Sociology Mind
2013. Vol.3, No.1, 106-113
Published Online January 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/sm) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/sm.2013.31016
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
106
Gender Differences in Social Relationships,
Social Integration and Substance Use
Gloria Jones-Johnson1, Matt DeLisi1, Andy Hochstetler1,
W. Roy Johnson2, Natalia Frishman1
1Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, USA
2Department of Management, Iowa State University, Ames, USA
Email: gjj@iastate.edu
Received September 15th, 2012; revised October 25th, 2012; accepted November 9th, 2012
Although numerous studies have examined the relationship between family and religion on delinquency,
there have not been studies of the relationship between parents, friends, and religion on substance use
among adults. The analysis for this study was based on two waves of data (Wave 1, 1986 and Wave 2,
1989) of the Americans’ Changing Lives Survey. The results revealed that social relationships, social in-
tegration and attendance at religious services influence the number of drinks and cigarettes smoked per
day among adults. Parental influence varies by gender. The implications for social control, social net-
works and gender perspectives are discussed.
Keywords: Gender and Substance Use; Social Relationships and Substance Use; Gender and Social
Relationships
Introduction
Developmental and life-course perspectives on crime suggest
that contextual factors in life and events and choices throughout
the life course influence patterns of delinquency (Farrington,
2005; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Sampson and Laub’s (1993,
2005) age-graded life-course theory of crime and other social—
control perspectives suggest that family and religion may be
especially important influences on patterns of delinquency be-
cause they are primary sources of social control, support and
integration. In a recent study, Petts (2009) used data from the
NLSY79 to examine whether family and religious characteris-
tics influence individual-level delinquency trajectories from
early adolescence through young adulthood. The results suggest
that residing with two parents deter youths from becoming de-
linquent and that supportive parenting practices reduce their
likelihood of becoming involved in delinquent behavior early in
adolescence. Although numerous studies have examined the
relationship between family and religion on delinquency, there
have not been studies of the relationship between parents,
friends and religion on substance use among adults. This study
examines the effects of social relationships, social integration
and attendance at religious services on the number of drinks
and cigarettes smoked per day among adults based on two
waves of data of the Americans’ Changing Lives Survey.
Gender and Substance Use
Studies on substance use have implicated gender as an im-
portant determinant of behavior and outcomes (Horwitz &
White, 1987; Robbins, 1989). The convergence hypothesis pre-
dicts that men and women would adopt similar patterns of
drinking as their social roles converge (Bell, Havlicek, & Ron-
cek, 1984; Calahan, 1970; Ferrance, 1980; Fillmore, 1984; Fra-
ser, 1973, Wechsler, 1980; Wilsnack & Wilsnack, 1978). Based
on the logic of the convergence hypothesis, role-related changes
connected to women’s labor force participation would not only
challenge traditional family roles, but would also transform the
attitudes of both men and women in other domains, including
the appropriateness of certain types of social behavior, such as
alcohol consumption (Parker et al., 1980; Temple, 1987; Wils-
nack, Wilsnack, & Klassen, 1984). Contrary to the convergence
hypothesis, adolescent and adult males still drink more fre-
quently and consume larger quantities of alcohol than their
female counterparts (Johnson et al., 2001; Lo, 2000; Peralta and
Cruz, 2006; Wallace & Bachman, 1991). In this study we ex-
amine gender differences in alcohol consumption and cigarette
smoking among adults.
Peer Relationships
Peer relationships are considered the primary factor involved
in whether youth decide to engage in and maintain substance
use (Ennett & Bauman, 1993; Ennett & Bauman, 2000; Kobus,
2003; Valente, 2003) and peers reinforce substance use behav-
iors (Epstein et al., 1999). Several studies have found that sub-
stance—using youth more likely to have substance-using
friends (Alexander et al., 2001; Bauman et al., 1984; Ennett &
Bauman, 1993, 1994; Ennett, Bauman, & Koch, 1994; Rai et al.,
2003; Sieving et al., 2000; Sussman et al., 1990; Unger et al.,
2001; Windle, 2000). A body of literature stresses the social
capital that is available in open networks produce advantages
for teenagers and young adults (Kim & Schneider, 2005; Mor-
gan and Sorensen, 1999; Offer and Schneider, 2007; Sullivan,
1991; Bearman & Moody, 2004). Bott (1971) explored the
effects of open and diffused networks and pointed out that with
the freedom afforded by open networks, other important rela-
tions (e.g. strong ties and significant others) can have their in-
fluence enhanced. We apply this logic to suggest that satisfying
relationship with friends could reduce substance use. Sampson
G. JONES-JOHNSON ET AL.
and colleagues (2006) found that adult relationships affect pat-
terns of delinquency net of selection factors.
Religious Involvement
According to Smith (2003), religious institutions provide re-
sources, such as support networks and teaching to help indi-
viduals cope with and find meaning in stressful events. These
resources may be especially beneficial to adults who are at high
risk for substance use. Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975) identify
several processes of internalized social control through which
personal religiosity may influence behavior. They maintain that
religion sensitizes individuals to moral issues and acceptable
standards of behavior, and it offers a deity as a source of pun-
ishment and wrath. Thus, active religious involvement should
foster an interest in abiding by religious precepts. High reli-
gious participation should be related to reduce substance use
because the fear of divine punishment would make a person
less likely to disobey the rules of the faith. Most studies on the
association of religion with substance use have found an in-
verse, contemporaneous relationship (e.g., Bowie, Ensminger,
& Robertson, 2005; Gorsuch, 1995).
Social Integration
Baum and Ziersch (2003) point out that the multidisciplinary
literature on individual and public health labeled “social capi-
tal” research equates social capital with other relationship-based
concepts such as social networks, social support, social integra-
tion, and social cohesion. Brissette, Cohen and Seeman (2000)
noted that social integration is the extent of participation in
social networks, indicated by active engagement in social roles
and social activities, and cognitive identification with network
members” (p. 151) According to Bellah et al. (1996), social
integration theory posits that involvement in formal and infor-
mal organizations supply social support and peers which foster
a positive sense of the self. Hirschi (1969) maintains that at-
tachment to organizations works as a social control. We exam-
ine the impact of social integration on substance use.
Hypotheses
We propose sets of hypotheses based on theoretical interests.
The first set of hypotheses states that social relationships have a
negative impact on substance use. Specifically, a positive rela-
tionship with mother, father and friends decreases the number
of cigarettes and drinks per day. Second set of hypotheses state
that formal and informal social integration decrease substance
use. The stronger the formal and informal social integration, the
less smoking and drinking. The third hypothesis asserts that
frequency of attendance at religious services decreases sub-
stance use. As religious attendance increases, substance use
decreases. Fourth, we hypothesize that the positive effects of
social relationships, social integration and religion on substance
use would be stronger for women than men. Fifth, we expect
social relationships to interact with religious attendance to re-
duce substance use. For example, those people who have a
positive relationship with their mother and frequently attend
religious services would drinks less and smoke fewer cigarettes.
Sixth, formal social integration may provide greater social con-
trol and attachment; therefore, it is expected to have a stronger
impact on substance use than informal social integration.
We control for race, education, and income. According to
Bachman et al. (2002), individuals who juggle the duties and
responsibilities related to work, marriage, and parenthood sim-
ply have less time available to engage in drinking behavior.
Many studies have found a strong protective effect of marriage
on substance use and abuse (for a review, see Rhule-Louie &
McMahon, 2007). Cross-sectional studies have found economic
resources to be inversely related to drug use in adulthood (e.g.,
National Institute on Drug Abuse). Research studies over the
past several decades have found cigarettes use to be concen-
trated among lower education, occupational prestige, and in-
come groups (Barbeau, Krieger, & Soobader, 2004; Honjo et al.,
2006).
Methods
Participants
The data come from the Americans’ Changing Lives Survey,
a stratified, multistage area probability sample of non-institu-
tionalized adults age 25 and older living in the coterminous
United States with over-sampling of both adults age 60 and
older and African Americans. The wave 1 was conducted in 1986
and consisted of face-to-face interviews with 3617 respondents
(representing 70% of sampled households and 68% of sampled
individuals). Wave 2 conducted in 1989, also involved face-to-
face interviews with 2867 (83%) of wave 1 survivors. In 1994,
approximately 7.5 years after baseline, wave 3 was conducted
via telephone or face-to-face interviews with 2562 participants
or their proxies (representing 83% of wave 1 survivors). Addi-
tional information on the study design is published elsewhere
(House et al., 1994; House et al., 1990). The analysis for this
study was based on data from T1 (1986) and T2 (1989).
Variables
Dependent Variables
We use two dependent variables for this study: 1) number of
drinks per day; and 2) number of cigarettes per day. The survey
item asked respondents to report how many drinks that had per
day and how many cigarettes they smoked per day. Each mea-
sure is coded as a simple count.
Independent Variab le s
Independent variables of theoretical interest include rela-
tionship with mother, father and friends. Mother relationship is
an index of the quality of interaction with one’s mother. The
respondent was asked to report on four questions which asked
the extent to which there are too many demands from mother,
critical of mother, love and care for mother (reverse scored) and
will listen to mother (reverse scored). The responses ranged
from (1) almost always to (4) never. These same four questions
were asked for father and friend and were used to create a scale
for father relationship and friend relationship. The reliability for
mother relationship T1 (Cronbach’s alpha = .64) and T2 (Cron-
bach’s alpha = .63). For father relationship, the reliability at T1
(Cronbach’s alpha = .58) and T2 (Cronbach’s alpha = .56). The
reliability for friend relationship at T1 (Cronbach’s alpha = .59)
and T2 (Cronbach’s alpha = .59).
Social Integration
Informal social integration is an index that combines two
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 107
G. JONES-JOHNSON ET AL.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
108
questions. The respondent was asked “In a typical week, about
how many times do you talk on the telephone with friends,
neighbors or relatives”. The second question asked “How often
do you get together with friends, neighbors or relatives and do
things like go out together or visit in each other’s homes?” The
responses ranged from (1) more than once a day to (6) never
and they were reverse scored. The Cronbach’s alpha = .85 at T1
and .89 at T2.
Formal social integration also is a two-item index. It consists
of the following two questions: “How often do you attend meet-
ings or programs of groups, clubs or organizations that you
belong to?” and “How often do you participate in leisure or
social activities by yourself or with people other than your
spouse/partner?” For both questions the responses were reverse
scored and ranged from (6) more than once a week to (1) never.
At T1 the Cronbach’s alpha is .84 and at T2 .86.
Religious Involvement
Frequency of attendance at religious services is a one item
measure which asks the respondent “How often do you usually
attend religious services?” The responses ranged from (1) more
than once a week to (6) never and was reverse scored such that
a 6 represents a high frequency of attendance.
Control Variables
Control variables include age, gender, employment status,
income, marital status and race. Age is coded in years and edu-
cation is measured as total years of completed education. Gen-
der (female = 1, 0 = male) and employment status (employed =
1, 0 = not employed). Income was measured as the combined
income in the preceding year from all sources for respondents
and their spouses in dollars. Marital status is coded (married =
1, 0 = not married). Race is five dummy variables that distin-
guish Whites (N = 2339), African Americans (N = 1174) Na-
tive Americans (N = 138), Asians (N = 33) and Hispanics (N =
165).
The analysis was conducted in three stages. First, models
were estimated that included demographic control variables,
social relationships, social integration, religious involvement
for T1 and T2 that predict drinking and cigarette use. Second,
we estimated models of social relationships, social integration,
religious involvement drinking and cigarette use separately for
males and females for T1 and T2. Finally, we estimated model
of the full sample that included a multiplicative term involving
social relationships (mother, father and friend relationship each
separately) and attendance at religious services on number of
drinks and cigarettes smoked per day.
Results
Table 1 presents the regression results at T1 for number of
cigarettes and number of drinks at T1 with control variables
included. Equation 1 shows that sex is a marginally significant
predictor of number of cigarettes smoked per day and suggests
Table 1.
Regression coefficients predicting number of cigarettes and drinks per day with control variables T1.
Cigarettes T1 Drinks T1
Equation 1 Equation 2
Independent variable
Coeff Std error Beta Coeff Std Error Beta
Constant 28.71** 8.24 --- 6.54** 1.11 ---
Mother relationship T1 .26 .22 .07 .05.09 .03 .07
Father relationship T1 .29 .21 .08 .01 .03 .01
Friends relationship T1 .26 .23 .07 .01 .04 .01
Attend religious services T1 .62 .62 .09 .06 .09 .04
Education .27 .27 .06 .12** .04 .13
Age .06 .07 .05 .03** .01 .10
Sex (male) 2.16.07 1.23 .09 .96** .18 .22
Married .35 1.37 .02 .32.09 .19 .07
White 1.67 4.43 .07 .62 .51 .13
Black 3.91 4.50 .16 .75 .51 .15
American Indian 3.35 3.13 .06 .26 .49 .02
Asian 1.78 9.02 .01 1.05 .90 .05
Hispanic 8.27 5.83 .11 .16 .75 .01
Working T1 1.78 1.39 .07 .30 .23 .05
Family income .05 .04 .08 .01 .02 .01
Informal social integration .30 .61 .03 .08 .10 .03
Formal social integration .01 1.13 .01 .03 .16 .01
F = 2.65** F = 4.31**
R
2 = .11 R2 = .10
N
ote: **significant at p < .01.
G. JONES-JOHNSON ET AL.
that men have a tendency to smoke more than women. Equation
2 indicate that education, age, and gender are significant pre-
dictors of number of drinks per day; the highly educate and
those older are significantly less likely to drink heavily while
men are significantly more likely to drink heavily compared to
women. The marginally significant coefficient for married
suggests that those who are married have a tendency to drink
less than the non-married. It is noteworthy that relationship
with mother is a marginally significant predictor of number of
drinks per day even with all of the control variables included in
the model. Thus, there is a tendency for those people who have
a positive relationship with their mother to drink less. However,
only ten percent of the variance is explained in number of ciga-
rettes and drinks per day with the control variables included.
The regression results for T2 control variables on number of
cigarettes and number of drinks per day are shown in Table 2.
Education and age are the significant predictors of number of
cigarettes smoked per day and suggest that the highly educated
are significantly less likely to smoke heavily whereas as people
get older they are more likely to smoke heavily. Equation (2)
reveals that education, age, gender, married are significant pre-
dictors of number of drinks per day and indicate that the edu-
cated, people who are older and those married are significantly
less likely to smoke heavily. The significant coefficient for
gender shows that men drink more than women. With the con-
trol variables included, relationship with father is a significant
predictor and relationship with mother is a marginally signifi-
cant predictor of number of drinks per day. Thus, those people
who have a positive relationship with their fathers are signifi-
cantly more likely to drink heavily while those who have a
positive relationship with their mother have a tendency to drink
less drinks per day. The results for the control variables are
consistent with prior studies (Johnson et al., 2001; Lo, 2000;
Peralta & Cruz, 2006; Wallace & Bachman, 1991).
Based on our hypothesis and the significant coefficient for
gender, we ran the models separately for men and women at T1
and T2. The regression results for women are presented in Ta-
ble 3. At T1, frequency attend religious services is the only
significant predictor of number of cigarettes smoked per day
and suggests that those women who frequently attend religious
services are significantly less likely to smoke heavily. Rela-
tionship with mother is the only significant predictor of number
of drinks per day and indicates that those women who have
positive relationships with their mothers are significantly less
likely to drink heavily. These results support our hypothesis. At
T2, number of cigarettes smoked per day at T1 and relationship
with mother is the significant predictors of number of cigarettes
smoked per day. Those women who smoked heavily at T1 are
significantly more likely to smoke heavily at T2, while those
women who have a positive relationship with their mothers at
T2 are significantly more likely to smoke heavily at T2. These
results contradict our hypothesis. However, number of drinks
per day at T1 is the only significant predictor of number of
drinks per day at T2 indicating that those women who drank
Table 2.
Regression coefficients predicting number of cigarettes and drinks per day with control variables T2.
Cigarettes T2 Drinks T2
Equation (1) Equation (2)
Independent Variable
Coeff Std error Beta Coeff Std Error Beta
Constant 21.25.07 11.65 --- 8.02** 1.25 ---
Mother relationship T2 .09 .32 .02 .07.06 .04 .09
Father relationship T2 .21 .28 .05 .09** .03 .12
Friends relationship T2 .28 .30 .07 .06 .04 .07
Attend religious services T2 .84 .84 .12 .01 .01 .01
Education 1.06** .37 .20 .23** .04 .26
Age .25** .10 .18 .03** .01 .11
Sex (male) 2.22 1.54 .10 1.07** .19 .27
Married 1.33 1.79 .06 .68** .22 .17
White 7.26 5.81 .31 .74 .53 .16
Black 2.71 5.71 .11 .81 .53 .17
American Indian 1.65 3.60 .03 .65 .58 .05
Asian 5.21 7.93 .06 .96 .75 .06
Hispanic 2.93 12.48 .02 .17 .88 .01
Working T2 1.07 1.91 .04 .39 .25 .07
Family income .01 .04 .01 .01 .01 .03
Informal social integration .43 .85 .04 .04 .11 .02
Formal social integration .11 1.62 .01 .19 .18 .09
F = 2.45** F = 7.23**
R
2 = .17 R2 = .23
Note: **significant at p < .01.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 109
G. JONES-JOHNSON ET AL.
Table 3.
Regression coefficients predicting number of cigarettes and drinks per day for women T1 and T2.
Equation 1 Equation 2
T1 Cigarettes Drinks
Independent variable Coeff Std Error Beta Coeff Std error Beta
Constant 24.50** 6.25 --- 2.29** .91 ---
Mother relationship .19 .28 .05 .08* .04 .13
Father relationship .20 .27 .06 .02 .04 .04
Friends relationship .12 .31 .03 .05 .04 .07
Attend religious services 1.92** .79 .28 .03 .11 .03
Informal social integration .68 .76 .06 .09 .12 .04
Formal social integration .53 1.44 .04 .20 .20 .09
F = 2.67** F = 1.34
R
2 = .07 R2 = .03
T2 Cigarettes Drinks
Constant 6.70NS 7.40 --- 1.33NS 1.05 ---
Drinks per day T1 --- --- --- .48** .08 .39
Cigarettes per day T1 .61** .08 .62 --- --- ---
Mother relationship .68* .33 .19 .04 .04 .07
Father relationship .07 .28 .02 .01 .04 .02
Friends relationship .12 .32 .03 .01 .05 .01
Attend religious services .29 .76 .05 .08 .11 .08
Informal social integration .92 .84 .09 .10 .14 .05
Formal social integration .99 1.59 .08 .33 .22 .18
F = 9.52** F = 6.56**
R
2 = .41 R2 = .20
Note: **significant at p < .01; *significant at p < .05.
heavily at T1 are significantly more likely to drink heavily at T2.
At T2, the variables explain twice as much variance in number
of cigarettes smoked compared to number of drinks per day (41
and 20 per cent respectively).
Table 4 shows the regression results for men of number of
cigarettes and drinks per day at T1 and T2. At T1 there are no
significant predictors of number of cigarettes smoked or num-
ber of drinks per day for men. However at T2, number of ciga-
rettes smoked per day at T1 is a significant predictor and sug-
gests that those men who smoked heavily at T1 are significantly
more likely to smoke heavily at T2. Relationship with mother is
a marginally significant predictor and indicates that those men
who have a positive relationship with their mothers have a ten-
dency to smoke less. As expected number of drinks at T1 is a
significant predictor which suggests that those men who drink
heavily at T1 are significantly more likely to drink heavily at T2.
Relationship with mother and relationship with father are sig-
nificant predictors of number of drinks at T2. Most interesting,
however, is that those men who have a positive relationship
with their mothers are significantly less likely to drink heavily,
but those men who have a positive relationship with their fa-
thers are significantly more likely to drink heavily. These vari-
ables explain almost twenty per cent more variance in number
of cigarettes smoked per day compared to the number of drinks
per day (R2 = .57 and .39, respectively). These results provide
mixed support for our hypothesis that women would benefit
more from social relationship, social integration and frequency
of attendance at religious services than men in terms of reduc-
ing substance use. There is an unexpected change in the rela-
tionships from T1 to T2 and an unexpected within gender social
relationship effect by substance use. Relationship with mother
reduces drinking at T1 but increases smoking at T2 for women.
However, relationship with father has no effect on smoking or
drinking for women at T1 or T2. In contrast, relationship with
mother has no effect at T1 but reduces smoking and drinking at
T2 for men. It is interesting that, relationship with father has no
effect on number of cigarettes smoked but increases drinking at
T2 for men.
We tested the interaction between social relationship and
frequency attended religious services at T1 and T2 for number
of cigarettes smoked per day and number of drinks per day. At
T1 only the interaction between relationship with friend and
frequency attend religious services was significant. The sig-
nificant interaction between relationship with friends and fre-
quency attend religious services indicates that those people who
have positive relationships with friends and frequently attend
religious services are significantly less likely to drink heavily.
The interaction between relationship with friends and frequency
attend religious services support our hypothesis that family and
religion interact to reduce substance use. The interaction be-
tween relationship with mother and frequency attend religious
services on number of drinks per day is the only significant
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
110
G. JONES-JOHNSON ET AL.
Table 4.
Regression coefficients predicting number of cigarettes and drinks per day for men T1 and T2.
Equation 1 Equation 2
T1 Cigarettes Drinks
Independent variable Coeff Std error Beta Coeff Std error Beta
Constant 21.85** 7.48 --- 5.21** 1.17 ---
Mother relationship .54 .36 .14 .05 .05 .06
Father relationship .35 .36 .08 .01 .05 .01
Friends relationship .07 .35 .02 .06 .06 .07
Attend religious services .58 .98 .08 .04 .14 .03
Informal social integration .37 .96 .03 .03 .15 .01
Formal social integration 1.29 1.71 .11 .27 .25 .10
F = .75NS F = 1.67NS
R
2 = .03 R2 = .03
T2 Cigarettes Drinks
Constant 14.47NS 8.83 --- 4.04** 1.28 ---
Drinks per day T1 --- --- --- .60** .06 .56
Cigarettes per day T1 .81** .09 .71 --- --- ---
Mother relationship .73 (.07) .40 .15 .29** .06 .30
Father relationship .18 .34 .04 .15** .05 .17
Friends relationship .06 .35 .01 .03 .06 .03
Attend religious services .65 1.07 .08 .04 .15 .03
Informal Social Integration .79 1.16 .05 .01 .16 .01
Formal Social Integration .01 1.95 .01 .01 .27 .01
F = 15.99NS F = 17.76**
R
2 = .57 R2 = .39
R
2 = .03 R2 = .04
Note: **significant at p < .01.
interaction at T2. This interaction indicates that those people
who have positive relationships with their mothers and fre-
quently attend religious services are significantly less likely to
drink heavily. This interaction supports our hypothesis that
family and religion interact to reduce substance use. However,
with the interaction term included, there is very little variance
explained in number of cigarettes and number of drinks per day
(data not shown, available upon request from author).
Discussion
The results of this study revealed that social relationships,
social integration and attendance at religious services influence
the number of drinks and cigarettes smoked per day for two
waves of a nationally representative survey for older Americans.
A person’s relationship with their mother and father has differ-
ent impacts on smoking and drinking behavior. These findings
support Sampson and colleagues (2006) finding that adult rela-
tionships affect patterns of delinquency net of selection factors.
The lack of a significant effect for relationship with friends
suggests that peer relationships may not have an influence on
adult substance use. The findings support general social control
perspective (Durkheim, 1897, 1951; Hirschi, 1969) that family
and religion are primary sources of social control, support and
integration.
The positive effect of formal social integration on substance
use supports Hirschi’s (1969) contention that attachment to
organizations works as a social control. The significant effects
for frequency attend religious services on smoking and drinking
are consistent with Neil and Kahn’s (1999) observation that
engagement with religious communities might also benefit
older adults in particular by providing opportunities for sociali-
zation and social support in later life. Similarly, Levin and
Taylor (1997) suggest that older adults may have been social-
ized to value religiosity and spirituality more than younger
people.
Our study highlights the importance of family and interper-
sonal relationships as forms of social supports that impacts
substance use. Moreover, we found that relationship with mo-
ther has the most consistent and persistent effect on substance
use, and that the positive effect vary by substance use (drinking
vs. cigarettes) and by gender. The relationship with mother for
women was positive for drinking and negative for smoking, but
it was positive for men whether drinking or smoking. The rela-
tionship with father was not a significant factor for women and
a negative factor for men for drinking. These findings may
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 111
G. JONES-JOHNSON ET AL.
reflect gender differences in methods of coping with stressful
interpersonal family relationships and gender differences in
social support in substance use. The quality of relationships
adults have with their parents may contribute to substance use
and abuse and impact treatment, social support and the stigma
associated with substance use. Future research needs to include
relationships with parents as a source of social integration by
gender, race, and age when examining substance use and abuse.
Conclusion
This study’s finding that relationship with mother increased
cigarette smoking for women and relationship with father in-
creased drinking for men are suggestive of the research studies
that found that bonds to parents can increase substance use
among children (Fleming et al., 1997; Foshee & Bauman,
1992). Sampson and Laub’s (1993) age-graded life course the-
ory of crime and social control perspectives can be used to
understand the impact of parents, friends and religion on sub-
stance use among adults. In addition, the results of our study
support the convergence hypothesis and suggest that the envi-
ronmental influences on gender roles are prevalent among adult.
The findings highlight that gender ideology, which defines
expectations regarding the “appropriate” performance of male
and female roles (Greenstein, 1995, 1996) and the belief that
people change their gender roles and ideologies both between
and within generations (Wentworth & Chell, 2005) are impor-
tant to understand the role that gender plays in understanding
substance use and abuse especially among adults.
The major limitations of the present study are lack of ade-
quate measures of social network related to smoking and drink-
ing and lack of social network level measures such as centrality
and density of networks. Measures that directly link social rela-
tionships to smoking and drinking would clarify the nature of
the effects, especially over time. Future research should also
examine late-onset drinking and smoking on social relation-
ships and social integration among adults. A multiple item
measure of religious participation or religiosity would enhance
our understanding of the role that religion plays in reducing
substance use or abuse.
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the comments of Adam Foley, a graduate stu-
dent at Iowa State University.
REFERENCES
Alexander, C., Piazza, M., Mesko, D., & Valente, T. (2001). PeerNet-
works and adolescent cigarette smoking: An analysis of the national
longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of School Health, 29,
22-30.
Barbeau, E., Krieger, N., & Soobader, M. (2004). Working class mat-
ters: Socioeconomic disadvantage, race/ethnicity, gender and smok-
ing in NHIS 2000. American Journal of P u b li c H ea lt h, 94, 269-278.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.94.2.269
Baum, F., & Ziersch, A. (2003). Social capital. Journal of Epidemiol-
ogy And Community Health, 57, 320-323. doi:10.1136/jech.57.5.320
Bauman, K., Fisher, L., Bryan, E., & Chenoweth, R. (1984). Antece-
dents, subjective expected utility and behaviors: A study of adoles-
cent cigarette smoking. Addictive Behavior, 48, 121-136.
doi:10.1016/0306-4603(84)90050-9
Bachman, J., O’Malley, P., Schulenberg, J., Johnston, L., Bryant, A., &
Merline, A. (2002). The decline of substance use in young adulthood:
Changes in social activities, roles and beliefs. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates.
Bearman, P., & James, M. (2004). Chains of affection: The structure of
adolescent romantic and sexual networks. American Journal of Soci-
ology, 110, 44-91. doi:10.1086/386272
Bell, R., Havlicek, P., & Roncek, D. (1984). Sex differences in the use
of alcohol tranquilizers: Testing a role convergence hypothesis. Ame-
rican Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 10, 551-561.
doi:10.3109/00952998409001492
Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1996).
Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bott, E. (1971). Family and social network: Roles, norms, and external
relationships (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Bowie, J., Ensminger, M., & Robertson, S. (2005). The relationship
between religious coping style and anxiety over breast cancer among
women. Journal of Religious Health, 40, 411-422.
doi:10.1023/A:1012873017657
Brissette, I., Cohen, S., & Seeman, T. (2000). Social integration and
social networks. In S. Cohen, L. Underwood, & B. Gottlieb (Eds.),
Social support measurement and intervention (pp. 53-85). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Calahan, D. (1970). Probl e m d r i n k ers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide. New York: Free Press.
Ennett, S., & Bauman, K. (1993). Peer group structure and adolescent
cigarette smoking: A social network analysis. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 34, 221-236.
Ennett, S., & Bauman, K. (1994). The contribution of influence and
selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adoles-
cent cigarette smoking. Journal of Personality and social Behavior,
67, 653-663.
Ennett, S., & Bauman, K. (2000). Adolescent social networks: Friend-
ship cliques, social isolates, and drug use risk. In W. B. Hansen, S. M.
Giles, & M. Fearnow-Kenney (Eds.), Improving prevention effec-
tiveness (pp. 83-92). Greensboro, NC: Tanglewood Research Inc.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.653
Ennett, S., Bauman, K., & Koch, G. (1994). Variability in cigarette
moking within and between adolescent friendship cliques. Addictive
Behaviors, 19, 295-305. doi:10.1016/0306-4603(94)90031-0
Epstein, J., Botvin, G., Baker, E., & Diaz, T. (1999). Impact of social
influence and problem behavior on alcohol use among inner city
hispanic and black adolescents. Journal of Studies of Alcohol, 60,
595-604.
Farrington, D. (2005). Integrated development and life course theories
on offending: Advances in criminological theory. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Ferrance, R. (1980). Sex differences in the prevalence of problem
drinking. In O. J. Kalant (Ed.), Alcohol and drug problems in women:
Research advances in alcohol and drug problems (pp. 69-124). New
York: Plenum.
Fillmore, K. (1984). When angels fall: Women’s drinking as cultural
preoccupation and as reality. In S. C. Wilsnack, & L. J. Beckman
(Eds.), Alcohol problems in women: Antecedents, consequences and
interventions (pp. 7-36). New York: Guilford Press.
Fleming, C., Brewer, D., Gainey, R., Haggerty, K., & Catalano, R.
(1997). Parent drug use and bonding to parents as predictors of sub-
stance use in children of substance abusers. Journal of Child and
Adolescent Substance A bu s e , 6, 75-86. doi:10.1300/J029v06n04_04
Foshee, V., & Bauman, K. (1992). Parental and peer characteristics as
modifiers of the bond-behavior relationship: An elaboration of con-
trol theory. Journa l of Hea lth a nd Social Behavior, 33, 66-76.
doi:10.2307/2136858
Fraser, J. (1973). The female alcoholic. Addictions, 20, 64-80.
Greenstein, T. N. (1995). Gender ideology, marital disruption and the
employment of married women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57,
31-42. doi:10.2307/353814
Greenstein, T. N. (1996). Gender ideology and perceptions of the fair-
ness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality.
Social Forces, 74, 1029-1042.
Gorsuch, R. (1995). Forgiveness: An exploratory factor analysis and its
relationships to religious variables. Review of Religious Research, 34,
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
112
G. JONES-JOHNSON ET AL.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 113
333-347. doi:10.2307/3511971
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Honjo, K., Tsutsumi, A., Kawachi, I., & Kawakami, N. (2006). What
counts for the relationship between social class and smoking cessa-
tion? Results of a path analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 62,
317-328. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.011
House, J., Kessler, R., & Herzog, A. R. (1990). Age, socioeconomic
status, and Health. Milbank Q ua rte rl y, 68, 383-411.
doi:10.2307/3350111
House, J., Lepkowski, J., Kinney, A., Mero, R., Kessler, R., & Herzog,
A. R. (1994). The social stratification of aging and health. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 35, 213-234. doi:10.2307/2137277
Horwitz, A., & White, H. (1987). Gender role orientations and styles of
pathology among adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
28, 158-170. doi:10.2307/2137129
Johnson, B., Jang, S., Larsen, D., &. Deli, S. (2001). Does adolescent
religious commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of re-
ligiosity on delinquency. Journal of Research on Crime and Delin-
quency, 38, 22-43. doi:10.1177/0022427801038001002
Kim, M., & Schneider, R. (2005). Longitudinal trajectories of heavy
drinking among adults in the US. Addiction, 161, 91-99.
Kobus, K. (2003). Peers and adolescent smoking. Addictions, 98, 37-55.
doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.98.s1.4.x
Levin, J., & Taylor, R. (1997). Age differences in patterns and corre-
lates of the frequency of prayer. The Gerontologist, 37, 75-89.
doi:10.1093/geront/37.1.75
Lo, C. (2000). Timing of drinking initiation: A trend study among high
school seniors. Journal of Drug Issues, 30, 525-554.
Morgan, S., & Sorensen, A. (1999). Parental networks, social closure
and mathematics learning: A test of Coleman’s social capital expla-
nation of school effects. American Sociological Review, 64, 661-681.
doi:10.2307/2657368
Neill, C., & Kahn, A. (1999). The role of personal spirituality and reli-
gious social activity on the life satisfaction of older widowed women.
Sex Roles, 40, 319-329. doi:10.1023/A:1018811324286
Offer, A., & Schneider, K. (2007). The challenge of affluence: Self-
control and well-being in US. New York: Oxford University Press.
Parker, D., Wolz, M., Parker, E., & Harford, T. (1980). Sex roles and
alcohol consumption: A research note. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 21, 43-48. doi:10.2307/2136693
Peralta, R., & Cruz, J. M. (2006). Conferring meaning onto alcohol-
related violence: An analysis of alcohol use and masculinity in a
sample of college students. Journ al of Men’s Studies, 14, 109-125.
doi:10.3149/jms.1401.109
Petts, R. (2009). Family, religion and delinquency trajectories. Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 74, 465-483.
doi:10.1177/000312240907400307
Rai, A., Stanton, B., Ying, W., Li, X., Galbraith, J., Cottrell, L., Pack,
R., Harris, C., D’Alessandri, D., & Burns, J. (2003). Relative influ-
ences of perceived parental monitoring perceived peer involvement
on adolescent risk behaviors: An analysis of six cross-sectional data
sets. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 108-118.
doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00179-4
Rhule-Louie, D., & McMahon, R. (2007). Problem behavior and ro-
mantic relationships: Assortative mating, behavior contagion, and de-
sistance. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 10, 53-100.
doi:10.1007/s10567-006-0016-y
Robbins, C. (1989). Sex differences in psychosocial consequences of
alcohol and drug abuse. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30,
117-130. doi:10.2307/2136917
Rohrbaugh, J., & Jessor, R. (1975). Religiosity in youth: A personal
control against deviant behavior. Journal of Personality, 43, 136-155.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1975.tb00577.x
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the MAKING: Pathways and
turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (2005). A life-course view of the development
of crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and So-
cial Science, 602, 12-45. doi:10.1177/0002716205280075
Sampson, R., Laub, J., & Wimer, C. (2006). Does marriage reduce
crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects.
Criminology, 44, 65-508. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00055.x
Sieving, R., Perry, C., & Williams, C. (2000). Do friendships change
behaviors or do behaviors change friendships: Examining paths of
influence in young adolescents’ alcohol use. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 26, 27-35. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00056-7
Smith, C. (2003). Theorizing religious effects among American ado-
lescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 17-30.
doi:10.1111/1468-5906.t01-1-00158
Sullivan, P. (1991). The genetic epidemiology of smoking. Nicotine
and Tobacco Research, 1, S51-S59.
Sussman, S., Dent, C., Stacey, A., Burciaga, C., Raynor, A., Turner, G.,
Charlin, V., Craig, S., Hansen, W., Burton, D., & Flay, B. (1990). Peer-
group association and adolescent tobacco use. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 99, 349-352.
Temple, M. (1987). Alcohol use among male and female college stu-
dents: Has there been a convergence? Youth and Society, 19, 44-72.
Unger, J., Rohrbach, L., Cruz, T., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Howard,
K., Palmer, P., & Johnson, C. (2001). Ethnic variation in peer influ-
ences on adolescent smoking. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 3,
167-176. doi:10.1080/14622200110043086
Valente, T. (2003). Social network influences on adolescent substance
use: An introduction. Connections, 25, 11-16.
Wallace, J. J., & Bachman, J. (1991). Explaining racial/ethnic differ-
ences in adolescent substance use: The impact of background and
lifestyle. Socia l Problems, 38, 333-355. doi:10.2307/800603
Wechsler, H. (1980). Epidemiology of male/female drinking over the
last half century. In V. Pinhas (Ed.), Alcoholosm and alcohol abuse
among women: Research issues (pp. 54-82). Washington DC: US
Government Printing Office.
Wentworth, D. K., & Chell, R. M. (2005). Gender identity at home:
Comparing the role of househusband to housewife. In J. W. Lee (Ed.),
Psychology of gender identity (pp. 113-126). Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Biomedical.
Wilsnack, R., & Wilsnack, S. (1978). Sex roles and drinking among
adolescent girls. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 39, 1855-1874.
Wilsnack, R., & Wilsnack, S. (1980). Drinking and denial of social
obligations among adolescent boys. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
41, 1118-1133. doi:10.2105/AJPH.74.11.1231
Wilsnack, R., Wilsnack, S., & Klassen, A. (1984). Women’s drinking
and drinking problems: Patterns from a 1981 national survey. Ame-
rican Journal of Public Health, 7 4, 1231-1238.
Windle, M. (2000). Parental, sibling and peer influences on adolescent
substance use and alcohol problems. Applied Developmental Sci-
ences, 4, 98-110. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0402_5