Traditional sociological analyses tie secondary socialization sources to
behavior, usually using linkage through stress. Situations, personal traits,
etc. lead to stress, and drugs relieve them. According to Oetting and
Donnermeyer, these secondary socialization sources operate only via their
effects on primary socializations sources. "Unless a personality trait, a
community characteristic, stress, or any other factor influences bonding with
the primary socialization sources or alters the communication of norms through
those sources, the theory proposes that there will be little or no effect on
deviant behaviors. (Oetting and Donnermeyer, 1998) Thus far (there is to be a
series of three articles, only one of which has been published) the major
analysis has been of adolescents. Three primary sources of socialization are
proposed: family, school and peer groups. While any of these groups are capable
of transmitting both prosocial and deviant norms, family and school are seen as
being primarily prosocial and peer groups carrying the main risk of trasmitting
deviant norms. Family socialization contains two components which impact an
adolescent's risk for deviance: the strength of the family bond, and the use of
those bonds to transmit prosocial norms. Dysfunctional families may either
alienate their children and/or provide deviant normative information to them.
The family bond of concern in these cases is not just a matter of support of
love. It is more specifically limited to the level to which an individual is
willing to accept and adopt values and norms from the family, and thus to behave
accordingly. Society currently assigns schools the responsibility of
transmitting certain cultural and behavioral norms. In the same way that there
are dysfunctional families, there are also dysfunctional schools which have
parallel weaknesses. The typical image of a dysfunctional school, of the
resignation to chaos and deviance is only one type. Even in the best schools,
there will be alienated peer groups. Poor grades, disciplinary problems etc.
tend to erode the bond between an adolescent and school, and thus erode the
ability of the school to transmit prosocial norms. These students are forced
outside the circle in which other peers may be receiving normative
socialization. Studies of these disaffected groups have shown that students
experiencing alienation, lack of success within the school framework, and other
problems with deriving rewards from school have a greater tendency toward drug
use and deviancy in general. Peer groups form the last primary socialization
group, and have the greatest impact on those alienated from the first two
groups. These groups may be formed on the basis of, among other things,
ethnicity or activity - including drug use. An individual's choice of peer group
has been shown to correlate with their risk of drug use/abuse (Oetting and
Donnermeyer, 1998). Primary socialization theory thus provides a powerful tool
in analyzing the sources of risk for subtance abuse. It integrates many other
theories, and thus it's applicability is extremely wide. In terms of policy
implications, it points to the importance of maintaining social ties between
family, school and adolescents. Moreover, it can reveal certain alienating
aspects of punishment as counterproductive in the school's role as transmitter
of prosocial norms. Finally, it suggests that a certain emphasis in creating
social bonding among recovering addicts is uniquely important in successfully
treating addiction. As an overall theme, there are two components to all of
these instances. First, there must be a strong social bond of a very unique
sort. It is one among people who draw upon each other when making normative
judgements intimate to their lives, or more specifically, the course of action
with respect to drugs. Identification with this group with respect to the
judgement at hand is essential for the adoption of similar norms. The second
component is that these bonds must become used to transmit that normative
information. Strong bonds do not prevent drug use if that identity does not in
some way involve a consideration of drug use as deviant. Finally, the
limitations of this theory must also be considered. That is, in some cases, drug
use stems from a perception that all social bonds have been severed. Thus the
behavior is not learned from an intimate peer group, but from the environment in
general. In this case, the old-fashioned analysis of stress relief has more
effect, and the prescription for treatment may differ

BibliographyOetting, E.R. and Donnermeyer, J.F. Primary Socialization Theory: The
Etiology of Drug Use and Deviance. I. Substance Use and Misuse 33 (4): 995-1026
(1991)