IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v317y2023ics0277953622009182.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intergroup relationships with people who use drugs: A personal network approach

Author

Listed:
  • Railey, Ashley F.
  • Roth, Adam R.
  • Krendl, Anne C.
  • Perry, Brea L.

Abstract

Positive and meaningful intergroup contact between people who use drugs and those with the potential to provide positive social interactions has been identified as an important pathway to address the burden of drug use by reducing stigmatizing views and behaviors. Traditional approaches to intergroup contact typically rely on laboratory experiments or survey vignettes to examine the consequences of variation in contact conditions and relationships. Although seldom measured, contact occurs naturally through individuals' personal social networks. Here, we apply this latter approach to examine how the characteristics of drug use and social roles are associated with positive and meaningful intergroup contact in daily life. We leverage unique data from a state representative sample of Indiana residents aged 18 or older (n = 926) that completed a personal network interview and separately reported people they know who have a drug use problem. We first identified the respondents who nominated a person who uses drugs as a member of their core personal network and then evaluated the relationship, disease, and individual characteristics that were associated with that person's inclusion in the personal network. We find that primary relationships (e.g., having a spouse or child who uses drugs) are associated with meaningful contact with people who use drugs but that intense manifestations of disease characteristics (severe or problematic, danger to self) can limit the likelihood of contact. These findings demonstrate how the nature of intergroup contact can shape the types of relationships that have been shown to help reduce stigmatizing attitudes and the behavioral barriers to recovery, such as social isolation. Thus, core networks present a valuable approach to defining the factors that likely contribute to effective intergroup contact.

Suggested Citation

  • Railey, Ashley F. & Roth, Adam R. & Krendl, Anne C. & Perry, Brea L., 2023. "Intergroup relationships with people who use drugs: A personal network approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:317:y:2023:i:c:s0277953622009182
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622009182
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115612?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Marmaros & Bruce Sacerdote, 2006. "How Do Friendships Form?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(1), pages 79-119.
    2. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    3. Dongshi Wang & Yanqiu Wang & Yingying Wang & Rena Li & Chenglin Zhou, 2014. "Impact of Physical Exercise on Substance Use Disorders: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    4. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    5. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    6. Pescosolido, B.A. & Monahan, J. & Link, B.G. & Stueve, A. & Kikuzawa, S., 1999. "The public's view of the competence, dangerousness, and need for legal coercion of persons with mental health problems," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(9), pages 1339-1345.
    7. John Whitehead, 2005. "Environmental Risk and Averting Behavior: Predictive Validity of Jointly Estimated Revealed and Stated Behavior Data," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(3), pages 301-316, November.
    8. Pullen, Erin & Ekl, Emily A. & Felix, Elizabeth & Turner, Christopher & Perry, Brea L. & Pescosolido, Bernice A., 2022. "Labeling, causal attributions, and social network ties to people with mental illness," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    9. Link, B.G. & Phelan, J.C. & Bresnahan, M. & Stueve, A. & Pescosolido, B.A., 1999. "Public conceptions of mental illness: Labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 89(9), pages 1328-1333.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    3. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    4. Kaat de Corte & John Cairns & Richard Grieve, 2021. "Stated versus revealed preferences: An approach to reduce bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(5), pages 1095-1123, May.
    5. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2011. "Self-Image and Valuation of Moral Goods: Stated versus Real Willingness to Pay," Working Papers in Economics 484, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—A multiple country test of an oath script," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 105-121.
    7. Frondel Manuel & Sommer Stephan & Tomberg Lukas, 2019. "Versorgungssicherheit mit Strom: Empirische Evidenz auf Basis der Inferred-Valuation-Methode," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 68(1), pages 53-73, May.
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Halkos, George, 2012. "The use of contingent valuation in assessing marine and coastal ecosystems’ water quality: A review," MPRA Paper 42183, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    11. Lindhjem, Henrik, 2007. "20 years of stated preference valuation of non-timber benefits from Fennoscandian forests: A meta-analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 251-277, February.
    12. Lambert, Dayton M. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank & Silva, Carol L. & Bowman, Warigia & Long, Michael A. & Gupta, Kuhika & Fox, Andrew, 2024. "Consumer willingness-to-pay for a resilient electrical grid," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    13. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    14. Carlsson, Fredrik & Daruvala, Dinky & Jaldell, Henrik, 2008. "Do you do what you say or do you do what you say others do?," Working Papers in Economics 309, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2012. "Self-image and valuation of moral goods: Stated versus actual willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 879-891.
    16. Henrik Andersson & Mikael Svensson, 2014. "Scale sensitivity and question order in the contingent valuation method," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(11), pages 1746-1761, November.
    17. Morgan, O. Ashton & Huth, William L., 2011. "Using revealed and stated preference data to estimate the scope and access benefits associated with cave diving," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-118, January.
    18. Johansson-Stenman, Olof, 2006. "Should Animal Welfare Count?," Working Papers in Economics 197, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics, revised 09 May 2006.
    19. John C. Whitehead & Douglas Simpson Noonan & Elizabeth Marquardt, 2014. "Criterion and predictive validity of revealed and stated preference data: the case of “Mountain Home Music†concert demand," Economics and Business Letters, Oviedo University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 87-95.
    20. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 674-687.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:317:y:2023:i:c:s0277953622009182. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.