Neighborhood smoking norms modify the relation between collective efficacy and smoking behavior
Introduction
Research in a variety of disciplines including sociology, criminology, and psychology has suggested that cohesiveness and collective power of societies and communities are associated with improved health and wellbeing (Bandura, 2001, Durkheim, 1897, Faris and Dunham, 1939, Shaw and McKay, 1942). In this vein, Bandura introduced the notion of collective agency which he termed “collective efficacy” (Bandura, 2001). This concept combines notions of the cohesiveness of a group (social cohesion), with ideas about their potential efficacy in achieving group goals (informal social control) (Sampson et al., 1997).
In epidemiologic analyses, the presence of collective efficacy in a neighborhood has typically been associated with better health and fewer social ills (Kawachi and Berkman, 2000, Lomas, 1998, Sampson et al., 1997). However, recent discussions suggest that social cohesion, informal social control, and other related constructs may not be unequivocally beneficial (Greiner et al., 2004, Kushner and Sterk, 2005, Portes, 1998). Portes suggests that where social cohesion is high, there is the potential for unhealthy behavioral norms to be enforced on residents (Portes, 1998). Thus, when examining neighborhood cohesion in relation to health behavior, it may be important to consider the norms of the neighborhood in conjunction with the cohesiveness of a neighborhood to understand how the social environment will shape behavior (Durkheim, 1897, Kushner and Sterk, 2005, Portes, 1998). Neighborhoods with high levels of informal social control may enforce local norms on residents, however these norms may or may not be health promoting. Moreover, residents of cohesive neighborhoods may have more contact with one another, providing more opportunities for transmission of norms that, again, may enhance health or may be detrimental.
One health behavior of considerable interest in the context of this discussion is smoking, considered the leading behavioral cause of mortality, contributing to approximately 20% of deaths in the United States by some calculations (Mokdad et al., 2004). In addition to being a strong contributor to morbidity and mortality, smoking is strongly socially shaped and thus may be influenced by both the cohesiveness and the norms of communities. While the prevalence of smoking has been declining overall in the United States, 22% of adults are still current smokers (Trosclair et al., 2005); young people continue to take up smoking and currently approximately 25% of young people are smokers by the time they finish high school (Johnston et al., 2006). Broad national and statewide norm-changing media campaigns, smoking restriction legislation, and tobacco taxation that have attempted to change the social and structural environment of smoking are credited with contributing to the smoking declines to date; however, these declines have not been experienced equally in all populations, and there remains substantial variation in smoking geographically (Gilpin et al., 2004, Jiles et al., 2005, Nelson et al., 2001, Pierce et al., 1998). The local variation in smoking raises the question of what neighborhood social and structural characteristics might shape smoking behavior.
There is substantial research suggesting that neighborhood socioeconomic indicators are associated with smoking, however there is little research on other social and structural aspects of neighborhoods that may be related to smoking (Chuang et al., 2005a, Cubbin et al., 2006, Datta et al., 2006, Davey Smith et al., 1998, Diez Roux et al., 1997, Duncan et al., 1999, Ecob and Macintyre, 2000, Kleinschmidt et al., 1995, Monden et al., 2006, Ohlander et al., 2006, Reijneveld, 1998, Reijneveld, 2002, Ross, 2000, Sundquist et al., 1999, Tseng et al., 2001, van Lenthe and Mackenback, 2006). There have been two studies examining neighborhood cohesion and control in association with smoking, and both found that more cohesive neighborhoods had lower prevalences of smoking (Miles, 2006, Patterson et al., 2004). There are no studies of neighborhood smoking norms and smoking among adults. Most of the research on substance use norms has been conducted in adolescents, and the norms have not typically been conceptualized as neighborhood level properties. The existing studies among adolescents show the importance of adult and peer norms for predicting smoking (Chuang et al., 2005b, Eisenberg and Forster, 2003, Ellickson et al., 2003, Ennett et al., 1997, Frohlich et al., 2002), suggesting these may be important social properties to consider in the context of adult smoking.
The potential importance of neighborhood collective efficacy and substance use norms in shaping smoking behavior is clear. However, the only extant research on the convergence of collective efficacy and smoking norms comes from one qualitative study conducted in Scotland (Stead et al., 2001). In the neighborhood studied, smoking was used to cope with a variety of stressors including unemployment and unsafe environments. In addition, there were strong pro-smoking norms in the neighborhood and a strong sense of local identification and cohesiveness. The cohesiveness and norms seemed to combine, such that “…these positive aspects of life [such as cohesiveness] may ironically be as bound up with and reinforcing of smoking as the more negative aspects of life [such as stressors]” (Stead et al., 2001).
In this analysis, we examined the relations of neighborhood collective efficacy and neighborhood smoking norms with smoking behavior, both separately and in combination. Building on the extant literature, we hypothesized that the association between collective efficacy and smoking would to be modified by the norms of the community, and specifically that the association would be reversed; cohesive neighborhoods with permissive smoking norms would have the highest smoking, and cohesive neighborhoods with strong anti-smoking norms would have the lowest smoking. Moreover, in this analysis we applied methods that address the problems of stratification and social selection which are challenges to interpreting neighborhood research (Oakes, 2004). In this analysis, we examine large neighborhood areas in New York City (NYC). While these areas are larger than neighborhoods examined in many studies (Sampson et al., 1997), it is interesting to examine whether these processes operate at a larger scale.
Section snippets
Methods
The New York Social Environment Study (NYSES) is a multilevel study designed to examine neighborhood level exposures, including economic, social and structural characteristics, and substance use in NYC. The NYSES was conducted between June and December of 2005. We used random-digit-dial methods to contact and interview 4000 NYC residents. One adult 18 years or older was interviewed by telephone in each household; the respondent was the person who either most recently or would next celebrate
Results
The survey respondents were demographically similar to the overall population of NYC based on the most recent census, with 38.1% White, 27.0% African American, 5.0% Asian, 27.2% Hispanic, and 2.5% of other racial ethnic groups. Mean age was 45 years (range 18–94), 51.1% of respondents were female, and 39.2% were born outside the United States. Approximately 20% of respondents were current smokers. A full description of the sample is provided in Table 1.
Examination of neighborhood collective
Discussion
Using data from a representative survey of New York City residents, we found a combined association of neighborhood collective efficacy and smoking norms with smoking—where norms were permissive about smoking, higher collective efficacy strengthened this association and individual odds of smoking were the highest; where norms were strongly anti-smoking, higher collective efficacy was protective and individual odds of smoking were the lowest. This relation was strongest among those with no prior
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Lorraine Midanik for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Role of funding source: Financial support for this research was provided by the grant DA 017642 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The NIDA had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Contributors: Dr. Ahern collaborated on the design and implementation
References (67)
- et al.
Population vulnerabilities and capacities related to health: a test of a model
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2008) - et al.
Individual-level analysis of social capital and health: a comparison of Arab and Jewish Israelis
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2008) - et al.
The built environment and alcohol consumption in urban neighborhoods
Drug Alcohol Depend.
(2007) - et al.
Individual, neighborhood, and state-level predictors of smoking among US Black women: a multilevel analysis
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2006) Estimating neighborhood health effects: the challenges of causal inference in a complex world
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2004)- et al.
Smoking and deprivation: are there neighbourhood effects?
Soc. Sci. Med.
(1999) - et al.
Small area variations in health related behaviours; do these depend on the behavior itself, its measurement, or on personal characteristics
Health Place
(2000) - et al.
Adolescent smoking behaviour. Measures of social norms
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2003) - et al.
Youth smoking initiation: disentangling context from composition
Health Place
(2002) - et al.
Urban neighborhood poverty and the incidence of depression in a population-based cohort study
Ann. Epidemiol.
(2007)
Income distribution and risk of fatal drug overdose in New York City neighborhoods
Drug Alcohol Depend.
Participation rates in epidemiologic studies
Ann. Epidemiol.
The urban built environment and overdose mortality in New York City neighborhoods
Health Place
Social capital and health: implications for public health and epidemiology
Soc. Sci. Med.
Neighborhood disorder and smoking: findings of a European urban survey
Soc. Sci. Med.
A simultaneous analysis of neighbourhood and childhood socio-economic environment with self-assessed health and health-related behaviours
Health Place
What explains the association between neighborhood-level income inequality and the risk of fatal overdose in New York City?
Soc. Sci. Med.
Causal system modeling in chronic disease epidemiology: a proposal
Ann. Epidemiol.
The (mis)estimation of neighborhood effects: causal inference for a practicable social epidemiology
Soc. Sci. Med.
Is social capital associated with HIV risk in rural South Africa?
Soc. Sci. Med.
Walking, exercising, and smoking: does neighborhood matter?
Soc. Sci. Med.
“It's as if you’re locked in”: qualitative explanations for area effects on smoking in disadvantaged communities
Health Place
Social context and depression after a disaster: the role of income inequality
J. Epidemiol. Community Health
“Culture of drinking” and individual problems with alcohol use
Am. J. Epidemiol.
Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective
Annu. Rev. Psychol.
Effects of neighbourhood socioeconomic status and convenience store concentration on individual level smoking
J. Epidemiol. Community Health
Neighborhood influences on adolescent cigarette and alcohol use: mediating effects through parent and peer behaviors
J. Health Soc. Behav.
Neighborhood deprivation and cardiovascular disease risk factors: protective and harmful effects
Scand. J. Public Health
Individual social class, area-based deprivation, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and mortality: the Renfrew and Paisley study
J. Epidemiol. Community Health
Neighborhood environments and coronary heart disease: a multilevel analysis
Am. J. Epidemiol.
Suicide: A Study in Sociology
Reliability of self-reported neighborhood characteristics
J. Urban Health
Social context and adolescent health behavior: does school-level smoking prevalence affect students’ subsequent smoking behavior?
J. Health Soc. Behav.
Cited by (88)
Do neighborhood social processes moderate the etiology of youth conduct problems?
2020, Psychological Medicine