The fundamental theorem of primary socialization theory is that normative and deviant behaviors are learned social behaviors, products of the interaction of social, psychological, and cultural characteristics, and that norms for social behaviors, including drug use, are learned predominantly in the context of interactions with the primary socialization sources. During adolescence, learning of social behaviors is frequently dominated by interactions with peer clusters. There are a number of additional postulates: 1) The strength of the bonds between the youth and the primary socialization sources is a major factor in determining how effectively norms are transmitted. 2) Any socialization link can transmit deviant norms, but healthy family and school systems are more likely to transmit prosocial norms. 3) Peer clusters can transmit either prosocial or deviant norms, but the major source of deviant norms is usually peer clusters. 4) Weak family/child and/ or school/child bonds increase the chances that the youth will bond with a deviant peer cluster and will engage in deviant behaviors. 5) Weak peer bonds can also ultimately increase the changes of bonding with deviant peers. Primary socialization theory is consistent with current research, has strong implications for improving prevention and treatment, and suggests specific hypotheses for further research.

No abstract

Ethnicity, perceived membership in a cultural group, and cultural identification, the strength of one's affiliation with a group, develop primarily through interactions with the primary socialization sources, the family, the school, and peer clusters. Cultural norms for substance use are also transmitted as part of these interactions. Substance use differs across cultures; in different cultures some forms of substance use are culturally required, others are tolerated, and others are sanctioned. Ethnicity and cultural identification, therefore, should relate to substance use. However, primary socialization theory indicates that simple relationships are not likely to be found for a number of reasons: 1) All members of an ethnic group do not have the same level of cultural identification and may not, therefore, have the same conformance to substance use norms. 2) Primary socialization,sources are embedded in subcultures, and subcultures have norms that may differ from those of the larger ethnic group. 3) The individual may experience and report differing levels of cultural identification and different substance use norms in different social contexts. 4) For an individual, ethnicity and cultural identification may derive from different primary socialization sources than drug use norms.

Primary socialization theory states that drug use and deviance are social behaviors learned predominantly through three sources, the family, the school, and peer clusters. This paper shows that the theory provides a parsimonious explanation of how characteristics of both the local community and the larger extended community influence drug use and deviance. These characteristics affect deviance because they either strengthen or weaken bonding with the three primary socialization sources, or affect the norms that are transmitted through the primary socialization process. The paper considers the following social structure characteristics of the local neighborhood or community: physical characteristics, rurality, ethnicity, heterogeneity, occupational type, mobility, poverty, neighborhood deviance, and age distribution. It also examines how other secondary socialization sources, the extended family, associational groups, religion, the peer environment, and the media influence the primary socialization process and, in turn, drug use and deviance.

No abstract

Primary socialization theory proposes that drug use and deviant behaviors emerge from interactions with the primary socialization sources--the family, the school, and peer clusters. The theory further postulates that the individual's personal characteristics and personality traits do not directly relate to drug use and deviance, but, in nearly all cases, influence those outcomes only when they affect the interactions between the individual and the primary socialization sources. Interpretation of research results from the point of view of primary socialization theory suggests the following: 1) Characteristics such as depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem are related to drug use and deviance only when they have strong effects on the primary socialization process, i.e., among younger children; 2) Traits such as anger, aggression, and sensation seeking are related to drug use and deviance because these traits are more likely to influence the primary socialization process at all ages; 3) The psychopathologies that are least likely to interfere with bonding with prosocial socialization sources, the anxieties and most of the affective disorders, are less likely to have comorbidity drug dependence; and 4) Psychopathologies such as oppositional disorder, conduct disorder, attention deficit disorder, and antisocial personality are more likely to interfere with primary socialization, and the literature shows that these syndromes are also most likely to have a dual diagnosis with drug dependency.

This paper extends research on rural crime beyond North America by analysing associations between census measures of community structures and officially reported crime in rural New South Wales (Australia). It employs social disorganisation theory to examine variations in crime rates between different kinds of rural communities. A typology of rural communities was developed from cluster analysis of demographic, economic and social structural measures of rural local government areas (LGAs) in NSW. Six distinct types of rural communities were found to have unique crime characteristics. Structural measures were statistically associated with four types of crime.Overall, the findings support social disorganisation theory. Crime generally decreased across an urban-rural continuum, and more cohesive and integrated community structures had less crime. One highly disorganised type of small community had extremely high crime. These analyses demonstrate how specific structures of rural places are linked to rural crime.

After decades of neglect, a growing number of scholars have turned their attention to issues of crime and criminal justice in the rural context. Despite this improvement, rural crime research is underdeveloped theoretically, and is little informed by critical criminological perspectives. In this article, we introduce the broad tenets of a multi-level theory that links social and economic change to the reinforcement of rural This paper was presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the