The influence of peer norms and popularity on smoking and drinking behavior among college fraternity members: A social network analysis
Open accessAbstract
Previous research has found that Greek membership strongly predicts smoking and alcohol consumption. This paper examined the influence of popularity and conforming to perceived peer norms on smoking and drinking among college fraternity members using social network analysis. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) and diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003) were applied as theoretical frameworks. Results of a longitudinal study indicated that popularity significantly predicted both smoking and drinking behaviors. Strong homophily existed for smoking, but not for the number of drinks consumed per day. Smoking and drinking were significantly correlated, and diffusion of both behaviors occurred in the network over a period of time. Conforming to peer norms also mediated the effect of popularity on smoking and drinking within the peer social network. Popular members both smoked and drank more, but this occurred due to their greater likelihood of conforming to their peer group's smoking and drinking norms. Implications for future research are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Phua (2011) concluded alcohol use was shaped more by peer groups than an overall organization.
“This led Phua to conclude alcohol use was shaped more by peer groups than an overall organization.”
From The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013) (2014) · cites this paper as Phua (2011)
Phua (2011) found members who socialized together also tended to average the same number of drinks per day.
“Studying 34 fraternity members at joining and four years later, Phua found members who socialized together also tended to average the same number of drinks per day.”
From The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013) (2014) · cites this paper as Phua (2011)
This may be an effect of fraternity socialization, as suggested by Kuh and Arnold (1993) and later by researchers examining situations where students are exposed to heavy consumption pressures or other peer socialization effects.
“This may be an effect of fraternity socialization, as suggested by Kuh and Arnold (1993) then later by researchers examining situations where students are exposed to heavy consumption pressures (e.g., Durkin et al., 2005), or other peer socialization effects (Phua, 2011).”
From The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013) (2014) · cites this paper as Phua, 2011
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 39
- Authors
- Phua, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Phua, Joe
- ORCID
- Phua, Joe
- Venue
- Social Influence
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-07
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 153-168
- ISSN
- 1553-4510 (ISSN-L)
- 1553-4529
- OpenAlex
- W1967978388
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Social Influence (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
- Keywords
- peer norms, popularity, smoking, alcohol consumption, Greek life, social learning theory, diffusion of innovations, homophily, peer influence, social networks, substance use
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
