Skip to main content
Log in

Broader versus closer social interactions in smoking

Mind & Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the importance of two different peer effects as determinants in the adolescent’s decision whether or not to smoke. One is measured at the class level and the other reflects the smoking behaviour of the adolescent’s best friends. A nationally representative wave of Spanish data, collected in different state and private centres of secondary education and vocational training (14–18 years), and several linear probability models are used to estimate the role of peer effects. We find that a 10 % increase in the proportion of classmates is associated with a 3.6 points increment in the probability of smoking. Similarly, if the smoker’s friends go from “only some” to “the majority”, the probability of smoking increases by 39 points. Although both peer effects are significant if introduced separately, the class peer variable is not significant once the closer peer effect is introduced. Our work provides evidence to support the hypothesis that peer effects are important determinants of smoking among adolescents. This has implications for policy-makers, since the existence of peer effects would amplify the effects of interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander C, Piazza M, Mekos D, Valente T (2001) Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. J Adolesc Health 29:22–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali MM, Dwyer DS (2009) Estimating peer effects in adolescent smoking behavior: a longitudinal analysis. J Adolesc Health 45:402–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ali MM, Dwyer DS (2011) Estimating peer effects in sexual behavior among adolescents. J Adolesc 34:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arcidiacono P, Nicholson S (2005) Peer effects in medical school. J Public Econ 89:327–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Greenberger E, Farruggia S, Bush K, Dong Q (2003) Beyond parents and peers: the role of important non-parental adults (VIPs) in adolescent development in China and the United States. Psychol Sch 40:35–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark AE, Lohéac Y (2007) “It wasn’t me, it was them!” Social influence in risky behavior by adolescents. J Health Econ 26:763–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries H, Candel M, Engels R, Mercken L (2006) Challenges to the peer influence paradigm: results for 12–13 year olds from six European countries from the European Smoking Prevention Framework Approach study. Tob Control 15:83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte R, Escario J, Molina J (2006) The psychosocial behaviour of young Spanish smokers. J Cons Policy 29:176–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte R, Escario J, Molina J (2013) Are estimated peer effects on smoking robust? Evidence from adolescent students in Spain. Emp Econ 1–13. doi:10.1007/s00181-013-0704-7

  • Galbo J, Demetrulias D (1996) Recollections of nonparental significant adults during childhood and adolescence. Youth Soc 27:403–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaviria A, Raphael S (2001) School-based peer effects and juvenile behavior. Rev Econ Stat 83:257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliday JC, Rothwell HA, Moore LAR (2010) The relative importance of different measures of peer smoking on adolescent smoking behavior: cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of a large British cohort. J Adolesc Health 47:58–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoxby C (2000) Peer effects in the classroom: learning from gender and race variation. NBER working paper 7867

  • Krauth BV (2007) Peer and selection effects on youth smoking in California. J Bus Econ Stat 25:288–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundborg P (2006) Having the wrong friends? Peer effects in adolescent substance use. J Health Econ 25:214–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski C (1993) Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev Econ Stud 60:531–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manski CF (2000) Economic analysis of social interactions. J Econ Perspect 14:115–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McVicar D (2011) Estimates of peer effects in adolescent smoking across twenty six European countries. Soc Sci Med 73:1186–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheinkman JA (2008) Social interactions (theory). In: Durlauf S, Blume L (eds) New Palgrave dictionary of economics, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Google Scholar 

  • Soetevent AR, Kooreman P (2007) A discrete-choice model with social interactions: with an application to high school teen behavior. J Appl Econ 22:599–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terza JV, Basu A, Rathouz PJ (2008) Two-stage residual inclusion estimation: addressing endogeneity in health econometric modeling. J Health Econ 27:531–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2011) Report on the global tobacco epidemic: warning about the dangers of tobacco

  • Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Project ECO2008-01297). The usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José-Julián Escario.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duarte, R., Escario, JJ. & Molina, JA. Broader versus closer social interactions in smoking. Mind Soc 13, 183–194 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-013-0135-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-013-0135-3

Keywords

Navigation