Influences of group Identity on Smoking, Alcohol, and Drug Use

Kirsten Verkooijen, Ph.D. student

Dep. of Health Promotion Research

University of Southern Denmark

Esbjerg

Gert A. Nielsen, Ph.D.

Dep. of Prevention and Documentation

Danish Cancer Society

Copenhagen

AdolescenceIncreased engagement in risk behaviourIncreased affiliation with peers

Focus of this study:How is adolescents’ engagement in smoking, hash and alcohol use related to group membership?

Group membershipSubculture: a social group within a national culture that has distinctive patterns of behavior and beliefs (hyperdictionary)Related terms: peer group, crowd, youth culture, clique, etc.Function of peer groups (Urberg):

Source of identityChannel for friendship selection

The balanced Identity Design(Greenwald et al., 2002)

Reciprocal associations between the self, group and behaviour:1. Self - Group 2. Group - Behaviour 3. Behaviour - Self

People tend to keep the 3 associations balanced!

Greenwald, A.G., Banaji, M.R., Rudman, L.A., Farnham, S.D., Nosek, B.A., Mellott, D.S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3-25.

Data collectionWhen: November 2002

What: MULD (Monitoring of Young people’s Lifestyle and Everyday life) survey conducted by The Danish Cancer Society and Danish Board of Health

Who: 3956 Danes in the age of 16-20 completed the posted questionnaire (response-rate 60%)

Self-report meassuresItems on smoking, alcohol and drug useGroup identity items: ’would you agree if a friend called you [...]?’Perceived group behaviour items: ’how likely is a member of [...] to smoke/use hash?’9 group names, based on prior discussions with the target population, were provided: sporty, pop boy/girl, hip-hopper/skater, bodybuilder, quiet boy/girl, techno freak, computer nerd, religious, hippie.

Answers were given on a 5-point scale

ResultsThe data analysis included only subjects with 1 single group affiliation (N=1444; 38,3% of the original sample)

sporty (n=608) pop (n=160) skate/hiphop (n=61) quiet (n=296) techno (n=45) religious (n=60) hippie (n=136) computer nerds (n=59)Bodybuilders (n=19) were left out as their sample was too small

Results for smoking_1

23,6

53,549,2

53,3

27,1

21,7

51,5

23,1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

sporty

pop

skate/hiphop

quiet

techno

computer nerd

religious

hippie

General smoking prevalence: 31,8% (boys: 32,2%; girls: 31,5%)

Fig. 1: Smoking prevalence (%) by group membership

Results for smoking_2

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

sporty

pop

skate/hiphop

quiet

techno

computer nerd

religious

hippie

Fig. 2: Perceived smoking among own group (1=very unlikely; 5=very likely) by group membership

Results for smoking_3

12,3

21,1

28,4

51,7

58,2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

very unlikely unlikely neutral likely very likely

Fig. 3: Smoking prevalence (%) by perceived smoking among own group

Results for smoking_4

Before adjustment for perceived group behaviour

After adjustment for perceived group behaviour

O.R. 95% C.I. O.R. 95% C.I.

SEX 1.05 0.82 - 1.36 1.09 0.84 - 1.42

AGE 1.14* 1.05 - 1.24 1.13* 1.03 - 1.23

GROUP ID:        

-Sporty 0.51** 0.40 - 0.64 0.79 0.59 - 1.06

-Pop 1.89** 1.36 - 2.64 1.29 0.90 - 1.86

-Skate/hiphop 1.61* 1.00 - 2.61 1.05 0.63 - 1.75

-Quiet 0.49** 0.36 - 0.66 0.67* 0.49 - 0.93

-Techno 1.92* 1.11 - 3.32 1.23 0.69 - 2.19

-Computer 0.58* 0.34 - 0.99 0.69 0.39 - 1.24

-Religious 0.44* 0.25 - 0.79 0.62 0.34 - 1.14

-Hippie 1.79** 1.26 - 2.54 1.22 0.84 - 1.77

PERCEPTION 1.63** 1.40 - 1.89

Table 1: Logistic regression odds ratios for smoking

**p< .001, *p< .05

Results for hash_1

5,2

10,3

35

5,2

20,9

10,7

5,4

32,1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

sporty

pop

skate/hiphop

quiet

techno

computer nerd

religious

hippie

Fig. 4: Last month hash use prevalence (%) by group membership

General last month hash use prevalence: 10,5% (boys: 17,0%; girls: 6,4%)

Results for hash_2

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

sporty

pop

skate/hiphop

quiet

techno

computer nerd

religious

hippie

Fig. 5: Perceived group hash use (1=very unlikely; 5= very likely) by group membership

Results for hash_3

1,4

5,9

10,9

15,1

37,3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

very unlikely unlikely neutral likely very likely

Fig. 6: % hash users (last month) by perceived group hash use

Results for hash_4

Before adjustment for perceived group behaviour

After adjustment for perceived group behaviour

O.R. 95% C.I. O.R. 95% C.I.

SEX 3.60** 2.39 – 5.41 3.58** 2.35 – 5.45

AGE 1.17* 1.02 – 1.33 1.12 0.97 – 1.28

GROUP IDENTITY:

-Sporty 0.40** 0.26 – 0.60 0.66 0.41 – 1.06

-Pop 1.02 0.59 – 1.75 0.79 0.44 – 1.41

-Skate/hiphop 2.89** 1.66 – 5.02 1.30 0.69 – 2.45

-Quiet 0.44* 0.26 – 0.76 0.65 0.35 – 1.12

-Techno 1.77 0.86 – 3.63 1.30 0.61 – 2.78

-Computer 0.52 0.23 – 1.16 0.65 0.28 – 1.51

-Religious 0.41 0.14 – 1.19 0.82 0.28 – 2.51

-Hippie 4.85** 3.10 – 7.61 2.05* 1.18 – 3.57

PERCEPTION 1.73** 1.18 – 3.57

Table 2: Logistic regression odds ratios for hash use

**p< .001, *p< .05

Results for alcohol_1

71,275,2 78,3

54

71,165,5

39,7

85

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

sporty

pop

skate/hiphop

quiet

techno

computer nerd

religious

hippie

General last month drunkeness prevalence: 68,3% (boys: 74,8%; girls: 64,3%)

Fig. 7: % been drunk (last month) by group membership

Results for alcohol_2

O.R. 95% C.I.

SEX 1.76** 1.36 – 2.27

AGE 1.11* 1.02 – 1.20

GROUP IDENTITY:

-Sporty 1.13 0.88 – 1.46

-Pop 1.47* 1.00 – 2.16

-Skate/hiphop 1.38 0.77 – 2.46

-Quiet 0.55** 0.42 – 0.74

-Techno 1.08 0.59 – 1.99

-Computer 0.64 0.38 – 1.09

-Religious 0.29** 0.17 – 0.48

-Hippie 2.85** 1.78 – 4.56

Table 3: Logistic regression odds ratios for last month drunkenness

**p< .001, *p< .05

Summary resultsGroup membership related to all 3 risk behavioursResults showed 4 ’high-risk’ groups and 4 ’low-risk’ groups. This distinction was most evident for smoking and least evident for alcoholGroup perception related strongly to personal behaviour

Smoking

Hash Alcohol

Quiet

Sporty

Religious

Computer

Techno

Skate/hiphop

Pop

Hippie

Boys vs girls

Significant lower risk Significant higher risk

Discussion (1)Possible implications for health

promotion: tailored activities to specific identity groupsfocus on undesirable group perceptions

…however some essential questions are still unsolved…

Discussion (2)Unsolved questions:

What underlies the different groups, what is the deeper meaning of risk behaviour to each group?High-risk groups more outgoing/more in contact with peers?How stable are group memberships over time?What are the directions of the observed relationships?Can group perceptions be manipulated?

Conclusion... more research is needed

especially a longitudinal study may provide useful information..