Search

The goal of this paper is to estimate peer influence in video gaming time among adolescents. Using a nationally representative sample of the U.S. school-aged adolescents in 2009–2010, we estimate a structural model that accounts for the potential biases in the estimate of the peer effect. Our peer group is exogenously assigned and includes one year older adolescents in the same school grade as the respondent. The peer measure is based on peers’ own reports of video gaming time. We find that an additional one hour of playing video games per week by older grade-mates results in .47 hours increase in video gaming time by male responders. We do not find significant peer effect among female responders. Effective policies aimed at influencing the time that adolescents spend video gaming should take these findings into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: College affirmative action programs seek to expand socioeconomic opportunities for underrepresented minorities. Between 1996 and 2013, 9 US states-including California, Texas, and Michigan-banned race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Because economic opportunity is known to motivate health behavior, banning affirmative action policies may have important adverse spillover effects on health risk behaviors. We used a quasi-experimental research design to evaluate the association between college affirmative action bans and health risk behaviors among underrepresented minority (Black, Hispanic, and Native American) adolescents.Methods and Findings: We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis using data from the 1991-2015 US national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). We compared changes in self-reported cigarette smoking and alcohol use in the 30 days prior to survey among underrepresented minority 11th and 12th graders in states implementing college affirmative action bans (Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington) versus outcomes among those residing in states not implementing bans (n = 35 control states). We also assessed whether underrepresented minority adults surveyed in the 1992-2015 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) who were exposed to affirmative action bans during their late high school years continued to smoke cigarettes between the ages of 19 and 30 years. Models adjusted for individual demographic characteristics, state and year fixed effects, and state-specific secular trends. In the YRBS (n = 34,988 to 36,268, depending on the outcome), cigarette smoking in the past 30 days among underrepresented minority 11th-12th graders increased by 3.8 percentage points after exposure to an affirmative action ban (95% CI: 2.0, 5.7; p < 0.001). In addition, there were also apparent increases in past-30-day alcohol use, by 5.9 percentage points (95% CI: 0.3, 12.2; p = 0.041), and past-30-day binge drinking, by 3.5 percentage points (95% CI: -0.1, 7.2, p = 0.058), among underrepresented minority 11th-12th graders, though in both cases adjustment for multiple comparisons resulted in failure to reject the null hypothesis (adjusted p = 0.083 for both outcomes). Underrepresented minority adults in the TUS-CPS (n = 71,575) exposed to bans during their late high school years were also 1.8 percentage points more likely to report current smoking (95% CI: 0.1, 3.6; p = 0.037). Event study analyses revealed a discrete break for all health behaviors timed with policy discussion and implementation. No substantive or statistically significant effects were found for non-Hispanic White adolescents, and the findings were robust to a number of additional specification checks. The limitations of the study include the continued potential for residual confounding from unmeasured time-varying factors and the potential for recall bias due to the self-reported nature of the health risk behavior outcomes.Conclusions: In this study, we found evidence that some health risk behaviors increased among underrepresented minority adolescents after exposure to state-level college affirmative action bans. These findings suggest that social policies that shift socioeconomic opportunities could have meaningful population health consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trust in government agencies plays a key role in advancing these organizations' agendas, influencing behaviors, and effectively implementing policies. However, few studies have examined the extent to which individuals are aware of and trust the leading United States agencies devoted to protecting the public’s health. Using two national samples of adolescents (N = 1,125) and adults (N = 5,014), we examined demographic factors, with a focus on vulnerable groups, as correlates of awareness of and trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the federal government. From nine different weighted and adjusted logistic regression models, we found high levels of awareness of the existence of the FDA and CDC (ranging from 55.7% for adolescents’ awareness of the CDC to 94.3% for adults’ awareness of the FDA) and moderate levels of trust (ranging from a low of 41.8% for adults’ trust in the federal government and a high of 78.8% for adolescents’ trust of the FDA). In the adolescent and adult samples, awareness was higher among non-Hispanic Blacks and respondents with low numeracy. With respect to trust, few consistent demographic differences emerged. Our findings provide novel insights regarding awareness and trust in the federal government and specific United States public health agencies. Our findings suggest groups to whom these agencies may want to selectively communicate to enhance trust and thus facilitate their communication and regulatory agendas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]