented as peersocialization a phenomenon where adolescent individuals persuadetheir friends to engage in an activity so that they conform to a typeof behavior. However, it is important to note that peer pressure is asingle aspect of peer socialization. Evidently, adolescents persuadeand offer their peers and friends tobacco products, alcoholicsubstances, and other available substances.
Cigarettesmoking or tobacco use is, however, rampant among adolescents andinitiation of the use of the substance occurs mostly during theadolescent stage. According to Gilpin (2007) the majority of surveysconducted note that youthful respondents and adolescents do notattribute substance use with respect to tobacco to peer pressure.However, due to the availability of information via marketing, socialinfluence from family, the individuals feel a need to indulge due tointernal pressure when other adolescents are present. The aboveprocess occurs when the individuals feel a need to portray a sense ofcontrol over the matter in their social context. Adolescents’perception to substance use among fellow adolescents is higher thanactual figures from studies report.
Theprevalence of substance use is notably high due to several factors.Adolescents are affected by many psychological aspects during theirdevelopmental phases. According to Tommasello(2004) that individuals may then project substance use behaviors toother peers and ultimately creating a non-factual value of prevalencerates of substance use. Further, adolescents tend to develop falseconsensus concerning an individuals’ behavior and attitudes beingnormative when the opposite is true. Overall, the aspect of peersocialization happens mainly through indirect influence from actualto perceived social standards.
Despitethe overt and direct pressure, there is a significant lack of enoughempirical data that may be used as proof of how direct or indirectsocialization influence is important. Peer selection unlike peersocialization occurs when the individual conforms to a peer groups`standards. Fite, Colder and O`Connor (2006) note that selectionoccurs via seeking of affiliation to a group with common attributes.When the individual seeks affiliation with a peer or close friends,the common behaviors, traits and attitudes are adopted successively.Peer selection also includes the processes of de-selection.De-selection may occur when a member of a group begins experimentingwith substances, and other members may either conform to the habit orfrom drop out of the group.
However,in most peer groups, experimenting leads to the use of the substanceby other individuals since the member may not want to riskdisapproval from his or her peer through dissonance. Zuckerman andKuhlman (2000) note that dissonance works best to persuade theadolescent individual towards conforming to the new norms henceincreasing the rate at whole adolescents engage in substance use. Selection processes may be internal or abstract when an individualaffiliates with his peers by identifying with what they represent orwhat they are, rather than basing affiliation on observable traitsand behaviors. For instance, adolescents may choose to identify withcertain social aspects such as musical preferences or interests ofcertain groups.
Moshman(2005) notes that seeking identity within certain confines ischaracteristic of all individuals in their adolescents phase. Actualaffiliation is an aspect of the social selection process and occurswithin the limits of a given social network. Adolescents tend togravitate towards peers or people and groups with shared interests.The gravitation helps in providing the basis for the development andpropagation of their views and interests. For instance, adolescentsattracted to substances such tobacco may socially select peers withsimilar interests in the use of the substance of choice.
Theimpact of parental monitoring on adolescents
Wrightand Cullen (2001) opine that the impact of parental monitoring andinfluence of adolescents may be insignificant as compared to peerpressure. Various theories opine that parental monitoring and theeffects of substance use are small when peer influence is accountedfor. However, it is essential to note the importance of resolving thesocial findings and forces that affect and lead to the development ofadolescent substance use. According to Petrie, Bunn and Byrne (2007)the majority of drug and substance use prevention programs in manyschools focus solely on the peer influence. The study carried out onthe impacts of substance use also aims to analyze the theories andcharacteristics that affect a family unit and ultimately lead to theuse of substances in adolescents.
Further,previous research has been extensively analyzed and it findingsevaluated properly to not the risk of adolescent substance use andfamily causative factors. In this chapter, the study will evaluatefamily values and the effects of peer influence on family values.Secondly, the study will explore the direct and indirect effects dueto usage. The evaluation assists in the creation of estimates on howfamily traits may be affected by peer pressure. Theories that areessential to the above evaluation include the Social Learning Theory,the differential association theory and the Social Control Theory.
Thesocial learning theory opines that peer and family relations areessential in mapping the causes of adolescent substance use. This isessential since values are primarily learned and inculcated in thefamily setup. According to the theory, a person learns to usesubstances in small doses and through the context of informalgatherings. The intimate settings offered by the informality of thesmall groups that people are affiliated to lead to substance use viaimitation, learning, and reinforcement. Learning the ways of thegroup leads to the development of attitudes favorable or not withregards to substance use. Families with a high familiarity ofalcoholic substances may influence the behavior of their adolescentchildren towards the use of substances. Similarly, if the peers usealcoholic substances, the adolescents are most likely to acquirepositive reinforcement from their peers for using the drug. Themajority of the theorists aligned to the social learning theoriesfocus mostly on peers due to the significance peer pressure has onadolescents` lives. The need for an adolescent to be viewed asmature and in control of their life away from parental influence isalso significant and party to the social learning theory. Theadolescent then tries to engage in behaviors in order to developsimilar traits to an adult. In order to achieve the autonomy fromparental control, adolescent individuals seek the company of peerswhere the adolescent has no pressure to agree to parental influence.
Researchand theories the impact of parental monitoring on adolescents
Learningoccurs with respect to the differential association theory occurs ina context where it is affected by the frequency, intensity, durationand priority of social relations. Due to traits of the adolescentstage, there is a high tendency towards the acquisition of attitudesthat favor substance use. Frequent association with peers or peoplewho use substances leads to the formation of a supportive attitudetowards drug use. The occurrence of the interaction over long periodsleads to the internalization of pro-drug behaviors and attitude ascompared to interaction over short periods. The intensity ofinteractions occurs in primary setups such as peer groups orfamilies. Adolescents are twice likely to ape and listen toindividuals they admire. Peer interactions are almost always powerfuldue to the frequency and intensity of influence. The highprioritization on the social matter by youths makes the family unit asignificant channel that could lead to the learning and adoption ofsubstance use. A family is the primary social unit that manyindividuals belong and conform to since it is a significant unit thatforms the basis for intense and frequent interactions.
TheSocial Control Theory further supports adolescent substance use tothe nature of adolescents. According to Lynch (2002) the theoryopines that deviance among adolescent individuals is normal. Further,conformity to an aspect deemed favorable is expected rather thandeviated from. The theory clearly opines that all adolescentsimpulsively develop deviant attitudes and act in a manner supportiveof the attitudes. However, the presence of pro-social authority dueto the presence of a family and parental structures lead to thenon-conformity towards the behavior. Adolescent substance useaccording social control theorists may fail to occur when adolescentswith close relations to their parents are obliged to behave innon-deviant manner hence pleasing their parents.
Inthis instance, the individuals are likely to refrain from substanceuse if the parents of a guardian are opposed to such behavior.Increasing the distance or absence of parents from the adolescentslife such a boarding school, there is an overall lack of constraintand the need conform to the parental desires. Similarly, themonitoring of adolescent behavior by parents may lead to thesubstance use among the adolescents due to rebellion. Excessivemonitoring in adolescents leads to the feeling of constraint andcause the individual to exhibit pro-social behaviors. However, lackof monitoring leads to a sense of false autonomy over parentalauthority, and the adolescents are left to choose what behaviors theycan conform to. The lack of monitoring leads to the experimenting ofsubstances such as alcohol, tobacco, and illegal substances. It isessential to note that the basis of constraint due to parentalinfluence may not deter substance use, but it helps in preventingusage and ultimately usage if the frequency is reduced and guidanceprovided.
Recently,research findings regarding the effects of peer selection and peersocialization with respect to substance use show that selection andsocialization can occur separately. However, the two aspects mayinteract. Previously, research findings opine that some studies havesupported selection while some have supported socialization. Further,there are some that have supported both aspects with respect toadolescent substance use. However, it is important to note that thereare considerable arguments concerning the importance of the aboveprocesses. An analysis of the latest findings concerning substanceuse among the adolescents in the United Kingdom shows that variablemethods yield near different findings. It is also important to notethat not all findings were included in the past reviews.
Analysison previous research
Haynieand Osgood (2005) note that a total of 13 papers were reviewed withsome of the papers posing unique analysis of different and separatequestions derived from similar data. Seven of the 13 papers made useof structural equations, the latent growth modeling, and the generallinear equation. Two papers made use of the cross-lagged andauto-regressive analysis to analyze adolescent substance use due topeer pressure in annually relationships. Four papers further employedthe use of social networking methods to acquire data. The abovemethods have since proven useful in sorting and analyzing the effectsof selection and socialization.
Allstudies examined adolescent substance use with most papers basingtype of substance on tobacco and alcoholism. Distinctive results,with an exception to the study carried by Wills and Cleary (2001)shows that tobacco use or smoking as a substance makes use of thecomposite score. Evidently, there is a link between peersocialization and peer selection based on linear relationshipsbetween peer pressure and adolescent substance use. Peer groupsmoking leads to the increment of adolescent smoking cases over timewith respect to socialization. On the other hand, adolescentsubstance use predicatively leads to habituation that ischaracteristic of selection. However, the perception of adolescentson substances such as tobacco is a negative perception of the aboveselective opinion.
Theadolescents view substance use with respect to smoking as a form ofsocialization among peers. The study conducted by Wills and Cleary(2001) pegs socialization as the major causative factor of substanceuse while ignoring the other aspect of selection when the adolescentengages in multiple substance use. However, other research findingsnote that selection progressively enhances substance use. However,Demir and Urberg (2004) notably correlates the effects of both peersocialization and peer selection on tobacco and alcoholic substances.Studies making use of autoregressive analysis show a cross-laggedrelation between peer substance uses during the adolescence phase.
Bothstudies found evidence of reciprocal effects of socialization andselection. Harden and Tucker-Drob (2011) evidently notes that peerselection and peer socialization affects the use of tobaccosubstances increases with selection. Studies conducted bySimons-Morton and Chen (2006) opine that selection consistently leadsto increased substance use and ultimately abuse. The studies makinguse of social networks for data collection noted the effects ofsocialization. Three of the four studies analyzed evidently linksselection to the use of substances.
Riskand protective factors in young people’s substance use
Therisk and protective factors in young people’s substance Use varywith differences in rates of substances used from early school-attending students and leavers. Past studies explore numerousfactors that may be grouped into five domains:
Theyinclude the personal traits and attitudes of the person the homeenviron and the parental factors various factors with respect to theeducation or school attended substance use within various peergroups and finally the type of neighborhood in which the individualresides. Over sixty potential factors analyzed showed as statisticalsignificance and ultimately a major effect on substance use. Variousfindings significant to the risk and protective factors occur asfollows: the age of the young person had a minor influence on therate of substance use. However, an exception in past studies has beengiven with respect alcoholic substances.
Theexception occurs due to the increment in rates of alcohol use with anincrease in the age. Other studies have found no significant factorswith respect to gender. Ethnicity is a factor to be considered inalcohol and marijuana consumption among school leavers. Thedifferences between the use of various substances such as cigarettescorrelate with the use of alcoholic substances and marijuana. Singleuse of alcohol predicts the use of tobacco while the use of marijuanashows a strong effect on the prevalence of using other drugs. With anexception to marijuana usage, the use of other substances givessimilar effects to differing contexts. Challier et al. (2000)
Factorsaffecting or leading to substance use in a young person underparental authority has led to the involvement and combination of thefirst order- protective factors. The factors affect varioussubstance classes. School-attending adolescents with parentalconcern exhibit a reduction in the likelihood of using alcoholicsubstances and other drugs. The parental influence shows littleeffect on the use of tobacco.
Accordingto Beyers et al. (2004) the risk and protection factors for substanceuse by parents or other family members portray specific effects. Therisk factor increases for any young person using any substances. Forinstance, tobacco use by a family member leads to the development ofthe habit of young people. The same pathway is similar to alcoholsubstances and other substances such as marijuana. In schoolattending people, the effects of substance use are weaker than thestudents who have left school early. According to Cleveland et al.(2008) a positive relation between a student and teachers or a goodexperience in school ultimately has a significant effect on reducingthe rate of indulgence in substances such as marijuana, alcohol, andother substances. However, tobacco substances are not affected by theabove relationships. In early school leavers, substance use can alsonot be traced to the lack of, or presence of good relationshipsbetween students and teachers.
Thecorrelation between the aspects of an educational experience andsubstance use is likely to include the reciprocal effects. Accordingto Bryant et al. (2000) Students with a satisfactory and positiveexperience in school are less likely to indulge in substance use. Thestudents who avoid substance use have more fulfilling relations withtheir teacher and fellow students. There is homogeneity in therelationship between the absence of positive experiences and theindulgence in substance use. Past studies mainly base their findingsand hypothetical questions on the lack of good relations with teacherand family. The close relationship existing between school-leaversand substance use has formed the basis for past research work.Previously, according to past studies, the reduction in the use ofmarijuana and other related substances occurs via counseling.
Geldardand Geldard (2009), note that counseling to ensure the emotionalneeds experienced by adolescents attending educational centers andprone to alcoholic substance use is essential. However, it issurprising to find the number of substance use in various classes andinformation concerning sessions helpful to parents is associated witha lowered risk of tobacco use. The rate of peer pressure and theconsistence of use of substances in peer groups repeatedly presentrisk factors in all the models used. Therefore, it is essential tonote that peers are assessed only with respect to the use ofsubstances and the resultant behaviors. This implicitly shows thatpeers may only be persuaded into negative influences.
Theongoing studies concerning the impacts of substance use amongadolescents is based on the strength of peer pressure and familyinfluence on the individual. The prevention of substance use via theuse of drug and substance prevention programs is important. Further,it is essential to correlate the factors that influence peer pressureand peer socialization with respect to increasing the rate ofsubstance use. Evidently, there is an overestimation of peer pressureand its effects. One of the main aims of this study is to address therelation between adolescent use and family influence. The analysis ofvariables affecting the various substance classes shows thatbehaviors and attitudes emanating from peer substance use is mainlyfamily oriented. The effects of family values and variable havesignificantly showed the rate of the effect of parental substance useand the development of the similar habits in the adolescent children.Data clearly shows that peer influences have a significant effect onthe prevalence rates of adolescent substance use.
Cumulatively,the impact of peer pressure on the rate of adolescent substance useis immense. Data obtained from the analysis of social control andsocial learning with respect to the use explains the factors thatlead to the development of substance use among adolescents. Despitethe attachment of some adolescents t their parents, it is importantto note that some substances such as marijuana and tobacco do notconform to the above pattern. The strength of peer pressure on thedevelopment of substance use and ultimately habituation issignificant. The type of peer group may hinder or influence theformation of dependency to substances.
Albarracin,D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A. (2001).Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condomuse: a meta-analysis. Psychologicalbulletin, 127(1),142.
Alexander,C., Piazza, M., Mekos, D., & Valente, T. (2001). Peers, schools,and adolescent cigarette smoking. Journalof adolescent health, 29(1),22-30.
Arseneault,L., Cannon, M., Poulton, R., Murray, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T.E. (2002). Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis:longitudinal prospective study. Bmj, 325(7374),1212-1213.
Bahr,S. J., Hoffmann, J. P., & Yang, X. (2005). Parental and peerinfluences on the risk of adolescent drug use. Journalof Primary Prevention, 26(6),529-551.
Bandura,A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annualreview of psychology, 52(1),1-26.
Bernstein,M. H., Colby, S. M., Bidwell, L. C., Kahler, C. W., & Leventhal,A. M. (2014). Hostility and Cigarette Use: a Comparison Betweensmokers and nonsmokers in a Matched sample of adolescents. Nicotine& tobacco research,16 (8),1085-1093.
Beyers,J. M., Toumbourou, J. W., Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., &Hawkins, J. D. (2004). A cross-national comparison of risk andprotective factors for adolescent substance use: the United Statesand Australia. Journalof Adolescent Health, 35(1),3-16.
Bogt,T. F., Looze, M., Molcho, M., Godeau, E., Hublet, A., Kokkevi, A. &Pickett, W. (2014). Do societal wealth, family affluence and genderaccount for trends in adolescent cannabis use? A 30 countrycross‐nationalstudy.Addiction, 109(2),273-283.
Borgatti,S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Networkanalysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916),892-895.
Boys,A., Farrell, M., Taylor, C., Marsden, J., Goodman, R., Brugha, T &Meltzer, H. (2003). Psychiatric morbidity and substance use in youngpeople aged 13–15 years: results from the Child and AdolescentSurvey of Mental Health. TheBritish Journal of Psychiatry, 182(6),509-517.
Bryant,A. L., Schulenberg, J., Bachman, J. G., O`Malley, P. M., &Johnston, L. D. (2000). Understanding the links among schoolmisbehavior, academic achievement, and cigarette use: A nationalpanel study of adolescents. PreventionScience, 1(2),71-87.
Carey,J. W. (2008). Communicationas culture, revised edition: Essays on media and society.Routledge.
Challier,B., Chau, N., Predine, R., Choquet, M., & Legras, B. (2000).Associations of family environment and individual factors withtobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use in adolescents. EuropeanJournal of epidemiology, 16(1),33-42.
Cleveland,M. J., Feinberg, M. E., Bontempo, D. E., & Greenberg, M. T.(2008). The role of risk and protective factors in substance useacross adolescence. Journalof Adolescent Health, 43(2),157-164.
Corkery,J. M. (2002). Drug seizure and offender statistics, United Kingdom,2000. STATISTICALBULLETIN-HOME OFFICE RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT AND STATISTICS DIRECTORATE.
Demir,M., & Urberg, K. A. (2004). Friendship and adjustment amongadolescents. Journalof Experimental Child Psychology, 88(1),68-82.
Ennett,S. T., Bauman, K. E., Hussong, A., Faris, R., Foshee, V. A., Cai, L.,& DuRant, R. H. (2006). The peer context of adolescent substanceuse: Findings from social network analysis. Journalof Research on Adolescence, 16(2),159-186.
Fite,P. J., Colder, C. R., & O`Connor, R. M. (2006). Childhoodbehavior problems and peer selection and socialization: Risk foradolescent alcohol use. AddictiveBehaviors, 31(8),1454-1459.
Fontes,M. A., Bolla, K. I., Cunha, P. J., Almeida, P. P., Jungerman, F.,Laranjeira, R. R., … & Lacerda, A. L. (2011). Cannabis usebefore age 15 and subsequent executive functioning. TheBritish Journal of Psychiatry, 198(6),442-447.
Galea,S., Nandi, A., & Vlahov, D. (2004). The social epidemiology ofsubstance use. Epidemiologicreviews, 26(1),36-52.
Geldard,K., & Geldard, D. (2009). Counsellingadolescents: The proactive approach for young people.Sage.
Gilpin,E. A., White, M. M., Messer, K., & Pierce, J. P. (2007).Receptivity to tobacco advertising and promotions among youngadolescents as a predictor of established smoking in youngadulthood. AmericanJournal of Public Health,97(8),1489.
Golub,A., Johnson, B. D., & Dunlap, E. (2005). Sub-cultural evolutionand illicit drug use*. AddictionResearch & Theory, 13(3),217-229.
Grant,B. F., Stinson, F. S., & Harford, T. C. (2001). Age at onset ofalcohol use and DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: a 12-yearfollow-up. Journalof substance abuse, 13(4),493-504.
Grootboom,G. A. (2007). Howadolescents perceive their future, and why: A cross-culturalstudy (Doctoraldissertation, University of the Free State).
Hanson,M. D., & Chen, E. (2007). Socioeconomic status and healthbehaviors in adolescence: a review of the literature. Journalof behavioral medicine, 30(3),263-285.
Harden,K. P., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2011). Individual differences in thedevelopment of sensation seeking and impulsivity during adolescence:Further evidence for a dual systems model. DevelopmentalPsychology, 47(3),739.
Hartup,W. W. (2005). Peer interaction: what causes what? Journalof Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(3),387-394.
Haynie,D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers anddelinquency: How do peers matter? SocialForces, 84(2),1109-1130.
Hoffman,B. R., Sussman, S., Unger, J. B., & Valente, T. W. (2006). Peerinfluences on adolescent cigarette smoking: a theoretical review ofthe literature. Substanceuse & misuse, 41(1),103-155
Hogg,M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. Contemporarysocial psychological theories, 13,111-1369.
Jefferis,B. J. M. H., Power, C., & Manor, O. (2005). Adolescent drinkinglevel and adult binge drinking in a national birthcohort*. Addiction, 100(4),543-549.
Kandel,D. B. (Ed.). (2002). Stagesand pathways of drug involvement: Examining the gateway hypothesis.Cambridge University Press.
Ledoux,S., Miller, P., Choquet, M., & Plant, M. (2002). Familystructure, parent–child relationships, and alcohol and other druguse among teenagers in France and the United Kingdom. Alcoholand Alcoholism, 37(1),52-60.
Lynch,M. (2002). The culture of control: Crime and social order incontemporary society. Polar:Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 25(2),109-112.
Macrae,C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinkingcategorically about others. Annualreview of psychology, 51(1),93-120.
Matthews,B. M. F. (2004). Anexploratory study of aspects on environmental conditions associatedwith alcohol and drug abuse and criminal behavior (Doctoraldissertation, University of the Western Cape).
McArdle,P., Wiegersma, A., Gilvarry, E., Kolte, B., McCarthy, S., Fitzgerald,M., & Quensel, S. (2002). European adolescent substance use: theroles of family structure function and gender. Addiction, 97(3),329-336.
Miles,H., Johnson, S., Amponsah-Afuwape, S., Finch, E., Leese, M., &Thornicroft, G. (2014). Characteristics of subgroups of individualswith psychotic illness and a co morbid substance use disorder.
Molina,B. S., & Pelham Jr. W. E. (2003). Childhood predictors ofadolescent substance use in a longitudinal study of children withADHD. Journalof abnormal psychology, 112(3),497.
Moshman,D. (2005). Adolescentpsychological development: Rationality, morality, and identity.Psychology Press.
Parker,H., Williams, L., & Aldridge, J. (2002). The Normalization of‘Sensible’ Recreational Drug Use Further Evidence from the NorthWest England Longitudinal Study. Sociology, 36(4),941-964.
Petrie,J., Bunn, F., & Byrne, G. (2007). Parenting programs forpreventing tobacco, alcohol or drugs misuse in children< 18: asystematic review. Healtheducation research, 22(2),177-191.
Prinstein,M. J., Brechwald, W. A., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). Susceptibility topeer influence: using a performance-based measure to identifyadolescent males at heightened risk for deviant peersocialization. Developmentalpsychology, 47(4),1167.
Rimal,R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence ofperceived norms on behaviors. CommunicationTheory, 13(2),184-203.
Rise,J., Kovac, V., Kraft, P., & Moan, I. S. (2008). Predicting theintention to quit smoking and quitting behavior: Extending the theoryof planned behavior. Britishjournal of health psychology, 13(2),291-310.
Simons-Morton,B., & Chen, R. S. (2006). Over time relationships between earlyadolescent and peer substance use. Addictive behaviors, 31(7),1211-1223.
Slomkowski,C., Rende, R., Novak, S., Lloyd‐Richardson,E., & Niaura, R. (2005). Sibling effects on smoking inadolescence: evidence for social influence from a geneticallyinformative design. Addiction, 100(4),430-438.
Steinberg,L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Journal ofCognitive Education and Psychology, 2(1), 55-87.
Sussman,S., Skara, S., & Ames, S. L. (2008). Substance abuse amongadolescents. Substanceuse & misuse, 43(12-13),1802-1828.
Tims,F. M., Dennis, M. L., Hamilton, N., J Buchan, B., Diamond, G., Funk,R., & Brantley, L. B. (2002). Characteristics and problems of 600adolescent cannabis abusers in outpatienttreatment. Addiction, 97(s1),46-57.
Tommasello,A. C. (2004). Substance abuse and pharmacy practice: what thecommunity pharmacist needs to know about drug abuse and dependence.HarmReduct J, 1(1),and 3.
Valente,T. W., Gallaher, P., & Mouttapa, M. (2004). Using social networksto understand and prevent substance use: A trans-disciplinaryperspective on Substanceuse & misuse, 39(10-12),1685-1712.
Volkow,N. D., Baler, R. D., Compton, W. M., & Weiss, S. R. (2014).Adverse health effects of marijuana use. NewEngland Journal of Medicine, 370(23),2219-2227.
VonSydow, K., Lieb, R., Pfister, H., Höfler, M., & Wittchen, H. U.(2002). Use, abuse and dependence of ecstasy and related drugs inadolescents and young adults—a transient phenomenon? Results from alongitudinal community study.Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66(2),147-159.
Wiles,N. J., Zammit, S., Bebbington, P., Singleton, N., Meltzer, H., &Lewis, G. (2006). Self-reported psychotic symptoms in the generalpopulation Results from the longitudinal study of the BritishNational Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. TheBritish Journal of Psychiatry, 188(6),519-526.
Williams,P. G., Holmbeck, G. N., & Greenley, R. N. (2002). Adolescenthealth psychology. Journalof consulting and clinical psychology, 70(3),828.
Wills,T. A., Sandy, J. M., Yaeger, A. M., Cleary, S. D., & Shinar, O.(2001). Coping dimensions, life stress, and adolescent substance use:a latent growth analysis. Journalof abnormal psychology, 110(2),309.
Wright,J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2001). Parental efficacy and delinquentbehavior: Do control and support matter? Criminology, 39(3),677-706.
Zuckerman,M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk‐taking:common bi-social factors. Journal of personality, 68(6), 999-1029.