This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University] On: 15 December 2014, At: 22:01 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujpd20
Binge Drinking, Marijuana Use, and Friendships: The Relationship Between Similar and Dissimilar Usage and Friendship Quality a
b
John H. Boman IV Ph.D. , John Stogner Ph.D & Bryan Lee Miller Ph.D a
c
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming , Laramie , WY
b
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology , University of North Carolina at Charlotte , Charlotte , NC c
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology , Georgia Southern University , Statesboro , GA Published online: 02 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: John H. Boman IV Ph.D. , John Stogner Ph.D & Bryan Lee Miller Ph.D (2013) Binge Drinking, Marijuana Use, and Friendships: The Relationship Between Similar and Dissimilar Usage and Friendship Quality, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 45:3, 218-226, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2013.803646 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2013.803646
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 45 (3), 218–226, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0279-1072 print / 2159-9777 online DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2013.803646
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Binge Drinking, Marijuana Use, and Friendships: The Relationship Between Similar and Dissimilar Usage and Friendship Quality John H. Boman, IV, Ph.D.a ; John Stogner, Ph.D.b & Bryan Lee Miller, Ph.D.c
Abstract —While it is commonly understood that the substance use of peers influences an individual’s substance use, much less is understood about the interplay between substance use and friendship quality. Using a sample of 2,148 emerging adults nested within 1,074 dyadic friendships, this study separately investigates how concordance and discordance in binge drinking and marijuana use between friends is related to each friend’s perceptions of friendship quality. Because “friendship quality” is a complex construct, we employ a measure containing five sub-elements – companionship, a lack of conflict, willingness to help a friend, relationship security, and closeness. Results for both binge drinking and marijuana use reveal that individuals in friendship pairs who are concordant in their substance use perceive significantly higher perceptions of friendship quality than individuals in dyads who are dissimilar in substance use. Specifically, concordant binge drinkers estimate significantly higher levels of companionship, relationship security, and willingness to help their friend than concordant non-users, discordant users, and discordant non-users. However, the highest amount of conflict in friendships is found when both friends engage in binge drinking and marijuana use. Several interpretations of these findings are discussed. Overall, concordance between friends’ binge drinking and marijuana use appears to help some elements of friendship quality and harm others. Keywords — binge drinking, dyads, friendship quality, marijuana, substance use
Although there is an array of negative consequences associated with substance use, drugs also have the ability to play a pivotal role in developing relationships and forming group cohesion within a social setting. At the same time, substance use can create conflict and drive a wedge
into an otherwise strong friendship (Giordano et al. 1986). While research has frequently explored the impact of substance-using peers on an individual’s drug use (see the review of Akers 2009), very little research has attempted to ascertain whether substance use specifically acts as a binding or breaking agent within a friendship (although see Krohn et al. 1996; Giordano et al. 2010). Because of the importance of peer relationships on adolescent development (e.g., Berndt 2004; Dishion & Tipsord 2011), the current study examines the relationship between similarities in drug use and friendship quality by assessing whether friendships are stronger when substance use behavior is congruent. In addition, we explore whether individuals
a Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. b Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC. c Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA. Please address correspondence to John H. Boman, IV, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming, A & S Building, Room 223, Laramie, WY 82071; email: [email protected]
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
218
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
in friendship pairs who both use substances differ in friendship quality from individuals in other friendships.
NATURE OF DRUG USE AND CULTURE The use of recreational drugs by adolescents almost always occurs in a social setting (Warr 2002). Among others, Becker (1953) observed that the setting has a profound effect on the user and his/her interpretation of the drug experience. Different drugs are typically linked to specialized settings and forms of social interactions (Zinberg 1984). For instance, alcohol is traditionally used by young adults in contexts such as bars, sporting events, celebrations, and parties. Marijuana is also used in specialized settings; most commonly, the substance is used in small, intimate groups. These social-drug-use environments may bring substance-using individuals closer to one another, but may also be a source of conflict if individuals are dissimilar in their willingness to use the substance. It has been stated that drugs may serve as a “social lubricant,” allowing individuals to be more outgoing, engaging, and receptive within a social environment (Borsari & Carey 1999). Many settings (e.g., bars) are designed to utilize the pharmacological properties of the substance to facilitate social interactions and bonding. This has the potential to further strengthen an established friendship or aid in the formation of new relationships. The pharmacological effects of substances on friendships are likely further enhanced by a collective feeling of closeness that results from engaging in a shared behavior (see Krohn & Thornberry 1993). Within these settings, however, abstainers surrounded by use may feel isolated and withdrawn (Krohn & Thornberry 1993). In situations where two friends are discordant in their use (i.e., one uses and the other does not), the substance use may serve to weaken the friendship. This may not affect the friendship when both parties are sober, but abstainers are likely to feel less comfortable and disconnected when interacting with actively using peers. Particularly, in group settings in which non-users make up a small minority, nonusing individuals may feel a disconnect to both the setting and their peers. The reverse situation may also have an effect on the friendship; an individual who frequently uses, is actively using, or desires to use may feel uncomfortable and detached from friends in a group in which use is rare, nonexistent, or even stigmatized. The current study addresses two specific issues raised in the preceding paragraphs by focusing separately on binge drinking and marijuana use among friends in the developmental period of emerging adulthood. These substances, which are relatively frequent behaviors for individuals in this age group, are not only stigmatized differently (MacCoun & Reuter 2001), but are often used in different ways by friends. Using a sample of 2,148 individuals nested within 1,074 friendship dyads, the current study first attempts to determine if friends concordant in their drug use perceive their relationship to be of higher quality than those in relationships characterized by discordant
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
FRIENDSHIP QUALITY AND SHARED ACTIVITIES The best conceptualization of a strong friendship is one in which both individuals are heavily and equally invested in the friendship. Engaging in activities with another person is one of the ways in which this type of strong bond is formed (Boman et al. 2012; Piehler & Dishion 2007). Many people seek friendships with those who share similar interests and have similar experiences (Kandel 1978). Although this is the basis of many friendships, some friendships are formed between individuals with starkly different interests (Kandel 1978; Haynie 2001; Way & Greene 2006). Despite the diverse nature of friendships, some of the closest relationships have been found to exist within dyads in which both actors share numerous common interests, activities, characteristics, and experiences (Kandel & Davies 1991; Kandel et al. 1978; Way & Greene 2006). Even when the shared interests or activities violate social norms, they may serve to strengthen the bond of friendship. While a significant amount of research has focused on whether those who engage in delinquency have close friends, less attention has been paid to the quality and strength of these individuals’ friendships (Hartup 1996). Hirschi (1969) has argued that the strength of one’s friendships, regardless of whom they are with, is directly and inversely related to delinquent behavior. Most would argue that friendships both affect and are affected by delinquency (see the discussion of Kandel 1996; also Berndt 2004). Both Giordano and colleagues (1986) and Boman and colleagues (2012) have found that those in delinquent friendships report higher-quality relationships than those in non-delinquent relationships. Drug use may be unique because both a chemical reaction and the social settings surrounding the use can influence the relationship between individuals. This is exacerbated by the nature of drug use and the potential for dependency, as users may share not only drug-using but also drug-seeking behaviors. Kandel and Davies (1991) found that interpersonal ties were stronger in drug-using networks than non-using networks. While Krohn and Thornberry (1993) confirmed this in a later study (see also McGloin 2009), they did note that drug users were more likely to have shifting friendship networks. In a similar study, Giordano and colleagues (1986) argued that drug users were closer to their peers but also had more conflicts with them (see also Dishion and Tipsord 2011). Therefore, while elements of friendship quality are often higher among those who engage in like behaviors, questions remain about the influence of substance use on friendships mixed between users and non-users. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
219
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
substance use. Second, we explore whether individuals in concordant drug-using dyads perceive higher quality friendships than those in concordant non-using and discordant dyads. In accordance with prior findings, we offer the following hypotheses:
Ainsworth 1989; Hartup 1993), this perception reflects each respondent’s estimate of friendship quality towards the other dyadic member. The FQS has been shown to be valid and reliable in both adolescent and emerging adult populations (Brendgen et al. 2001; Saferstein et al. 2005). For each of the 23 items, participants selected a response ranging from “not true” (coded 0) to “really true” (coded 4). Questions were phrased in such a way that higher scores indicate a higher quality of friendship. Within the multidimensional FQS scale are five factors – companionship (four items), lack of conflict (four items), willingness to help the friend (five items), relationship security (five items), and closeness (five items). While the FQS is typically used as a single summated scale, we evaluate the relationship of drug use concordance with the full FQS measure and each of its factors since some (e.g., Berndt 2004) have found that delinquency may impact specific elements of friendship quality differently. Two self-reported measures, one measuring binge drinking and the other measuring marijuana use, were adapted from the National Youth Survey (Elliott et al. 1985) and used as independent variables. Using Wechsler’s (Wechsler et al. 2003) definition for binge drinking, participants were asked how many times in the past 12 months the respondent had “drank more than 5 alcoholic drinks at once.”1 Individuals also reported their marijuana use over the past 12 months. Potential responses to these items ranged from 1 (never) to 9 (two to three times a day). These items were recoded into dichotomous measures where 0 indicated no binge drinking/marijuana use and 1 indicated binge drinking/marijuana use (prior values 2-9). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.
Hypothesis One: Individuals in friendship pairs that are concordant in their drug-using behavior will perceive a higher quality friendship than individuals in friendships discordant in drug use. Hypothesis Two: Individuals in concordant drug-using pairs will show a higher level of friendship quality than non-users in concordant pairs, drug users in discordant pairs, and non-users in discordant pairs.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
METHODS AND SAMPLE Subjects Data originate from a sample of 1,074 best-friend pairs collected from a collegiate population at a large university in the southeastern United States (n = 2,148 individuals). Individuals were recruited from several highenrollment classes at the university and asked to arrive at the study site with one of their five closest friends who was also enrolled at the university. This dyadic strategy was employed to provide an accurate assessment of substance use for both friends and remedies the issue of inaccurate peer-substance-use perceptions commonly found in young adult populations (see, for example, Miller et al. 2013). The characteristics of the resulting sample were similar to the campus at large in terms of gender, race, age, and GPA. The resulting sample was 34% male and consisted of 62% White, 14% Black, 9% Asian, and 18% Hispanic individuals with a mean age of 19.3 years (SD = 1.433).
Statistical Analysis Information from each member of the dyad was paired with that of the other dyadic member, creating what Kenny, Kashy and Cook (2006) refer to as a “double-entry” data file. This means that each participant is represented on an individual line of data with his/her own responses and the relevant information from his/her partner. In this case, the partner’s self-reported binge drinking and marijuana use were paired with the actor’s self-reported substance use and the actor’s perceptions of the friendship quality. As each respondent may view the friendship differently, we use individual level data as opposed to the dyad as a whole. Thus, the unit of analysis within this study is individuals, but the structure of the data allows for the construction of both individual-level and dyadic-level variables. Four separate groups were constructed to allow for a comparison of friendship quality between individuals in dyads of differing substance use composition. Actors within dyads in which both members self-reported binge drinking were classified as concordant users, and actors in dyads in which both members abstained from binge drinking were labeled concordant non-users. Binge
Procedure Those participating in the research were asked to arrive at the study site at the same time as their selected friend. After granting informed consent, the volunteer pairs were separated and taken to isolated rooms. There they were asked to complete identical questionnaires about their behaviors and their relationship with their friend. Surveys were pre-coded to identify individuals as a matched pair. Respondents could not participate with more than one friend, meaning all dyads are independent. Participants from the recruitment classes received a small amount of extra credit in the course from which they were recruited as compensation. In most cases, the friend was not enrolled in those classes and therefore was not compensated. Measures The study’s dependent variable was constructed using the Friendship Qualities Scale (FQS; Bukowski et al. 1994). The FQS is a 23 Likert-type item scale that provides an attitudinal (or subject-perceptual) measure of the friendship quality. In accordance with prior literature (e.g., Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
220
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics of Measures Used in Analyses (n = 2,148 Actors) Measure Binge drinking (binary) Marijuana use (binary)
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Friendship quality (full measure) Companionship subscale Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
M 0.644 0.329
SD 0.479 0.470
Min. 0 0
Max. 1 1
67.506 10.387 10.663 16.486 15.060 14.909
12.482 3.386 3.484 3.077 3.260 3.839
0 0 0 0 0 0
92 16 16 20 20 20
drinkers with a non-binge-drinking peer were categorized as discordant users and non-binge drinkers with a bingedrinking peer were labeled discordant non-users. The two discordant groups are treated separately as perceived friendship quality in a behaviorally incongruent pair may differ depending on whether the actor is the user or nonuser. This process was repeated for marijuana use. The first hypothesis is evaluated using an ANOVA with a Scheffé’s multiple comparison test (Scheffé 1959). This analysis compares the mean FQS score and the score of each of the five factors for the two concordant groups combined with that of the two discordant groups combined. Scheffé multiple comparison tests are meant for situations when the means being investigated represent the mean of multiple group means. This particular test is appropriate because the means under examination are a combination of the mean FQS scores from the concordant users and concordant non-users (and discordant users and discordant non-users) together. The evaluation of hypothesis two utilizes a similar analysis by first comparing the concordant users to the other three groups together as a whole (the concordant non-users, discordant users, and discordant users). Finally, we compare the mean levels of friendship quality for each of the four groups to each of the others.2
consisted of 668 (31.1%) individuals (334 discordant users and 334 discordant non-users). Analyses presented in Table 2 indicate that individual actors in a pair that is concordant in their substance use or non-use perceive their friendships to be of higher quality than those who are in a pair discordant in use. The mean FQS score for actors in pairs concordant in alcohol use is 1.677 units higher than those in discordant pairs. This difference is significant as is the difference in the companionship, help, and security subscales. A similar pattern emerges for marijuana use. Actors in concordant pairs have FQS scores that are on average 1.163 units higher than actors in pairs discordant in their use. This represents a significant difference giving support for hypothesis one. Of the subscales, however, only closeness is significantly different at the .01 level. Actors in concordant dyads perceive significantly higher friendship-quality elements in six of the 12 total comparison tests. The second hypothesis is evaluated in the second to last column of Table 3. These Scheffé’s comparisons contrast actors in concordant user pairs with actors in all three other groups combined (concordant non-users and both discordant pairs). Although the overall FQS score for actors in pairs concordant in binge drinking is not significantly different from those in the other groups, concordant users score significantly higher in the companionship, help, and security scales. Interestingly, actors in concordant user groups report significantly less lack of conflict, indicating that more conflict exists among concordant users. The overall FQS scores of actors in pairs concordant for marijuana use are not significantly different from the other groups in combination. Concordant marijuana users are significantly higher in terms of companionship indicators. Similar to binge drinking, actors in concordant marijuana-using pairs self-reported lower scores for the lack of conflict scale than the other groups combined. Also within Table 3, the individual actors’ perceptions of friendship quality are compared across each of the four types of friendship groups (actors in concordant user
RESULTS For binge drinking, 1,484 (69.1%) individuals fall into the concordant classification; of these respondents, 1,052 (49.0%) individuals are classified as concordant users and 432 (20.1%) are classified as concordant non-users. Discordant binge drinkers are comprised of 664 (30.9%) total individuals – 332 (15.5%) discordant users and 332 (15.5%) discordant non-users (these group sizes are necessarily equal due to nesting). For marijuana, there are 1,480 (68.9%) individuals in the concordant group. Of these, 372 (17.3%) are concordant users and 1,108 (51.6%) are concordant non-users. The discordant marijuana group
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
221
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
TABLE 2 ANOVA Results Comparing the Actor’s Friendship Quality Estimates Based on Concordance in Binge Drinking and Marijuana Use (n = 2,148)
Binge Drinking Friendship quality (full measure) Companionship subscale Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
Concordant M (SD) n = 1,484 68.024 (12.228) 10.587 (3.284) 10.624 (3.419) 16.621 (2.997) 15.196 (3.177) 14.997 (3.800)
Discordant M (SD) n = 664 66.347 (12.967) 9.940 (3.566) 10.749 (3.628) 16.187 (3.231) 14.758 (3.421) 14.712 (3.919)
8.32∗∗ 16.86∗∗ 0.59 9.14∗∗ 8.28∗∗ 2.54
C > D∗∗ C > D∗∗
Marijuana Use Friendship quality (full measure) Companionship subscale Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
n = 1,480 67.867 (12.414) 10.480 (3.368) 10.636 (3.527) 16.568 (3.063) 15.112 (3.256) 15.072 (3.784)
n = 668 66.704 (12.604) 10.182 (3.421) 10.721 (3.390) 16.306 (3.103) 14.947 (3.267) 14.548 (3.936)
4.00∗ 3.56 0.27 3.33 1.17 8.61∗∗
C > D∗
∗p
F
Scheffé’s Comparison
C > D∗∗ C > D∗∗
C > D∗∗
≤ .05 ∗∗ p ≤ .01.
pairs, actors in concordant non-user pairs, users in discordant pairs, and non-users in discordant pairs). To clarify, the previously discussed results only compared the group of interest (concordant users) to all other groups combined; this analysis compares individuals in each of the separate types of friendship alignments to one another. Because the means investigated no longer average multiple group means, Bonferroni comparisons are now used. No groups are significantly different for the full FQS scale for either binge drinking or marijuana use. The breakdown of the FQS into its factors reveals, however, that actors in concordant user pairs do report friendships of higher quality than other groups in several areas. Actors in concordant binge-drinking pairs report significantly more companionship towards their peers than both users and non-users in discordant pairs. They also report significantly higher scores on help than users in discordant pairs. Also for binge drinking, actors in concordant non-using pairs score higher on lack of conflict than actors in concordant user pairs. For marijuana use, finally, the concordant non-user actors score higher in terms of closeness than concordant users and discordant non-users.
may further our understanding of the interplay between substance use and friendship quality. The current study provides evidence supporting the first hypothesis – friends concordant in their substance use appear to have higher overall quality friendships than friends discordant in use. This indicates that those who share similar behaviors, including the use of (or abstention from) substance use, perceive that they experience higher-quality friendships. On the other hand, past research suggests that individuals within friendships experience closer relationships when they share substance use in common (Krohn & Thornberry 1993). This indeed appears to be true for two common forms of substance use: binge drinking and marijuana use. Regardless of the form of substance use, individuals within concordant pairs are higher in terms of overall friendship quality and many of the factors underlying friendship quality. Individuals within concordant pairs are particularly higher in terms of companionship and their willingness to help the friend. Substance use can be an integral part of adolescents’ and young adults’ lives, and the experience of using may bring some individuals closer together. However, the initial exploration of hypothesis two resulted in mixed support. When focusing on overall friendship quality, the individuals in pairs of two users scored no better than those in all other pairings for both forms of substance use. This null finding, however, may be a result of focusing on the full complexity of a friendship rather than specific aspects of the relationship. Actors in pairs in which both individuals engaged in binge drinking reported that they had greater
DISCUSSION While past research has compared users and nonusers in terms of the quality of friendships they experience (Giordano et al. 1986), our investigation into concordance and discordance of substance use offers new insights that
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
222
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
223
Marijuana Use Friendship quality (full) Companionship subscale Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
n = 334 66.774 (12.131) 10.137 (3.405) 10.618 (3.331) 16.358 (2.941) 15.045 (3.092) 14.615 (3.864)
10.748 (3.557) 16.093 (3.154) 14.704 (3.367) 14.600 (3.990)
G3: Discordant User M (SD) n = 332 66.070 (12.829) 9.924 (3.526)
A Significant
≤ .05 ∗∗ p ≤ .01. between group differences only presented for ANOVA models significant at or above p ≤ .05.
n = 1,108 68.069 (12.499) 10.391 (3.363) 10.769 (3.502) 16.561 (3.101) 15.122 (3.268) 15.227 (3.758)
n = 372 67.266 (12.155) 10.746 (3.372) 10.241 (3.576) 16.589 (2.951) 15.081 (3.223) 14.610 (3.829)
Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
∗p
11.019 (3.482) 16.579 (3.108) 15.161 (3.231) 15.275 (3.767)
10.461 (3.381) 16.638 (2.951) 15.210 (3.156) 14.883 (3.810)
Binge Drinking Friendship quality (full) Companionship subscale
G2: Concordant Non-User M (SD) n = 432 68.426 (12.242) 10.392 (3.362)
G1: Concordant User M (SD) n = 1,052 67.860 (12.224) 10.668 (3.250)
n = 334 66.634 (13.077) 10.227 (3.442) 10.823 (3.450) 16.255 (3.261) 14.849 (3.436) 14.481 (4.012)
10.750 (3.703) 16.281 (3.309) 14.813 (3.478) 14.823 (3.849)
G4: Discordant Non-User M (SD) n = 332 66.623 (13.116) 9.957 (3.611)
G1 > Other Groups∗ G1 < Other Groups∗∗
G1 < Other Groups∗∗ G1 > Other Groups∗ G1 > Other Groups∗
G1 > Other Groups∗∗
G1 Compared to G2 & G3 & G4A
G1 < G2∗ G2 > G4∗
G1 > G3∗∗ G1 > G4∗∗ G1 < G2∗ G1 > G3∗
Individual Group ComparisonsA
TABLE 3 ANOVA Results Comparing the Actor’s Friendship Quality Estimates Based on Whether He/She is a Concordant User (G1), Concordant Non-User (G2), Discordant User (G3), or Discordant Non-User (G4): Binge Drinking and Marijuana Use Results (n = 2,148)
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Boman, Stogner & Miller Substance Use and Friendship Quality
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
companionship, relationship security, and were more willing to help their peer. To a lesser degree, this also holds true for marijuana; pairs of marijuana users felt greater companionship than all other groups combined. Mutually using pairs of both substances had lower quality friendship indicators in one area – they were more likely to experience conflict than the other groups. When considering all four groups of concordant and discordant users and non-users, our findings offer some support that the elements of friendship quality are stronger among individuals in the concordant user groups. While the results of the overall Friendship Qualities Scale in the individual group comparison tests do not support the second hypothesis, these null results are masking important friendship element differences because substance use acts differentially on the various elements of friendship quality. Concordant binge drinkers were significantly higher in companionship and willingness to help than discordant binge drinkers. Concordant binge drinkers were also significantly lower in a lack of conflict than concordant non-users, which may have prevented individual group differences on the overall friendship quality score from reaching significance. Beyond this possibility, the finding that significantly higher conflict exists between concordant users than the other groups together is a result that holds considerable substantive weight. Although concordant users frequently experience higher-quality friendships (Kandel & Davies 1991), substance use may be distinct from many other shared activities due to its ability to be a source and/or facilitator of conflicts. The pharmacological effects of the substances investigated in this study may play a role in creating, escalating, and perpetuating conflict. Binge drinking, for example, may lower one’s ability to respond prosocially to negative stimuli, thus increasing strains on relationships. Alternatively, the effects of marijuana may negatively influence the way that one responds within personal interactions, creating discord. Giordano and colleagues (1986; also 2010) have, interestingly, found that higher levels of conflict exist within friendships marked by delinquent behavior. Considering their findings in conjunction with ours, an important factor in understanding the interplay of substance use, behavioral concordance, and friendship quality may be the amount of time one spends with peers. Past research has found that individuals who spend more time with peers are more likely to be open and honest in their levels of disagreement (Laursen 1993). In this instance, the congruent use between individuals may be an indication that they are comfortable in their relationship, spend more time together, and are willing to openly express frustration with one another. The finding that concordant substance users experience higher amounts of conflict than others may have implications for clinicians and practicing counselors. If a patient reports having conflictual relationships with his/her Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
friends, the clinician may wish to discuss whether the patient and his/her friends share similar patterns of substance use and, more specifically, which types of substances are being used. While there are likely additional sources of potential conflict within a relationship, understanding the substance use patterns of the patient and his/her friends may help guide the counselor to a more detailed understanding of the conflict within the patient’s relationships and his/her social status. A limitation of this study is its cross sectional design. While the measures of friendship quality were intended to reflect perceptions at the time of the survey and substance use measures reflected self-reported substance use of the preceding year, it is inappropriate to infer causality. We suggest that future research explore the relationship between substance use congruence and changes in friendship quality over time in order to determine if the mechanisms hypothesized in this study account for the relationships noted in these results. Despite the use of a sample that allows for friendship quality and substance use scores to be matched across friends, it is important to recognize that most individuals have more than one close friend. Thus, while the use of dyadic data presents a unique opportunity for this research, it is also inherently limited due to its inability to evaluate larger social networks, which would be made up of pairings of dyads (Hartup 1993). Also, the sample is drawn from a group of emerging adults at only one large university in the southern United States. This not only affects the generalizability of the sample, it also may indicate that the amount of substance use varies considerably from other, and especially high-risk, samples. With these limitations considered, we stress that it is important to replicate and extend these results with samples in other populations, utilizing alternative measures of binge drinking, and exploring additional intoxicating substances. While the findings in this study generally point to concordant substance users experiencing higher-quality friendships than others, the complexity in understanding the relationship between substance use and friendship quality is also clear. Succinctly, there does not seem to be a “catch-all” benefit or harm to the friendship quality that one experiences based on substance use concordance, substance non-use concordance, or discordance between friends. What is of considerable value, however, is that while substance use may increase conflict between friends, there are indeed some aspects of a friendship that are strengthened by common usage. NOTES 1. “Binge drinking” and its operationalizational methods represent an evolving understanding about the nature of alcohol use and, as such, have recently changed slightly. Within this study, binge drinking refers 224
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
to heavy episodic drinking during one setting as opposed to heavy drinking over a period of weeks or months as Jellinek (1952) and others have conceptualized it. We utilize a “five or more drinks in one setting” measure for both genders since the survey utilized does not contain information that allows for the typically accepted 5/4 measure (see Wechsler & Nelson 2001), nor does it allow for a binge drinking measure accounting for body mass or drinking-episode duration (see Lange & Voas 2001). Recent work, however, suggests that BAC
measurement and other techniques may not be as capable as traditional measures (such as ours) at identifying risks related to short-term alcohol use (Fillmore & Jude 2011). 2. Because individuals are nested within dyads, violations of the independence assumption can occur. We checked for this possibility using the F-star and the Wtest corrections to ANOVA. These tests share in common their use of cluster (or robust) modifications to the standard errors. Results were identical to the regular ANOVAs, and thus we report the standard F-tests in the results section.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
REFERENCES Jellinek, E.M. 1952. Phases of alcohol addiction. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 13: 673–684. Kandel, D.B. 1978. Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. The American Journal of Sociology 84: 427–436. Kandel, D.B. 1996. The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: An algebra of interpersonal influences. Journal of Drug Issues 26: 289–315. Kandel, D.B.; Kessler, R. & Margulies, R. 1978. Antecedents of adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. In: D.B. Kandel (Ed.) Longitudinal Research in Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological Issues, pp. 73–99. Washington, DC: Hemisphere-Wiley. Kandel, D.B. & Davies, M. 1991. Friendship networks, intimacy, and illicit drug use in young adulthood: A comparison of two competing theories. Criminology 29: 441–469. Kenny, D.A.; Kashy, D.A. & Cook, W.L. 2006. Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford. Krohn, M.D.; Lizotte, A.J.; Thornberry, T.P.; Smith, C. & McDowall, D. 1996. Reciprocal causal relationships among drug use, peers, and beliefs: A five-wave panel model. Journal of Drug Issues 26: 405–428. Krohn, M.D. & Thornberry, T.P. 1993. Network theory: A model for understanding drug abuse for African-American and Hispanic youth. In: M.R. De La Rosa & J.R. Adrados (Eds.) Drug Abuse Among Minority Youth: Methodological Issues and Recent Research Advances, pp. 102–128. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Lange, J.E. & Voas, R.B. 2001. Defining binge drinking quantities through resulting blood alcohol concentrations. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 15: 310–316. Laursen, B. 1993. Conflict management among close peers. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 60: 39–53. MacCoun, R.J. & Reuter, P. 2001. Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press. McGloin, J.M. 2009. Delinquency balance: Revisiting peer influence. Criminology 47: 439–477. Miller, B.L.; Boman, J. H., IV & Stogner, J.M. 2013. Examining the measurement of novel drug perceptions: Salvia divinorum, gender, and peer substance use. Substance Use and Misuse 48: 65–72. Piehler, T.F. & Dishion, T.J. 2007. Interpersonal dynamics within adolescent friendships: Dyadic mutuality, deviant talk, and patterns of antisocial behavior. Child Development 78: 1611–1624.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. 1989. Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist 44: 709–716. Akers, R.L. 2009. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Becker, H.S. 1953. Becoming a marihuana user. The American Journal of Sociology 59: 235–242. Berndt, T. 2004. Children’s friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on their development and their effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 50: 206–223. Boman, J.H., IV; Krohn, M.D.; Gibson, C.L. & Stogner, J.M. 2012. Investigating friendship quality: An exploration of self-control and social control theories’ friendship hypotheses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41: 1526–1540. Borsari, B.E. & Carey, K.B. 1999. Understanding fraternity drinking: Five recurring themes in the literature, 1980–1998. Journal of American College Health 48: 30–40. Brendgen, M.; Markiewicz, D.; Doyle, A.B. & Bukowski, W.M. 2001. The relations between friendship quality, ranked-friendship preference and adolescents’ behavior with their friends. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 47: 395–415. Bukowski, W.M.; Hoza, B. & Boivin, M. 1994. Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11: 471–484. Dishion, T.J. & Dipsord, J.M. 2011. Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology 62: 189–214. Elliott, D.S.; Huizinga, D. & Ageton, S.S. 1985. Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fillmore, M.T. & Jude, R. 2011. Defining “binge” drinking as five drinks per occasion or drinking to a .08% BAC: Which is more sensitive to risk? The American Journal on Addictions 20: 468–475. Giordano, P.C.; Cernkovich, S.A. & Pugh, M.D. 1986. Friendships and delinquency. The American Journal of Sociology 91: 1170–1202. Giordano, P.C.; Lonardo, R.A.; Manning, W.D. & Longmore, M.A. 2010. Adolescent romance and delinquency: A further exploration of Hirschi’s cold and brittle relationships hypothesis. Criminology 48: 919–946. Hartup, W.W. 1993. Adolescents and their friends. New Directions for Child Development 60: 3–22. Hartup, W.W. 1996. The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development 67: 1–13. Haynie, D.L. 2001. Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? The American Journal of Sociology 106: 1013–1057. Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
225
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
Wechsler, H. & Nelson, T.F. 2001. Binge drinking and the American college students: What’s five drinks? Psychology Addictive Behaviors 15: 287–291. Wechsler, H.; Nelson, T.F.; Lee, J.E.; Seibring, M.; Lewis, C. & Keeling, R.P. 2003. Perception and reality: A national evaluation of social norms marketing interventions to reduce college students’ heavy alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64: 484–494. Zinberg, N.E. 1984. Drug, Set and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Saferstein, J.A.; Neimeyer, G.J. & Hagans, C.L. 2005. Attachment as a predictor of friendship qualities in college youth. Social Behavior and Personality 33: 767–776. Scheffé, H. 1959. The Analysis of Variance. New York: Wiley. Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. New York: Cambridge University Press. Way, N. & Greene, M.L. 2006. Trajectories of perceived friendship quality during adolescence: The patterns and contextual predictors. Journal of Research on Adolescence 16: 293–320.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
226
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujpd20
Binge Drinking, Marijuana Use, and Friendships: The Relationship Between Similar and Dissimilar Usage and Friendship Quality a
b
John H. Boman IV Ph.D. , John Stogner Ph.D & Bryan Lee Miller Ph.D a
c
Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming , Laramie , WY
b
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology , University of North Carolina at Charlotte , Charlotte , NC c
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology , Georgia Southern University , Statesboro , GA Published online: 02 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: John H. Boman IV Ph.D. , John Stogner Ph.D & Bryan Lee Miller Ph.D (2013) Binge Drinking, Marijuana Use, and Friendships: The Relationship Between Similar and Dissimilar Usage and Friendship Quality, Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 45:3, 218-226, DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2013.803646 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2013.803646
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 45 (3), 218–226, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0279-1072 print / 2159-9777 online DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2013.803646
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Binge Drinking, Marijuana Use, and Friendships: The Relationship Between Similar and Dissimilar Usage and Friendship Quality John H. Boman, IV, Ph.D.a ; John Stogner, Ph.D.b & Bryan Lee Miller, Ph.D.c
Abstract —While it is commonly understood that the substance use of peers influences an individual’s substance use, much less is understood about the interplay between substance use and friendship quality. Using a sample of 2,148 emerging adults nested within 1,074 dyadic friendships, this study separately investigates how concordance and discordance in binge drinking and marijuana use between friends is related to each friend’s perceptions of friendship quality. Because “friendship quality” is a complex construct, we employ a measure containing five sub-elements – companionship, a lack of conflict, willingness to help a friend, relationship security, and closeness. Results for both binge drinking and marijuana use reveal that individuals in friendship pairs who are concordant in their substance use perceive significantly higher perceptions of friendship quality than individuals in dyads who are dissimilar in substance use. Specifically, concordant binge drinkers estimate significantly higher levels of companionship, relationship security, and willingness to help their friend than concordant non-users, discordant users, and discordant non-users. However, the highest amount of conflict in friendships is found when both friends engage in binge drinking and marijuana use. Several interpretations of these findings are discussed. Overall, concordance between friends’ binge drinking and marijuana use appears to help some elements of friendship quality and harm others. Keywords — binge drinking, dyads, friendship quality, marijuana, substance use
Although there is an array of negative consequences associated with substance use, drugs also have the ability to play a pivotal role in developing relationships and forming group cohesion within a social setting. At the same time, substance use can create conflict and drive a wedge
into an otherwise strong friendship (Giordano et al. 1986). While research has frequently explored the impact of substance-using peers on an individual’s drug use (see the review of Akers 2009), very little research has attempted to ascertain whether substance use specifically acts as a binding or breaking agent within a friendship (although see Krohn et al. 1996; Giordano et al. 2010). Because of the importance of peer relationships on adolescent development (e.g., Berndt 2004; Dishion & Tipsord 2011), the current study examines the relationship between similarities in drug use and friendship quality by assessing whether friendships are stronger when substance use behavior is congruent. In addition, we explore whether individuals
a Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. b Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC. c Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA. Please address correspondence to John H. Boman, IV, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Wyoming, A & S Building, Room 223, Laramie, WY 82071; email: [email protected]
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
218
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
in friendship pairs who both use substances differ in friendship quality from individuals in other friendships.
NATURE OF DRUG USE AND CULTURE The use of recreational drugs by adolescents almost always occurs in a social setting (Warr 2002). Among others, Becker (1953) observed that the setting has a profound effect on the user and his/her interpretation of the drug experience. Different drugs are typically linked to specialized settings and forms of social interactions (Zinberg 1984). For instance, alcohol is traditionally used by young adults in contexts such as bars, sporting events, celebrations, and parties. Marijuana is also used in specialized settings; most commonly, the substance is used in small, intimate groups. These social-drug-use environments may bring substance-using individuals closer to one another, but may also be a source of conflict if individuals are dissimilar in their willingness to use the substance. It has been stated that drugs may serve as a “social lubricant,” allowing individuals to be more outgoing, engaging, and receptive within a social environment (Borsari & Carey 1999). Many settings (e.g., bars) are designed to utilize the pharmacological properties of the substance to facilitate social interactions and bonding. This has the potential to further strengthen an established friendship or aid in the formation of new relationships. The pharmacological effects of substances on friendships are likely further enhanced by a collective feeling of closeness that results from engaging in a shared behavior (see Krohn & Thornberry 1993). Within these settings, however, abstainers surrounded by use may feel isolated and withdrawn (Krohn & Thornberry 1993). In situations where two friends are discordant in their use (i.e., one uses and the other does not), the substance use may serve to weaken the friendship. This may not affect the friendship when both parties are sober, but abstainers are likely to feel less comfortable and disconnected when interacting with actively using peers. Particularly, in group settings in which non-users make up a small minority, nonusing individuals may feel a disconnect to both the setting and their peers. The reverse situation may also have an effect on the friendship; an individual who frequently uses, is actively using, or desires to use may feel uncomfortable and detached from friends in a group in which use is rare, nonexistent, or even stigmatized. The current study addresses two specific issues raised in the preceding paragraphs by focusing separately on binge drinking and marijuana use among friends in the developmental period of emerging adulthood. These substances, which are relatively frequent behaviors for individuals in this age group, are not only stigmatized differently (MacCoun & Reuter 2001), but are often used in different ways by friends. Using a sample of 2,148 individuals nested within 1,074 friendship dyads, the current study first attempts to determine if friends concordant in their drug use perceive their relationship to be of higher quality than those in relationships characterized by discordant
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
FRIENDSHIP QUALITY AND SHARED ACTIVITIES The best conceptualization of a strong friendship is one in which both individuals are heavily and equally invested in the friendship. Engaging in activities with another person is one of the ways in which this type of strong bond is formed (Boman et al. 2012; Piehler & Dishion 2007). Many people seek friendships with those who share similar interests and have similar experiences (Kandel 1978). Although this is the basis of many friendships, some friendships are formed between individuals with starkly different interests (Kandel 1978; Haynie 2001; Way & Greene 2006). Despite the diverse nature of friendships, some of the closest relationships have been found to exist within dyads in which both actors share numerous common interests, activities, characteristics, and experiences (Kandel & Davies 1991; Kandel et al. 1978; Way & Greene 2006). Even when the shared interests or activities violate social norms, they may serve to strengthen the bond of friendship. While a significant amount of research has focused on whether those who engage in delinquency have close friends, less attention has been paid to the quality and strength of these individuals’ friendships (Hartup 1996). Hirschi (1969) has argued that the strength of one’s friendships, regardless of whom they are with, is directly and inversely related to delinquent behavior. Most would argue that friendships both affect and are affected by delinquency (see the discussion of Kandel 1996; also Berndt 2004). Both Giordano and colleagues (1986) and Boman and colleagues (2012) have found that those in delinquent friendships report higher-quality relationships than those in non-delinquent relationships. Drug use may be unique because both a chemical reaction and the social settings surrounding the use can influence the relationship between individuals. This is exacerbated by the nature of drug use and the potential for dependency, as users may share not only drug-using but also drug-seeking behaviors. Kandel and Davies (1991) found that interpersonal ties were stronger in drug-using networks than non-using networks. While Krohn and Thornberry (1993) confirmed this in a later study (see also McGloin 2009), they did note that drug users were more likely to have shifting friendship networks. In a similar study, Giordano and colleagues (1986) argued that drug users were closer to their peers but also had more conflicts with them (see also Dishion and Tipsord 2011). Therefore, while elements of friendship quality are often higher among those who engage in like behaviors, questions remain about the influence of substance use on friendships mixed between users and non-users. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
219
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
substance use. Second, we explore whether individuals in concordant drug-using dyads perceive higher quality friendships than those in concordant non-using and discordant dyads. In accordance with prior findings, we offer the following hypotheses:
Ainsworth 1989; Hartup 1993), this perception reflects each respondent’s estimate of friendship quality towards the other dyadic member. The FQS has been shown to be valid and reliable in both adolescent and emerging adult populations (Brendgen et al. 2001; Saferstein et al. 2005). For each of the 23 items, participants selected a response ranging from “not true” (coded 0) to “really true” (coded 4). Questions were phrased in such a way that higher scores indicate a higher quality of friendship. Within the multidimensional FQS scale are five factors – companionship (four items), lack of conflict (four items), willingness to help the friend (five items), relationship security (five items), and closeness (five items). While the FQS is typically used as a single summated scale, we evaluate the relationship of drug use concordance with the full FQS measure and each of its factors since some (e.g., Berndt 2004) have found that delinquency may impact specific elements of friendship quality differently. Two self-reported measures, one measuring binge drinking and the other measuring marijuana use, were adapted from the National Youth Survey (Elliott et al. 1985) and used as independent variables. Using Wechsler’s (Wechsler et al. 2003) definition for binge drinking, participants were asked how many times in the past 12 months the respondent had “drank more than 5 alcoholic drinks at once.”1 Individuals also reported their marijuana use over the past 12 months. Potential responses to these items ranged from 1 (never) to 9 (two to three times a day). These items were recoded into dichotomous measures where 0 indicated no binge drinking/marijuana use and 1 indicated binge drinking/marijuana use (prior values 2-9). Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.
Hypothesis One: Individuals in friendship pairs that are concordant in their drug-using behavior will perceive a higher quality friendship than individuals in friendships discordant in drug use. Hypothesis Two: Individuals in concordant drug-using pairs will show a higher level of friendship quality than non-users in concordant pairs, drug users in discordant pairs, and non-users in discordant pairs.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
METHODS AND SAMPLE Subjects Data originate from a sample of 1,074 best-friend pairs collected from a collegiate population at a large university in the southeastern United States (n = 2,148 individuals). Individuals were recruited from several highenrollment classes at the university and asked to arrive at the study site with one of their five closest friends who was also enrolled at the university. This dyadic strategy was employed to provide an accurate assessment of substance use for both friends and remedies the issue of inaccurate peer-substance-use perceptions commonly found in young adult populations (see, for example, Miller et al. 2013). The characteristics of the resulting sample were similar to the campus at large in terms of gender, race, age, and GPA. The resulting sample was 34% male and consisted of 62% White, 14% Black, 9% Asian, and 18% Hispanic individuals with a mean age of 19.3 years (SD = 1.433).
Statistical Analysis Information from each member of the dyad was paired with that of the other dyadic member, creating what Kenny, Kashy and Cook (2006) refer to as a “double-entry” data file. This means that each participant is represented on an individual line of data with his/her own responses and the relevant information from his/her partner. In this case, the partner’s self-reported binge drinking and marijuana use were paired with the actor’s self-reported substance use and the actor’s perceptions of the friendship quality. As each respondent may view the friendship differently, we use individual level data as opposed to the dyad as a whole. Thus, the unit of analysis within this study is individuals, but the structure of the data allows for the construction of both individual-level and dyadic-level variables. Four separate groups were constructed to allow for a comparison of friendship quality between individuals in dyads of differing substance use composition. Actors within dyads in which both members self-reported binge drinking were classified as concordant users, and actors in dyads in which both members abstained from binge drinking were labeled concordant non-users. Binge
Procedure Those participating in the research were asked to arrive at the study site at the same time as their selected friend. After granting informed consent, the volunteer pairs were separated and taken to isolated rooms. There they were asked to complete identical questionnaires about their behaviors and their relationship with their friend. Surveys were pre-coded to identify individuals as a matched pair. Respondents could not participate with more than one friend, meaning all dyads are independent. Participants from the recruitment classes received a small amount of extra credit in the course from which they were recruited as compensation. In most cases, the friend was not enrolled in those classes and therefore was not compensated. Measures The study’s dependent variable was constructed using the Friendship Qualities Scale (FQS; Bukowski et al. 1994). The FQS is a 23 Likert-type item scale that provides an attitudinal (or subject-perceptual) measure of the friendship quality. In accordance with prior literature (e.g., Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
220
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics of Measures Used in Analyses (n = 2,148 Actors) Measure Binge drinking (binary) Marijuana use (binary)
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Friendship quality (full measure) Companionship subscale Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
M 0.644 0.329
SD 0.479 0.470
Min. 0 0
Max. 1 1
67.506 10.387 10.663 16.486 15.060 14.909
12.482 3.386 3.484 3.077 3.260 3.839
0 0 0 0 0 0
92 16 16 20 20 20
drinkers with a non-binge-drinking peer were categorized as discordant users and non-binge drinkers with a bingedrinking peer were labeled discordant non-users. The two discordant groups are treated separately as perceived friendship quality in a behaviorally incongruent pair may differ depending on whether the actor is the user or nonuser. This process was repeated for marijuana use. The first hypothesis is evaluated using an ANOVA with a Scheffé’s multiple comparison test (Scheffé 1959). This analysis compares the mean FQS score and the score of each of the five factors for the two concordant groups combined with that of the two discordant groups combined. Scheffé multiple comparison tests are meant for situations when the means being investigated represent the mean of multiple group means. This particular test is appropriate because the means under examination are a combination of the mean FQS scores from the concordant users and concordant non-users (and discordant users and discordant non-users) together. The evaluation of hypothesis two utilizes a similar analysis by first comparing the concordant users to the other three groups together as a whole (the concordant non-users, discordant users, and discordant users). Finally, we compare the mean levels of friendship quality for each of the four groups to each of the others.2
consisted of 668 (31.1%) individuals (334 discordant users and 334 discordant non-users). Analyses presented in Table 2 indicate that individual actors in a pair that is concordant in their substance use or non-use perceive their friendships to be of higher quality than those who are in a pair discordant in use. The mean FQS score for actors in pairs concordant in alcohol use is 1.677 units higher than those in discordant pairs. This difference is significant as is the difference in the companionship, help, and security subscales. A similar pattern emerges for marijuana use. Actors in concordant pairs have FQS scores that are on average 1.163 units higher than actors in pairs discordant in their use. This represents a significant difference giving support for hypothesis one. Of the subscales, however, only closeness is significantly different at the .01 level. Actors in concordant dyads perceive significantly higher friendship-quality elements in six of the 12 total comparison tests. The second hypothesis is evaluated in the second to last column of Table 3. These Scheffé’s comparisons contrast actors in concordant user pairs with actors in all three other groups combined (concordant non-users and both discordant pairs). Although the overall FQS score for actors in pairs concordant in binge drinking is not significantly different from those in the other groups, concordant users score significantly higher in the companionship, help, and security scales. Interestingly, actors in concordant user groups report significantly less lack of conflict, indicating that more conflict exists among concordant users. The overall FQS scores of actors in pairs concordant for marijuana use are not significantly different from the other groups in combination. Concordant marijuana users are significantly higher in terms of companionship indicators. Similar to binge drinking, actors in concordant marijuana-using pairs self-reported lower scores for the lack of conflict scale than the other groups combined. Also within Table 3, the individual actors’ perceptions of friendship quality are compared across each of the four types of friendship groups (actors in concordant user
RESULTS For binge drinking, 1,484 (69.1%) individuals fall into the concordant classification; of these respondents, 1,052 (49.0%) individuals are classified as concordant users and 432 (20.1%) are classified as concordant non-users. Discordant binge drinkers are comprised of 664 (30.9%) total individuals – 332 (15.5%) discordant users and 332 (15.5%) discordant non-users (these group sizes are necessarily equal due to nesting). For marijuana, there are 1,480 (68.9%) individuals in the concordant group. Of these, 372 (17.3%) are concordant users and 1,108 (51.6%) are concordant non-users. The discordant marijuana group
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
221
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
TABLE 2 ANOVA Results Comparing the Actor’s Friendship Quality Estimates Based on Concordance in Binge Drinking and Marijuana Use (n = 2,148)
Binge Drinking Friendship quality (full measure) Companionship subscale Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
Concordant M (SD) n = 1,484 68.024 (12.228) 10.587 (3.284) 10.624 (3.419) 16.621 (2.997) 15.196 (3.177) 14.997 (3.800)
Discordant M (SD) n = 664 66.347 (12.967) 9.940 (3.566) 10.749 (3.628) 16.187 (3.231) 14.758 (3.421) 14.712 (3.919)
8.32∗∗ 16.86∗∗ 0.59 9.14∗∗ 8.28∗∗ 2.54
C > D∗∗ C > D∗∗
Marijuana Use Friendship quality (full measure) Companionship subscale Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
n = 1,480 67.867 (12.414) 10.480 (3.368) 10.636 (3.527) 16.568 (3.063) 15.112 (3.256) 15.072 (3.784)
n = 668 66.704 (12.604) 10.182 (3.421) 10.721 (3.390) 16.306 (3.103) 14.947 (3.267) 14.548 (3.936)
4.00∗ 3.56 0.27 3.33 1.17 8.61∗∗
C > D∗
∗p
F
Scheffé’s Comparison
C > D∗∗ C > D∗∗
C > D∗∗
≤ .05 ∗∗ p ≤ .01.
pairs, actors in concordant non-user pairs, users in discordant pairs, and non-users in discordant pairs). To clarify, the previously discussed results only compared the group of interest (concordant users) to all other groups combined; this analysis compares individuals in each of the separate types of friendship alignments to one another. Because the means investigated no longer average multiple group means, Bonferroni comparisons are now used. No groups are significantly different for the full FQS scale for either binge drinking or marijuana use. The breakdown of the FQS into its factors reveals, however, that actors in concordant user pairs do report friendships of higher quality than other groups in several areas. Actors in concordant binge-drinking pairs report significantly more companionship towards their peers than both users and non-users in discordant pairs. They also report significantly higher scores on help than users in discordant pairs. Also for binge drinking, actors in concordant non-using pairs score higher on lack of conflict than actors in concordant user pairs. For marijuana use, finally, the concordant non-user actors score higher in terms of closeness than concordant users and discordant non-users.
may further our understanding of the interplay between substance use and friendship quality. The current study provides evidence supporting the first hypothesis – friends concordant in their substance use appear to have higher overall quality friendships than friends discordant in use. This indicates that those who share similar behaviors, including the use of (or abstention from) substance use, perceive that they experience higher-quality friendships. On the other hand, past research suggests that individuals within friendships experience closer relationships when they share substance use in common (Krohn & Thornberry 1993). This indeed appears to be true for two common forms of substance use: binge drinking and marijuana use. Regardless of the form of substance use, individuals within concordant pairs are higher in terms of overall friendship quality and many of the factors underlying friendship quality. Individuals within concordant pairs are particularly higher in terms of companionship and their willingness to help the friend. Substance use can be an integral part of adolescents’ and young adults’ lives, and the experience of using may bring some individuals closer together. However, the initial exploration of hypothesis two resulted in mixed support. When focusing on overall friendship quality, the individuals in pairs of two users scored no better than those in all other pairings for both forms of substance use. This null finding, however, may be a result of focusing on the full complexity of a friendship rather than specific aspects of the relationship. Actors in pairs in which both individuals engaged in binge drinking reported that they had greater
DISCUSSION While past research has compared users and nonusers in terms of the quality of friendships they experience (Giordano et al. 1986), our investigation into concordance and discordance of substance use offers new insights that
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
222
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
223
Marijuana Use Friendship quality (full) Companionship subscale Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
n = 334 66.774 (12.131) 10.137 (3.405) 10.618 (3.331) 16.358 (2.941) 15.045 (3.092) 14.615 (3.864)
10.748 (3.557) 16.093 (3.154) 14.704 (3.367) 14.600 (3.990)
G3: Discordant User M (SD) n = 332 66.070 (12.829) 9.924 (3.526)
A Significant
≤ .05 ∗∗ p ≤ .01. between group differences only presented for ANOVA models significant at or above p ≤ .05.
n = 1,108 68.069 (12.499) 10.391 (3.363) 10.769 (3.502) 16.561 (3.101) 15.122 (3.268) 15.227 (3.758)
n = 372 67.266 (12.155) 10.746 (3.372) 10.241 (3.576) 16.589 (2.951) 15.081 (3.223) 14.610 (3.829)
Lack of conflict subscale Help subscale Security subscale Closeness subscale
∗p
11.019 (3.482) 16.579 (3.108) 15.161 (3.231) 15.275 (3.767)
10.461 (3.381) 16.638 (2.951) 15.210 (3.156) 14.883 (3.810)
Binge Drinking Friendship quality (full) Companionship subscale
G2: Concordant Non-User M (SD) n = 432 68.426 (12.242) 10.392 (3.362)
G1: Concordant User M (SD) n = 1,052 67.860 (12.224) 10.668 (3.250)
n = 334 66.634 (13.077) 10.227 (3.442) 10.823 (3.450) 16.255 (3.261) 14.849 (3.436) 14.481 (4.012)
10.750 (3.703) 16.281 (3.309) 14.813 (3.478) 14.823 (3.849)
G4: Discordant Non-User M (SD) n = 332 66.623 (13.116) 9.957 (3.611)
G1 > Other Groups∗ G1 < Other Groups∗∗
G1 < Other Groups∗∗ G1 > Other Groups∗ G1 > Other Groups∗
G1 > Other Groups∗∗
G1 Compared to G2 & G3 & G4A
G1 < G2∗ G2 > G4∗
G1 > G3∗∗ G1 > G4∗∗ G1 < G2∗ G1 > G3∗
Individual Group ComparisonsA
TABLE 3 ANOVA Results Comparing the Actor’s Friendship Quality Estimates Based on Whether He/She is a Concordant User (G1), Concordant Non-User (G2), Discordant User (G3), or Discordant Non-User (G4): Binge Drinking and Marijuana Use Results (n = 2,148)
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Boman, Stogner & Miller Substance Use and Friendship Quality
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
companionship, relationship security, and were more willing to help their peer. To a lesser degree, this also holds true for marijuana; pairs of marijuana users felt greater companionship than all other groups combined. Mutually using pairs of both substances had lower quality friendship indicators in one area – they were more likely to experience conflict than the other groups. When considering all four groups of concordant and discordant users and non-users, our findings offer some support that the elements of friendship quality are stronger among individuals in the concordant user groups. While the results of the overall Friendship Qualities Scale in the individual group comparison tests do not support the second hypothesis, these null results are masking important friendship element differences because substance use acts differentially on the various elements of friendship quality. Concordant binge drinkers were significantly higher in companionship and willingness to help than discordant binge drinkers. Concordant binge drinkers were also significantly lower in a lack of conflict than concordant non-users, which may have prevented individual group differences on the overall friendship quality score from reaching significance. Beyond this possibility, the finding that significantly higher conflict exists between concordant users than the other groups together is a result that holds considerable substantive weight. Although concordant users frequently experience higher-quality friendships (Kandel & Davies 1991), substance use may be distinct from many other shared activities due to its ability to be a source and/or facilitator of conflicts. The pharmacological effects of the substances investigated in this study may play a role in creating, escalating, and perpetuating conflict. Binge drinking, for example, may lower one’s ability to respond prosocially to negative stimuli, thus increasing strains on relationships. Alternatively, the effects of marijuana may negatively influence the way that one responds within personal interactions, creating discord. Giordano and colleagues (1986; also 2010) have, interestingly, found that higher levels of conflict exist within friendships marked by delinquent behavior. Considering their findings in conjunction with ours, an important factor in understanding the interplay of substance use, behavioral concordance, and friendship quality may be the amount of time one spends with peers. Past research has found that individuals who spend more time with peers are more likely to be open and honest in their levels of disagreement (Laursen 1993). In this instance, the congruent use between individuals may be an indication that they are comfortable in their relationship, spend more time together, and are willing to openly express frustration with one another. The finding that concordant substance users experience higher amounts of conflict than others may have implications for clinicians and practicing counselors. If a patient reports having conflictual relationships with his/her Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
friends, the clinician may wish to discuss whether the patient and his/her friends share similar patterns of substance use and, more specifically, which types of substances are being used. While there are likely additional sources of potential conflict within a relationship, understanding the substance use patterns of the patient and his/her friends may help guide the counselor to a more detailed understanding of the conflict within the patient’s relationships and his/her social status. A limitation of this study is its cross sectional design. While the measures of friendship quality were intended to reflect perceptions at the time of the survey and substance use measures reflected self-reported substance use of the preceding year, it is inappropriate to infer causality. We suggest that future research explore the relationship between substance use congruence and changes in friendship quality over time in order to determine if the mechanisms hypothesized in this study account for the relationships noted in these results. Despite the use of a sample that allows for friendship quality and substance use scores to be matched across friends, it is important to recognize that most individuals have more than one close friend. Thus, while the use of dyadic data presents a unique opportunity for this research, it is also inherently limited due to its inability to evaluate larger social networks, which would be made up of pairings of dyads (Hartup 1993). Also, the sample is drawn from a group of emerging adults at only one large university in the southern United States. This not only affects the generalizability of the sample, it also may indicate that the amount of substance use varies considerably from other, and especially high-risk, samples. With these limitations considered, we stress that it is important to replicate and extend these results with samples in other populations, utilizing alternative measures of binge drinking, and exploring additional intoxicating substances. While the findings in this study generally point to concordant substance users experiencing higher-quality friendships than others, the complexity in understanding the relationship between substance use and friendship quality is also clear. Succinctly, there does not seem to be a “catch-all” benefit or harm to the friendship quality that one experiences based on substance use concordance, substance non-use concordance, or discordance between friends. What is of considerable value, however, is that while substance use may increase conflict between friends, there are indeed some aspects of a friendship that are strengthened by common usage. NOTES 1. “Binge drinking” and its operationalizational methods represent an evolving understanding about the nature of alcohol use and, as such, have recently changed slightly. Within this study, binge drinking refers 224
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
to heavy episodic drinking during one setting as opposed to heavy drinking over a period of weeks or months as Jellinek (1952) and others have conceptualized it. We utilize a “five or more drinks in one setting” measure for both genders since the survey utilized does not contain information that allows for the typically accepted 5/4 measure (see Wechsler & Nelson 2001), nor does it allow for a binge drinking measure accounting for body mass or drinking-episode duration (see Lange & Voas 2001). Recent work, however, suggests that BAC
measurement and other techniques may not be as capable as traditional measures (such as ours) at identifying risks related to short-term alcohol use (Fillmore & Jude 2011). 2. Because individuals are nested within dyads, violations of the independence assumption can occur. We checked for this possibility using the F-star and the Wtest corrections to ANOVA. These tests share in common their use of cluster (or robust) modifications to the standard errors. Results were identical to the regular ANOVAs, and thus we report the standard F-tests in the results section.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
REFERENCES Jellinek, E.M. 1952. Phases of alcohol addiction. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 13: 673–684. Kandel, D.B. 1978. Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. The American Journal of Sociology 84: 427–436. Kandel, D.B. 1996. The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: An algebra of interpersonal influences. Journal of Drug Issues 26: 289–315. Kandel, D.B.; Kessler, R. & Margulies, R. 1978. Antecedents of adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. In: D.B. Kandel (Ed.) Longitudinal Research in Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological Issues, pp. 73–99. Washington, DC: Hemisphere-Wiley. Kandel, D.B. & Davies, M. 1991. Friendship networks, intimacy, and illicit drug use in young adulthood: A comparison of two competing theories. Criminology 29: 441–469. Kenny, D.A.; Kashy, D.A. & Cook, W.L. 2006. Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford. Krohn, M.D.; Lizotte, A.J.; Thornberry, T.P.; Smith, C. & McDowall, D. 1996. Reciprocal causal relationships among drug use, peers, and beliefs: A five-wave panel model. Journal of Drug Issues 26: 405–428. Krohn, M.D. & Thornberry, T.P. 1993. Network theory: A model for understanding drug abuse for African-American and Hispanic youth. In: M.R. De La Rosa & J.R. Adrados (Eds.) Drug Abuse Among Minority Youth: Methodological Issues and Recent Research Advances, pp. 102–128. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Lange, J.E. & Voas, R.B. 2001. Defining binge drinking quantities through resulting blood alcohol concentrations. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 15: 310–316. Laursen, B. 1993. Conflict management among close peers. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 60: 39–53. MacCoun, R.J. & Reuter, P. 2001. Drug War Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places. New York: Cambridge University Press. McGloin, J.M. 2009. Delinquency balance: Revisiting peer influence. Criminology 47: 439–477. Miller, B.L.; Boman, J. H., IV & Stogner, J.M. 2013. Examining the measurement of novel drug perceptions: Salvia divinorum, gender, and peer substance use. Substance Use and Misuse 48: 65–72. Piehler, T.F. & Dishion, T.J. 2007. Interpersonal dynamics within adolescent friendships: Dyadic mutuality, deviant talk, and patterns of antisocial behavior. Child Development 78: 1611–1624.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. 1989. Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist 44: 709–716. Akers, R.L. 2009. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Becker, H.S. 1953. Becoming a marihuana user. The American Journal of Sociology 59: 235–242. Berndt, T. 2004. Children’s friendships: Shifts over a half-century in perspectives on their development and their effects. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 50: 206–223. Boman, J.H., IV; Krohn, M.D.; Gibson, C.L. & Stogner, J.M. 2012. Investigating friendship quality: An exploration of self-control and social control theories’ friendship hypotheses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41: 1526–1540. Borsari, B.E. & Carey, K.B. 1999. Understanding fraternity drinking: Five recurring themes in the literature, 1980–1998. Journal of American College Health 48: 30–40. Brendgen, M.; Markiewicz, D.; Doyle, A.B. & Bukowski, W.M. 2001. The relations between friendship quality, ranked-friendship preference and adolescents’ behavior with their friends. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 47: 395–415. Bukowski, W.M.; Hoza, B. & Boivin, M. 1994. Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the friendship qualities scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11: 471–484. Dishion, T.J. & Dipsord, J.M. 2011. Peer contagion in child and adolescent social and emotional development. Annual Review of Psychology 62: 189–214. Elliott, D.S.; Huizinga, D. & Ageton, S.S. 1985. Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fillmore, M.T. & Jude, R. 2011. Defining “binge” drinking as five drinks per occasion or drinking to a .08% BAC: Which is more sensitive to risk? The American Journal on Addictions 20: 468–475. Giordano, P.C.; Cernkovich, S.A. & Pugh, M.D. 1986. Friendships and delinquency. The American Journal of Sociology 91: 1170–1202. Giordano, P.C.; Lonardo, R.A.; Manning, W.D. & Longmore, M.A. 2010. Adolescent romance and delinquency: A further exploration of Hirschi’s cold and brittle relationships hypothesis. Criminology 48: 919–946. Hartup, W.W. 1993. Adolescents and their friends. New Directions for Child Development 60: 3–22. Hartup, W.W. 1996. The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development 67: 1–13. Haynie, D.L. 2001. Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? The American Journal of Sociology 106: 1013–1057. Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
225
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
Boman, Stogner & Miller
Substance Use and Friendship Quality
Wechsler, H. & Nelson, T.F. 2001. Binge drinking and the American college students: What’s five drinks? Psychology Addictive Behaviors 15: 287–291. Wechsler, H.; Nelson, T.F.; Lee, J.E.; Seibring, M.; Lewis, C. & Keeling, R.P. 2003. Perception and reality: A national evaluation of social norms marketing interventions to reduce college students’ heavy alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64: 484–494. Zinberg, N.E. 1984. Drug, Set and Setting: The Basis for Controlled Intoxicant Use. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 22:01 15 December 2014
Saferstein, J.A.; Neimeyer, G.J. & Hagans, C.L. 2005. Attachment as a predictor of friendship qualities in college youth. Social Behavior and Personality 33: 767–776. Scheffé, H. 1959. The Analysis of Variance. New York: Wiley. Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. New York: Cambridge University Press. Way, N. & Greene, M.L. 2006. Trajectories of perceived friendship quality during adolescence: The patterns and contextual predictors. Journal of Research on Adolescence 16: 293–320.
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
226
Volume 45 (3), July – August 2013
