Applying Social Network Theory to Vaping in High School: Implications for Person-Centered Intervention

Figures & data

Figure 1. High school network by gender, vape status, and self-reported susceptibility to peer influence.

Triangle: Female; Square: Male; Circle: Other gender identity; White circle: Did not respond but in a respondent’s friend list; Dark blue: Do not vape and believe they are influenced by peers; Cyan: Do not vape and believe they are not influenced; Bright red: Vape and believe they are influenced Light mango: Vape and believe that they are not influenced; Purple circle denotes a closed network of female students bridged by one student.

Figure 2. Weighted clustering coefficient (a) and proportion of ties to respondents who vape (b) by gender and Vape Status. *p < .05; **p<.01

Table 1. Vape status by gender, age, grade level, self-reported peer-influence status, average tie strength, and average number of ties.

	Vape (N, %)	Don’t vape (N, %)	Total (N, %)	P value
Female	5, 4.9%	42, 41.2%	47, 46.1%	1.000
Male	5, 4.9%	48, 47.1%	53, 52%
Other gender identity	0, 0%	2, 2.0%	2, 2.0%
Age 17 and under	8, 7.8%	72, 70.6%	80, 78.4%	1.000
Age 18+	2, 2.0%	20, 19.6%	22, 21.6%
9th grade	0, 0%	12, 11.8%	12, 11.8%	.480
10th grade	4, 3.9%	22, 21.6%	26, 25.5%
11th grade	4, 3.9%	28, 27.5%	32, 31.4%
12th grade	2, 2.0%	30, 29.4%	32, 31.4%
Heavily influenced	7, 6.9%	44, 43.1%	51, 50%	.318
Not heavily influenced	3, 2.9%	48, 47.1%	51, 50%
Above average tie strength	7, 6.9%	60, 58.8%	67, 65.7%	1.000
Below average tie strength	3, 2.9%	32, 31.4%	35, 34.3%
Above average number of ties	7, 6.9%	48, 47.1%	55, 53.9%	.335
Below average number of ties	3, 2.9%	44, 43.1%	47, 46.1%