Urbanity, Rurality, and Adolescent Substance Use

• Author: Jeremy M. Wilson,Joseph F. Donnermeyer
• Published date: 01 December 2006
• Date: 01 December 2006
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016806295582
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Review
Volume 31 Number 4
December 2006 337-356
© 2006 Georgia State University
Urbanity, Rurality, and
Research Foundation, Inc.
10.1177/0734016806295582
http://cjr.sagepub.com
Adolescent Substance Use
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Jeremy M. Wilson
RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Joseph F. Donnermeyer
The Ohio State University, Columbus
An important but understudied aspect of substance use research is its relationship to charac-
teristics of the community, including if there are differences in the association between peer
and family factors with use between youth living in rural and urban areas. The results of this
study are based on a statewide survey of approximately 4,400 youth in a southwestern state. It
tested for the inequality of coefficients from regression equations on three measures of sub-
stance use: an overall scale, alcohol use, and marijuana use. The relationship of peer influence
on substance use was stronger among urban-located youth; however, there were no rural–urban
differences for family factors.
Keywords:
substance use; rurality; urbanity; community; social disorganization
Adolescent substance use has long been of interest to researchers in the social and behav-
ioral sciences. Most of the theoretical development has focused on psychological traits
and factors associated with the immediate social environment of youth, including peers
and family (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Jessor, 1992; Oetting & Beauvais, 1987).
Although widely recognized as an important contributor to adolescent substance use,
research on community-level factors has been neglected (Hawkins et al., 1992; Oetting,
Donnermeyer, & Deffenbacher, 1998). This article focuses on the relationship of one com-
munity characteristic, namely, whether living in a rural versus an urban place makes a dif-
ference in the strength of peer group and family influences on adolescent substance use.
The rationale for this study is that various community characteristics may affect oppor-
tunities for the formation of adolescent peer groups and the ability of families to influence
the behavior of children and teens. As well, different kinds of communities provide differ-
ential opportunities for learning about both prosocial and deviant behaviors within peer
groups and families (Bursik, 1986; Oetting et al., 1998). Although different types of com-
munity characteristics may influence the relationships of peer and family with substance
use, one of particular interest is the rurality/urbanity of a locality. It is commonly assumed
that rural areas are more likely to manifest community contexts conducive to tighter social
control; less anonymity; and, by extension, the development of prosocial peer groups and
family cohesion that promote more conforming behaviors, including lower than average
rates of substance use. In turn, urban areas are more likely to display characteristics that
create community contexts in which opportunities for greater involvement in deviant peer
groups and weakened family control occurs and, therefore, display higher than average
rates of substance use (Donnermeyer, 1992; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998; Weisheit,
Falcone, & Wells, 1999).
337

---

338
Criminal Justice Review
Challenging the common assumption that rural communities display less crime and
deviance, including substance use by young people, is more recent research, which has
found a relative convergence in rates of substance use between rural and urban youth, based
on various self-report studies (Cronk & Sarvela, 1997; Donnermeyer & Scheer, 2001;
Edwards, 1997; Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1997). In addition, the work of Wilkinson
(1984a, 1984b) and Conger (1997) suggests that some rural areas, because of their smaller
size, may be more adversely affected by such conditions as persistent poverty; geographic
isolation; lack of health and other professional services; and various outside influences such
as urban spillover, rapid population growth, and the relocation of industry. They suggest that
these conditions may, in fact, cause some rural communities to exhibit relatively high levels
of crime, substance use, and other deviant behaviors because economic and social change
have the potential to more substantially and adversely influence established patterns of
social control at locations with smaller populations.
The purpose of this article is to test for the relative influence of rurality/urbanity on the
relationship between peer and family influences on adolescent substance use. Building from
social disorganization theory (Sampson & Groves, 1989), the article examines whether peer
and family influences will vary between youth from rural and urban areas. We test this
hypothesis on a statewide sample of nearly 4,400 middle school students. We select middle
school students because past research notes that this is the age at which young people make
initial decisions about use of alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs (Conger & Simons,
1997; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998).
Theoretical Statement
The peer group is commonly identified as one of the most important predictors of sub-
stance use among youth (Battin, Hill, Abbott, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1998; Oetting &
Beauvais, 1987). As Costanzo and Shaw (1966) observed over a quarter century ago, the
peer group increases its influence on behavior from early childhood through middle ado-
lescence, before declining in later adolescence. Peers form an important part of the imme-
diate social environment of young people, influencing both their preferences and their
actual behaviors (Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998; Tittle, 2000). In other words, peer groups
are normative by providing definitions about the acceptability of behavior, and different
kinds of peer groups provide differing standards for behaviors, including the use of illicit
substances (Hagen, Hefler, Classen, Boehnke, & Merkins, 1998). Also, peer groups are
sources of rationalization for experimentation with different kinds of deviant behavior
(Akers, 1998; Conger & Simons, 1997).
Families not only remain a primary source of socialization in general throughout child-
hood and early adolescence but act in specific ways to influence substance use (Farrell &
White, 1998; Hawkins et al., 1992; Simons, Chao, Conger, & Elder, 2001). Like the peer
group, the family is a source for prosocial or deviant norms about the use of substances.
Children of parents who experiment with drugs or are drug dependent are more likely to
use (Hawkins et al., 1992). Second, families are also a source of sanctions against both
experimental and regular use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (Oetting & Donnermeyer,
1998; Scheer, Borden, & Donnermeyer, 2000; Simons et al., 2001). Research finds that
adolescents from families with low tolerance of experimental drug use, after controlling for

---

Wilson, Donnermeyer / Urbanity, Rurality, and Adolescent Substance Use
339
all other factors, were less likely to use. Third, families are a source of communication
about substance use (Scheer et al., 2000). Parents and older siblings, in particular, represent
individuals to whom a young person can talk about smoking, drinking, and using other
drugs and thereby influence future use (Barnes & Welte, 1986; Scheer & Unger, 1998;
Simons et al., 2001). Also, family cohesion, that is, the closeness of parents and their
children, is predictive of substance use (Coombs & Coombs, 1988; Simons et al., 2001).
Finally, differences in family structures influence substance use. For example, adolescents
growing up in single-parent female-headed families show a greater likelihood of involve-
ment with drugs (Farrell & White, 1998; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998).
Definitions of community emphasize several core elements. Specifically, the concept of
community includes (a) a geographic referent, that is, a community comprises a limited area
with specific boundaries (usually political); (b) economic activities: Communities are places
that vary according to their employment base, their levels of unemployment and poverty, and
the consumption patterns of their residents; (c) provision of services: Communities are places
where various governmental, retail, and other services are available or provided to residents;
(d) socialization: Communities are places that provide opportunities, through individuals,
groups, and organizations, for residents to learn about the general or dominant culture of a
society and the cultures of subgroups within society and to participate in a variety of social
or group-level activities that provide the context for this learning; and (e) social control:
Through the presence in the community of formal institutions (e.g., police, courts, schools)
and informal groups (e.g., peers, neighbors), human behavior, whether conforming or
deviant, is both facilitated and constrained (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Kornhauser, 1978;
Sampson & Groves, 1989; Warren, 1978). It is these latter two functions that are of greatest
value when examining the possible influence of rurality/urbanity on the relationship between
peer and family influence and substance use.
Social disorganization theory assumes that communities with social structures that are
less cohesive lack several characteristics that diminish the development of prosocial or con-
forming norms and encourage the development of deviant norms and behavior, including
substance use. Conversely, areas with social structures marked by more organization (i.e.,
less disorganization) enhance prosocial development and create more...