Peer Processes Targeted within Universal School-Based Substance Use Prevention Programs

Peer processes are one of the most proximal risk factors for substance use during early adolescence (Ennett et al., 2010) and most universal substance use prevention programs targeting middle school youth include a focus on peer processes.  However, programs vary in the quantity of curriculum materials focused on peer processes, in the level of peer experience referenced (dyadic friendships vs subgroups vs network) and in the peer process involved (e.g., selection vs influence vs norms).  The goal of this study is to systematically document the peer processes targeted by empirically validated universal school-based substance use prevention programs: Life Skills Training (LST;15 lessons; Botvin, 1979-2000), All Stars (14 lessons; Hansen, 2004), and Keepin’ it REAL (KIR; 10 lessons; D.A.R.E. America, 2009).

We identified 10 curricula that were evidence-based, universal in scope, school-based, focused on the prevention of substance use and targeted toward middle school students (Ringwalt et al., 2011). Of these ten curricula, we examined the curriculum with the highest prevalence of use in the United States (LST) and the two curricula with the highest increase in use between 2005 and 2008 (All Stars increased by 1.9%; KIR increased by 2.4%; Ringwalt et al., 2011). Each lesson of each curriculum was coded with respect to (a) the level of peer experience referenced (dyad vs subgroup vs. network), (b) the type of peer process addressed (selection, influence, descriptive and injunctive norms; Rubin et al., 2008), and (c) the valence of the peer process (e.g., negative selection/influence/norm vs. positive selection/influence/norm).  All lessons were scored by two independent coders who reached acceptable agreement (kappa >.65) for all codes.   

Three clear trends emerged in each curriculum. First, lessons that referenced peer processes focused more on the overall peer network level (51%) than on the level of friendship dyads (21%) or subgroups (36%). Second, these lessons focused more on peer influence (33%) and descriptive norms (46%) than on peer selection (13%) or injunctive norms (28%). Third, there were no lessons in any of the three curricula that focused on positive peer influence, though there was some attention to positive descriptive norms (8%). Despite these similarities, curricula differed in the proportion of lessons that referenced peer processes (47% LST; 43% All Stars; 80% KIR) and in specific types of peer processes emphasized.

Results will be discussed in the context of findings from contemporary studies that highlight the key role of peer processes not emphasized in these curricula (e.g., dyadic peer selection processes, positive peer influences).