Accuracy and bias in adolescents' perceptions of friends' substance use.

Abstract

This study tested competing hypotheses related to the false consensus effect and pluralistic ignorance by examining the accuracy and bias of adolescents’ perceptions of peer substance use, and the effects of their own substance use, gender, and age on perceptions of peer behavior. Two samples (Ns = 163 and 2,194) that collected data on peer nominations, perceptions of peer substance use, and self-reports of substance use were used in analyses. Results from both samples provided evidence supporting the false consensus effect, that is, adolescents’ reports of their friends’ substance use were biased in the direction of their own use. Users and non-users did not differ in accuracy of perceptions; however, across all substances and samples, they differed significantly in bias. Substance users displayed nearly perfect liberal bias, assuming their friends also used substances. Non-users displayed an opposite, conservative bias, assuming their friends did not use substances. Gender and age differences in bias also were observed, with older adolescents and females having more liberal biases than younger adolescents and males. Results suggest the importance of differentiating the effects of actual and perceived peer substance use.

Moderators of the association between peer and target adolescent substance use

“…One alternative consists in asking target adolescents to nominate and list their friends, whom will then be contacted individually and asked to report on their own substance use. The number of friends nominated usually varies from one (Branstetter, et al, 2011) to between five and ten (Henry, et al, 2011;Jaccard, et al, 2005;Larsen, et al, 2010;Rees & Pogarsky, 2010;Urberg, et al, 1997;Urberg, et al, 2003). This extra procedure also helps reduce bias because adolescents have been found to misestimate their friends' and peers' substance use (Henry, et al, 2011;Iannotti & Bush, 1992;Prinstein & Wang, 2005).…”

“…The second key issue in studies investigating peer association consists in asking the target adolescents questions about their friends' substance use (Cumsille, et al, 2000;Dick, et al, 2007;Epstein & Botvin, 2002;Fallu, et al, 2010;Ferguson & Meehan, 2011;Fergusson, et al, 2002;Fergusson, Woodward, & Horwood, 1999;Fite, Colder, & O'Connor, 2006;Guo, et al, 2002;Henry, et al, 2011;Henry, et al, 2005;Musher-Eizenman, et al, 2003;Nash et al, 2005;Patterson, Dishion, & Yoerger, 2000;Sieving, et al, 2000;Simons-Morton, 2004;Vitulano, Fite, & Rathert, 2009;Warr, 1993). This way of assessing peer behavior may reflect more a target adolescents' perceived norms about substance use than an objective measure of friends' actual substance use.…”

“…This extra procedure also helps reduce bias because adolescents have been found to misestimate their friends' and peers' substance use (Henry, et al, 2011;Iannotti & Bush, 1992;Prinstein & Wang, 2005). There are, different ways of assessing peers' self-reported data, including evaluating an entire classroom or school (e.g., Henry, et al, 2011), or even assessing an entire community, so all possible friendships are included in the study. (e.g., Kerr & Stattin, 2000;Vitaro, Pedersen, & Brendgen, 2007).…”

“…First, in most studies, peers were defined as either "the best friend" or a group of friends. Studies that relied on the best friend (Bot, et al, 2005;Branstetter, et al, 2011;De Kemp, Scholte, Overbeek, & Engels, 2006;Henry, Kobus, & Schoeny, 2011;Jackson, 1997;Larsen, et al, 2010;Rees & Pogarsky, 2010;Sieving, et al, 2000) did so because it was hypothesized that this friend usually shared a more intense and intimate relationship with the target and thus had a stronger influence (Rybak & McAndrew, 2006). However, there was little evidence supporting this hypothesis, with only a few studies showing that best friends had a strong influence on adolescents' alcohol use (Jackson, 1997;Urberg, et al, 1997), whereas other studies found only trivial or no effects (Bot, et al, 2005;Jaccard, et al, 2005;Larsen, et al, 2010).…”

“…The number of friends nominated usually varies from one (Branstetter, et al, 2011) to between five and ten (Henry, et al, 2011;Jaccard, et al, 2005;Larsen, et al, 2010;Rees & Pogarsky, 2010;Urberg, et al, 1997;Urberg, et al, 2003). This extra procedure also helps reduce bias because adolescents have been found to misestimate their friends' and peers' substance use (Henry, et al, 2011;Iannotti & Bush, 1992;Prinstein & Wang, 2005). There are, different ways of assessing peers' self-reported data, including evaluating an entire classroom or school (e.g., Henry, et al, 2011), or even assessing an entire community, so all possible friendships are included in the study.…”