Child Development, May/June 2007, Volume 78, Number 3, Pages 825 – 838

Peer Selection and Socialization Effects on Adolescent Intercourse Without a

Condom and Attitudes About the Costs of Sex
David B. Henry, Michael E. Schoeny, Daneen P. Deptula, and John T. Slavick
University of Illinois at Chicago

This study investigated peer selection and socialization effects on sexual behavior and attitudes using 1,350
15- to 18-year-old students participating in two waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.
Regarding socialization effects, friends’ intercourse without condoms predicted later individual intercourse
without condoms positively. Friends’ attitudes about the costs of sex predicted later individual attitudes pos-
itively and intercourse without condoms negatively. The latter relation was stronger for females than for males.
Regarding selection effects, individual attitudes predicted later friends’ attitudes positively, but the strength of
this effect varied by ethnicity. The results suggest that adolescents socialize friends to have similar sexual at-
titudes and behavior but tend to select friends based on similar attitudes rather than similar behaviors.

Peer influences can increase risk for alcohol, tobacco,
and other drug use among adolescents (Ennett &
Bauman, 1996; Ozer, Weinstein, Maslach, & Siegel,
1997; Perkins & Wechsler, 1996; Wood, Nagoshi, &
Dennis, 1992). Peers also influence the initiation and
frequency of sexual intercourse (Billy & Udry, 1985;
Support for this research was provided by Grant R01HD042406
from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel-
opment to the first author.
The analyses for this article were conducted on data provided
by the Add Health program project. Designed by J. Richard Udry
(PI) and Peter Bearman, Add Health was funded by Grant P01-
HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development to the Carolina Population Center, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with cooperative funding partici-
pation by the National Cancer Institute; the National Institute of
Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; the National Institute on Deafness
and Other Communication Disorders; the National Institute on
Drug Abuse; the National Institute of General Medical Sciences;
the National Institute of Mental Health; the National Institute of
Nursing Research; the Office of AIDS Research, NIH; the Office of
Behavior and Social Sciences Research, NIH; the Office of the Di-
rector, NIH; the Office of Research on Women’s Health, NIH; the
Office of Population Affairs, DHHS; the National Center for
Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
DHHS; the Office of Minority Health, Office of Public Health and
Science, DHHS; the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation, DHHS; and the National Science Foundation.
This article was based, in part, upon a presentation delivered at
the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Barbara
Ray, LaVome Robinson, PhD, and four anonymous reviewers
whose efforts and insights improved this manuscript.
Daneen P. Deptula is now at the Department of Psychology,
Eastern Illinois University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
David B. Henry, Department of Psychiatry, Institute for Juvenile
Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1747 W. Roosevelt Rd.,
Room 155, Chicago, IL 60608. Electronic mail may be sent to
dhenry@uic.edu.
Marmer, 1999; Udry & Billy, 1987). Although the
importance of peers for understanding risk is widely
acknowledged, there is disagreement about the
processes involved in peer effects. Social control
theorists (e.g., Hirschi, 1969) suggest that peers affect
one another through selection (i.e., adolescents tend
to select friends who are similar to themselves). On
the other hand, models of peer influence (Dishion,
Patterson, & Griesler, 1994; Sutherland & Cressey,
1974) suggest that socialization (i.e., peer groups exert
an influence on group members) is the primary
process involved.
This study explores the role of peer influences
in sexual behavior, focusing on how peers’ attitudes
about sex influence sexual behavior, and in which
direction influence flows. The analyses use data from
the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health (Add Health; Udry, 2003), a national study
that explores health-related behaviors of adolescents
in grades 7 – 12. The Add Health sample provides
data to answer such questions as how peer attitudes
and behaviors influence sexual risk (Brown, Dolcini,
& Leventhal, 1997), and whether peer influences are
similar for males and females. In this study we focus
on the contribution of peer variables to risk for sex-
ually transmitted diseases (HIV/STD), defining such
risk as having intercourse without using a condom
in comparison with not having intercourse, or only
using a form of contraception other than a condom.
We selected this definition because only abstinence
and condom use protect against HIV/STD infection.
Selection versus socialization is an enduring the-
oretical and empirical question in peer relations.
r 2007 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2007/7803-0011
826 Henry, Schoeny, Deptula, and Slavick
Selection and socialization are alternative explana-
tions for the observation that adolescents and their
peers tend to have similar levels of delinquent
behavior and substance use. Selection refers to ado-
lescents gravitating to friends who are similar to
them (Wills & Cleary, 1999). Selection processes be-
gin as early as kindergarten (Cairns & Cairns, 1994,
p. 108), appear to be a driving mechanism in forming
peer groups, and should be considered when
studying peer influences (Brown et al., 1997; Kandel,
1978). Similarity indicators such as gender and race
are primary organizing characteristics of peer groups
(Cairns & Kroll, 1994). Similarity among group
members is related to many outcomes and charac-
teristics including academic achievement, attrac-
tiveness, aggression, substance use, and other
behaviors (Cairns & Cairns, 1994, pp. 112 – 113; Eiser,
Morgan, Gammage, Brooks, & Kirby, 1991).
Socialization, or social influence, explains indi-
vidual – peer similarity by the process of peers ex-
erting influence on the behavior of the individual
(Wills & Cleary, 1999). Several studies have docu-
mented the risk associated with deviant peer influ-
ences (Brook, Whiteman, Gordon, & Cohen, 1986;
Dishion, Patterson, & Reid, 1988; Elliott, Huizinga, &
Ageton, 1985; Hawkins, Lishner, & Catalano, 1985;
Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Klein, Forehand,
Armistead, & Brody, 1994). For example, Dishion,
Spracklen, Andrews, and Patterson (1996) found,
using videotaped conversations, that delinquent
adolescents offered advice on deviant activities and
rewarded their friends with nonverbal and verbal
indications of approval when the friends talked
about deviant activities. They termed this process
‘‘deviancy training.’’
Manski (1995) noted the difficulty inherent in as-
sessing simultaneous processes involved in peer in-
fluence, and Berndt (1992) suggested that pathways
of influence between individuals and peers are mu-
tual rather than unidirectional. Some studies of
delinquency and substance use indicate significant
effects for both processes (Keenan, Loeber, Zhang,
Stouthamer-Loeber, & Van Kammen, 1995; Luthar &
D’Avanzo, 1999). Others have found significant ef-
fects for either selection (Farrell & Danish, 1993) or
socialization (Wills & Cleary, 1999), but not both.
Despite the health consequences (e.g., STDs, HIV)
associated with having multiple sex partners and
failing to use condoms, the question of selection
versus socialization has not been studied in relation
to sexual intercourse without condoms among ado-
lescents. However, studies have found evidence
consistent with socialization influences on condom
use intentions. Adolescents who perceived peer
support for condom use were up to three times more
likely to intend to use condoms than were those
who did not perceive such peer support (Brown,
DiClemente, & Park, 1992; Murphy, Rotheram-Borus,
& Reid, 1998). Walter, Vaughan, Gladis, and Ragin
(1993) found that the primary predictor of inter-
course among urban, minority youth was the extent
to which individuals believed intercourse was com-
mon and acceptable among peers. In a longitudinal
study controlling for pubertal development, age, at-
tractiveness, family structure, school performance,
delinquency, and attitudes about sex, Udry and Billy
(1987) found that a predictor of sexual intercourse
was whether participants’ same- and cross-sex
friends had sex. Marmer (1999), in a cross-sectional
study, found that among White and Hispanic ado-
lescents (but not among African American adoles-
cents), friends’ initiation of intercourse was
associated with individual initiation of intercourse.
It is also important to explore the roles of attitudes
versus behavior in selection and socialization. Do
adolescents select friends based on their attitudes
or behaviors? Are adolescents socialized by their
friends’ attitudes (Brown et al., 1992), by the sexual
behaviors their friends describe, or by the sexual
behaviors believed to be prevalent among their
friends (Walter et al., 1993)? Models of health-related
change suggest a pivotal role for attitudes. The
Health Belief Model (Sheeran & Abraham, 1996) in-
cludes dimensions of perceived susceptibility, se-
verity, and costs of the target behavior (Rosenstock,
1974). The Decisional Balance Model (Janis & Mann,
1977) includes an attitudinal dimension, postulating
that individuals make decisions about behavior by
assessing and comparing benefits and costs. Both
models predict that adolescents concerned about the
costs of sex would abstain or use protection when
having intercourse. Research on the decisional bal-
ance model supports this contention (Grimley, Riley,
Bellis, & Prochaska, 1993; Prochaska, Redding, Har-
low, Rossi, & Velicer, 1994), leading proponents to
view attitudes as important avenues for intervention.
It is possible that peers influence one another
through their descriptions of sexual behavior rather
than their attitudes about the costs of sex. Adolescents
of both sexes talk about sex with their peers, although
the contents of these conversations may differ by
gender (Gilfoyle, Wilson, & Brown, 1993; Gilmore,
1996). Hearing such descriptions of sexual behavior
might facilitate adolescents selecting friends who
engage in similar behaviors or provide the opportu-
nity to model peers’ behavior (Bandura, 1986).
Gender differences in peer influence may occur
because the potential costs of sex, such as pregnancy

and risk of contracting STDs, are greater for females
than males. Our focus on intercourse without con-
doms in this study negates the female advantage of
being able to avoid pregnancy risk with birth control
pills. Nevertheless, friends’ attitudes about the costs
of sex may influence females to a greater extent than
males. Previous studies have found a stronger asso-
ciation between peer and individual sexual behavior
for females than males (Marmer, 1999; Udry & Billy,
1987). These studies, however, did not assess the role
of friends’ attitudes in gender differences. Therefore,
we examine differential selection and socialization
effects by gender in this study.
Other variables may obscure, mediate, or moder-
ate selection or socialization effects. For example,
involvement in mixed-gender friendship networks is
associated with higher levels of sexual activity (Mott,
Fondell, Hu, Kowaleski-Jones, & Menaghan, 1996;
Rowe & Rodgers, 1991), making it important to
control for the gender composition of each adoles-
cent’s friendship network. Sexual activity is likely to
become more normative as adolescents grow older,
suggesting that it is advisable to control for age and
to evaluate its potential moderating effect.
African American adolescents have been found to
be at greater risk than either non-Hispanic White or
Hispanic adolescents for contracting STDs (Crosby,
Leichliter, & Brackbill, 2000; Ford & Lepkowski,
2004). However, previous research (Marmer, 1999)
suggests that peer influences regarding sex may be
weaker among African American adolescents than
among White and Hispanic adolescents. Crosby et al.
(2000) found that Asian adolescents had a lower risk
of STDs than other minority adolescents, but studies
have not evaluated the role of peer influences among
Asian adolescents (cf. Ford & Lepkowski, 2004). For
these reasons, we control for multiple ethnic identi-
fications and include an analysis of ethnicity as a
potential moderator of adolescent sexual behavior in
this study.
Method
We examined the role of two characteristics of
friends in adolescent sexual behavior: their attitudes
about the costs of sex, and their numbers of partners
in intercourse without condoms. Throughout the
analyses, we controlled for gender, age, ethnicity,
and the proportion of Wave 1 friends who were
the same gender as the respondent. We also con-
trolled for the proportion of Wave 2-nominated
friends who did not attend the same school as the
respondent. Doing so accounted for differences in
the proportion of friends in Wave 2 on which friends’
Selection and Socialization 827
scores were based. Finally, we examined the possi-
bility that effects were moderated by gender,
ethnicity, and age.
Participants
The data are drawn from the Add Health longi-
tudinal survey. The analyses used data from Waves 1
and 2 in-home interviews. Wave 1 interviews were
conducted between April and December 1995, and
Wave 2 interviews were conducted between April
and September, 1996. Respondents participated in
Wave 2 only if they had participated in Wave 1.
Twelfth graders in Wave 1 did not participate in
Wave 2. The mean time lag between interviews in the
sample for this study was 334.4 days, with a stan-
dard deviation (SD) of 45 days. The length of time
between interviews did not correlate with either
Wave 1 or Wave 2 measurements of intercourse
without condoms or costs attitudes. The Wave 2 in-
terview was generally similar to that used in Wave 1.
The sample for the current study included 1,350
students in nine high schools who completed both
waves of the Add Health in-home survey and
nominated at least one friend in each wave (Bear-
man, Jones, & Udry, 1997). This sample represents
68.2% of 1,979 students who were in grades 9 – 11 in
Wave 1 and who had nonmissing intercourse and
costs attitudes measures in Waves 1 and 2. The Add
Health study did not administer measures of atti-
tudes about sex to students younger than 15 years of
age. Students were included if they nominated at
least one identifiable friend (who was not identified
by Add Health as a romantic partner) and had data
in both waves. The subjects in this sample attended
schools in which all students took part in the Add
Health study.
The sample had an average age of 16.7 years
(SD 5 0.91) in Wave 1 and was 48.9% female. Sub-
jects reported their ethnic identifications using items
similar to those subsequently used in the 2000 U.S.
census. We collapsed these designations into five
mutually exclusive racial/ethnic categories for
analysis: African American (12.4%), Asian (17.14%),
White (50.2%), Hispanic (19.4%), and other (0.9%).
Those included in the final sample (N 5 1,350) were
an average of 3 months younger, t(1,977) 5 10.8,
po.01, and were less likely to be African American,
w2(1, N 5 1,979) 5 15.45, po.01, than the students
who were excluded (n 5 629) because of inadequate
peer nomination data. Those included in the sample
were also less likely to report having engaged in
intercourse without condoms in Wave 1 (5.3% vs.
9.3%), w2(1, N 5 1,979) 5 4.45, po.05.
828 Henry, Schoeny, Deptula, and Slavick
Procedures
The Add Health study reports that the interviews
took between 1 and 2 hours to complete, depending
on the participant’s age and experiences. The ma-
jority of interviews took place in the respondents’
homes with parents or other family members not in
the same room. All data were recorded on laptop
computers. For sensitive sections, the respondent
listened to prerecorded questions through earphones
and entered the answers directly (audio-CASI). In
addition to maintaining data security, this method
minimized the potential for interviewer or parental
influence and social desirability bias. The Add
Health data set covers a range of topics including
health, sex, and contextual experiences. Care was
taken to ask respondents questions appropriate for
their ages and experiences.
Friendships
The in-home survey asked each student to nomi-
nate up to five male and five female friends in order
of preference. Although students could nominate any
friends, study identification numbers were assigned
only to nominated friends who attended either the
same school or a sister school (a middle school or
junior high school in the same town) as the nomina-
tor. Because Add Health included identity protection
of romantic partners, data from romantic partners
could not be used to calculate friends’ variables.
We used adolescents nominated by each subject as
the individual’s friendship network. This procedure
excluded fewer subjects from the analysis than had we
relied on reciprocated nominations or network analy-
sis. As Kiesner, Poulin, and Nicotra (2003) have noted,
nonreciprocated nominations provide information
about subjects’ desired and actual friendships, and
may more accurately represent the influence of friends
than reciprocated nominations. In addition, Schoeny,
Henry, Deptula, and Slavick (2004) found that nonre-
ciprocated friendship nominations provided much of
the same information as either reciprocated friendship
nominations or networks formed through social net-
work analysis. To arrive at the friendship network
variables, we calculated the means of the nominated
friends’ attitudes about the costs of sex and number of
partners in intercourse without condoms, excluding
the subject. Among subjects who had both recipro-
cated and nonreciprocated nominations, we compared
the demographics of those nominated in reciprocated
nominations with those nominated in unreciprocated
nominations. The two groups did not differ in gender
composition and mean age. Those nominated in
unreciprocated nominations were marginally less
likely to have engaged in intercourse without a con-
dom (8.6% vs. 9.9%), t(972) 5 1.82, po.10, and had
significantly higher mean costs attitudes (2.49 vs. 2.42),
t(972) 5 6.49, po.01, than those whose nominations
were reciprocated.
Of 8,895 peer nominations in Wave 1, we excluded
3,550 (39.9%) for the following reasons: 232 (2.6%)
were nominated as romantic partners, 1,969 (22.1%)
did not attend the participant’s school or a sister
school, 460 (5.2%) were reported to attend the re-
spondent’s school but had names that were not on
the list used to link nominated friends to the re-
spondent, and 889 (10.0%) did not complete the
Wave 1 in-home assessment. Of 8,572 peer nomina-
tions in Wave 2, we excluded 3,872 (45.2%) from
calculations of network data for the following rea-
sons: 279 (3.3%) were nominated as romantic part-
ners, 2,017 (27.0%) did not attend the participant’s
school or a sister school, 737 (8.6%) were reported to
attend the respondent’s school but had names that
were not on the list used to link nominated friends to
the respondent, and 839 (9.8%) did not complete the
Wave 2 in-home assessment.
The number of nominated friends in Wave 1 ranged
from 1 to 10, with a mean of 6.27 (SD 5 2.74). Wave 1
friendship networks consisted primarily, but not ex-
clusively, of same-sex friends (mean proportion 5 0.67,
SD 5 0.27). Approximately 1% of subjects nominated
no same-sex friends, and 27.2% nominated all same-
sex friends. Males and females nominated the same
proportion of same-sex friends, t(1,348) 5 1.3, ns.
In Wave 2, subjects nominated an average of 6.02
(SD 5 2.52) friends each. The mean proportion of
nominated same-sex friends was 0.70 (SD 5 0.29).
Approximately 5% of subjects nominated no same-
sex friends, and 39.0% nominated all same-sex
friends. As in Wave 1, the proportion of same-
sex friend nominations did not vary by gender,
t(1,348) 5 1.7, ns. We found a modest but significant
correlation between age and the proportion of
nominated friends not in the same school as the
subject, r 5.15, po.01.
The friendships were modestly stable between
waves; 38.4% of the nominations from Wave 1 were
also nominated in Wave 2. The demographic char-
acteristics of nominated friends were also relatively
stable across waves.
Measures
For this study, the outcome variable of interest is
the number of cross-sex partners with whom the
adolescent engaged in sexual intercourse without

using a condom, termed intercourse without a condom
for this study. Use of a condom is the only form of
contraception that provides protection against STDs
and HIV, and intercourse without a condom with
multiple partners increases the risk for contraction of
HIV or other STD. We assessed intercourse without a
condom using Add Health participants’ reports of
up to three relationships and three nonrelationship
heterosexual encounters in the preceding year. Ad-
olescents defined romantic relationships themselves,
but answered specific questions about kissing,
holding hands, and expressing affection for people
outside their families to define nonrelationship en-
counters. For each encounter of either type, respon-
dents reported on events that involved sexual
behavior. If the respondent was male, he was asked,
‘‘When you had sexual intercourse with (initials of
partner), did you insert your penis into her vagina?’’
If the respondent was female, she was asked, ‘‘When
you had sexual intercourse with (initials of partner),
did he insert his penis into your vagina?’’ For each
instance of intercourse, using a condom was coded 0
and all other instances of having intercourse were
considered to be unprotected from a health per-
spective and were coded 1. Each subject’s score on
intercourse without a condom was the number of
partners coded 1. Because the survey queried only
six partners (three relationships and three nonrela-
tionship encounters), individual scores of inter-
course without a condom ranged from 0 to 6.
For this study, the term costs attitudes refers to at-
titudes about the costs of sex. We assessed costs at-
titudes using a measure derived from section 17
(Motivations to Engage in Risky Behavior) of the
Add Health survey (Deptula, Henry, Schoeny, &
Slavick, 2006). Adolescents’ responses to all items
ranged from 1 to 5, indicating strong agreement to
strong disagreement. We formed the scale score by
averaging the reversed item scores; high scores rep-
resented higher levels of perceived costs. Details
about the construction of these scales are available
elsewhere (Deptula et al., 2006).
The nine items in the costs attitudes scale appear
in the Appendix A. In the Wave 1 Add Health data,
the internal consistency reliability of the scale was
.77 by Cronbach’s a. The Wave 2 reliability was
similar (a 5 .79). Deptula et al. (2006) found that each
unit increase in costs was associated with a signifi-
cant decrease in risk for having had intercourse.
Data Analysis
This study explores the longitudinal association
between intercourse without a condom and attitudes
about the costs of sex among individuals and their
Selection and Socialization 829
peers. Peer socialization is modeled by the effects of
Wave 1 friends’ variables on Wave 2 individual vari-
ables, controlling for Wave 1 levels of the individual
variables, and peer selection is modeled by the effects of
Wave 1 individual variables on Wave 2 peer variables,
controlling for Wave 1 levels of the peer variables.
The approach used in this study is a longitudinal
cross-lagged analysis, which enables stronger infer-
ences about causal direction to be drawn than either
contemporaneous cross-lagged models or univariate
longitudinal models. The latter two approaches do
not test the reciprocal effects of multiple variables
(Lorenz, Conger, Simons, & Whitbeck, 1995). Cross-
lagged models are most useful when it is unknown
whether multiple variables are related in a causal
chain (A1 ! B2) or in a feedback loop (A1 ! B2 and
B1 ! A2). Cross-lagged estimates represent the ex-
pected effect of a predictor (A) on change in the
outcome (B), by modeling the effect of a predictor
(A1) on an outcome variable (B2), controlling for
preexisting levels of the outcome variable (B1).
Cross-lagged analysis using the Add Health data set
allows for longitudinal study of both selection and
socialization effects, as well as the reciprocal effects
of attitudes and behavior between adolescents and
their friends.
We used generalized linear models (McCullagh &
Nelder, 1989; Nelder, 1961) for the cross-lagged
analyses. These models allow analysis of data for a
variety of distributions through error and link
functions. Because intercourse without a condom
was measured by counts of partners, we used a
Poisson probability distribution for these analyses
with a logarithmic link function. We used a gener-
alized linear model with a normal probability dis-
tribution and an identity link function when
analyzing the outcome variable of attitudes about
costs of sex. A separate model was fit for each of the
four Wave 2 variables: (1) individual intercourse
without a condom (number of partners), (2) indi-
vidual attitudes about the costs of sex, (3) friends’
intercourse without a condom (mean number of
partners), and (4) friends’ mean attitudes about the
costs of sex. The equation for each Wave 2 outcome
variable was as follows:
Y ¼ B0 þ B1 ðgenderÞ þ B2 ðageÞ
þ B3 ðother ethnicityÞ
þ B4 ðAfrican AmericanÞ
þ B5 ðAsianÞ þ B6 ðHispanicÞ
þ B7 ðW1 proportion of same-sex
nominated friendsÞ
830 Henry, Schoeny, Deptula, and Slavick
þ B9 ðproportion of W2 friends not in
respondents schoolÞ
þ B9 ðindividual W1 intercourse without condomÞ
þ B10 ðindividual W1 costsÞ
þ B11 ðfriends W1 intercourse without condomÞ
þ B12 ðfriends W1 costsÞ þ e;
where Y is individual or peer costs attitudes or the
log of the number of individual or peer intercourse
partners, B0 is an intercept, and e is an error term. B1
estimates the effect of gender, which was coded
.5
for female and .5 for male, so that the overall effect
estimates could be interpreted as the average effects
across genders. Ethnicity was effect coded with non-
Hispanic White as the comparison level; thus, the
other estimates represent the effect for the average of
all ethnicities. B8 controls for the proportion of W2
nominated friends who were not in the respondent’s
school or a sister school. For the Wave 2 individual
variables, B11 and B12 estimate the cross-lagged ef-
fects, and B9 and B10 estimate the cross-lagged ef-
fects for the Wave 2 peer variables. Taken together,
the four models allowed evaluation of the cross-
lagged longitudinal relations between individual
and peer attitudes about the costs of sex and inter-
course without a condom.
To test for the moderating effects of gender, age,
and ethnicity, we fit models with the interactions
between these terms and the individual and friends’
predictors. Each moderated analysis also included
the main effects for the predictors, gender, and
the control variables. Gender was dummy coded
(0 5 female, 1 5 male) for the moderated analysis by
gender. Ethnicity was effect-coded for the moderated
analyses and differences in slopes among different
ethnicities were evaluated using contrasts.
Results
Summary Statistics
Approximately two thirds of the sample in each
wave reported that they had a romantic relationship
in the preceding year. Females were more likely than
males to report a romantic relationship in Wave 1
(68.8% vs. 63.5%, po.05) and in Wave 2 (70.2% vs.
63.8%, po.05).
Table 1 shows the proportion of the sample in
Waves 1 and 2 that reported engaging in no inter-
course, and any intercourse with and without a
condom. It also shows McNemar tests of the differ-
ences between the Waves 1 and 2 proportions, which
reveal a pattern of increasing intercourse between
Table 1
Percent of Sample Engaging in no Intercourse, Intercourse With a
Condom, and Intercourse Without a Condom, Waves 1 (W1) and 2 (W2),
by Gender (N 5 1,350)
McNemar tests of
Variable gender W1 (%) W2 (%) W1 – W2 difference
No intercourse
Female 75.04 61.31 58.73
Male 70.87 63.73 5.22
Only intercourse with a condom
Female 19.58 31.47 75.76
Male 22.84 30.81 23.73
Any intercourse without a condom
Female 5.41 7.01 9.23
Male 6.30 5.46 0.20
Note. po.05; po.01.
waves. This, however, is expected due to the in-
creasing age of the subjects. A logistic generalized
linear model of Wave 2 intercourse on Wave 1 in-
tercourse and gender found that the percentage of
subjects who engaged in intercourse increased to a
greater extent among females than males, B 5
.45;
standard error (SE) 5 .13; w2(1, N 5 1,350) 5 11.50;
po.01; relative risk for male 5 .63. Furthermore, 2.2%
of females, versus 0.4% of males, reported having
intercourse without a condom with two or more
partners in Wave 2 (po.05). Same-sex relationships
were excluded from the analyses. One and one-half
percent (1.5%) of participants reported that at least
one relationship or nonrelationship romantic partner
was of the same sex. The proportion of females re-
porting at least one romantic partner of the same sex
(1.9%) was significantly greater than that reported by
males (1.1%), (po.05). Among those who reported
sexual intercourse in Wave 1 (n 5 449), we also cross
tabulated the binary indicator of any intercourse
without a condom and the number of partners, re-
gardless of condom use. The relation between these
variables was strong and significant, rs 5 .58, po.01,
suggesting that those with more partners were less
likely to use condoms.
Table 2 reports the means, SDs, and correlations
among the primary variables used in the cross-lag-
ged analyses. Attitudes about the costs of sex were
strongly correlated between waves (r 5.63). Scores
on the measure of attitudes about the costs of sex
were normally distributed, with absolute values of
skewness and kurtosis o1.0. We found no evidence
for floor or ceiling effects that would have limited the
amount of measurable attitude change. Repeated-
measures analyses of variance with gender by time
 Selection and Socialization 831

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. W1 individual intercourse without a condoma 0.06 .26 1.00

2. W1 individual costs of sex 3.52 .65
0.13 1.00
3. W1 friends’ intercourse without a condoma 0.08 .21 0.11
0.12 1.00
4. W1 friends’ costs of sex 3.50 .48
0.15 0.32
0.20 1.00
5. W2 individual intercourse without a condoma 0.10 .36 0.14
0.18 0.12
0.15 1.00
6. W2 individual costs of sex 3.46 .69
0.11 0.63
0.09 0.29
0.13 1.00
7. W2 friends’ intercourse without a condoma 0.10 .27 0.09
0.11 0.12
0.14 0.07
0.08 1.00
8. W2 friends’ costs of sex 3.46 .51
0.09 0.31
0.13 0.42
0.09 0.30
0.11 1.00

Note. W1 5 Wave 1; W2 5 Wave 2.

N 5 1,350. Correlations with an absolute value >.07 are statistically significant at po.01.
a
Number of cross-sex partners (maximum of six) with whom the respondent had intercourse without a condom.

interactions found a small but significant negative
change in average individual attitudes about
the costs of sex between Waves 1 and 2,
F(1, 1323) 5 15.64, po.01, d 5
.22, and friends’ at-
titudes about the costs of sex between Waves 1 and 2,
F(1, 1323) 5 5.70, po.05, d 5
.13. We found no dif-
ferences in attitude change over time by gender.
Results of the Cross-Lagged Analyses
Table 3 reports the regression coefficients, SEs,
significance tests, and effect sizes for the individual
and friends’ predictors. Effect sizes in the table ap-
pear in units of Pearson’s r (Wolf, 1986), representing
the expected unit increase in the outcome variable
per unit increase in the predictor. Significant cross-
lagged effects from individuals to friends and from
friends to individuals occurred over time.
We tested for effects consistent with socialization
by predicting Wave 2 individual intercourse without
a condom and Wave 2 individual attitudes by Wave 1
friends’ variables, controlling for Wave 1 levels of the
outcomes. Friends’ Wave 1 predictors were often
associated with individual Wave 2 outcomes. Having
friends in Wave 1 who had more frequent inter-
course without a condom was associated with higher
levels of individual intercourse without a condom in
Wave 2. Having friends in Wave 1 with stronger
beliefs in the costs of sex was associated with lower
levels of individual intercourse without a condom in
Wave 2. Finally, higher attitudes about the costs of
sex among friends in Wave 1 were associated with
higher perceived costs among individuals in Wave 2.
We tested for effects consistent with selection by
predicting Wave 2 friends’ intercourse without con-
doms and Wave 2 friends’ costs attitudes by Wave 1
individual variables, controlling for Wave 1 levels of
the outcomes. Youth who perceived higher costs in
Wave 1 tended to have friends in Wave 2 who also
perceived higher costs of sexual intercourse. This
was the strongest cross-lagged effect in these ana-
lyses (r 5.17). Because selection involves both selec-
tion of new friends and deselection or retention of
existing friends, we conducted follow-up analyses to
determine the extent to which these results were due
to selection versus influence on retained friends.
These analyses focused on two subsamples: one that
excluded those nominating only new friends in
Wave 2 (retained friends subsample), and the other
excluding those who, in Wave 2, nominated only
friends who had also been nominated in Wave 1
(new friends subsample). We calculated friends’ in-
tercourse without a condom and costs attitudes in
Wave 2 by taking the mean values of the retained
and new friends. We fitted models for selection ef-
fects related to intercourse without a condom and
attitudes using each of these subsamples. The re-
sults, reported in Table 4, were similar to those
obtained with the full sample. Individual costs
attitudes significantly influenced both retained and
new friends’ costs attitudes in Wave 2, and influ-
enced intercourse without a condom among re-
tained, but not new friends in Wave 2. The effect of
individual attitudes on intercourse without a con-
dom was significant when retained friends’ attitudes
were tested. This relation had not been significant in
the main analysis.
Moderated Analyses
The models for testing the moderating effects of
age and ethnicity were identical to the models for the
main analyses, except that they included interactions
832 Henry, Schoeny, Deptula, and Slavick

Table 3
Cross-Lagged Effects From Generalized Linear Models, N 5 1,350

Predictor Estimate Standard error w2 (1) Effect size (r)

Socialization: W2 individual intercourse without a condoma

W1 individual intercourse without a condoma .54 .21 6.60 .07
W1 individual costs attitudes
.59 .14 17.79
.11
W1 friends’ intercourse without a condoma .54 .28 3.88 .05
W1 friends’ costs attitudes
.61 .21 8.47
.08
Socialization: W2 individual costs of sex
W1 individual intercourse without a condoma .00 .06 0.01 .00
W1 individual costs attitudes .62 .02 677.96 .71
W1 friends’ intercourse without a condoma .04 .07 0.31 .02
W1 friends’ costs attitudes .16 .03 22.85 .13
Selection: W2 friends intercourse without a condoma
W1 individual intercourse without a condoma
.17 .38 0.20
.01
W1 individual costs attitudes
.21 .15 1.96
.04
W1 friends’ intercourse without a condoma .41 .31 1.77 .04
W1 friends’ costs attitudes
.38 .21 3.27
.05
Selection: W2 friends’ costs of sex
W1 individual intercourse without a condoma
.01 .05 0.02
.00
W1 individual costs attitudes .13 .02 40.95 .17
W1 friends’ intercourse without a condoma
.14 .07 4.42
.06
W1 friends’ costs attitudes .34 .03 136.95 .32

Note. W1 5 Wave 1; W2 5 Wave 2.

Each model controlled for individual gender, ethnicity, age, the gender composition of the friendship network, and the proportion of W1
friends no longer in school in W2. Effect sizes are expressed in units of Pearson’s r with the signs retained to communicate the directions of
the effects.
a
Number of cross-sex partners (maximum of six) with whom the respondent had intercourse without a condom.
po.05; po.01.

between the moderators (age or ethnicity) and the
individual and friends’ predictors. Separate analyses
tested for moderation by age and ethnicity. For these
analyses, age and the other numeric predictors were
mean centered to minimize the likelihood of finding
spurious interaction effects. In the analysis of mod-
eration by ethnicity, interactions between the pre-
dictors and the effect codes for African American,
Hispanic, Asian, and other ethnicity, with non-His-
panic White as the comparison level, were entered
simultaneously.
The analysis testing the moderating effect of age
did not return any significant interaction terms, but
the moderated analysis for ethnicity returned sig-
nificant interactions indicating ethnic differences in
selection effects. Contrasts showed that, compared
with Hispanic subjects, African American and non-
Hispanic White subjects had stronger positive Waves
1 – 2 effects of individual costs attitudes on friends’
costs attitudes, B 5 .12, SE 5 .06, P2 (1, N 5
1,350) 5 4.26, po.05 for African American subjects,
and B 5 .10, SE 5 .04, P2 (1, N 5 1,350) 5 4.85, po.05
for non-Hispanic White subjects.
To test for gender differences in the effects, we
constructed a series of models that included inter-
actions between the predictor variables and gender.
These analyses found gender differences between
Wave 1 friends’ attitudes about the cost of sex and
Wave 2 individual intercourse without a condom,
B 5 .81, SE 5 .41, w2(1, N 5 1,350) 5 3.82, p 5 .05. For
females, Wave 1 friends’ attitudes about the costs
of sex predicted individual intercourse without a
condom significantly and negatively, B 5
1.01,
SE 5 .41, w2(1, N 5 1,350) 5 6.07, po.05, r 5
.07, but
this relation did not hold for males, B 5
.21,
SE 5 .41, w2(1, N 5 1,350) 5 0.26, ns, r 5
.01. Figure
1 graphs this effect. Although individual costs atti-
tudes predicted individual intercourse without a
condom in these moderated analyses, B 5
.59,
SE 5 .14, w2(1, N 5 1,350) 5 17.79, po.01, r 5
.11,
there was no evidence of differential effects of indi-
vidual attitudes on subsequent individual inter-
course without a condom by gender, B 5 .21,
SE 5 .27, w2(1, N 5 1,350) 5 0.58, ns.
We conducted three variations on all analyses: (1)
with a data set in which missing values had been
imputed using multiple imputation (Schafer & Gra-
ham, 2002), (2) with a data set using reciprocated
rather than nonreciprocated nominations, and (3)
with a measure of costs attitudes including only
 Selection and Socialization 833

Table 4
Cross-Lagged Selection Effect Sizes Using Subsamples Reporting New and Retained Friends at W2

Retained friends New friends

Predictor N 5 868 N 5 885

Selection: W2 friends’ intercourse without a condoma

W1 individual intercourse without a condoma .01 .01
W1 individual costs attitudes
.07
.05
W1 friends’ intercourse without a condoma .04 .02
W1 friends’ costs attitudes
.08
.06
Selection: W2 friends’ costs of sex
W1 individual intercourse without a condoma
.06
.02
W1 individual costs attitudes .13 .15
W1 friends’ intercourse without a condoma
.02
.03
W1 friends’ costs attitudes .58 .16

Note. W1 5 Wave 1; W2 5 Wave 2.

The subsample of retained friends consisted of the 868 respondents who nominated at least one friend in W2 who was also nominated in
W1, and the subsample of new friends consisted of the 885 subjects who nominated at least one new friend in W2 who was not nominated
in W1. Effect sizes are expressed in units of Pearson’s r to facilitate comparisons, with the signs retained to communicate the directions of
the effects. Each model controlled for individual gender, ethnicity, age, the gender composition of the friendship network, and the pro-
portion of W1 friends no longer in school in W2.
a
Number of cross-sex partners (maximum of six) with whom the respondent had intercourse without a condom.
po.05; po.01.

nonpregnancy items. The magnitude, but not statis-
tical significance, of some effects differed when using
imputation, suggesting that using listwise deletion
rather than imputing missing data would not change
the study conclusions. Using reciprocated nomina-
tions also did not substantially change the results,
and required the exclusion of many more subjects
than were excluded when using nonreciprocated
1.0
W2 Predicted Partners w/o Condom
nominations. The analyses using nonpregnancy
costs also returned effects similar to the analyses
with the full costs attitudes scale. Friends’ costs at-
titudes predicted individual intercourse without a
condom marginally, B 5 .27, SE 5 .14, w2(1, N 5
1,350) 5 3.75, po.10, but the interaction between
gender and friends’ costs attitudes, although similar
in direction to that found in the main analyses, was
not significant, B 5 .38, SE 5 .24, w2(1, N 5 1,350) 5
2.63, ns. The effects of friends’ costs attitudes on in-
dividual costs attitudes were significant and similar
in magnitude to those in the main analyses, as were

0.8
the effects of individual costs attitudes on friends’
costs attitudes. Because the results were similar to
those using the measure of costs that included the
0.6 pregnancy items, and because the full measure pos-
sessed a higher internal consistency, we used the full
scale for the main analyses.
0.4
Discussion
Female Overall, the picture that emerges from this study is
0.2
Male one of a small but potentially important risk to ad-
olescent health in which peers play a modest but
0.0 significant part. In this study, approximately 6% of
1 2 3 4 adolescents had intercourse without a condom at
W1 Friends Costs of Sex least once in Wave 2, and those with more sexual
Figure 1. Plot of interaction between gender and same-sexed partners were less likely to have used condoms than
friends’ attitudes about the costs of sex for predicting intercourse those with fewer partners. Inconsistent condom use
without a condom (N 5 1,350). and multiple sexual partners have been associated
834 Henry, Schoeny, Deptula, and Slavick
with unplanned sexual activity in other studies (e.g.,
Poulin & Graham, 2001).
The cross-lagged longitudinal analyses found ev-
idence for peer socialization and selection processes
affecting change in sexual risk. Because each analysis
controlled for preexisting levels of the outcome
variable, the obtained effects may be interpreted as
influences on change rather than influences on ab-
solute levels of risk. The analyses testing effects
consistent with socialization found that friends’ in-
tercourse without a condom predicted change in
individual intercourse without a condom, and that
friends’ attitudes about the costs of sex predicted
change in individual costs attitudes and in individ-
ual intercourse without a condom. These modest
effects are not direct evidence for socialization, as are
studies of deviancy training (Dishion et al., 1996).
Nevertheless, they are consistent with the idea
that socialization effects operate primarily through
friends’ attitudes.
The analyses testing selection effects found that
individual attitudes about the costs of sex were as-
sociated with change in friends’ attitudes about the
costs of sex 1 year later. This effect is consistent with
the notion that individuals select friends whose at-
titudes are similar to their own, a conclusion sup-
ported by follow-up analysis using only the Wave 2
attitudes of new friends. In addition, we found sig-
nificant effects of individual Wave 1 costs attitudes
on change in intercourse without a condom among
retained friends. The analyses using the attitudes of
retained and new friends underscore the pivotal role
of attitudes, but not behavior, in both the selection of
new friends and retention of, or influence on, exist-
ing friends.
The bidirectional pathways of influence found in
this study of sexual behavior differ from findings of
socialization but not selection effects in studies of
substance use (Wills & Cleary, 1999). The effects in
this study are consistent with Berndt’s (1992) sug-
gestion that peer relations involve processes of mu-
tual rather than unidirectional influence. Although
peers’ attitudes and sexual behavior influence ado-
lescents, adolescents also choose friends whose atti-
tudes are consistent with their own, a process that
may reinforce and legitimize their own attitudes
about sex. The important role of attitudes in these
results is noteworthy in this connection. The recip-
rocal effects of individual and friends’ attitudes, al-
though modest in size, were the strongest cross-
lagged effects in this study.
Peer selection or socialization may contribute to
generally increasing sexual risk among adolescents
through pluralistic ignorance. When adolescents talk
with their friends about sex, they may espouse atti-
tudes or make behavioral claims that exaggerate the
risk of their actual behavior (Cohen & Shotland,
1996). In an attempt to gain their peers’ acceptance,
adolescents may conform to their perceptions of
friends’ attitudes and behaviors (Urberg, Luo, Pil-
grim, & Degirmencioglu, 2003), or replicate the level
of risk their friends describe with respect to attitudes
or behaviors.
Selection and socialization effects varied by eth-
nicity, but not in a manner consistent with a previous
study, suggesting that peer effects might be stronger
among non-Hispanic Whites than among African
Americans (Marmer, 1999). In this investigation,
African Americans did not differ from non-Hispanic
Whites in selection or socialization effects, and both
of these groups evidenced stronger selection effects
than did Hispanics. The peer effects among Asian
subjects did not differ from any other ethnic group,
or from the average effect. The ethnic difference in
peer influence among Hispanic subjects may be due
to ethnic differences in the relation between accul-
turation, peer influences, and risk. For example,
Kirchunova (2004) found that, among Hispanics,
acculturation predicted the level of peer influence on
academic achievement.
There was also evidence for differential social-
ization effects by gender. Females, to a greater extent
than males, were more likely to engage in intercourse
without a condom in Wave 2 if their Wave 1 friends
perceived fewer costs concerning sex. The gender
differences found in this study are consistent with
findings that, compared with males, females are at a
higher risk for having multiple sex partners and for
engaging in higher risk sexual behaviors (Ford,
Sohn, & Lepkowski, 2002), and that peer relations
may contribute to heightened female risk (Udry &
Billy, 1987). One possible explanation relates to dif-
ferences in self-construals. Females tend to perceive
themselves as interdependent with others, whereas
males tend to perceive themselves as independent of
others (Cross & Madson, 1997). Greater perceived
interdependence may lead to greater responsiveness
to the attitudes of friends, which may explain the
finding that friends’ attitudes about the costs of sex
predicted more frequent intercourse without a con-
dom among females but not among males.
A second possible explanation for the obtained
gender differences derives from the scale of attitudes
about the costs of sex. The costs of sex noted in the
scale are greater for females than males and may
have been responsible for the stronger influence of
friends’ attitudes about the costs of sex on females.
However, our results provide mixed support for this

contention. Consistent with this explanation, when
the analysis was conducted without the items relat-
ing to pregnancy, the moderating effect of gender
was not significant. Contrary to this explanation, the
moderated analyses found a differential effect of
friends’ attitudes on individual behavior, but no
differential effect of individual attitudes on individ-
ual behavior. It is difficult to imagine why, among
females, higher risk items would result in stronger
effects of friends’ attitudes but not stronger effects of
their own individual attitudes. We believe, therefore,
that the gender differences in socialization effects are
not an artifact of the scale items.
The effects of friends’ attitudes found in this study
have implications for prevention. These findings
may support previous research showing that using
adolescents in leadership roles may be an effective
way to change attitudes and norms regarding sexual
behavior (Mellanby, Newcomb, Rees, & Tripp, 2001).
Because the measure of peer influence in this study
was limited to the influence of friends’ attitudes and
behaviors, we cannot determine whether the effects
would translate to adolescent leaders who are not
friends. A second implication is that social norms
interventions such as those used for substance use
prevention (Perkins, 2003) may be more effective
among females than among males in preventing
high-risk sexual behavior. Such interventions should
be implemented with caution, however, because
unintended negative consequences have surfaced in
similar interventions for substance use (Wechsler
et al., 2003) and delinquency (Dishion, McCord, &
Poulin, 1999). There is a need for research that can
inform intervention and developmental science by
enriching our understanding of the influence of
peers on adolescents, variations in influence by
gender, and the influence of friends within larger
peer contexts.
Study Limitations
The limitations of this study should be considered
when interpreting these results. First, the sample
consisted solely of the saturated schools of the Add
Health data set and was not designed to be repre-
sentative of the U.S. population as a whole. Second,
the sample included only those students who re-
mained in school over both years of the study and
nominated friends who attended their schools or
sister schools. These constraints were necessary be-
cause testing the research questions required longi-
tudinal stability of both individuals and at least some
of their friends. We do not believe that limiting the
sample in this way resulted in artificially lower
Selection and Socialization 835
friendship stability. Berndt and Hoyle (1985) note
that the stability of friendships changes little from
4th to 11th grades. Third, this study used nonrecip-
rocated friendship nominations to represent friends’
influence on the individual. This method permitted
using a larger and more representative sample than
would have been possible with reciprocated friend-
ship nominations. In addition, previous research
suggests that using nonreciprocated nominations
captures aspects of peer influence not assessed by
reciprocated nominations (Kiesner et al., 2003). The
limitation of this method is that we cannot differ-
entiate between the effects of actual and desired
friendships.
Fourth, excluding romantic partners may have
been partially responsible for the greater impact of
peer attitudes compared with peer behaviors. Inter-
actions with peers other than romantic partners
might have been more likely to focus openly on the
potential costs of sex, a less sensitive topic than
peers’ actual behaviors. Sexual behavior might not
have been as open a topic for peer discussions,
making sexual behavior less influential than peer
attitudes as a predictor of adolescent behavior. Ex-
cluding romantic partners also may have resulted in
underestimating the strength of socialization effects.
Fifth, these analyses did not consider the influence
of school or community levels. Some of the effects
attributed to friends in this investigation may have
related to school- or community-level differences.
We took several measures to cope with these
limitations and increase the validity of the results.
We tested for floor or ceiling effects that would have
affected estimates on the attitude measure, but found
none. We included appropriate control variables to
control for relations between outcome variables and
ethnicity, age, the gender composition of networks,
and the proportion of friends not in school in Wave 2.
Because the measure of intercourse without a con-
dom consisted of counts of partners, we used Pois-
son regression for analyses of this outcome variable.
We also conducted the analyses with imputed data
and reciprocated nominations to determine the de-
gree to which our decisions about imputation and
reciprocation had on the results. In addition, the
analyses in this study controlled for Wave 1 levels of
intercourse without a condom and attitudes of the
individual adolescents and the sexual behavior and
attitudes of their friends. The effect estimates from
these analyses are thus the contribution of the pre-
dictors to change in the outcome variables, control-
ling for the Wave 1 levels of other predictors and
the demographic and network composition control
variables.
836 Henry, Schoeny, Deptula, and Slavick
Conclusion
Despite these limitations, this study contributes to
the literature in three ways. It is the first study to use
cross-lagged analysis to consider simultaneously the
longitudinal effects of selection and socialization on
sexual behavior (cf. Manski, 1995). This is also one of
the few studies to consider the role of attitudes in
peer influences in sexual behavior. By differentiating
attitudes about sex from sexual behavior that might
be observed or described by others, it adds to the
literature by providing evidence that attitudes are
pivotal for understanding peer influences (Henry
et al., 2000). Because this study evaluated peer influ-
ences on intercourse without a condom, it has im-
plications for efforts to reduce HIV/STD risk among
adolescents. More generally, this study enhances a
growing body of literature that seeks to understand
development within multiple nested contexts
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Friendship groups are im-
portant contexts for adolescent development and
may facilitate or impede efforts to prevent high-risk
sexual behavior.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action:
A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Bearman, P. S., Jones, J., & Udry, J. R. (1997). The national
longitudinal study of adolescent health: Research design.
Retrieved on June 22, 2001, from http://www.cpc.
unc.edu/addhealth
Berndt, T. J. (1992). Friendship and friends’ influence in
adolescence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1,
156 – 159.
Berndt, T. J., & Hoyle, S. G. (1985). Stability and change in
childhood and adolescent friendships. Developmental
Psychology, 21, 1007 – 1015.
Billy, J. O. G., & Udry, J. R. (1985). The influence of male
and female best friends on adolescent sexual behavior.
Adolescence, 20, 21 – 32.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Gordon, A. S., & Cohen, P.
(1986). Dynamics of childhood and adolescent person-
ality traits and adolescent drug use. Developmental Psy-
chology, 22, 403 – 414.
Brown, B. B., Dolcini, M. M., & Leventhal, A. (1997).
Transformations in peer relationships at adolescence:
Implications for health-related behavior. In J. Schulen-
berg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health
risks and developmental transitions during adolescence
(pp. 161 – 189). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Brown, L. K., DiClemente, R. J., & Park, T. (1992). Predic-
tors of condom use in sexually active adolescents. Jour-
nal of Adolescent Health, 13, 651 – 657.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks:
Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
Cairns, R. B., & Kroll, A. B. (1994). Developmental per-
spectives on gender differences and similarities. In M.
Rutter & D. F. Hay (Eds.), Development through life: A
handbook for clinicians (pp. 350 – 372). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Scientific.
Cohen, L. L., & Shotland, R. L. (1996). Timing of first sexual
intercourse in a relationship: Expectations, experiences,
and perceptions of others. Journal of Sex Research, 33,
291 – 299.
Crosby, R., Leichliter, J. S., & Brackbill, R. (2000). Longitu-
dinal prediction of sexually transmitted diseases among
adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18,
312 – 317.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-
construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5 – 37.
Deptula, D., Henry, D., Schoeny, M. E., & Slavick, J. (2006).
Adolescent sexual behavior and attitudes: A costs and
benefits approach. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 35 – 43.
Dishion, T., Patterson, G. R., & Reid, J. (1988). Parent and
peer factors associated with early adolescent drug use:
Implications for treatment. In E. Rahdert & J. Grabowski
(Eds.), Adolescent drug abuse: Analyses of treatment re-
search, NIDA Research Monograph 77 (pp. 69 – 93). Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When inter-
ventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior.
American Psychologist, 54, 755 – 764.
Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., & Griesler, P. C. (1994). Peer
adaptation in the development of antisocial behavior: A
confluence model. In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive
behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 61 – 95). New York:
Plenum Press.
Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Pat-
terson, G. R. (1996). Deviancy training in male adoles-
cents friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373 – 390.
Eiser, J. R., Morgan, M., Gammage, P., Brooks, N., & Kirby,
R. (1991). Adolescent health behavior and similarity-at-
tractionFfriends share smoking-habits (really), but
much else besides. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30,
339 – 348.
Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining
delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publi-
cations.
Ennett, S. T., & Bauman, K. E. (1996). Adolescent social
networks: School, demographic and longitudinal con-
siderations. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 194 – 215.
Farrell, A. D., & Danish, S. J. (1993). Peer drug associations
and emotional restraint: Causes or consequences of ad-
olescents’ drug use? Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 61, 327 – 334.
Ford, K., & Lepkowski, J. M. (2004). Characteristics of
sexual partners and STD infection among American

adolescents. International Journal of STD and AIDS, 15,
260 – 265.
Ford, K., Sohn, W., & Lepkowski, J. (2002). American ad-
olescents: Sexual mixing patterns, bridge partners, and
concurrency. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 29, 13 – 19.
Gilfoyle, J., Wilson, J., & Brown, J. (1993). Sex, organs and
audiotape: A discourse analytic approach to talking
about heterosexual sex and relationships. In S. Wilkin-
son & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Heterosexuality: A ‘‘feminism &
psychology’’ reader (pp. 181 – 202). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications Inc.
Gilmore, S. M. (1996). Behind closed doors: Men’s conquest
sex talk. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities & Social Sciences, 56, 3372.
Grimley, D. M., Riley, G. E., Bellis, J. M., & Prochaska, J. O.
(1993). Assessing the stages of change and decision
making for contraceptive use for the prevention of
pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome. Health Education Quarter-
ly, 20, 455 – 470.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk
and protective factors for alcohol and other drug prob-
lems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications
for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin,
112, 64 – 105.
Hawkins, J. D., Lishner, D. M., & Catalano, R. F. (1985).
Childhood predictors and the prevention of adolescent
substance abuse. National Institute on Drug Abuse: Re-
search Monograph Series, 56, 75 – 126.
Henry, D., Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P. H.,
VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. D. (2000). Normative influences
on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 59 – 81.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psycho-
logical analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New
York: Free Press.
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socializa-
tion in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Soci-
ology, 84, 427 – 436.
Keenan, K., Loeber, R., Zhang, Q., Stouthamer-Loeber, M.,
& Van Kammen, W. B. (1995). The influence of deviant
peers on the development of boys’ disruptive and de-
linquent behavior: A temporal analysis. Development and
Psychopathology, 7, 715 – 726.
Kiesner, J., Poulin, F., & Nicotra, E. (2003). Peer relations
across contexts: Individual-network homophile and
network inclusion in and after school. Child Development,
74, 1328 – 1343.
Kirchunova, M. (2004). Acculturation, peer influence, and
academic achievement among Hispanic descent early
adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 64, 4416.
Klein, K., Forehand, R., Armistead, L., & Brody, G. (1994).
Adolescent family predictors of substance use during
early adulthood: A theoretical model. Advances in Be-
haviour Research and Therapy, 16, 217 – 252.
Selection and Socialization 837
Lorenz, F. O., Conger, R. D., Simons, R. L., & Whitbeck, L.
B. (1995). The effects of unequal covariances and relia-
bilities on contemporaneous inference: The case of hos-
tility and marital unhappiness. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 57, 1049 – 1064.
Luthar, S. S., & D’Avanzo, K. (1999). Contextual factors in
substance use: A study of suburban and inner-city ad-
olescents. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 845 – 867.
Manski, C. F. (1995). Identification problems in the social sci-
ences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Marmer, J. (1999). Contextual influences on the transition to
first sexual intercourse: Parent, peer, and school effects. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (Eds.). (1989). Generalized
linear models (Monographs on Statistics and Applied
Probability No. 37). London: Chapman and Hall.
Mellanby, A. R., Newcomb, R. G., Rees, J., & Tripp, J. H.
(2001). A comparative study of peer-led and adult-led
school sex education. Health Education Research, 16, 481 –
492.
Mott, F. L., Fondell, M. M., Hu, P. N., Kowaleski-Jones, L.,
& Menaghan, E. G. (1996). The determinants of first sex
by age 14 in a high-risk adolescent population. Family
Planning Perspectives, 28, 13 – 18.
Murphy, D. A., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., & Reid, H. M.
(1998). Adolescent gender differences in HIV-related
sexual risk acts, social-cognitive factors and behavioral
skills. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 197 – 208.
Nelder, J. A. (1961). The fitting of a generalization of the
logistic curve. Biometrics, 17, 89 – 110.
Ozer, E. J., Weinstein, R. S., Maslach, C., & Siegel, D. (1997).
Adolescent AIDS prevention in context: The impact of
peer educator qualities and classroom environments on
intervention efficacy. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 25, 289 – 323.
Perkins, H. W. (2003). The social norms approach to preventing
school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for edu-
cators, counselors, and clinicians. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Perkins, H. W., & Wechsler, H. (1996). Variation in per-
ceived college drinking norms and its impact on alcohol
abuse: A nationwide study. Journal of Drug Issues, 26,
961 – 974.
Poulin, C., & Graham, L. (2001). The association between
substance use, unplanned sexual intercourse and other
sexual behaviors among adolescent students. Addiction,
96, 607 – 621.
Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., Harlow, L. L., Rossi, J. S.,
& Velicer, W. F. (1994). The transtheoretical model of
change and HIV prevention: A review. Health Education
Quarterly, 21, 471 – 486.
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health
belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2, 328 – 335.
Rowe, D. C., & Rodgers, J. L. (1991). An ‘‘epidemic’’ model
of adolescent sexual intercourse: Applications to na-
tional survey data. Journal of Biosocial Science, 23,
211 – 219.
838 Henry, Schoeny, Deptula, and Slavick
Schafer, J., & Graham, L. (2002). Missing data: Our view of
the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147 – 177.
Schoeny, M. E., Henry, D. B., Deptula, D. P., & Slavick, J.
(2004, May). A comparison of social network and ego network
approaches to assessing peer influences. Paper presented at
the Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Society, Chicago, IL.
Sheeran, P., & Abraham, C. (1996). The health belief model.
In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health be-
haviour: Research and practice with social cognitive models
(pp. 23 – 61). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1974). Criminology (9th
ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Udry, J. R. (2003). The National Longitudinal Study of Ado-
lescent Health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994 – 1996
(machine-readable data file and documentation). Chapel
Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Udry, J. R., & Billy, J. O. G. (1987). Initiation of coitus in
early adolescence. American Sociological Review, 52, 841 –
855.
Urberg, K. A., Luo, Q., Pilgrim, C., & Degirmencioglu, S.
(2003). A two-stage model of peer influence in adoles-
cent substance use: Individual and relationship-specific
differences in susceptibility to influence. Addictive Be-
haviors, 28, 1243 – 1256.
Walter, H. J., Vaughan, R. D., Gladis, M. M., & Ragin, D. F.
(1993). Factors associated with AIDS-related behavioral
intentions among high school students in an AIDS epi-
center. Health Education Quarterly, 20, 409 – 420.
Wechsler, H., Nelson, T. E., Lee, J. E., Seibring, M., Lewis,
C., & Keeling, R. P. (2003). Perception and reality: A
national evaluation of social norms marketing inter-
ventions to reduce college students’ heavy alcohol use.
Journal of Studies of Alcohol, 64, 484 – 494.
Wills, T. A., & Cleary, S. D. (1999). Peer and adolescent
substance use among 6th – 9th graders: Latent growth
analyses of influence versus selection mechanisms.
Health Psychology, 18, 453 – 463.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for
research synthesis. Sage University paper series on quanti-
tative applications in the social sciences, 07-059. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Wood, M. D., Nagoshi, C. T., & Dennis, D. A. (1992). Al-
cohol norms and expectations as predictors of alcohol
use and problems in a college student sample. American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 18, 461 – 476.
Appendix A
Table A1
Items Included in the Attitudes About the Costs of Sex Scale
1. If you had sexual intercourse, your partner would lose
respect for you
2. If you had sexual intercourse, afterward, you would feel
guilty
3. If you got (someone) pregnant, it would be embarrassing for
your family
4. If you got (someone) pregnant, it would be embarrassing for
you
5. If you got (someone) pregnant, you would have to quit school
6. If you got (someone) pregnant, you might marry the wrong
person
7. If you got (someone) pregnant, you would be forced to grow
up too fast
8. Getting (someone) pregnant at this time in your life is one of
the worst things that could happen to you
9. It wouldn’t be all that bad if you got (someone) pregnant at
this time in your life. (reverse scored)