Abstract
Studies of mediation practices typically focus on parental mediation, but during adolescence parents’ impact decreases relative to that of peers. This study compares perceived parental and peer mediation in the context of media portrayals of risk behavior and adolescents’ perceptions thereof. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 278 adolescents aged 12 to 17 (M = 14.18, SD = 1.62, 51.4 % girls) using Hayes’s process macro (model 4) to investigate direct and indirect associations between mediation, media-related cognitions, and social norms. Findings indicate that perceived parental and peer mediation are related to adolescents’ media-related cognitions and perceived social norms in equally important but different ways.
1 Introduction
Unhealthy and risky behaviors such as smoking, alcohol and drug use, and unsafe sex occur together frequently during adolescence and are associated with poor psychosocial and physical health (Busch, Van Stel, Schrijvers, and de Leeuw, 2013). Contributing to adolescents’ beliefs about, and engagement in, these behaviors are media portrayals in which such behavior is prevalent and often glorified (Fischer, Greitemeyer, Kastenmüller, Vogrincic, and Sauer, 2011). Media have been said to act as a “super peer” (Strasburger, 1995), informing adolescents’ perceptions of social norms regarding risk behaviors (i. e., to what extent they believe others to engage in, or accept, risk behavior) and, through this, adolescents’ own behaviors (Borzekowski and Strasburger, 2008; Nan and Zhao, 2016). However, research also suggests that adolescents’ interpretations of media portrayals through a set of media-related cognitions (realism, similarity, desirability, and identification) play an important role within this process (Austin and Meili, 1994; Austin, Pinkleton, and Fujioka, 2000), and that these cognitions are related to adolescents’ perceptions of real-life social norms regarding risk behavior (Elmore, Scull, and Kupersmidt, 2017). Together, these findings highlight the importance of understanding how such cognitions are shaped.
An important contributing factor to these media-related cognitions is adolescents’ social environment. Discussions of media content with others, such as parents or peers, may inform adolescents’ perceptions of this content (Austin et al., 2000). Such discussions are a form of active mediation: a process through which others attempt to convey their opinions about, or explain, media content to children (Valkenburg, Piotrowski, Hermanns, and de Leeuw, 2013). Research focusing on active mediation and discussions of media content portraying risk behavior has mainly focused on the role of parents (e. g., Fujioka and Austin, 2003; Radanielina-Hita, Kareklas, and Pinkleton, 2018), who are often considered the main influence in regulating children’s media habits. However, an important goal of adolescence is the development of autonomy and a growing independence from one’s parents (Valkenburg and Piotrowski, 2017). Parental influence therefore starts to wane while the peer group becomes increasingly influential, also with regard to (discussions about) media use (Nathanson, 2001). This is particularly true in the context of risk behavior, as such behavior is typically shared with peers and often holds symbolic social meaning for adolescents. It is a way for adolescents to confirm group norms and establish a (social) identity, while also rebelling against mainstream society and parental norms (Jessor, 2017; Lightfoot, 1997). Adolescents may therefore not just discuss media portrayals of risk behavior with their parents but also with their peers, and this could play a crucial role in the construction of adolescents’ perceptions of risk behavior.
This study aims to shed light on the potential roles of parental and peer mediation in relation to adolescents’ perceptions of risk behavior. Rather than focusing on media effects, we explore the psychosocial context surrounding adolescents’ media use. We investigate how the way adolescents perceive their parents and peers talk about media portrayals of risk behaviors relates to adolescents’ own perceptions of these on-screen portrayals (i. e., their media-related cognitions of realism, desirability, similarity, and identification) as well as how both these perceived discussions and media-related cognitions relate to adolescents’ perceptions of real-life social norms surrounding risk behavior.
This study adds to the literature in two main ways. First, the impact of peer discussion or “peer mediation” in the context of mediated risk behavior remains relatively understudied, particularly when it comes to communication about media portrayals of risk behavior. When peers are included in studies of mediated risk behavior, there is often not a direct comparison between parental and peer mediation. Rather, parental mediation is weighed against other forms of peer influence, such as perceived peer norms or peer attachment (e. g., Sasson and Mesch, 2017; Scull, Kupersmidt, Parker, Elmore, and Benson, 2010). Some studies (e. g., Shin and Ismail, 2014; Shin and Lwin, 2017) have directly compared parental and peer mediation, but focus specifically on online risk behavior rather than discussions of media portrayals of risk behaviors and adolescents’ perceptions thereof.
Studies focusing on discussions of media portrayals of risk behavior mostly focus on parental mediation (e. g., Overbeek, van de Bongardt, and Baams, 2018; Radanielina-Hita et al., 2018). When peers are included in these studies, they are typically expected to be positive about these portrayals rather than negative or critical. This has resulted in different measures being used for parental and peer mediation: for instance, focusing on both quality (e. g., distinguishing between positive or negative statements) and quantity of parental mediation while solely focusing on the quantity of peer mediation (e. g., Nathanson, 2001), or only looking at positive statements by peers (e. g., Nikken and de Graaf, 2012). By consequence, parental and peer mediation and their relation to adolescents’ media-related cognitions and perceptions of risk behavior are not yet fully comparable. The question remains whether peers, like parents, when they are critical, can also play a beneficial role in this context.
Second, previous research into this domain has typically looked at one or, occasionally, two or three risk behaviors at once, most often alcohol use (e. g., Austin et al., 2000), violence (e. g., Fikkers, Piotrowski, and Valkenburg, 2017), or (online) risky sexual behavior (e. g., Nikken and de Graaf, 2012). However, risk behavior tends to cluster on-screen as well as in real life, with those engaging in one risk behavior being likely to also engage in other risk behaviors (Bleakley, Hennessy, Fishbein, and Jordan, 2008; Busch et al., 2013). Taking into account that engaging in risk behavior is often a social act for adolescents suggests it is the general concept of “risk-taking” that is attractive to adolescents (Jessor, 2017; Lightfoot, 1992). This study therefore approaches risk behavior broadly and explores the potential of parental and peer mediation for risk behavior as a general concept rather than for a specific risk behavior. We include multiple risk behaviors that are common during adolescence and that often co-occur (Wright, Heron, Campbell, Hickman, and Kipping, 2020), specifically alcohol use, smoking, drug use, unsafe sex, reckless behavior (e. g., stunts, driving under the influence), and intentional self-harm.
Social norms and risk behavior
Important to understanding adolescent risk behavior is the role of social norms. Research suggests that an individual’s intention to engage in certain behavior is influenced by the social norm surrounding it (Cialdini, Reno, and Kallgren, 1990; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Perkins and Berkowitz, 1986). Individuals are more likely to engage in certain behaviors (e. g., smoking and drinking) when they believe many others engage in this behavior and that others desire them to engage in such behavior as well. Two types of social norms commonly distinguished are injunctive and descriptive norms (Cialdini et al., 1990). Injunctive norms are defined as the extent to which others are perceived to approve or disapprove of a certain behavior: To what extent do others feel that risk behaviors such as alcohol use or smoking are acceptable behaviors? Descriptive norms relate to the perceived prevalence of a certain behavior: How many others engage in such behavior themselves (i. e., how many others smoke, drink, etc.)?
As a result of adolescents’ developmental stage, social norms may be particularly influential. Adolescents are developing their own sense of identity while at the same time their growing social cognition makes them increasingly aware of other people’s perceptions of them (Valkenburg and Piotrowski, 2017). During this time, social approval and the need to belong are thought to be strong motivators of behavior (Crone and Dahl, 2012). Conforming to social norms may be a way to gain this approval (Ciranka and van den Bos, 2021), and peer pressure, in this context, may be conceptualized as an internal pull to confirm to peer norms rather than an external push to engage in certain behavior (Lightfoot, 1992). Indeed, empirical studies show perceived as well as actual social norms to be an important predictor of adolescent risk behavior (Ciranka and van den Bos, 2021; Geber et al., 2019).
Social norms are often misperceived by individuals, with risky behaviors being overestimated and healthy behaviors underestimated (Berkowitz, 2004). Adolescents in particular have been shown to overestimate risk behavior, perceiving it to be more normative than children or adults (Ciranka and van den Bos, 2021). These (mis)perceptions have been linked to media use, in line with social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) and cultivation theory (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, and Shanahan, 2002). Media provide adolescents with “information” about how prevalent and acceptable such behaviors are, which may inform adolescents’ perceptions of real-life risk behavior (Strasburger, 1995). However, while the effects of media exposure on adolescents’ perceptions of social norms have been well established (e. g., Boers, Afzali, and Conrod, 2020; Nan and Zhao, 2016), it is often argued that how adolescents interpret media messages is more important than how frequently they are exposed to them.
Media-related cognitions
Austin et al.’s message interpretation model proposes that an individual’s interpretation of a media message through a set of logical and emotional processes determines whether they will accept and internalize the message (Austin and Meili, 1994; Austin et al., 2000). The model suggests that adolescents who feel that media portrayals of risk behavior are more accurate depictions of the real world (realism), more similar to their own lives (similarity), and more appealing (desirability), and who see the characters as someone they would want to be like (identification), are also more likely to internalize these portrayals.
More recently, research has investigated whether these media-related cognitions (realism, similarity, desirability, identification) also predict adolescents’ perceptions of real-life social norms regarding alcohol and tobacco (Elmore et al., 2017; Scull et al., 2010). The studies found that adolescents who were less critical towards media portrayals of substance use (e. g., believing it to be less realistic or desirable) also believed substance use to be more prevalent and/or acceptable among their peers. In line with this, our first hypothesis relates to the relationship between media-related cognitions and adolescents’ perceived social norms and states:
H1: Adolescents’ media-related cognitions (realism, desirability, identification, similarity) regarding risk behavior are positively related to their perceptions of both injunctive and descriptive social norms regarding risk behavior.
Parental and peer mediation
Adolescents’ media-related cognitions and perceptions of real-life risk behavior are not shaped in a social vacuum. Discussions of media content with parents, for instance, can play a role in shaping beliefs about the realism or desirability of what is portrayed (Austin et al., 2000). When studying parental discussion, or active parental mediation, of media content, scholars distinguish between positive and negative parental mediation, sometimes called positive and negative reinforcement (Austin and Chen, 2003; Fujioka and Austin, 2003; Radanielina-Hita et al., 2018). Positive mediation refers to parents expressing their approval or positive opinion regarding a media message and is related to more positive and less critical attitudes towards media content among children (Austin et al., 2000; Mendoza et al., 2013; Radanielina-Hita et al., 2018). This can be a conscious process, aiming to reinforce prosocial or educational media messages, but can also include less deliberate statements. A parent saying a character who engages in risk behavior is “cool”, for instance, may unwittingly reinforce the message that persons who engage in such behaviors are indeed cool, and that this behavior is acceptable. Negative mediation refers to parents expressing critical attitudes or disapproval towards media messages, for instance, saying the portrayal of risk behavior is unrealistic. This is related to more critical attitudes towards the media portrayals among children (Austin et al., 2000; Mendoza et al., 2013; Radanielina-Hita et al., 2018).
In line with previous studies we expect adolescents’ perceptions of positive and negative parental mediation to be related to adolescents’ media-related cognitions: When parents are perceived to make more positive statements about mediated risk behavior, adolescents are expected to have more positive cognitions towards such portrayals, whereas when parents are perceived to make more negative statements about mediated risk behavior, adolescents are expected to be more critical towards such portrayals. Furthermore, we expect perceived parental mediation to be related to adolescents’ perceived peer norms through these media-related cognitions. This results in the following hypotheses:
H2: Perceived positive parental mediation is (a) positively related to adolescents’ media-related cognitions (realism, desirability, identification, similarity) and (b) thereby positively related to adolescents’ perceptions of injunctive and descriptive social norms.
H3: Perceived negative parental mediation is (a) negatively related to adolescents’ media-related cognitions (realism, desirability, identification, similarity) and (b) thereby negatively related to adolescents’ perceptions of injunctive and descriptive social norms.
Despite the potential value of parental mediation, adolescents can be difficult to reach for parents, whereas the peer group becomes more influential (Nathanson, 2002; Shin and Lwin, 2017). Nathanson (2001) coined the construct of peer mediation in a study comparing parental and peer mediation of antisocial media content. Her study showed peer mediation to be more prevalent and more influential than parental mediation, resulting in more positive orientations toward antisocial media content. Due to an expected difference in communication patterns between parents and peers, the study used different measures for parental mediation (measured as negative statements about mediated anti-social behavior) and peer mediation (measured as general peer discussion about violent or sexual content). Similarly, later studies have focused on the “peer pressure” side of media-content-related peer communication (e. g., Nikken and de Graaf, 2012). Still, these studies found peers to be an important influence with regard to media use and perceptions of antisocial or risky behaviors among adolescents. Therefore, we expect that, similarly to parental mediation, peer mediation will be related to adolescents’ media-related cognitions, and its valence (i. e., positive or negative in tone) will determine the direction of this relation. Furthermore, we expect peer mediation to be related to adolescents’ perceived social norms through this process. Our final hypotheses are therefore:
H4: Perceived positive peer mediation is (a) positively related to adolescents’ media-related cognitions (realism, desirability, identification, similarity) and (b) thereby positively related to adolescents’ perceptions of injunctive and descriptive social norms.
H5: Perceived negative peer mediation is (a) negatively related to adolescents’ media-related cognitions (realism, desirability, identification, similarity) (b) and thereby negatively related to adolescents’ perceptions of injunctive and descriptive social norms.
2 Method
Sample and procedure
A survey was conducted in 2018 among 278 adolescents aged 12 to 17 (M = 14.18, SD = 1.62, 51.4 % girls). Participants were gathered from 18 classrooms in six different schools from multiple regions in the Netherlands. Classes were purposefully selected to encompass different grade levels and educational types. Schools were recruited by university students during an undergraduate research seminar on survey research, supervised by the first author. Active consent was obtained from participating pupils as well as from one of their parents or guardians. The undergraduate students visited the schools to conduct the survey digitally using computers, tablets, or smartphones in the classroom or a computer lab.
Participants were informed that the survey was anonymous, and data could not be connected to them personally, to encourage participation and discourage socially desirable answers. The questionnaire started with questions about participant demographics, followed by media-related cognitions, parental and peer mediation, descriptive and injunctive social norms, and finally questions about participants’ engagement in risk behavior and media viewing habits as potential control variables.
Measures
Perceptions of descriptive and injunctive social norms. For perceived descriptive social norms, respondents answered how many of their peers (“others your age”) they believed engage in a specific risk behavior (alcohol use, smoking, drug use, unsafe sexual behavior, intentional self-harm, reckless behavior) on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from almost nobody to almost everyone; adapted from Baumgartner, Valkenburg, and Peter, 2011). For injunctive social norms, they answered how acceptable they believed their peers would consider each of the aforementioned behaviors on a 6-point Likert scale (not at all ok to very ok; adapted from Baumgartner et al., 2011). A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to investigate whether items relating to various risk behaviors could be seen as one construct and combined for our scales. The PCA for injunctive peer norms yielded one factor based on the scree plot, but had a poor factor loading for the item about intentional self-harm (.352). The same was true for descriptive peer norms (factor loading .371). While fairly common and often co-occurring with other health-risk behaviors such as drinking, drug use, and smoking (Portzky, De Wilde, and Van Heeringen, 2008; Rossow et al., 2007), this behavior may be more taboo and of a different nature than the other risk behaviors in the study. We therefore excluded this behavior from our analysis for all variables and continued with five risk behaviors (alcohol use, smoking, drug use, unsafe sexual behavior, reckless behavior).
An additional PCA revealed that for descriptive norms, the five remaining items loaded on one component (based on the scree plot) with factor loadings between .580 and .815 (59 % explained variance). For injunctive norms, items loaded on one component (58 % explained variance), with factor loadings between .668 and .840. Scales were created by computing the average score for all five behaviors for descriptive social norms (M = 1.89, SD = .71, α = .78) and injunctive social norms (M = 2.58, SD = .97, α = .81).
Media-related cognitions. Realism, desirability, identification, and similarity were measured with a single-item 6-point (completely disagree to completely agree) Likert scale per behavior. The items were translated (from English to Dutch) and adapted from Austin and Johnson (1997), Austin et al. (2000), and Elmore et al. (2017).
For realism, respondents answered whether they thought media (“films, series, tv-programs”) are a realistic source of information for each of the included behaviors. The PCA scree plot yielded one component (55 % explained variance) with factor loadings between .668 and .827. The scale for realism was created by averaging the scores on these five items (M = 3.17, SD = .91, α = .79).
For desirability, respondents indicated whether they thought people who perform the included behaviors in the media are usually popular. The PCA scree plot yielded one component (59 % explained variance) with factor loadings between .669 and .868. The scale for desirability was created by averaging the scores (M = 3.43, SD = 1.02, α = .84).
For identification, respondents answered whether they would want to be like media characters who engage in the risk behavior. The PCA scree plot yielded one component (57 % explained variance) with factor loadings between .674 and .817. The scale for identification was created by averaging the scores (M = 1.82, SD = .81, α = .80)
For similarity, respondents answered whether they thought they liked the same things which people like who engage in these behaviors in TV programs, films, or series. The PCA scree plot yielded one component (62 % explained variance) with factor loadings between .695 and .846. The average score on these five behaviors resulted in the scale for this similarity (M = 2.15, SD = .93, α = .85).
Perceived parental and peer mediation. Perceived parental and peer mediation were measured on Likert scales with 6-point items (never to always) translated (from English to Dutch) and adapted from Austin et al. (2000) and Nathanson (2001). For each risk behavior we asked how often respondents talked to their parents/friends about media in which the behavior is portrayed, how often their parents/friends told them that the behavior portrayed is (positive) or is not (negative) like it is in real life, how often parents/friends told them the behavior portrayed in the media is fun (positive) or stupid (negative), and, finally, how often parents/friends told them that you should not act like people in the media who engage in the behavior (negative). This resulted in three items relating to each risk behavior for both perceived negative parental and negative peer mediation (parents or friends making critical statements about mediated risk behavior), and in two items relating to each risk behavior for both positive perceived parental and positive peer mediation (parents and friends making positive statements about mediated risk behavior).
The PCA scree plot for the 15 items relating to negative parental mediation yielded one component (49 % variance explained), with factor loadings ranging from .561 to .853. The items were averaged to create a scale for perceived negative parental mediation (M = 2.19, SD = .95, α = .93). For negative peer mediation, the PCA scree plot yielded one component (58 % explained variance) with factor loadings ranging from .596 to .865. Items were averaged to create one variable for perceived negative peer mediation (M = 1.69, SD = .79, α = .95).
The PCA with 10 items relating to perceived positive parental mediation yielded one component based on the scree plot (42 % explained variance), with factor loadings between .481 and .730. For positive peer mediation, this also resulted in one component (53 % explained variance) with factor loadings between .676 and .767. The two scales were created by averaging the items for perceived positive parental mediation (M = 1.40, SD = .46, α = .83) and for perceived positive peer mediation (M = 1.70, SD = .71, α = .89).
Control variables
Engagement in risk behavior. Adolescents’ engagement in the particular risk behaviors (alcohol use, smoking, drug use, unsafe sexual behavior, reckless behavior) was measured on a 6-point Likert scale (never to very often). PCA of the five items resulted in one component (48 % explained variance) based on the scree plot, with factor loadings between .558 and .794. The items were averaged to create a scale for engagement in risk behavior (M = 1.53, SD = .66, α = .69).
General media viewing habits. Adolescents’ media viewing habits were measured with two items about time spent watching films, series, and television programs (days per week and hours per day). For viewing habits, we computed how many hours per week the participants watched films, programs, and other series (M = 8.4, SD = 7.85, range: 0–49).
Demographics. Participants indicated whether they were a boy (49.6 %), girl (51.4 %), or would rather not say (0 %) and indicated their age (M = 14.18, SD = 1.62).
Plan of analysis
Following our aim to study the mechanisms by which parental and peer mediation operate, we used Hayes’s (2017) conditional process macro (model 4) for its ability to test for parallel multiple mediation and directly test the significance of indirect effects. For the analysis, we used bootstrapped confidence intervals to ensure robustness. The model included the four mediation strategies as independent variables and the four media-related cognitions as mediators. The model was run and analyzed separately for the two outcome variables: perceptions of descriptive social norms and perceptions of injunctive social norms. Engagement in risk behavior, sex, age, and media-viewing habits were included as covariates because they correlated with either mediators or outcome variables (see Table 1 for raw correlations). Hayes’s process macro runs a direct test of the significance of indirect pathways for all mediators. To do so for each mediation strategy, we ran the model four times for both outcome variables, with one mediation strategy as the independent variable (x) to test its indirect associations, and the other mediation strategies (as well as other control variables) added as covariates. Figures 1 and 2 show the operationalized model with all direct associations for variables of interest. Tables 2 and 3 show the full results of the analyses for direct and indirect associations.
Direct associations for injunctive social norms.
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Note: Figure shows direct associations between mediation, media-related cognitions, and injunctive social norms, controlled for adolescents’ age, sex, engagement in risk behavior, and media-viewing time. Coefficients presented are unstandardized regression coefficients produced by the process macro (model 4).
Direct associations for descriptive social norms.
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Note: Figure shows direct associations between mediation, media-related cognitions, and descriptive social norms, controlled for adolescents’ age, sex, engagement in risk behavior, and media-viewing time. Coefficients presented are unstandardized regression coefficients produced by the process macro (model 4).
Correlations.
|
Measure |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
|
1 Negative parental mediation |
– |
|||||||||||||
|
2 Positive parental mediation |
.384** |
– |
||||||||||||
|
3 Negative peer mediation |
.771** |
.416** |
– |
|||||||||||
|
4 Positive peer mediation |
.331** |
.701** |
.405** |
– |
||||||||||
|
5 Realism |
–.081 |
.118* |
–.093 |
.131* |
– |
|||||||||
|
6 Desirability |
.082 |
.186** |
.019 |
.274** |
.200** |
– |
||||||||
|
7 Identification |
–.323** |
.044 |
–.211** |
.179** |
.226** |
.235** |
– |
|||||||
|
8 Similarity |
–.264** |
.096 |
–.150* |
.255** |
.163** |
.236** |
.752** |
– |
||||||
|
9 Descriptive social norms |
–.184** |
.144* |
–.139* |
.289** |
.078 |
.250** |
.431** |
.584** |
– |
|||||
|
10 Injunctive social norms |
–.239** |
.085 |
–.220** |
.287** |
.124* |
.269** |
.506** |
.578** |
.716** |
– |
||||
|
11 Age |
–.154* |
.047 |
–.066 |
.175** |
.018 |
.179** |
.318** |
.478** |
.688** |
.543** |
– |
|||
|
12 Sexa |
.183* |
.050 |
.179** |
.046 |
–.083 |
.092 |
–.248* |
–.161** |
–.001 |
–.064 |
–.037 |
– |
||
|
13 Media viewing time |
–.065 |
–.059 |
–.078 |
.026 |
–.042 |
.136* |
.042 |
.029 |
.070 |
.054 |
.119* |
.180* |
– |
|
|
14 Own behavior |
–.218** |
.092 |
–.135* |
.270 |
.126* |
.193** |
.546** |
.624** |
.657** |
.541** |
.498** |
–.172** |
.113 |
– |
a 0 = female
*p < .05 **p < .01
3 Results
The first hypothesis stated that media-related cognitions (realism, desirability, identification, similarity) would be positively related to perceived injunctive and descriptive social norms. Identification was positively associated with injunctive social norms (b = .18, p < .05). Similarity was positively associated with both injunctive (b = .21, p < .05) and descriptive norms (b = .12, p < .05). Realism and desirability had no significant association with either injunctive or descriptive social norms. H1 is accepted for similarity and partially accepted for identification.
The second hypothesis stated that perceived positive parental mediation would (a) be positively related to the media-related cognitions realism, desirability, identification, and similarity and (b) thereby positively related to injunctive and descriptive social norms. Positive parental mediation was not associated with any of the media-related cognitions, and we found neither direct nor indirect associations with adolescents’ perceptions of social norms. H2 is rejected.
The third hypothesis stated that perceived negative parental mediation would (a) be negatively related to the media-related cognitions realism, desirability, identification, and similarity and (b) thereby negatively related to injunctive and descriptive social norms. In line with expectations, negative parental mediation was negatively related to feelings of identification (b = –.23, p < .001) and similarity (b = –.19, p < .01) in adolescents. However, in contrast to our expectations, negative parental mediation was positively related to adolescents’ perceived desirability of media characters engaging in risk behavior (b = .21, p < .05). H3a is accepted for identification and similarity.
Testing the second part of the third hypothesis, an indirect association between perceived negative parental mediation and descriptive social norms was found through similarity (indirect effect = –.02, boot SE =.01, 95 % BCCI [–.05; –.002]). No direct associations were found of negative parental mediation with either injunctive or descriptive social norms. H3b is partially accepted for similarity.
The fourth hypothesis stated that perceived positive peer mediation would (a) be positively related to the media-related cognitions realism, desirability, identification, and similarity and (b) thereby be positively related to injunctive and descriptive social norms. In line with this hypothesis, perceived positive peer mediation was positively related to desirability (b = .37, p < .01) and similarity (b = .21, p < .05). H4a is accepted for desirability and similarity.
Testing the second part of our fourth hypothesis, no significant indirect pathways were found. However, perceived positive peer mediation was directly associated with both injunctive (b = .37, p <. 001) and descriptive (b = .12, p < .05) social norms. H4b is rejected.
Direct associations between parental and peer mediation.
|
Realism |
Desirability |
Identification |
Similarity |
Injunctive social norms |
Descriptive social norms |
|||||||
|
Coeff |
LLCI/ULCI |
Coeff |
LLCI/ULCI |
Coeff |
LLCI/ULCI |
Coeff |
LLCI/ULCI |
Coeff |
LLCI/ULCI |
Coeff |
LLCI/ULCI |
|
|
Constant |
3.36*** |
2.32/4.40 |
1.53** |
.36/2.27 |
1.01** |
.29/1.56 |
–.35 |
–1.04/.40 |
–1.07 |
–1.95/–.19 |
–1.72*** |
–2.21/–1.26 |
|
Positive parental |
.21 |
–.12/.54 |
.04 |
–.32/.40 |
.04 |
–.20/.28 |
.01 |
–.25/.27 |
–.16 |
–.41/.09 |
.06 |
–.10/.22 |
|
Negative parental |
–.03 |
–.21/.15 |
.21* |
.01/.41 |
–.23*** |
–.36/–.09 |
–.19** |
–.33/–.05 |
.04 |
–.11/.18 |
.02 |
–.07/.11 |
|
Positive peer |
.15 |
–.08/.37 |
.37** |
.12/.61 |
.14 |
–.03/.30 |
.21* |
.03/.38 |
.37*** |
.19/.55 |
.12* |
.005/.23 |
|
Negative peer |
–.17 |
–.39/.05 |
–.30* |
–.54/–.07 |
.02 |
–.14/.18 |
–.007 |
–.16/.18 |
–.32*** |
–.49/–.14 |
–.15* |
–.25/.04 |
|
Age |
–.03 |
–.11/.04 |
.06 |
–.02/.14 |
.02 |
–.03/.08 |
.12*** |
.06/.18 |
.18*** |
.12/.24 |
.19*** |
.16/.23 |
|
Sexa |
–.05 |
–.27/.17 |
.24 |
–.01/.48 |
–.20* |
–.37/–.04 |
–.05 |
–.22/.12 |
.18 |
–.0004/.35 |
.18** |
.07/.29 |
|
Own behavior |
.12 |
–.07/.32 |
.15 |
–.06/.36 |
.51*** |
.36/.65 |
.62*** |
.46/.77 |
.20* |
.03/.37 |
.35*** |
.25/.46 |
|
Viewing time |
–.006 |
–.02/.01 |
.01 |
–.004/.03 |
–.001 |
–.01/.01 |
–.01 |
–.02/.004 |
–.008 |
–.02/.003 |
–.006 |
–.01/.001 |
|
Realism |
–.01 |
–.11/.08 |
–.02 |
–.08/.04 |
||||||||
|
Desirability |
.06 |
–.03/.15 |
.03 |
–.03/.08 |
||||||||
|
Identification |
.18* |
.01/.34 |
–.02 |
–.12/.08 |
||||||||
|
Similarity |
.21* |
–.09/.33 |
.12* |
.02/.21 |
||||||||
|
Model summary: |
R = .24, R2 = .06, F(8, 269) =2.09, p < .05 |
R = .38, R2 = .14, F(8, 269) = 5.54, p < .001 |
R = .61., R2 = .38, F(8, 269) = 20.19, p < .001 |
R = .68, R2 = .47., F(8,269) = 29.31, p < .001 |
R = .72, R2 = .52, F(12,265) =24.27, p < .001 |
R = .80., R2 = .66, F(12,265) =42.08, p < .001 |
||||||
a 0 = female
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001
Indirect associations between parental and peer mediation and social norms.
|
Injunctive social norms |
Descriptive social norms |
|||
|
Coeff |
LLCI/ULCI |
Coeff |
LLCI/ULCI |
|
|
Positive parental x Realism |
–.003 |
–.03/.03 |
–.004 |
–.03/.01 |
|
Positive parental x Desirability |
.002 |
–.02/.04 |
.001 |
–.01/.02 |
|
Positive parental x Identification |
.01 |
–.05/.07 |
–.001 |
–.02/.02 |
|
Positive parental x Similarity |
.002 |
–.06/.06 |
.001 |
–.04/.04 |
|
Negative parental x Realism |
.0004 |
–.01/.01 |
.001 |
–.01/.01 |
|
Negative parental x Desirability |
.01 |
–.01/.05 |
.01 |
–.005/.02 |
|
Negative parental x Identification |
–.04 |
–.10/.003 |
.004 |
–.02/.03 |
|
Negative Parental x Similarity |
–.03 |
–.08/.002 |
–.02* |
–.05/–.002 |
|
Positive peer x Realism |
–.002 |
–.03/.01 |
–.003 |
–.02/.01 |
|
Positive peer x Desirability |
.02 |
–.01/.06 |
.01 |
–.01.03 |
|
Positive peer x Identification |
.02 |
–.01/.08 |
–.002 |
–.02/.02 |
|
Positive peer x Similarity |
.03 |
–.004/.10 |
.02 |
–.001/.07 |
|
Negative peer x Realism |
.002 |
–.02/.03 |
.003 |
–.01/.02 |
|
Negative peer x Desirability |
–.02 |
–.06/.01 |
–.01 |
–.03/.01 |
|
Negative peer x Identification |
.003 |
–.02/.03 |
–.0003 |
–.01/.01 |
|
Negative peer x Similarity |
.001 |
–.03/.04 |
.001 |
–.02/.02 |
* Bootstrapped confidence interval (sample = 5000) set at 95 % is entirely above/below zero.
The fifth and final hypothesis stated that perceived negative peer mediation would (a) be negatively related to the media-related cognitions realism, desirability, identification, and similarity and (b) thereby negatively related to injunctive and descriptive social norms. A negative relation was found between negative peer mediation and desirability (b = –.30, p < .05). H5a is accepted for desirability.
No significant indirect associations between perceived negative peer mediation and social norms were found. However, perceived negative peer mediation was directly negatively associated with adolescents’ perceptions of both injunctive (b = –.32, p < .001) and descriptive (b = –.15, p < .05) social norms. H5b is rejected.
4 Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the associations of perceived parental and peer mediation with adolescents’ media-related cognitions and their perceptions of social norms. Based on our findings, three main conclusions can be drawn.
First, our results confirm that adolescents’ interpretation of media messages containing risk behavior through a set of media-related cognitions is associated with their perceptions of the prevalence and acceptability of this behavior among other adolescents. Adolescents who felt a stronger sense of identification or similarity towards characters engaging in risk behavior also believed risk behavior to be more common and/or acceptable among others their age.
Second, our findings indicate that how adolescents talk about mediated risk behavior with their friends is related to these cognitions as well as to perceptions of social norms. However, contrary to our expectations, media-related cognitions did not mediate the relation between peer mediation and social norms. When adolescents perceived their friends to talk more positively about mediated risk behavior (positive peer mediation), this was directly related to perceptions of risk behavior as more prevalent and acceptable among other adolescents. When they perceived their friends to be critical of mediated risk behavior (negative peer mediation), this was directly related to perceptions of such behavior as less prevalent and acceptable. Whereas we found these direct relationships for both perceived positive and negative peer mediation, with both descriptive and injunctive norms, we only found one indirect relation for parental mediation.
Third, our findings indicate that the processes of peer and parental mediation may operate in different ways. The relation between perceived negative parental mediation and adolescents’ perceptions of social norms regarding risk behavior was solely indirect, through decreased feelings of similarity towards characters engaging in such behavior. Conversely, for perceived peer mediation we found only direct effects and no indication of such an explanatory mechanism. When adolescents perceived their friends to talk either more critically or more positively about mediated risk behavior, this was directly associated with their perceptions of the normativity of risk behavior among other adolescents. This relation was not explained by how adolescents interpreted mediated risk behavior. Rather, it seems that talking to peers about media characters engaging in risk behavior is directly related to perceptions of how these behaviors occur among other adolescents. Taken together, these findings suggest that parental and peer mediation are related to adolescents’ media-related cognitions and perceptions of social norms in different but equally important ways.
Theoretical implications
Our findings have several theoretical implications. They potentially confirm suggestions made by previous authors (e. g., Nathanson, 2001; Nikken and de Graaf, 2012) that positive peer mediation can cancel out beneficial contributions of negative parental mediation. However, they also indicate that negative peer mediation, like negative parental mediation, can contribute to adolescents having more critical perceptions of media as well as of the real-life prevalence and acceptability of risk behavior. In line with prior research and theory (e. g., Jessor, 2017; Lightfoot, 1992), this underscores the importance of peers for adolescent risk behavior.
Contrary to our expectations, media-related cognitions do not explain the association of peer mediation to social norms. Rather, it seems that talking about characters engaging in risk behavior may more directly inform adolescents’ perceptions of social norms. This is in line with the conception of risk behavior as a social phenomenon. Adolescents construct normative ideas about risk behaviors by engaging in these behaviors together as well as by discussing them with one another (Lightfoot, 1992). Talking about media characters’ engagement in risk behavior can also be a way for adolescents to discuss and construct norms regarding risk behavior within their peer group. These norms may then be projected upon a general group of “other adolescents” resulting in the belief that risk behavior is generally more (or less) acceptable and prevalent. This may explain why we found no indication of such a direct association for perceived parental mediation with social norms.
Still, while our results underscore the importance of friends, they also indicate that parental mediation may still play an important role during adolescence. In line with prior research (Austin et al., 2000), parents being perceived as talking critically about mediated risk behavior was related to adolescents feeling less similar to media characters engaging in these risk behaviors, and thereby to lower perceptions of the normativity of risk behavior. It was also associated with lower identification with such characters. However, in contrast to our expectations, perceived negative parental mediation was also related to an increased sense of desirability towards characters engaging in risk behavior. This potentially undesired consequence might be explained by adolescents’ reactions to authority (Nathanson, 2001, 2002), but we did not find this result for the other media-related cognitions. The result is in line with the “desirability paradox” discussed by Austin, Pinkleton, and Funabiki (2007). They found that for desirability, media literacy training could lead to increased affect towards media characters, suggesting desirability might differ from the other media-related cognitions in its relation to mediation and media literacy efforts. Our results suggest peer mediation may be valuable here, as we found no such paradox there.
Our results regarding the associations between media-related cognitions and social norms are mostly in line with Elmore et al. (2017) and the message interpretation process model by Austin et al. (1994). Like Elmore et al., we found that adolescents who perceived characters engaging in risk behavior to be similar to themselves also perceived risk behavior to be more acceptable and prevalent among other adolescents. Contrary to Elmore et al. (2017), we found an association between identification and (injunctive) social norms: Adolescents who wanted to be like characters engaging in risk behavior also thought the behavior was more acceptable among other adolescents. This could be due to different item phrasing. For identification, Elmore et al. asked whether teens would like to do the same things as characters engaging in risk behavior, whereas we followed Austin et al.’s (2000) original phrasing asking if adolescents would like to be like characters engaging in risk behaviors, which is perhaps more closely related to adolescents’ sense of identity and approval.
Contrary to Elmore et al. (2017), we found no association between realism or desirability, and social norms. This may be explained by different behaviors being studied. Elmore et al. studied alcohol and tobacco and found these associations for tobacco but not for alcohol. It is possible that our conceptualization of risk behavior as one construct means that differences between risk behaviors have resulted in the suppression of some associations.
Interestingly, the two cognitions we found to be associated with perceived prevalence and acceptability of risk behavior were similarity and identification: feeling like you are already similar to characters who engage in risk behaviors, or wanting to be similar to them. This is in line with results from Scull et al. (2010), who found identification and similarity but not realism predicted intentions of substance use. One explanation might be that these are the two cognitions most closely related to social identity, which is an important factor in adolescent risk behavior (Lightfoot, 1997), due to adolescents’ rapidly developing social cognition and need to belong (Crone and Dahl, 2012).
Limitations and future directions
This study provides a first insight into the potential relative impact of parental and peer discussions of media content on adolescents’ media-related cognitions and perceptions of social norms regarding risk behavior. There are, however, several limitations.
First is this study’s cross-sectional design, which leaves us unable to draw conclusions on the temporal and causal order of the explored relationships. For example, an alternative explanation for the possible “unintended consequences” of perceived negative parental mediation regarding desirability may be that parents whose children feel mediated risk behavior is more desirable are more likely to be perceived as critical about such portrayals by their child. Still, by including both parental and peer mediation, this study provides an important first step in investigating whether peer mediation has the potential to function in a similar way to parental mediation. The results indicate that (perceived) parental and peer mediation both play an important role but might operate in different ways, making it worthwhile to continue studying parental and peer mediation side by side. Future research, especially of longitudinal nature, may shed more light on the mechanism through which peer mediation operates, how this differs from parental mediation, and how both are related to the formation of media-related cognitions and perceptions of social norms.
Second, this study used self-reported questionnaires by teenagers to measure the perceived frequency of positive and negative parental and peer mediation. Previous research has suggested that effective mediation is dependent on children’s accurate perception of the mediation (Buijzen, Rozendaal, Moorman, and Tanis, 2008) and has found children’s perceptions of mediation efforts to more successfully predict outcome measures than parents’ perceptions of these efforts (Fujioka and Austin, 2003). Still, it will be valuable for future research to also measure parents’ and friends’ perceptions of the provided mediation. Relatedly, future research may consider delving deeper into the various types and styles of parental and peer mediation. Whereas this study focused specifically on the valence (i. e., positive versus negative) of active mediation, other aspects such as overall prevalence, mediation type (e. g., active versus restrictive), or mediation style (e. g., controlling versus autonomy-supportive) may also affect the success of mediation practices (Fikkers et al., 2017). A deeper understanding of the type and style of mediation offered by parents and peers may further our understanding of their respective roles within the context of mediated risk behavior.
Furthermore, this study took into account many different risk behaviors, allowing us to approach risk behavior in a holistic manner but also resulting in some limitations. To keep the length of the questionnaire within limits, we used single-item scales (one item per behavior) for the media-related cognitions. While this was in line with how these constructs were measured in an earlier study (Elmore et al., 2017), future research may aim to gain a deeper understanding of these constructs in the context of mediated risk behavior.
Similarly, this study took into account many different media forms (e. g., films, series, television programs), using global measures for mediation and media-related cognitions rather than specific items for each media type. This allowed us to get a general idea of the relation between parental and peer mediation, media-related cognitions, and social norms in the context of risk behavior, while keeping the length of the questionnaire manageable for participants. However, while cultivation theory traditionally suggested that mass media present a homogenous story (Gerbner et al., 2002), adolescents do not live in a “single medium environment” (Bleakley et al., 2008, p. 44) and may perceive the realism of film portrayals to be different from that of television program portrayals of risk behavior. Using global measures means such differences may have been suppressed or may have counteracted one another. Future research may therefore want to explore potential differences in how different media formats are perceived and discussed.
Finally, while we used a broad definition of media, we also took a somewhat traditional approach, focusing on “series, films, and television programs”. These still make up a large part of adolescents’ media consumption and have been shown to impact adolescents’ normative beliefs about real-life risk behavior (Borzekowksi and Strasburger, 2008). However, an increasing portion of adolescents’ media use now takes place on social online platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and Instagram. Research shows that risk behaviors such as alcohol use are common and even glorified on these platforms (Hendriks, Wilmsen, Van Dalen, and Gebhardt, 2020). The realistic and social nature of these platforms may affect their relation to media-related cognitions and perceptions of social norms. Mediation strategies might also take different forms here, with peers potentially being even more influential as sharers of these platforms. Future research might investigate the role of parental and peer mediation for risk behavior portrayed on social media platforms as well as the role played by media-related cognitions within this process.
Practical implications
Overall, our results suggest that discussions of media content with both parents and friends are potentially important to adolescents’ perceptions of on- and off-screen risk behavior. When taking the peer group or practice of media literacy into account in the study, it is worthwhile to not solely see them as a negative force but also harness their positive potential. Intervention efforts may look at facilitating critical peer discussion about mediated risk behavior as a safe way for adolescents to discuss their views on these behaviors without having to comment on the behavior of actual peers.
However, with regard to media literacy in the form of media-related cognitions, only negative parental mediation was related to those cognitions (similarity and identification) that were associated with perceptions of social norms, and the only indirect pathway from mediation to social norms through media-related cognitions was found for negative parental mediation and similarity. While negative peer mediation, in contrast to negative parental mediation, was associated with lower perceived desirability, this cognition was unrelated to perceptions of social norms. Together, these findings suggest that parental mediation might more successfully target adolescents’ critical interpretations of media content, whereas peer mediation might be more successful at directly targeting adolescents’ perceptions of the normativity of risk behavior among teenagers.
Our results suggest mediation strategies and media literacy interventions may want to target cognitions relating to identity or social life, specifically identification and similarity, rather than more rational aspects like realism. It appears that these identity-related cognitions regarding portrayals of risk behavior are more strongly associated with perceived social norms than the more rational judgements about media being realistic sources of information. Focusing on identity-related cognitions is further supported by experimental research from Anschütz et al. (2014), who found that effects of watching televised alcohol portrayals on drinking intention could be diminished by having respondents focus on differences between themselves and alcohol-consuming characters.
Conclusion
The present study falls within a tradition of research that studies the process through which adolescents’ perceptions of (mediated) risk behavior are shaped, but added a more holistic perspective on risk behavior as well as a novel perspective on peer mediation as a potentially beneficial force. Our findings emphasize the importance of not only focusing on parental mediation but also taking peers into account when studying adolescents’ interaction with mediated risk behavior. Peer mediation is often equated to peer pressure and seen as a solely negative force. However, harnessing the power of critical peers may offer a valuable contribution in empowering teens to be more critical in the context of (mediated) risk behavior.
References
Anschutz, D. J., Van den Berg, K., De Graaf, A. M., & Koordeman, R. (2014). What’s the difference? Reducing the effects of exposure to reality television shows displaying excessive alcohol use on Dutch adolescents’ drinking intentions. Journal of Children and Media, 8(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2014.86347610.1080/17482798.2014.863476Search in Google Scholar
Austin, E. W., & Chen, Y. J. (2003). The relationship of parental reinforcement of media messages to college students’ alcohol-related behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 8(2), 157–169.10.1080/10810730305688Search in Google Scholar
Austin, E. W., & Johnson, K. K. (1997). Immediate and delayed effects of media literacy training on third grader’s decision making for alcohol. Health Communication, 9(4), 323–349.10.1207/s15327027hc0904_3Search in Google Scholar
Austin, E. W., & Meili, H. K. (1994). Effects of interpretations of televised alcohol portrayals on children’s alcohol beliefs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38(4), 417–435.10.1080/08838159409364276Search in Google Scholar
Austin, E. W., Pinkleton, B. E., & Fujioka, Y. (2000). The role of interpretation processes and parental discussion in the media’s effects on adolescents’ use of alcohol. Pediatrics, 105(2), 343–349.10.1542/peds.105.2.343Search in Google Scholar
Austin, E. W., Pinkleton, B. E., & Funabiki, R. P. (2007). The desirability paradox in the effects of media literacy training. Communication Research, 34(5), 483–506.10.1177/0093650207305233Search in Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Hoboken, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Baumgartner, S. E., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). The influence of descriptive and injunctive peer norms on adolescents’ risky sexual online behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(12), 753–758.10.1089/cyber.2010.0510Search in Google Scholar
Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated bibliography.Search in Google Scholar
Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., Fishbein, M., & Jordan, A. (2008). It works both ways: The relationship between exposure to sexual content in the media and adolescent sexual behavior. Media psychology, 11(4), 443–461.10.1080/15213260802491986Search in Google Scholar
Boers, E., Afzali, M. H., & Conrod, P. (2020). A longitudinal study on the relationship between screen time and adolescent alcohol use: The mediating role of social norms. Preventive Medicine, 132, 105992.10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.105992Search in Google Scholar
Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Strasburger, V. C. (2008). Adolescents and media messages about tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. In S. L. Calvert & B. J. Wilson (Eds.), The handbook of children, media, and development (pp. 432–452). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.10.1002/9781444302752.ch19Search in Google Scholar
Buijzen, M., Rozendaal, E., Moorman, M., & Tanis, M. (2008). Parent versus child reports of parental advertising mediation: Exploring the meaning of agreement. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52(4), 509–525.10.1080/08838150802437180Search in Google Scholar
Busch, V., Van Stel, H. F., Schrijvers, A. J., & de Leeuw, J. R. (2013). Clustering of health-related behaviors, health outcomes and demographics in Dutch adolescents: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1118.10.1186/1471-2458-13-1118Search in Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015.10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015Search in Google Scholar
Ciranka, S., & van den Bos, W. (2021). Social norms in adolescent risk engagement and recommendation. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 481–498.10.1111/bjdp.12369Search in Google Scholar
Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012). Understanding adolescence as a period of social-affective engagement and goal flexibility. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(9), 636–650.10.1038/nrn3313Search in Google Scholar
Elmore, K. C., Scull, T. M., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (2017). Media as a ‘super peer’: How adolescents interpret media messages predicts their perception of alcohol and tobacco use norms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 376–387.10.1007/s10964-016-0609-9Search in Google Scholar
Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2017). A matter of style? Exploring the effects of parental mediation styles on early adolescents’ media violence exposure and aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 407–415.10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.029Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmüller, A., Vogrincic, C., & Sauer, A. (2011). The effects of risk-glorifying media exposure on risk-positive cognitions, emotions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 367.10.1037/a0022267Search in Google Scholar
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Search in Google Scholar
Fujioka, Y., & Austin, E. W. (2003). The implications of vantage point in parental mediation of television and child’s attitudes toward drinking alcohol. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(3), 418–434.10.1207/s15506878jobem4703_6Search in Google Scholar
Geber, S., Baumann, E., Czerwinski, F., & Klimmt, C. (2019). The effects of social norms among peer groups on risk behavior: A multilevel approach to differentiate perceived and collective norms. Communication Research, 48(3), 319–345.10.1177/0093650218824213Search in Google Scholar
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 43–67). Milton Park, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Hendriks, H., Wilmsen, D., Van Dalen, W., & Gebhardt, W. A. (2020). Picture me drinking: Alcohol-related posts by Instagram influencers popular among adolescents and young adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2991.10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02991Search in Google Scholar
Jessor, R. (2017). Problem behavior theory and the social context. Cham, Germany: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-57885-9Search in Google Scholar
Lightfoot, C. (1992). Constructing self and peer culture: A narrative perspective on adolescent risk taking. In L. T. Winegar & J. Vlasiner (Eds.), Children’s development within social context, volume 2: Research and methodology (pp. 229–245). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lightfoot, C. (1997). The culture of adolescent risk-taking. New York: Guilford Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mendoza, K. (2013). Surveying Parental Mediation: Connections, Challenges and Questions for Media Literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 1(1), 28–41.10.23860/jmle-1-1-3Search in Google Scholar
Nan, X., & Zhao, X. (2016). The mediating role of perceived descriptive and injunctive norms in the effects of media messages on youth smoking. Journal of Health Communication, 21(1), 56–66.10.1080/10810730.2015.1023958Search in Google Scholar
Nathanson, A. I. (2001). Parents versus peers: Exploring the significance of peer mediation of antisocial television. Communication Research, 28(3), 251–274.10.1177/009365001028003001Search in Google Scholar
Nathanson, A. I. (2002). The unintended effects of parental mediation of television on adolescents. Media Psychology, 4(3), 207–230.10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_01Search in Google Scholar
Nikken, P., & de Graaf, H. (2012). Reciprocal relationships between friends’ and parental mediation of adolescents’ media use and their sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(11), 1696–1707.10.1007/s10964-012-9873-5Search in Google Scholar
Overbeek, G., van de Bongardt, D., & Baams, L. (2018). Buffer or brake? The role of sexuality-specific parenting in adolescents’ sexualized media consumption and sexual development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(7), 1427–1439.10.1007/s10964-018-0828-3Search in Google Scholar
Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21(9–10), 961–976.10.3109/10826088609077249Search in Google Scholar
Portzky, G., De Wilde, E. J., & Van Heeringen, K. (2008). Deliberate self-harm in young people: Differences in prevalence and risk factors between The Netherlands and Belgium. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 17(3), 179–186.10.1007/s00787-007-0652-xSearch in Google Scholar
Radanielina-Hita, M. L., Kareklas, I., & Pinkleton, B. (2018). Parental mediation in the digital era: Increasing children’s critical thinking may help decrease positive attitudes toward alcohol. Journal of Health Communication, 23(1), 98–108.10.1080/10810730.2017.1411997Search in Google Scholar
Rossow, I., Ystgaard, M., Hawton, K., Madge, N., Van Heeringen, K., De Wilde, E. J., … & Morey, C. (2007). Cross-national comparisons of the association between alcohol consumption and deliberate self-harm in adolescents. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 37(6), 605–615.10.1521/suli.2007.37.6.605Search in Google Scholar
Sasson, H., & Mesch, G. (2017). The role of parental mediation and peer norms on the likelihood of cyberbullying. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 178(1), 15–27.10.1080/00221325.2016.1195330Search in Google Scholar
Scull, T. M., Kupersmidt, J. B., Parker, A. E., Elmore, K. C., & Benson, J. W. (2010). Adolescents’ media-related cognitions and substance use in the context of parental and peer influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(9), 981–998.10.1007/s10964-009-9455-3Search in Google Scholar
Shin, W., & Ismail, N. (2014). Exploring the role of parents and peers in young adolescents’ risk taking on social networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(9), 578–583.10.1089/cyber.2014.0095Search in Google Scholar
Shin, W., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). How does ‘talking about the internet with others’ affect teenagers’ experience of online risks? The role of active mediation by parents, peers, and school teachers. New Media & Society, 19(7), 1109–1126.10.1177/1461444815626612Search in Google Scholar
Strasburger, V. C. (1995). Adolescents and the media: Medical and psychological impact. Sage Publications, Inc.Search in Google Scholar
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged in. How media attract and affect news. Yale University Press.10.12987/yale/9780300218879.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Valkenburg, P. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Hermanns, J., & de Leeuw, R. (2013). Developing and validating the perceived parental media mediation scale: A self-determination perspective. Human Communication Research, 39(4), 445–469.10.1111/hcre.12010Search in Google Scholar
Wright, C., Heron, J., Campbell, R., Hickman, M., & Kipping, R. R. (2020). Adolescent multiple risk behaviours cluster by number of risks rather than distinct risk profiles in the ALSPAC cohort. BMC Public, 20(1).10.1186/s12889-020-8369-6Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 the author(s), published by De Gruyter.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
