The Moderating Role of Cognitive Capacities in the Association Between Social Norms and Drinking Behaviors

Abstract

Background The literature documents two related yet distinct social normative influences on adolescent drinking. Descriptive norms refer to perceptions of how much others engage in a particular behavior whereas injunctive norms refer to the extent to which others approve of a particular behavior. Theoretical formulations suggest that whether descriptive or injunctive norms guide drinking behavior depends on cognitive factors related to executive functioning. Cognitive capacities, specifically inhibitory control and preplanning, were tested as moderators of the association between social norms and alcohol use using a longitudinal design and community sample of adolescents. Method This longitudinal study included 387 adolescents and three annual waves of data. Behavioral tasks assessed inhibitory control (Stop Signal Task) and preplanning (Tower of London) and social norms and drinking were assessed using self-report measures. Results Significant interactions were found for descriptive and injunctive norms with preplanning and descriptive norms with inhibitory control. As hypothesized, descriptive norms were stronger prospective predictors of alcohol use at low levels of cognitive preplanning whereas injunctive norms were stronger prospective predictors at high levels of cognitive preplanning. Descriptive norms prospectively predicted alcohol use at high, but not at low levels of inhibitory control. Conclusion These findings highlight the complexity of normative influences and suggest that descriptive and injunctive norms have differential effects on future drinking for individuals with different cognitive capacities.

The role of perceived injunctive alcohol norms in adolescent drinking behavior

“…The few studies with adolescents that include perceived injunctive norms are with younger adolescent samples (i.e., middle school youth). These studies typically find that permissive perceived injunctive norms about peers (e.g., believing your close friends would approve of you drinking alcohol occasionally; believing most friends approve of kids your age drinking alcohol or getting drunk) positively associate with concurrent and future drinking (Jackson et al, 2014; Kam et al, 2015; 2009; Kam & Wang, 2015; Meisel et al, 2015; Mrug & McCay, 2013). Perceived parent injunctive norms, such as beliefs that parents would disapprove of drinking, have strong preventive effects on problem drinking (Elek et al, 2006; Reboussin et al, 2006; Song et al, 2012; Voisine et al, 2008), as do personal anti-drinking attitudes (i.e., disagreeing that it is okay for someone your age to drink alcohol) (Elek et al, 2006; Prins et al, 2011; Voisine et al, 2008).…”

Altos níveis de impulsividade e consumo de álcool na adolescência

“…A literatura aponta que o controle inibitório possui relação com o consumo de álcool em adolescentes. Um estudo longitudinal com uma amostra de 387 adolescentes observou que o controle inibitório baixo pode ser preditor do uso de álcool (Meisel, Colder, & Hawk, 2015). No entanto, esse foi válido apenas para alto consumo de bebidas alcóolicas e não para consumo baixo (Meisel et al, 2015).…”

“…Um estudo longitudinal com uma amostra de 387 adolescentes observou que o controle inibitório baixo pode ser preditor do uso de álcool (Meisel, Colder, & Hawk, 2015). No entanto, esse foi válido apenas para alto consumo de bebidas alcóolicas e não para consumo baixo (Meisel et al, 2015). Outro estudo observou deficiências específicas de resposta de inibição apenas no grupo de adolescentes que bebiam muito num curto espaço de tempo (binge drinking), enquanto na análise da resposta de inibição dos grupos que consumiam pouco álcool, não foram detectados déficits (Czapla et al, 2015).…”

Longitudinal Effects of Peer, School, and Parenting Contexts on Substance Use Initiation in Middle School Adolescence

“…Assent from the adolescent was obtained at the initiation of the audio-CASI survey. Participating families were compensated an average of $100 for W1 -W3, and adolescents were given a small incentive between $5 and $15 at each wave (Meisel et al, 2015). All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at The University at Buffalo (Scalco et al, 2014).…”

“…Mean age for adolescent participants at the initial assessment was 11.6 years (SD = 0.54). W2 (N = 373) was assessed approximately one year later and W3 (N = 370) approximately one year after that (Meisel, Colder, & Hawk, 2015).…”