Peer influences - social psychological

• Perceived social norms - what we think are the norms of our social group.
• Descriptive - a persons perception of how much others engage in the addictive behaviour norms.
• Injunctive - what a person perceives as others approval of certain behaviours.
• If an individual overestimates the descriptive and/or injunctive norms in relation to an addictive behaviour then they are more likely to engage in addictive behaviours.
• Social learning theory - behaviourist approach argues that AB is learnt from the environment. Bandura proposed social learning theory to explain how behaviour may be learnt indirectly from people around us through observing and imitating a model. SLT argues that there are two key processes involved in the imitation of a role model.
• Observing a role model - engaging in AB for example smoking engaging due to someone who is similar is doing it.
• Motivation to imitate the behaviour - if the role model is reinforced/rewarded in some way for their behaviour, then the individual anticipates the same outcomes and rewards for themselves. Vicarious reinforcement meaning the observer is highly motivated to imitate the behaviour as they expect to gain the same reward as their role model, reinforced by approval/popularity.
• Positive - research evidence between peers and engagment with AB. Bosari and Carey carried out a literature review of studies concerning the effects of peer pressure on excessive drinking of college students. PSN can make excessive alcohol drinking seem normal/common/acceptable, to individuals. So peers do have an impact on engagement in AB. But not concluded it is the sole factor that causes AB.
• Negative - supporting research is often correlational, Simmon and Morton Farhart found a positive relationship between peers and smoking. Only a relationship found not cause and effect established between peers and addiction, so cannot say peer influence causes addiction.
• Negative - peer explanations are too simplistic as they suggest a complex behaviour such as addiction is due solely to peer interactions. Fails to account for other influences such as genes etc. So peer influences provide a weak account for AB. More appropriate explanation would be the diathesis stress model which would view AB as the result of biological factors triggered by the environment.
• Positive - have useful applications SNMA (social norms marketing advertising) to challenge young people perceptions of drinking habits. Welsh uni's published stats on beer mats/posters. Follow up surveys showed lower perceived social norms from those who had seen the campaign. So, PSN explanation may be useful in preventing AB in risk groups such as students. But overall effectiveness of methods is not particularly successful.
• Conclusions - evidence suggests a relationship between peer influence and AB not causation. Peer influence may be an important factor in initiation an AB it can't really explain why AB is maintained. Most evidence focuses on specific AB's such as smoking/drinking but fails to account for others such as gambling. But evidence that explanation can be useful in challenging teens/students perception of other peoples drinking/smoking behaviour may help reduce engagement in a group of individuals vulnerable to starting certain AB's.