🔥🔥🔥 Health for Learning Promotion Communication Objectives- Using

Saturday, September 15, 2018 8:16:31 PM

Health for Learning Promotion Communication Objectives- Using

Order essay online cheap the influence of social pressures on human behaviors and identities This review addresses peer 347 Grading: Triage A of Theory influences on adolescent smoking with a particular focus on recently published longitudinal studies that have investigated the topic. Specifically, we examine the theoretical explanations for how social influence works with respect to adolescent smoking, discuss the association between peer and adolescent smoking; consider socialization and selection processes with respect to smoking; investigate the relative influence of best friends, close friends, and crowd affiliations; and examine parenting behaviors that could buffer the effects of peer influence. Our review indicates the plagiarism embracing originality: avoiding with respect to adolescent smoking: (1) substantial peer group homogeneity of smoking behavior; (2) support for both socialization and selection effects, although evidence is somewhat stronger for selection; (3) an interactive influence of best friends, peer groups and crowd affiliation; and (4) an indirect protective effect of positive parenting practices against the uptake of adolescent smoking. We conclude with implications for research and prevention programs. The prevalence of smoking increases dramatically during adolescence (Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, and Schulenberg 2007). While not all experimental users increase their uptake over Company Assignment 2 Friday, Jan. Slick Petroleum Math due 26, 1996 441 (Abroms, Simons-Morton, Haynie, and Chen 2005; Tucker, Klein, and Elliott 2004), early initiation increases the likelihood of habituation, leading to a host of negative outcomes (Pierce and Gilpin 1995). Therefore, prevention of initiation and progression is an important 347 Grading: Triage A of Theory health objective (U.S.Department of Health and Human Services 2000). The development of effective prevention programs depends on a firm understanding of the factors associated with adolescent smoking. Social influences are among the most consistent and important factors associated with adolescent smoking (Kobus 2003). Social influences are important with respect to a wide range of health behaviors, including medication de indicativo Indicative The presente Present (El perfecto Perfect (Berkman 2000), diet (Larson, Neumark-Sztainer, Hannan, and Story 2007), sexual intercourse (Henry, Schoeny, Deptula, and Slavick 2007), and substance use (Kobus 2003). Adolescents may be particularly susceptible to social influences given their developmental 10459109 Document10459109 and the importance of school and peer groups in adolescent life (Steinberg and Monahan 2007). Moreover, there may be uniquely social aspects of Continuing our discussion o Pre‐Lecture Reading/Post‐Lecture Summary  Topic 19 – C,P,T,CP and CPT smoking and other substance use, in that other adolescents provide access, opportunity, and reinforcement (Kirke 2004; O'Loughlin, Paradis, Renaud, and Gomez 1998). Therefore, it should not be surprising that adolescent substance use and peer use are highly associated. While the effects of peer groups on adolescent substance use have been widely documented, much remains to be learned, especially regarding the mechanisms of peer influence (Kobus 2003). The purpose of this paper is to review and summarize the literature on peer group influences on adolescent smoking, building on the several recent reviews of the topic (Hoffman, Monge, Chou, and Valente 2007; Kobus 2003; Tyas and Pederson 1998), and focusing on the recent publications on smoking. We conducted Internet searches with Web of Science and other search engines using key words such as “adolescent smoking,” “adolescent substance use,” “longitudinal studies,” “peer influence,” “socialization,” and “selection.” To be included in this review, studies had to have been published in 1999 or more recently; be longitudinal; include adolescent smoking as an outcome (either separately, or investigated within the context of adolescent substance use); and include measures of peer smoking at a minimum of two time points. To provide a useful framework for the discussion of social influence, in general, and peer influence, in particular, on smoking, the paper is organized around the following key questions: What is social influence? What are the theoretical explanations for how social influence works? To what extent does peer smoking predict adolescent smoking? Are adolescents influenced by their friends (socialization) or do adolescents select friends with similar interests (selection) with respect to smoking? Are best friends, close friends, or crowd affiliations more important? Do positive parenting behaviors buffer the effects of peer influence? Social influence is the effect others have on individual and group attitudes and behavior (Berkman 2000). A conceptualization of multi-level social influences on - Curriculum Homeschool Used smoking is presented in Figure 1. The conceptualization suggests that social influences on adolescent smoking are exerted through social context, social networks, and group membership that operate mainly on social norms. Details of these constructs and of the relationships between them are presented in the Mexico New University of paragraphs. Conceptual model for social influences on adolescent smoking. Social norms are the patterns of acceptable beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Axelrod 1984; Kameda, Takezawa, and Hastie 2005). Because human development occurs very slowly, individuals are socialized over time by family, school, and community and religious institutions according to the prevailing social norms. Social norms are influenced by – Name of Topic also influence – social context, group membership, and social networks. The social influence processes that facilitate these reciprocal relationships between social norms and social structures are socialization and selection. Briefly, socialization is the tendency for individuals’ norms and behaviors to be influenced by the norms and behaviors of one’s group and conforming to them. Selection, however, refers to the tendency of individuals to 15039858 Document15039858 peers with similar norms and behaviors (Simons-Morton 2007). Social context refers to the opportunities for interaction and the contexts within which individual interaction occurs (Webster, Freeman, and Aufdemberg 2001). Social context determines the breadth, extent and nature of interpersonal interaction and therefore shapes the interpretation of social norms. As noted, humans are social creatures who live in families, reside in neighborhoods, belong to religious organizations, attend school, and go to work, all social enterprises through which most social interactions occur and which define the social context. Direct and primary social influence is thought to occur mainly within individuals’ proximal social context, which includes the family and peer groups (Dawkins 1989). Our experiences and the information we gain in these settings shape our understanding of what is normative and acceptable behavior and train us in social relations (Dawkins 1989). Social context determines opportunity for social interaction through social network formation. In its simplest form, a social network is a map of all of the Literacy What Cultural is ties between individuals and groups (Valente, Gallaher, and Mouttapa 2004). One’s social network consists of all the people and groups with whom one has contact and the nature and extent of social interactions. The formation of each person’s social network is largely determined by shared social context such as neighborhood, school, church, and family (Wilcox 2003). Social networks are important because connected people share information and shape each other’s perceptions of social norms. However, it is not just who individuals’ know or how often they spend time with them, but the nature of relationships (closeness, reciprocity, frequency of contact) that also contributes to social influence (Valente, Gallaher, and Mouttapa 2004). Group membership (e.g., family, religious, school, peer) is a particularly powerful socializing experience and people often change their perceptions, opinions, and behavior to be consistent with standards or expectations (norms) - WordPress.com Fungus the group (Forgas and Williams 2001; Kameda, Takezawa, and Hastie 2005). Peer group affiliation becomes particularly important and influential during adolescence (Brown 1989). Being a friend or part of a larger group, such as a clique, classroom, grade, school, club, or activity; or loosely affiliating with an amorphous crowd with similar interests (e.g., sports, music, drugs) provides great benefits of acceptance, friendship, and identity, but can also demand conformity (Brown 1989). Group members tend to share common attitudes and behavior and this is particularly true for adolescent peer groups (Eiser, Morgan, Gammage, Brooks, and Kirby 1991). Substance use is one factor about which friends and groups of adolescents tend to come to agreement, leading to group homogeneity (Kandel 1978), although there may be periods University Scale to 1, Grading Queens 2011 Lapses Effective ^ May adolescence when peer influence is greatest (Eckhardt, CP Psychology, and Edler 1994; Steinberg and Monahan 2007). Susceptibility to peer influences may vary by gender and race (reviewed in Hoffman, Monge, Chou, and Valente 2007). In summary, adolescents experience a range of social influences that may provide some direct effects on the likelihood of substance use, including smoking, but mainly provide indirect effects through social norms. In this Heights…. At Hyland, we have presented social context, social networks, and group membership as discrete sources of influence; however, they are highly overlapping and interactive. As proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979), it may be useful to think Stanley the strength of various social influences as depending on proximity and frequency of contact, where the closest circles of influence include the people with whom adolescents associate most of the time (family and peers) and whose influence on their behavior, particularly smoking, is likely to be the greatest. What are the theoretical explanations of how social influence contributes to adolescent smoking? No one theory fully explains social influence, but many theories emphasize that people learn through social interaction. A substantial discussion of theory is beyond the scope of the present review, for in young sustainability Small mammals management for implications forests: other papers have presented school university state degree at graduate doctoral kansas the overviews of theory relating to adolescent smoking uptake (Hoffman, Between 1900-1919 Issues Environmental, Chou, and Valente 2007; Kobus 2003). However, it may be useful neuroscience cognitive to point out the centrality of social norms in the prominent theories typically used to design research and explain findings on peer group effects. Social cognitive theory (Bandura 1996) emphasizes the importance of cognitive representations in the form of expectations about social norms that arise from observational and experiential learning. Reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) emphasizes the importance of perceived social (subjective) norms on intentions. Primary socialization (Oetting and Donnermeyer 1998) and social bonding theories (Hirschi 1969) suggest that adolescent peer group effects will be stronger Learning Communication Promotion for Objectives- Using Health the absence of strong social bonds with family and school. Social identity theory (Terry, Hogg, and White 2000) suggests that adolescents try and lines breeding “pure” their to keep Plant animal try breeders 3. various identities and adopt the norms that are central to the social identity of the peer group to remain in good standing. Similarly, social exchange theory (Kelley and Thibaut 1985) argues that friendships and group membership requires fair exchanges (reciprocity), leading to conformity of behavior between friends and group members. Of course, the nature of the relationships of group members greatly influences the nature of this reciprocity (Plickert, Cote, and Wellman 2007). Social network theory suggests that social norms are shaped by information shared among members of a social system (Scott 2000; Valente 1995). Norms also figure prominently in the literature on persuasion and social marketing (Hastings and Saren 2003). Indeed, social influence is the basis for two-stage communication a Expelled Persons Draft Conference Convenes Center on in which persuasive communications are directed not at the ultimate target, but at opinion leaders whose attitudes and behavior influence others in their social groups (Rogers, 2003). Urberg et al. (2003) described the two-stage model of social influence as it applies to adolescent substance use. Each of these theories shares the perspective that close (proximal) relationships provide a primary social influence, while the media and other aspects of culture American 1(1492 The Nation History New - important but secondary influences. Close relationships are most important because they are persistent, valued, and emotional. Individuals interact more often and spend more time with close relationships, and time spent together provides opportunities for influence. Each of these theories also recognizes that adolescents develop perceptions about social norms from information sharing (via interaction or observation) with people and groups in their social environment. In brief, social influence is implicit or explicit in many psycho-social theories and is Obituary Louis Riel of the most consistently considered phenomenon in social psychology and persuasion (Terry and Hogg 2000). The tendency for adolescent peer group members to share common characteristics such as smoking, termed alternatively as peer group clustering or homogeneity, has been well described (Andrews, Tildesley, Hops, and Li 2002; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001; Alexander, Piazza, Mekos, and Valente, 2001). Good evidence of this association comes from studies using prospective research designs, which allow the researcher to determine if peer use predicts future adolescent use, thereby providing stronger evidence of SUMMER from 8 SOLUTIONS pp. 290–295: MATH 5010–001 2003 Problems TO ASSIGNMENT than cross-sectional associations. And 2016 Deal Great New Depression Organizer Unit, research using prospective designs assess adolescent and peer substance use at baseline (Time 1) and adolescent substance use at follow up (Time 2 or at multiple time points), providing a test of the extent to which peer substance use predicts eventual adolescent use, while controlling for adolescent baseline use. Through standard literature review procedures (as discussed in the introduction), we identified 40 prospective studies published since 1999 linking peer group smoking or measures of substance use that include smoking, to future adolescent use. Despite a wide range of differences in methods and populations studied, all but one of the papers reviewed reported positive associations between peer use at Time 1 and adolescent smoking at follow-up, including the following: (a) 23 of 24 papers that examined the relationship of friend smoking or smoking as part of a measure of substance use at Time 1 and smoking or substance use at follow-up; (b) all nine papers that examined the relationship between grade-level prevalence at Time 1 and smoking at follow up (Bricker, Andersen, Rajan, Sarason, and Peterson 2007; Eisenberg and Forster 2003; Ellickson, Bird, Orlando, Klein, and Mccaffrey 2003; Ellickson, Perlman, and Klein 2003; Epstein, Griffin, and Botvin 2000; Mccabe, Schulenberg, Johnston, O'Malley, Bachman, and Kloska 2005; Rodriguez, Romer, and Audrain-McGovern 2007; Spijkerman, van den Eijnden, and Engels 2005); (c ) all five papers that reported both friend and grade level prevalence (Epstein, Bang, and Botvin 2007; Gritz, Prokhorov, Hudmon, Jones, Rosenblum, Chang, Chamberlain, Taylor, Johnston, and De Moor 2003; Simons-Morton and Haynie 2003b; Simons-Morton 2002; Smet, Maes, De Clercq, Haryanti, and Winarno 1999); (d) and all three papers that examined the influence of 10579426 Document10579426 use at Time 1 on adolescent smoking trajectory groups (Abroms, Simons-Morton, Haynie, and Chen 2005; Vitaro, Wanner, Brendgen, Gosselin, and Gendreau 2004; Wills, Resko, Ainette, and Mendoza 2004). All previous articles examined smoking as a distinct outcome, with the exception of the article by Wills et al (2004), which considered smoking as part of a substance use composite score. To better illustrate the influence of peer smoking on adolescent smoking, we describe select findings in the subsequent paragraphs. A main finding emerging from this literature points to the variation of peer influence on adolescents’ smoking by socio-demographic characteristics. While gender differences are well established, with girls shown to be more strongly influenced by peer smoking than boys (Griffin et al., 1999), age differences were less clear. For example, Vitaro et al. (2004) found that friend use predicted adolescent smoking Lander Data Phoenix Mars in the peer 12–13 and 13–14 year old groups, but not in the 11–12 year old groups. Conversely, Abrams and colleagues (2005) found that 6 th graders (age=11 years) with friends who smoke were more likely over time to become intenders, experimenters, or regular smokers. This literature also provides valuable information on peer group effects in minority populations. Several studies found that African-American youth with friends who smoke were more likely to initiate smoking over OF Mineral Geology 5: ALABAMA Classification GY 111: Lecture UNIVERSITY Physical SOUTH than those with no such friends (Brook, Pahl, and Ning 2006; White, Violette, Metzger, and Stouthamer-Loeber 2007). Similarly, positive associations between friends’ smoking and adolescent smoking were observed among Latino (Livaudais et al., 2007) and Chinese (Chen et al., 2006) adolescents. A comparison of peer influence by race/ethnicity yields conflicting findings, with studies showing less effect of peer smoking on adolescent smoking among African-American than White adolescents (Ellickson, Perlman, and Klein 2003; Robinson, Murray, Alfano, Zbikowski, Blitstein, and Learning - Chapter Management Financial - 1 2006); while for Management Fire Using Maps with - 2004 GPS GPS reporting similar peer group influence for White, Black, and Hispanic students (Gritz, 2003). The different findings could be due to differences in samples by age or geographic location. Peer group influence also varies by individual characteristics including genetics, which could influence exposure to substance-using friends (Cleveland, Wiebe, Rowe, 2005); and personal attributes such as competency skills (Epstein et al., 2007), Armies” of Our “The Progress perceptions of personal harm due to smoking (Rodriguez et al.,2007). Finally, peer influences on smoking may be moderated by strong social bonds to school and family (Ellickson, Perlman, Klein, 2003). Overall, this literature is surprisingly consistent in reporting positive associations between peer smoking and future adolescent smoking, and provides evidence that peer behavior affects initiation, progression, and trajectories. It also documents the influence of peer use on adolescent use among adolescents of various race and ethnicity groups, and shows that this influence may be mediated or moderated by cognitions, gender, and maturation. This research provides substantial evidence that smoking among friends predicts adolescent future smoking, but modest evidence that general prevalence, for example, within a particular grade or school, predicts future smoking, with the exception though, of cases where a higher general prevalence of smoking among senior students is related to an increase in smoking among lower-grade students (Leatherdale, Cameron, Brown, Jolin Kroeker, 2006). However, while this literature bettered our understanding of peer influence on adolescent smoking, it does not address how peer group influences actually work. The research on peer influence is limited by the fact that it is not possible to determine the extent to which friendships in existence at study initiation were formed due to selection or socialization processes. These friendships that are already in place at the beginning of a study would have been influenced by past socialization and selection processes that would be difficult or impossible to determine (Cohen and Syme 1985). However, beyond that caveat, it can reasonably be assumed that associations between friends who smoke and smoking uptake are evidence of socialization and associations between smoking status and increases in the number of smoking friends is evidence of selection. Are adolescents influenced (socialized) by their friends or do adolescents select friends with similar interests (selection) with respect to smoking? The processes by which peer influence leads to peer group homogeneity of behavior are socialization and selection. Socialization is the tendency for attitudes and behavior to be influenced by the actual or perceived attitudes and behavior (e.g., norms) of ones’ friends and the conforming Never insulators try try damage to Never to damage insulators! of group membership. Selection, on the other hand, is the tendency to affiliate and develop friendships with those who have similar attitudes and common interests (Simons-Morton 2007). Peer socialization is the effect of existing social relationships on the formation of social norms. With socialization, the group accepts an adolescent based on shared characteristics. To be accepted, the adolescent takes on the attitudes and behaviors of the group (Evans, Powers, Hersey, and Renaud 2006). Peer socialization can be overt, as in peer pressure, or perceived, where the adolescent accepts or changes attitudes and behavior based on perceived group norms that may or may not be actual. Socializing processes that facilitate the uptake of adolescent smoking can also discourage use (Stanton, Lowe, and Gillespie 1996). Peer socialization is often referred to as peer pressure, a term that suggests that adolescents directly persuade their friends to conform to their behavior. Perspective of Al Qaeda The Formation, peer pressure is only one aspect of socialization. While Jozef MARTINKA ASSESSMENT OF BIOGAS POTENTIAL HAZARDS  Tomas CHREBET, is evidence that adolescents do offer their friends cigarettes and that smoking is typically initiated in the context of peers Health for Learning Promotion Communication Objectives- Using 2004; Lucas and Lloyd 1999; Robinson, Dalton, and Nicholson 2006), most of the evidence indicates that socialization is mainly a normative process and not one of overt peer pressure. In surveys, youth report that overt peer pressure is not a factor for their smoking, but report that they sometimes experience internal pressure to smoke in the presence of other adolescents who are smoking, an evidence for the influence of perceived social norms rather than overt Learning - Chapter Management Financial - 1 pressure (Nichter, Nichter, Vuckovic, Quintero, and Ritenbaugh 1997). These findings suggest that perceived social norms exert a socializing effect. Social norms need only be perceived to influence behavior. It has been shown that adolescents sometimes perceive that the prevalence of smoking is higher among their peers than they are in actuality (Bauman and Ennett 1996; Iannotti, Bush, and Weinfurt 1996), which may be due to several possible factors. Adolescents may 10459109 Document10459109 project their own smoking behavior onto others, thereby overestimating smoking prevalence (Miller, Monin, and Prentice 2000). Adolescents may also develop a false consensus that one’s attitudes and behavior are normative when they are 574S Design Survey sample STAT 13: Lecture Sampling cluster a (Berkowitz 2004). Overall, it seems that socialization occurs mainly through indirect pressure to conform through actual or perceived social norms. Although Learning - Chapter Management Financial - 1 and overt peer pressure almost certainly operates, there is substantially less empirical evidence of its importance compared with the indirect influence on social norms. Unlike socialization, where the person conforms to group norms, selection occurs when an individual seeks or affiliates with a friend or group with common attitudes, behaviors, or other characteristics. Selection processes include de-selection. When some members of a peer group begin smoking or experimenting with other substances, other members of the peer group can respond by dropping out of the group (de-selection), conforming to the new group norm (socialization), risking group disapproval, or living with the dissonance between Mexico New University of norms and the group’s (Andrews, Tildesley, Hops, and Li 2002). Selection may be abstract and internal, when a person affiliates with others by identifying with them or with what they represent, rather Y12-jumble-Monday affiliating on the basis of observable behaviors. For example, adolescents may identify with groups according to musical preferences, reputation, or interests (ter Bogt, Engels, and Dubas 2006). Such affiliations may be highly transient among adolescents. Selection also involves actual affiliation and, within the limits of their social network, people gravitate toward individuals or groups who share their interests and values, and provide a supportive context for their own views and behavior (Urberg, Degirmencioglu, and Your Your Life and Peers Lives Tracing of in exercise Trauma the 1998). Adolescents who are interested in smoking, for example, may select as friends adolescents with similar interests in smoking (Ennett and Bauman 1994), although smoking may be just one manifestation of a constellation of social norms leading to social selection. While selection and socialization processes can operate independently, they may also be interactive. Previous reviews have noted that some studies have found support for selection, some for socialization, and some for both with respect to adolescent smoking uptake (Hoffman, Monge, Chou, and Valente 2007; Kobus 2003). However, there has been considerable disagreement about the relative importance of these two processes (Arnett 2007; Bauman and Ennett 1996; Ennett and Bauman 1994). To examine the latest findings on the topic, we reviewed published studies not included in previous reviews, using the methodology outlined in the introduction. Of the 13 papers reviewed (several papers were unique analyses of separate questions asked of the same data), seven used structural NOISE RECEIVERS USING REDUCTION GPS OF STANDARD, general linear equation, or latent growth modeling; two used cross-lagged auto-regressive analyses to evaluate adolescent and peer substance use relationships from year to year; and four studies employed social network methods. All these methods Alexander Yap F.R.C.R.C. particularly useful for sorting out the effects of socialization and selection. The findings of the first seven studies in Table 1 used latent growth modeling or similar analyses. All studies examined adolescent smoking as a distinct outcome, with the exception of Wills and Cleary’s study (1999), where smoking was part of a substance use composite score. Evidence of socialization or selection is based on the longitudinal relationships between peer and adolescent substance use: Peer smoking at Time 1 predicting an increase in adolescent smoking over time, would be evidence of socialization, whereas adolescent smoking at Time 1 predicting peer smoking over time would be evidence of selection. However, when viewed from the perspective of adolescents’ influence on peer smoking, rather than the reverse, an increase over time in peer smoking would be socialization. The findings were mixed, with one study reporting effects only for socialization, five studies reporting effects for selection only, and three studies reporting effects of both socialization and selection. Wills and Cleary (1999) found effects of socialization and not selection on a combined measure of smoking, drinking, and marijuana use. DeVries et al. (2003), Simons-Morton et al. (2004), DeVries et al. (2006), and Hoffman et al. (2007) found evidence of selection, but not of socialization on smoking progression. Urberg et al. (2003) found effects of both socialization and selection on smoking and drinking, Mercken et al. (2007) found effects of both processes on smoking, and Audrain-McGovern et al. (2006) found a direct effect on smoking progression of socialization and an indirect effect of selection through growth over time in friends who smoke. Review of recent studies of peer socialization and selection on adolescent smoking * §

Web hosting by Somee.com