The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
FRIENDSHIP NETWORKS, INTIMACY, AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD: A COMPARISON OF TWO COMPETING THEORIES*
Abstract
Theories of delinquency posit two opposing views on the social interactions of deviant individuals. Social control theory assumes that deviants have poor relationships with others. Cultural deviance theory assumes that deviant individuals are similar to nondeviants and have strong ties with members of their friendship networks. These theories have not been empirically tested for male and female users of illicit drugs. Descriptive and multivariate analyses are reported here for young adult men and women aged 28 to 29, who were asked about their same‐sex and opposite‐sex friends in general and three specific close friends. Few differences were found in the characteristics of friendship networks of illicit drug users and nonusers. Where differences were observed. the frequent users tended to have more intimate friendships than other young adults, which supports the cultural deviance perspective. Structural equation models predicting two latent components of intimacy, confiding and interacting, with the three closest friends and same‐sex and opposite‐sex friends indicate that, controlling for other determinants of intimacy with friends, illicit drug use retains a unique effect and predicts substantially higher levels of intimacy among males. The strong social ties of adult drug‐using males will make it more difficult to develop effective intervention strategies targeted toward individual users.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9781503621794 · Cited by 10,127
Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/63.2.482 · Cited by 1,731
Suicidal ideation in adolescence: Depression, substance use, and other risk factors
Kandel, D. B., Raveis, V. H., & Davies, M. (1991) · Journal of Youth and Adolescence · doi:10.1007/bf01537613 · Cited by 330
Self-citation
Cited by
Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective
Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511499517 · Cited by 828
Giordano, P. C. (2003) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100047 · Cited by 664
Metadata
- Authors
- KANDEL, D., & DAVIES, M.
- Venue
- Criminology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1991-08
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 441-469
- ISSN
- 0011-1384 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-9125
- OpenAlex
- W2029830938
- Cited by
- 169
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: FRIENDSHIP NETWORKS, INTIMACY, AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD: A COMPARISON OF TWO COMPETING THEORIES*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01074.x
- The paper
- KANDEL, D., & DAVIES, M. (1991). FRIENDSHIP NETWORKS, INTIMACY, AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD: A COMPARISON OF TWO COMPETING THEORIES*. Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01074.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.