Journal of Applied Psychology 1991, Vol. 76, No. 2, 291-298 Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association. Inc. 002I-9010/91/S3.00 Social Influence Processes Affecting Adolescent Substance Use John W Graham and Gary Marks Institute for Prevention Research and Department of Preventive Medicine University of Southern California William B. Hansen Bowman Gray Medical School, Wake Forest University Social influence is central to models of adolescent substance use. Nonetheless, researchers fail to delineate the various forms of social influence. A framework that distinguishes between active (explicit drug offers) and passive (social modeling and overestimation of friends' use) social pressure was tested. The effect of these processes on alcohol and cigarette use was examined with 526 seventh graders taking part in an alcohol prevention program. Hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that pretest measures of alcohol use, offers, modeling, and overestimation each accounted for unique variance in posttest alcohol use. Similar results were obtained for cigarette smoking. The general model was not significantly different for boys and girls, or for prior users and prior nonusers, supporting the generalizability of the framework. Implications for intervention programs are discussed. Social influence is a central component of all models of ado- lescent substance use (e.g., Castro, Maddahian, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1987; Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Flay, dAver- nas, Best, Kersell, & Ryan, 1983; Hawkins & Weis, 1985; Huba & Bentler, 1982; Huba, Wingard, & Bentler, 1979, 1980; Le- venthal & Cleary, 1980). It is assumed to be a direct predictor of initiation and experimentation with cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. The nature of the social influence impinging on an adolescent, however, has been only broadly described. Re- searchers have discussed, in a very general sense, the impor- tance of explicit offers, exhortations, and encouragement by peers to try a substance, as well as social modeling of behavior (e.g, Bandura & Walters, 1963), but have not made any serious attempt to delineate the distinct processes of social influence. Further, most empirical studies have confounded one pro- cess with another or failed to examine a particular process. Consequently, they have not provided a test of the validity of the processes as independent predictors of substance use. We be- lieve that a more systematic analysis will increase our under- standing of the social influence dynamics underlying adoles- Portions of this research were presented at the 97th Annual Conven- tion of the American Psychological Association, NewOrleans, August 1989. This research was supported by Grant 1-RO1 -AA-06201 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. We wish to acknowledge the assistance of (alphabetically) Nancy Collins, Gaylene Gunning, Kathie Heller, Mike Hennesy, Bill Howells, Beth Lundy, Dana Mann, Sallye O'Guynn, Jill Pearson, Nata Preis, Kelly Rippentrop, Laura Ross, and Bobbie Searl in the completion of various aspects of this project. We also wish to acknowledge the cooper- ation of the students, teachers, and administrators of the Downey and Garden Grove school districts. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John W Graham, Institute for Prevention Research, University of Southern California, 1000 South Fremont Avenue, Suite 641, Alhambra, Califor- nia 91803-1358. cent substance use and further the development of intervention programs to curb this activity. Our framework identifies three types of social influence: ac- tive social pressure in the form of explicit offers to try a sub- stance, and two types of passive social pressure, namely, social modeling of behavior and misperception of peer use of a sub- stance. Although our analyses separate these three social influ- ence processes, it is likely that the effect of each is linked to conformity pressure and the need to be accepted by peers (e.g., Asch, 1956; Castro et a)., 1987; Leventhal & Cleary, 1980). Pre- sumably, other factors such as concerns with social status or unilateral independence (Blau, 1964) may determine whether active or passive forms of pressure would have more or less influence over the individual. The studies that bear on our approach can be divided into three groups. One group has focused on the effects of explicit offers and encouragement by peers to try a substance. This type of active pressure impinges directly on an adolescent and calls for an immediate response. For example, while walking home from school, an adolescent may be approached by classmates and offered a beer or cigarette. The adolescent must immedi- ately either accept or reject the offer. The importance accorded to this type of social pressure is perhaps most easily seen in the content of school-based educational programs designed to pre- vent adolescents from trying and experimenting with sub- stances. The primary component of those programs is teaching students ways to resist peer pressure (e.g. Best et al, 1984; Bot- vin, Eng, & Williams, 1980; Evans, 1976; Evans, Raines, & Han- selka, 1984; Flay, 1985; Flay et al., 1983; Graham, Johnson, Hansen, Flay, & Gee, 1990; Hansen, Johnson, Flay, Graham, & Sobel, 1988; Hurd et al, 1980; McAlister, Perry, & Maccoby, 1979; Murray, Johnson, Luepker, & Mittelmark, 1984; Schinke & Gilchrist, 1983). In their review of the literature, Leventhal and Cleary (1980) concluded that "[active] social pressure is probably a prime initiator of experimentation with cigarettes" (p. 384). Although this group of studies suggests the impor- 291