CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) The Role of Resocialization in the Disposition of California College Students toward the Legalization of Marijuana Michael Bouvet Department of Sociology California State University, Los Angeles Previous research on marijuana consumption indicates that peer influence plays a significant role in an individual’s decision to try it; however, there is little research that focuses on the role of the collegiate environment as a tool of resocialization in the disposition of college students toward marijuana. The author argues that it is through a process of resocialization that an individual will begin to become more liberal on certain issues. From the perspective of a resocialization process, the author proposes that (1)attending college will proliferate a process of resocialization, specifically in the belief that the use of marijuana by a student or other students within the college environment is not deviant in nature and is, on the contrary, a socially acceptable behavior; and that (2) college students that had been re-socialized to perceive marijuana use as part of a collegiate style of life will be more likely to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Using data drawn from a 2009 availability sample of 220 CSULA students at various stages of their college education, this paper found,through a multivariate regression analysis, that respondents who had received more college education were more likely to support the legalization of marijuana.These findings clearly demonstrate a correlation between the dependent variable and key independent variable, supporting the hypothesis that attending college will proliferate a process of resocialization, at the very least, on this specific topic of support for the legalization of marijuana. From the re-socialization perspective, when exposed to a collegiate environment, most individualswill experience a transformation in previous socialized perceptions, which is significant as the implications of marijuana’s legalization suggest a relief in the current economic crisis plaguing college students across the country. INTRODUCTION 1 Most studies agree that marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the United States today. According to the 2004 Michael Bouvet is a graduate student in the Department of Sociology. His paper was originally submitted to SOC. 410 Advanced Statistics, taught by Dr. Hyojoung Kim in Winter 2011. National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), approximately 96.8 million (40.2%) Americans ages 12 and older have used marijuana in one form or another at least once during their life. Comparatively 25.5 million (10.6%) individuals reported using marijuana in the past 12 months, and 14.6 million (6.1%) individuals reported using marijuana in the past 30 days. Adjoined with wide use of marijuana has come an escalated concern specifically on RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 93 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) public policy regarding the possession and use of marijuana. Recently, the associated press reported that the legalization of marijuana has gained substantial momentum in California. Many marijuana supporters and advocates are accumulating signatures to appropriate as many as three marijuana- legalization measures for the 2010 California ballot, essentially fashioning what could be a groundbreaking clash with the federal government over U.S. drug policy on Marijuana (Wohlsen, 2009). The issue of whether to legalize marijuana is an extremely heated topic. There is an extensive laundry list of the pros and cons with valid arguments coming from both sides. Some of the most prominent arguments for legalization of marijuana are based on the assumption that significant amounts of money would be generated or saved if legalization would occur. Funds derived from the tax revenue generated from a regulated marijuana market, reduction in prosecutions of marijuana offenses and subsequent jail sentences, and increased production and market of hemp based products could potentially create a large sum of money that could ease the effects that the current economic downturn has had on the state. However, there is another hidden factor adding wind to the sails of this issue and that is the sea of change in the public perception of marijuana that has occurred since the smear campaigns of the 50s and 80s to eradicate it. Its usage is more and more socially acceptable among younger generations. As one might expect, college students use marijuana at higher rates than the U.S. population generally. A 2007 National College Health Assessment (NCHA) reported that nearly a third of college students have tried marijuana in their lifetimes. It has been theorized that the college environment may play a role in these higher rates of usage since it is a very impressionable time for young adults. For many college students, it is their first real taste of freedom. It is a transition from living at home and having the supervision and guidance of their parents, to becoming an adult with more freedom than ever. It is often a period of radical change that can arguably be fostered by a collegiate atmosphere of learning and a collective coming of age. One interesting scenario that occurs when addressing public policy regarding possession and use of marijuana among college bound voters is that students tend to misperceive the usage rate among their peers. Studies have noted that, despite the actual campus norm, college students tend to behave in accordance with what they believe to be the expectations and behaviors of their peers. This particular study employs a socialization theory and tests the hypothesis that re-socialized college students that perceive marijuana use as part of a collegiate style of life will be more likely to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS Key Research Hypothesis: The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology states that re-socialization is a process of identity transformation in which people are called upon to learn new roles, while unlearning some aspects of their old ones. The need to learn new roles may result from voluntary or involuntary changes in status. When the role requirements of the new status conflict with an individual's earlier or primary socialization, the process of re- socialization may be necessary. This process often requires an unlearning of internalized norms, values, beliefs, and practices, to be replaced by a new set which is considered appropriate to the new role. RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 94 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) Re-socialization most often occurs when an individual is called upon to adopt a new specialized status, often in adulthood. Thus it is sometimes referred to as adult socialization. Examples include joining the military or a religious order; enrollment in a school or college; becoming a prisoner; or being hospitalized for mental illness. In each case, a person is required to take on a new identity as a professionalized or institutionalized self, and must adopt new ways of relating to both self and others. Therefore it is theorized that attending college will proliferate a process of resocialization, specifically in the belief that the use of marijuana by a student or other students within the college environment is not deviant in nature and is, on the contrary, a socially acceptable behavior. Accordingly it is hypothesized that college students that had been re-socialized to perceive marijuana use as part of a collegiate style of life will be more likely to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Current College Education: It is hypothesized that more education received by the college student surveyed, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore, undergone a process of resocialization. It is further hypothesized that other control variables will affect a college’s students perception of marijuana as socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Gender: Males are hypothesized to more often perceive marijuana as a collegiate style of life and will be more likely to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Age: It is hypothesized that the older the age of the college student surveyed, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Mother’s Education: Because children are more likely to be influenced by their mothers compared to other influences, it is hypothesized that the more education received by the mother of the college student surveyed, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Religion: It is hypothesized that the more religious the college student surveyed, the less likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Mother’s Religion: Because children are more likely to be influenced by their mothers compared to other influences, it is hypothesized that the shared religious beliefs of the college student surveyed and his/her mother will likely inhibit the belief that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore inhibit the support for the legalization of marijuana. Political affiliation: It is hypothesized that certain political affiliations and/or background political beliefs (republican) will likely inhibit the belief that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore inhibit the support for the legalization of marijuana. Mother’s political affiliation: Because children are more likely to be influenced by their mothers compared to other influences, RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 95 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) it is hypothesized that a shared political affiliation and/or background political beliefs of the college student surveyed and his/her mother will likely inhibit the belief that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore inhibit the support for the legalization of marijuana. Past/present marijuana consumption: It is hypothesized that if a college student surveyed indicates a past/present consumption of marijuana, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. The belief that college peers currently consume marijuana regularly: It is hypothesized that if the assumption that college peers regularly consume marijuana is present, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. LITERATURE REVIEW There are numerous studies that have been conducted on the prevalence of marijuana usage among college students. The data on student marijuana usage at any given campus in the United States can range from 5% to 40%. However, the 2007 National College Health Assessment (NCHA) reported that 12.7% of college students reported using marijuana in the past thirty days. Additionally, 31.2% reported using marijuana in their lifetime (American College Health Association, 2008). The 2006 Core Institute reported similar numbers; in the past 30 days, 16.7% reported usage and 30.1% reported usage in their lifetime (The Core Institute, 2007). This data seemingly corroborates the notion that recreational use of marijuana has considerably increased within the United States in the past few decades, especially among college students. Another interesting facet to the increased usage of marijuana among college students is the misconception of how prevalent usage is among peers. The 2007 NCHA surveyed students about their perceptions of the marijuana usage rate for the typical student. Eighty percent of the survey respondents believed their peers used marijuana in the past thirty days, clearly overestimating usage (American College Health Association, 2008). Overall, previous studies indicate that higher marijuana use by relatively younger collegiate age groups suggests that a separate analysis of college students could be particularly useful in understanding the role of college in a resocialization process of young adults. Early socialization of children by parents or guardians regarding the negative affects of marijuana usage is usually typical in the United States. Often parents attempt to enforce their version of American reality on their children. This is normally perceived by individuals within society as the duty of the parent or guardian, to be done for the good of community and for the good of the child. This stems from the societal norm that it is both moral and scientifically soundfor parents to do so (Goode, 1969). Furthermore, many students who attend college are living away from home for the first time in their lives, and they are free from direct parental supervision and control. They are also faced with the challenges of making new friends and acquaintances, establishing new living arrangements, and negotiating their way around a college campus (Beck et al., 2008). It is understandable that marijuana is used in the context of social facilitation, to make friends more easily and to form relationships with others. As noted by Gledhill-Hoyt et al (2000), there are a number of factors that RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 96 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) propagate the heightened usage of marijuana among college students, including absence of parental controls and oversight, the tendency of college students to try new, previously prohibited behaviors, and the economic ability to afford the cost of usage. The 1972 published reports of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, indicated a strong relationship between marijuana use and social values among college students, attitudes, and life styles expressing opposition to authority (Knight, Sheposh, & Bryson, 1974). Additionally several studies have demonstrated peer and faculty influence on college student’s values and attitudes (Chickering, 1969; Thistlewaite and Wheeler, 1966; Wallace, 1966; Vreeland and Bidwell, 1965; New comb et al., 1970, 1971). Most researchers agree that much of the environmental impact of colleges and their sub- environments is mediated, enhanced, or counteracted by the informal contacts of students with peers and faculty. Friends, reference groups, and the general student culture have an important impact on student values and personal development. In contrast, faculty are particularly important in influencing intellectual development, educational aspirations, and occupational decisions (Wilson, 1966; Clark, et al., 1972; Gamson, 1967). Basically, colleges may be viewed as socializing organizations where students come to accept normative attitudes and intellectual values through interaction with the agents of socialization. One specific theory, the reference group theory, suggests that a person may use marijuana in an attempt to emulate others who use it. A reference group is a group a person takes as a frame of reference for self- evaluation (Merton, 1957: Shibutani, 1967). A reference group is a source of standards of conduct and beliefs for an individual. Usually, groups to which a person belongs are reference groups for that person, such as peer groups on college campuses (Secord and Backman, 1964). Many researchers have suggested that marijuana use occurs, at least in part, as a result of the influence of peers. However, there is little research conducted on the role of college as an agent of resocialization in the particular context of marijuana usage among college students. This study attempts to address that specific area of research. THE DATA, SURVEY PROCEDURES, AND VARIABLES The survey design utilized for this particular study was a questionnaire, or a survey instrument containing the questions in a self-administered survey. This particular design is versatile because they can be used to study a wide range of social phenomena. It is also efficient because data can be collected on large numbers of people, at relatively low cost, and often very quickly. Finally, it is more easily generalizable because questions are asked to a large number of persons at a low cost, making it relatively easy to create a representative sample of the target population. With a representative sample, the findings are safely generalizable, or applicable, to the target population. In this particular study on the resocialization of college students, a random sample of 220 California State University, Los Angeles students from various sociology classes were administered the survey included here in appendix 1. The specific classes are as follows: 1) Sociology 201, Mo-We, 9:50am- 11:30am, KH B3018 2) Sociology 426, Mo-We, 11:40am- 1:20pm, KH B4013 3) Sociology 201, Mo-We, 1:30pm- 3:10pm, KH B3018 4) Sociology 201, Mo-We, 4:20pm- 6:00pm, KH B3018 RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 97 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 5) Sociology 454, Mo-We, 4:20pm- 6:00pm, FA 345 6) Sociology 383, Mo-We, 6:10pm- 10:00pm, BIOS 334 7) Sociology 201, Tu-Th, 9:50-11:30am, KH 3018 8) Sociology 497, Tu-Th, 6:10-8:50pm, KH 1021 The professors that agreed to allow the survey to take place during their class periods all informed their students that the survey was completely optional and in no way mandatory. All 220 students that were asked to take the survey agreed and participated in the survey, therefore, there was a 100% response rate. The target population is all college students in the United States. The population is all CSULA students. The target sample is 220 CSULA students. Finally, the sample consists of all 220 CSULA students that were asked to participate. The nonprobability sampling method utilized was availability sampling, or sampling in which the elements are selected on the basis of convenience. The representativeness of the sample, or a how much the sample “looks like” the population from which it was selected in all respects that are potentially relevant to the study, is flawed because it is an availability sample. However, it does to a certain extent, look like the population. The selection of various classes had the benefit of providing a better representative sample than random surveying of students on campus because all students within the classes participated. To a certain degree, their participation, although not mandated, was heavily suggested and therefore, ensured a distribution of characteristics among the elements of the sample that mirrored the characteristics of the total population. The specific way that the sample differs from the whole population is that they are all sociology students. Sociology, by nature, evokes a more liberal way of thinking by suggesting that a detachment from social norms is required to prevent a bias in research on society. Therefore, a sociology student may possess a more relaxed perception of marijuana usage and therefore a sample drawn only from sociology students may present an issue with measurement validity. Furthermore, an assessment of this survey clearly would indicate a propensity for the social desirability effect, or a tendency of respondents to reply in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others, because marijuana usage is, to a certain extent, still a taboo issue. However, students were assured that they would remain anonymous and their responses would also remain confidential. The results indicate that the students appeared to accept this agreement because many indicated that they have consumed marijuana in the past. However, it is noted that the accuracy of those results could be skewed due to the social desirability effect and the potential inhibition of responses. Focus Group Outcomes The focus respondents included three (3) students from our SOC 490: Quantitative Research Methods class, (1) one student from the UCLA Sociology Doctorate program, (1) one graduate from the UCLA Sociology program, (1) one graduate from the UC Irving Political Science program, (1) one graduate from the New York Fine Arts- Graphic Design program. The three students from our SOC 490: Quantitative Research Methods class were chosen due to their perspective on the project, having had to complete the same project and possessing a unique understanding of what is required. The one student from the UCLA Sociology Doctorate program was chosen due to her overall knowledge of how to construct a survey, her previous and current experience conducting surveys, and her advanced RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 98 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) insight on how to improve the quality of a survey. The one graduate from the UCLA Sociology program, the one graduate from the UC Irving Political Science program, and the graduate from the New York Fine Arts-Graphic Design program were all chosen because they are all responsible for research and development of data collection for the City of Los Angeles Community Development Department Youth Opportunity System. They all have previous experience creating, developing, and administering surveys to individual and therefore possess a distinct insight on how to construct survey questions. All individuals in the focus group reported that it took them, on average, 3 minutes to complete the survey. The focus group activity assisted in the revision of the questionnaire by helping to identify flaws in the questionnaire that weren’t readily apparent upon its initial construction. Of the most important observations provided by the focus group was the identification of the “loaded” questions that might have invalidated data due to the social desirability affect. Additionally, the order of the questions themselves was an issue in that all of the strong and emotionally charged questions were all at the beginning of the survey as opposed to the end. The feedback was extremely helpful in that it provided the opportunity to see how respondents would react to certain questions. The focus group was extremely helpful in identifying lapses in the indicators as responses. Finally, the response categories were also revised according to the responses of the focus group. MEASUREMENT OF VARIABLES Dependent Variable: Support for the Legalization of Marijuana: The support for the legalization variable is here defined as the intention to vote for the legalization of marijuana on the 2010 California ballot. Respondents are asked the following question: How much do you support or oppose the idea of legalizing marijuana in California? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating a “Strongly Oppose” answer; 2 indicating a “Oppose” answer; and 3 indicating a “Neither Support nor Oppose” answer; 4 indicating a “Support” answer; and 5 indicating a “Strongly Support” answer.For data analysis purposes the answer choices were collapsed. According, it has been recoded into a collapsed variables Oppose (1 = Strongly Oppose and Oppose), Neither Support nor Oppose (2 = Neither Support nor Oppose), and Support (3 = Support and Strongly Support). Key Independent Variable: Current College Education: The education variable is here defined as the highest level of college education completed. It is hypothesized that the more education received by the college student surveyed, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore, has undergone a process of resocialization. Respondents are asked the following question: Which of the following best indicates the level of college education you are currently receiving? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating Freshman; 2 indicating Sophomore; 3 indicating Junior; 4 indicating Senior; 5 indicating first year of grad school; and 6 indicating second or more years of grad school. Other Control Variables: Gender: The gender variable is here defined as the biological sex type that the college RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 99 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) student surveyed most identifies with. Males are hypothesized to more often perceive marijuana as a collegiate style of life and will be more likely to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: What is your gender? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating female; and 2 indicating male. For the purpose of analysis, the results were recoded into ascending order based on N- value (number) alone with a value of 1 indication males; and 2 indicating females. Age: The age variable is here defined as the number of years the subject has been alive. It is hypothesized that the older the college student surveyed, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: How old are you currently? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value exactly corresponding to the age they indicate (eg. Recorded answer is 18, then a value of 18 is assigned). Mother’s Education: The mother’s education variable is here defined as the highest level of education completed by the respondent’s mother, if applicable. It is hypothesized that because children are more likely to be influenced by their mothers,the more education received by the mothers of the college student surveyed, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: Which of the following best describes the highest level of education your mother has received? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating less than high school graduation; 2 high school graduation, 3 some college; 4 college degree; and 5 post-college degree. Religion: The religion variable is here defined as the practiced religion of the subject. It is hypothesized that the more religious the college student surveyed, the less likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: With what religion do you most closely align your beliefs with? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating a “Catholicism” answer; 2 indicating a “Protestantism” answer; 3 indicating a “Buddhism” answer; 4 indicating a “Judaism” answer; 5 indicating a “Islam” answer; 6 indicating a “Hinduism” answer; 7 indicating a “Agnosticism” answer; 8 indicating a “Atheism” answer; and 9 indicating a “other” answer. Unfortunately, the survey was conducted utilizing CSULA students only. As a result, the vast majority of the respondents (47.3%) identified themselves as Catholics, with only 9.1% as Protestants, 8.2% as Buddhists, 6.4% as Agnostics, 6.8% as Atheists, and 22.3% as some other various denomination. Accordingly, the ability to examine the respondent’s religion is quite limited. Since Catholicism is the mainstay of religions among CSULA students, it is utilized as the reference group. Accordingly, it has been recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 for the Catholic Respondents variable, 0 otherwise). The same recoding has been done for the other religions of significance: Protestant Respondents (1 = Protestant, 0 = otherwise), Buddhist Respondents (1 = Buddhist, 0 = otherwise), Agnostics Respondents (1 = Agnostic, 0 = otherwise), Atheist Respondents (1 = Atheist, 0 = otherwise), Other Denomination RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 100 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) Respondents (1 = Other Denomination, 0 = otherwise). Mother’s Religion: The mother’s religion variable is here defined as the practiced religion of the respondent’s mother, if applicable. It is hypothesized that because children are more likely to be influenced by their mothers,the shared religious beliefs of the college student surveyed and his/her mother will likely inhibit the belief that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore inhibit the support for the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: With what religion does your mother most closely align her beliefs with? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating a “Catholicism” answer; 2 indicating a “Protestantism” answer; 3 indicating a “Buddhism” answer; 4 indicating a “Judaism” answer; 5 indicating a “Islam” answer; 6 indicating a “Hinduism” answer; 7 indicating a “Agnosticism” answer; 8 indicating a “Atheism” answer; and 9 indicating a “other” answer.Unfortunately, the survey was conducted utilizing CSULA students only. As a result, the vast majority of the respondents (56.4%) stated that their mothers identified themselves as Catholics, with only 12.3% as Protestants, 10.9% as Buddhists, and 20.5% as some other various denomination. Accordingly, the ability to examine the respondent’s mother’s religion is quite limited. Since Catholicism is the mainstay of religions among CSULA student’s mothers, it is utilized as the reference group. According, it has been recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 for the Catholic Mothers variable, 0 otherwise). The same recoding has been done for the other religions of significance: Protestant Mothers (1 = Protestant, 0 = otherwise), Buddhist Mothers (1 = Buddhist, 0 = otherwise), Other Denomination Mothers (1 = Other Denomination, 0 = otherwise). Political affiliation: The political affiliation variable is here defined as the political affiliation of the subject. It is hypothesized that certain political affiliations and/or background political beliefs (republican) will likely inhibit the belief that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore inhibit the support for the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: What is your political affiliation? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating a “democrat” answer; 2 indicating a “republican” answer; 3 indicating a “libertarian” answer; 4 indicating a “independent” answer; and 5 indicating a “other” answer. Unfortunately, the survey was conducted utilizing CSULA students only. As a result, the vast majority of the respondents (65%) identified themselves as Democrats, with only 11.8% as Republicans, 13.6% as Independents, and 9.5% as some other various political affiliation. Accordingly, the ability to examine the respondent’s political affiliation is quite limited. Since the Democratic Party is the mainstay of political affiliations among CSULA students, it is utilized as the reference group. According, it has been recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 for the Democratic Respondents variable, 0 otherwise). The same recoding has been done for the other political affiliations of significance: Republican Respondents (1 = Republican, 0 = otherwise), Independent Respondents (1 = Independent, 0 = otherwise), Other Political Affiliation Respondents (1 = Other Political Affiliation, 0 = otherwise). Mother’s political affiliation: The political affiliation variable is here defined as the political affiliation of the subject’s mother, if applicable. It is hypothesized that because children are more likely to be influenced by their mothers,a shared political affiliation RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 101 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) and/or background political beliefs of the college student surveyed and his/her mother will likely inhibit the belief that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore inhibit the support for the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: What is your mother’s political affiliation? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating a “democrat” answer; 2 indicating a “republican” answer; 3 indicating a “libertarian” answer; 4 indicating a “independent” answer; 5 indicating a “other” answer; and 6 indicating a “don’t know” answer. Unfortunately, the survey was conducted utilizing CSULA students only. As a result, the vast majority of the respondents (57.3%) stated that their mothers identified themselves as Democrats, with only 16.7% as Republicans, and 8.3% as some other various political affiliation. Accordingly, the ability to examine the respondent’s mother’s political affiliation is quite limited. Since the Democratic Party is the mainstay of political affiliations among CSULA student’s mothers, it is utilized as the reference group. According, it has been recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 for the Democratic Mothers variable, 0 otherwise). The same recoding has been done for the other political affiliations of significance: Republican Mothers (1 = Republican, 0 = otherwise), Other Political Affiliation Mothers (1 = Other Political Affiliation, 0 = otherwise). The “don’t know” category was coded as a missing value. Past/present marijuana consumption: The past/present marijuana consumption variable is here defined as the past or present consumption of marijuana as reported by the subject. It is hypothesized that if a college student surveyed indicates a past/present consumption of marijuana, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: Have you ever consumed marijuana (in any form) in your life? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating a “No” answer; and 2 indicating a “Yes” answer. The belief that college peers currently consume marijuana regularly: The belief that college peers currently consume marijuana variable is defined as the assumptions that college peers have currently use marijuana regularly (past 30 days) as reported by the subject. It is hypothesized that if the assumption that college peers do regularly consume marijuana is present, the more likely the student is to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. Respondents are asked the following question: Do you believe that a majority of your college peers use marijuana? Respondent responses are measured in an ascending order, with the value of 1 indicating a “No” answer; and 2 indicating a “Yes” answer. THE FINDINGS Univariate Analysis of the Variables Table 1 reports the univariate distribution of the respondents on each of the variables utilized in the analysis. A large percentage of the respondents showed support for the dependent variable: Support for theLegalization of Marijuana (45%), as opposed to those that opposed it (20%). A number of students neither supported nor opposed the legalization of marijuana (35%), potentially indicating, at least, a mixed opinion about marijuana usage. See Graph 1 for the frequency distribution for the dependent variable in the analysis (Support RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 102 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) for the Legalization of Marijuana) displayed in a bar chart. Additionally, the measurement of the key independent variable (Current College Education) placed many of the respondent’s in their second, third or fourth year of college. As a whole, a large percentage of the respondents (90.5%) had completed at least one year of college education, indicating that a majority of them had been exposed to the collegiate environment at length. A significant portion of the respondents were sophomores(23.2%), juniors (30.9%), or seniors (28.2%), with relatively few students surveyed(8.2%) pursuing a post graduate degree.See Graph 2 for the frequency distribution for the key independent variable in the analysis (Current College Education) displayed in a bar chart. The respondents were surprisingly predominately female in gender, with only one third (33.6%) reporting that they were male. The largest percentage of students were either 19 years old (22.3%), 20 years old (10.9%), and 21 years old (12.3%) with a mean of 22.66 years of age. Both the majority of the respondent’s mothers (59.6%) and fathers (60%) had not received any previous college education. A large portion of the respondents (47.3%) indicated that Catholicism was the religion with which they most closely aligned their religious beliefs with. This was also the case with the majority of the respondent’s mothers (56.4%). Additionally, a majority of the respondents (65%) indicated that they were democrats. Also, this was the case with the majority of the political affiliation of the respondent’s mothers (75% Democrats). A little over half of the respondents (50.5%) indicated that they had previously consumed marijuana at some point in their lives. However, a significant portion of the respondents (78.7%) indicated that they believed that a majority of their college peers use marijuana. See Table 1 for the univariate statistics for the variables in the analysis. Bivariate Analysis of the Variables To examine how college education affects a respondent’s support for the legalization of marijuana, specifically here in California, we examine the Pearson’s correlation coefficients of variables used in the analysis. As shown in Table 2, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between Support for Legalization and Current College Education turns out to be positive and significant at the 0.01 level. This indicates that the more education that an individual receives is associated with an increased support for the legalization of marijuana. Contrariwise,the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between Support for Legalization and Republican Respondents is negative, but statistically significant at the 0.01 level reflecting less incidences of support for the legalization of marijuana among Republican respondents in comparison to those of other political affiliations. Finally, the Pearson’s correlation coefficient between Support for Legalization and Past Marijuana Consumption is positive and statistically significant at the 0.01 level, indicating that the previous marijuana usage is associated with an increased support for the legalization of marijuana. No other correlation is significant between the dependent variable and other independent variables when analyzing the table of Pearson’s correlation coefficients of variables used in the analysis. Multivariate Regression Analysis It is fairly well known that the outcomes of bivariate associations may be misleading and spurious due to the effects of other variables that may affect both the dependent variable (Support for the Legalization of RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 103 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) Marijuana) and the key independent variable (Current College Education) simultaneously. More accurate evidence can be discovered if the effects of these other variables are controlled for. In order to control the effects of the other variables on the support for legalization of marijuana, I utilized multivariate regression techniques to analyze the data. Please note that the dependent variable (Support for the Legalization of Marijuana) is ordinal, consisting of different levels of support for legalization. Since the variable is ordinal, the ordered logistic regression model was utilized for the analysis to separate out the effects of the independent variable (Current College Education) net of the effects of the other control variables. A unique aspect of ordered logistic regression is that there should be only one regression coefficient for each independent variable but multiple intercepts. Therefore, the ordinal logistic regression analysis assumes that the slope coefficient for the independent variables is constant for each level of the dependent variable; this is called the parallel regression assumption. In order to verify this assumption, a score test is utilized (the parallel regression assumption test: 2,**). The score test for this particular data set is statistically insignificant at the 0.05 level. This indicates that the parallel regression assumption is met for this data, and therefore the ordered logistic regression model can be justifiably utilized. In addition to the parallel regression assumption test, there are another two tests that demonstrate the significance of the findings, which are Likelihood Ratio ( 2) and the Nagelkerke (R2). The Likelihood Ratio ( 2), also known as the Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square test,indicates that at least one of the predictors' regression coefficients is not equal to zero in the model; or in other words, that at least one of the independent variables has a significant effect on the dependent variable (Support for the Legalization of Marijuana).The Likelihood Ratio ( 2) is positive and statistically significant at the 0.05 level.Because logistic regression does not have an equivalent to the R-squared that is found in OLS regression, a pseudo R-squared statistic is utilized. There are a wide variety of pseudo R-squared statistics which can give contradictory conclusions. Therefore, in this particular analysis, only one pseudo R-squared statistic is utilized, the Negelkerke (R2).In this particular analysis, the Negelkerke (R2) value is .321, which indicates that the model explains that 32.1% of the variance in the dependent variable(Support for the Legalization of Marijuana). The regression coefficient for the key independent variable (Current College Education) indicates that it is positive and statistically significant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level. This is indicative of a positive relationship between the dependent variable and key independent variable in which the more college education a student received, the more likely the student is to support the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient for Gender indicates that it is positive and statistically insignificant,net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, whether a respondent is male or female has no significant effect on their support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient for Age is negative and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, how old a respondent is has no significant effect on their support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient of Mother’s Education is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 104 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, the more education a respondent’s mother received has no significant effect on a college student’s support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient forProtestant Respondents is negative and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents that align their religious beliefs with Protestantism and those that align their beliefs with Catholicism when it comes to support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient for Buddhist Respondents is negative and statistically significant, net of all the other variables in the model, at the 0.01 level. This demonstrates that respondents that align their religious beliefs with Buddhism are less likely than those who align their beliefs with Catholicism to support the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient for Agnostic Respondents is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model, at the 0.05 level. According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents that align their religious beliefs with Agnosticism and those that align their beliefs with Catholicism when it comes to support for the legalization of marijuana. Likewise, the regression coefficient for Atheist Respondents is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model, at the 0.05 level. According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents that align their religious beliefs with Atheism and those that align their beliefs with Catholicism when it comes to support for the legalization of marijuana. Similarly, the regression coefficient for Other Denomination Respondents is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model, at the 0.05 level. According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents that align their religious beliefs with any other religious denomination and those that align their beliefs with Catholicism when it comes to support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient for Protestant Mothers is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model, at the 0.05 level. According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents’ mothers that align their religious beliefs with Protestantism and those that align their beliefs with Catholicism when it comes to the respondent’s support for the legalization of marijuana. Contrariwise, the regression coefficient forBuddhist Mothers is negative and statistically significant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.01 level.This demonstrates that respondents’ mothers that align their religious beliefs with Buddhism are less likely than those who have mothers that align their beliefs with Catholicism to support the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient forOther Denomination Mothers is negative and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents’ mothers that align their religious beliefs with any other religious denomination and those that align their beliefs with Catholicism when it comes to the respondent’s support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient for Republican Respondents is negative and statistically significant, net of all the other RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 105 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) variables in the model,at the 0.05 level. This demonstrates that respondents that are politically affiliated with the Republican Party are less likely than those who affiliate themselves with the Democratic Party to support the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient forIndependent Respondents is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents that are politically affiliated with the Independent Party and those that are politically affiliated with the Democratic Party when it comes to support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient for Other Political Affiliation Respondents is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents that are affiliated with any other political party and those that are politically affiliated with the Democratic Party when it comes to support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient forRepublican Mothers is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model, at the 0.05 level. According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents’ mothers that are politically affiliated with the Republican Party and those that are politically affiliated with the Democratic Party when it comes to the respondent’s support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient forOther Political Affiliation Mothers is negative and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model, at the 0.05 level. According to this data, there is no significant difference between respondents’ mothers that are affiliated with any other political party and those that are politically affiliated with the Democratic Party when it comes to the respondent’s support for the legalization of marijuana. The regression coefficient forPast Marijuana Consumption is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, whether or not a respondent has consumed marijuana in the past has no significant effect on their support for the legalization of marijuana. Finally, the regression coefficient for Past Marijuana Consumption is positive and statistically insignificant, net of all the other variables in the model,at the 0.05 level.According to this data, whether or not a respondent has the perception that a majority of their peers consume marijuana regularly has no significant effect on their support for the legalization of marijuana. CONCLUSION This study theorized that attending college will proliferate a process of resocialization, specifically in the belief that the use of marijuana by a student or other students within the college environment is not deviant in nature and is, on the contrary, a socially acceptable behavior. Accordingly, it was hypothesized that college students that had been re-socialized to perceive marijuana use as part of a collegiate style of life will be more likely to agree that smoking marijuana is socially acceptable and therefore support the legalization of marijuana. To examine how the dependent variable (Support for the Legalization of Marijuana) was affected by the independent variable (Current College Education), a frequency distribution of all variables in the study was initially analyzed (seeTable 1 in the appendix). Additionally, an analysis was conducted utilizing Pearson’s correlation (Table 2). Pearson’s correlation indicates RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 106 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables; in this particular case, the dependent variable (Support for the Legalization of Marijuana) and an independent variable were compared without taking into account the potentially spurious relationship of the other independent variables in the model. Finally, a multivariate regression analysis for ordinal dependent variables was performed on all the variables in the model (see table 3 in the appendix) to produce a more statistically accurate analysis of the data. The multivariate regression analysis showed that respondents, who had received more college education, were more likely to support the legalization of marijuana.These findings clearly demonstrate a correlation between the dependent variable and key independent variable, supporting the hypothesis that attending college will proliferate a process of resocialization, at the very least, on this specific topic of support for the legalization of marijuana. Additionally, statically significant findings were also uncovered through the multivariate regression analysis. Namely, Buddhism appears to be a substantial factor, or counteragent of resocialization, among college students. Both Buddhist respondents, as well as those with Buddhist mothers, exhibited a resilience to resocilization when it came to their opinions of legalization of marijuana and their support for it. This could stem from a strong alignment, of the respondent, with Buddhist ethics. One of the specific five precepts, or training rules, that Buddhists believe are necessary in order to live a better and happier life, is to refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness (specifically, drugs and alcohol). The very adherence to this rule could theoretically diminish any support of a Buddhist respondent, or one that was raised in a Buddhist family, for the legalization of marijuana. Furthermore, Republican respondents also exhibited a resilience to resocialization when it came to their opinions of legalization of marijuana and their support for it. This could stem from a strong alignment, of the respondent, to the Republican platform. Republicans traditionally have staunchly supported policies against illegal drugs since the 1980s, when President Reagan expanded the federal government's drug interdiction effort and Nancy Reagan, the first lady, led a "Just Say No" campaign against drugs that equated use with immorality. As with Buddhism, the very adherence with the Republican platform could diminish support of a Republican respondent for the legalization of marijuana. As of the date that this conclusion was written (March 2010), the Tax & Regulate Cannabis 2010 campaign had achieved a major victory in its efforts to legalize marijuana for all adults in California; they had gathered the signatures necessary for inclusion on the state's November ballot. This indicates that, at the very least, one of the three predicted measures, mentioned in the introduction of this study, will be included on the California 2010 November ballot. A win would mean that Californians would be the first in the nation to decide whether they believe marijuana ought be taxed and regulated for all adults over 21, much the same way alcohol is. The drug reform movement's eyes will be on California late this year because many advocates believe that if the initiative passes, many other states could follow.The Board of Equalization, California's tax regulator and the agency charged with collecting alcohol and tobacco taxes, estimates that legalizing marijuana could generate about $1.4 billion in tax revenue annually (Ammiano, 2009).Furthermore, the California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) published a report stating that legal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf http://www.boe.ca.gov/legdiv/pdf/ab0390-1dw.pdf RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 107 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) marijuana would free up "several tens of millions of dollars annually" in correctional and law enforcement resources, which would in turn, would redirect funds to more urgent matters (LAO, 2009).As of March 1st, California's debt was in excess of $83.5 billion.It is the largest borrower in the country, and pays 21.3 percent more interest on its nearly-junk-rated debt than states with the highest ratings.Public school systems and social programs are feeling the brunt of the debt crisis, which has even included closing national state parks, and the cutting of all California State Universities’ budgets.The very possibility of an influx of $1.4 billion could generate a sea change in the support of legalization among college students, as the implications of its legalization suggest a relief in the current economic crisis plaguing college students, not only in California, but across the country. http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090512.aspx http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090512.aspx http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1423724020091214 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1423724020091214 RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 108 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) REFERENCES Ammiano. 2001. Staff Legislative Bill Analysis. State Board of Equalization. Beck KH, Caldeira KM, Vincent KB, O'Grady KE, Wish ED, Arria AM. (2009). The social context of cannabis use: Relationship to cannabis use disorders and depressive symptoms among college students. Addictive Behaviors.34(9), 764-768. Competing Theories of Marijuana Use: A Longitudinal Study Author(s): Irving J. Ginsberg and James R.Greenley Source: Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 19, No.1 (Mar., 1978), pp. 22-34 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2136320 Accessed: 09/10/2009 13:04 Education and Political Party: The Effects of College or Social Class? Author(s): Terry S. Weiner and Bruce K.Eckland Source: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, No.4 (Jan., 1979), pp. 911-928 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778029 Gledhill-Hoyt J; Lee, H; Strote, J and Wechsler H. 2000. Increased use of marijuana and other illicit drugs at US colleges in the 1990s: results of three national surveys. Addiction 95(11):1655-1667. Interpersonal Relationships as Mediators of Structural Effects: College Student Socialization in a Traditional and an Experimental University Environment Author(s): William B. Lacy Source: Sociology of Education, Vol. 51, No.3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 201-211 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112665 Marijuana and the Politics of Reality Author(s): Erich Goode Source: Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 10, No.2 (Jun., 1969), pp. 83-94 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2948355 Accessed: 09/10/2009 13:07 The California Legislative Analyst Office. (2009). Retrieved March 11, 2010, from http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090 512.aspx The Core Institute. (2007). Prevalence: Annual and 30-day prevalence of use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs amongst college students. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.siu.edu/~coreinst/ http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778029 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112665 http://www.siu.edu/~coreinst/ RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 109 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) APPENDIX 1 COMPLETE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Dear CSULA Student, My name is Michael Bouvet and I am currently a graduate student here at CSULA in the Sociology program. The issue of whether to legalize marijuana is an extremely heated topic in the US today. Questions on this survey are designed to collect current data on CSULA students regarding the topic of marijuana legalization. Your participation in the survey will greatly help improve our understanding of people’s opinion about this issue. It should take about three to five minutes to answer all the questions. No names are recorded guaranteeing complete anonymity. No one outside the university will have access to the questionnaire you return. You may be assured of complete confidentiality! 1. What is your gender? <1> Female <2> Male 2. How old are you currently? ________________________ 3. Which of the following best indicates the level of education you are currently receiving? <1> Freshman<2> Sophomore <3> Junior <4> Senior <5> 1st Yr. Grad School <6> 2nd or more Yrs. of Grad School 4. Which of the following best describes the highest level of education your mother has received? <1> Less than HS Degree <2> HS Degree <3> Some College <4> College Degree <5> Post-College Degree 5. Which of the following best describes the highest level of education your father has received? <1> Less than HS Degree <2> HS Degree <3> Some College RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 110 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) <4> College Degree <5> Post-College Degree 6. With what religion do you most closely align your beliefs with? <1> Catholicism <2> Protestantism <3> Buddhism <4> Judaism <5> Islam <6> Hinduism <7> Agnosticism <8> Atheism <9> Other (please specify):________________________ 7. With what religion does your mother most closely align her beliefs with? <1> Catholicism <2> Protestantism <3> Buddhism <4> Judaism <5> Islam <6> Hinduism <7> Agnosticism <8> Atheism <9> Other (please specify):________________________ 8. With what religion does your father most closely align his beliefs with? <1> Catholicism <2> Protestantism <3> Buddhism <4> Judaism <5> Islam <6> Hinduism <7> Agnosticism <8> Atheism <9> Other (please specify):________________________ 9. What is your political affiliation? <1> Democrat <2> Republican <3> Libertarian <4> Independent <5> Other (please specify):________________________ 10. What is your mother’s political affiliation? <1> Democrat <2> Republican <3> Libertarian <4> Independent <5> Other (please specify):________________________ <6> Don’t Know RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 111 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) 11. What is your father’s political affiliation? <1> Democrat <2> Republican <3> Libertarian <4> Independent <5> Other (please specify):________________________ <6> Don’t Know 12. How much do you support or oppose the idea of legalizing marijuana in California? <1> Strongly Support <2> Support <3> Neither Support nor Oppose <4> Oppose<5> Strongly Oppose 13. At any point in your life, previous to entering college, did you believe that consuming marijuana was wrong? <1> Yes <2> No 14. Since entering college, has your perception of marijuana and the consumption of it changed at all? <1> Yes <2> No 15. Have you ever consumed marijuana (in any form) in your life? <1> Yes <2> No 16. Do you believe that a majority of your college peers use marijuana? <1> Yes <2> No <3> Don’t Know RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 112 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE DV AND THE KEY IV Graph 1: Dependent Variable Graph 2: Key Independent Variable 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Current College Education Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior 1st Yr. Grad School 2nd Yr. or more of Grad School R E SO C IA L IZ A T IO N I N S T U D E N T S T O W A R D M A R IJ U A N A b y M ic ha el B ou ve t 11 3 C A L IF O R N IA S O C IO L O G Y J O U R N A L , 2 01 1, V O L . 3 (I SS U E 1 : 9 2- 11 6) A P P E N D IX T ab le 1 :S ur ve y Q ue st io ns a nd D es cr ip ti ve S ta ti st ic s of V ar ia bl es U se d in th e A na ly si s V ar ia bl e Su rv ey Q ue st io ns U se d R es po ns e C at eg or ie s F re qu en cy M ea n S. D . Su pp or t L eg al iz at io n H ow m uc h do y ou s up po rt o r o pp os e th e id ea o f le ga liz in g m ar iju an a in C al if or ni a? 1 = O pp os e 2 = N ei th er S up po rt n or O pp os e 3 = Su pp or t 44 77 99 (2 0% ) (3 5% ) (4 5% ) 2. 25 0. 76 8 C ur re nt C ol le ge E du ca tio n W hi ch o f t he fo llo w in g be st in di ca te s th e le ve l o f ed uc at io n yo u ar e cu rr en tly re ce iv in g? 1 = Fr es hm an 2 = So ph om or e 3 = Ju ni or 4 = Se ni or 5 = 1st Y r. G ra d Sc ho ol 6 = 2nd o r m or e Y rs . o f G ra d Sc ho ol 21 51 68 62 15 3 (9 .5 % ) (2 3. 2% ) (3 0. 9% ) (2 8. 2% ) (6 .8 % ) (1 .4 % ) 3. 04 1. 14 G en de r W ha t i s yo ur g en de r? 1 = M al e 2 = Fe m al e 74 14 6 (3 3. 6% ) (6 6. 4% ) 1. 34 0. 47 4 A ge H ow o ld a re y ou c ur re nt ly ? 22 .6 6 5. 36 M ot he r’ s E du ca tio n W hi ch o f t he fo llo w in g be st d es cr ib es th e hi gh es t le ve l o f e du ca tio n yo ur m ot he r h as re ce iv ed ? 1 = L es s th an H S D eg re e 2 = H S D eg re e 3 = So m e C ol le ge 4 = C ol le ge D eg re e 5 = Po st -C ol le ge D eg re e 82 49 42 36 11 (3 7. 3% ) (2 2. 3% ) (1 9. 1% ) (1 6. 4% ) (5 .0 % ) 2. 30 1. 26 Pr ot es ta nt R es po nd en ts W ith w ha t r el ig io n do y ou m os t c lo se ly a lig n yo ur b el ie fs w ith ? (p le as e sp ec if y yo ur de no m in at io n) [R ef er en ce G ro up = C at ho lic s] 0 = N ot P ro te st an t 1 = Pr ot es ta nt 20 0 20 (9 0. 9% ) (9 .1 % ) 0. 9 0. 28 8 B ud dh is t R es po nd en ts 0 = N ot B ud dh is t 1 = B ud dh is t 20 2 18 (9 1. 8% ) (8 .2 % ) 0. 8 0. 27 5 A gn os tic R es po nd en ts 0 = N ot A gn os tic 1 = A gn os tic 20 6 14 (9 3. 6% ) (6 .4 % ) 0. 06 0. 24 5 A th ei st R es po nd en ts 0 = N ot A th ei st 1 = A th ei st 20 5 15 (9 3. 2% ) (6 .8 % ) 0. 07 0. 25 3 O th er D en om in at io n R es po nd en ts 0 = N ot O th er D en om in at io n 1 = O th er D en om in at io n 17 1 49 (7 7. 7% ) (2 2. 3% ) 0. 22 0. 41 7 R E SO C IA L IZ A T IO N I N S T U D E N T S T O W A R D M A R IJ U A N A b y M ic ha el B ou ve t 11 4 C A L IF O R N IA S O C IO L O G Y J O U R N A L , 2 01 1, V O L . 3 (I SS U E 1 : 9 2- 11 6) Pr ot es ta nt M ot he rs W ith w ha t r el ig io n do es y ou r m ot he r m os t cl os el y al ig n he r b el ie fs w ith ? (p le as e sp ec if y yo ur d en om in at io n) [R ef er en ce G ro up = C at ho lic s] 0 = N ot P ro te st an t 1 = Pr ot es ta nt 19 3 27 (8 7. 7% ) (1 2. 3% ) 0. 12 0. 32 9 B ud dh is t M ot he rs 0 = N ot B ud dh is t 1 = B ud dh is t 19 6 24 (8 9. 1% ) (1 0. 9% ) 0. 11 0. 31 2 O th er D en om in at io n M ot he rs 0 = N ot O th er D en om in at io n 1 = O th er D en om in at io n 17 5 45 (7 9. 5% ) (2 0. 5% ) 0. 20 0. 40 4 R ep ub lic an R es po nd en ts W ha t i s yo ur p ol iti ca l a ff ili at io n? [R ef er en ce G ro up = D em oc ra ts ] 0 = N ot R ep ub lic an 1 = R ep ub lic an 19 4 26 (8 8. 2% ) (1 1. 8% ) 0. 12 0. 32 4 In de pe nd en t R es po nd en ts 0 = N ot In de pe nd en t 1 = In de pe nd en t 19 0 30 (8 6. 4% ) (1 3. 6% ) 0. 14 0. 34 4 O th er P ol iti ca l A ff ili at io n R es po nd en ts 0 = N ot O th er 1 = O th er 19 9 21 (9 0. 5% ) (9 .5 % ) 0. 10 0. 29 5 R ep ub lic an M ot he rs W ha t i s yo ur m ot he r’ s po lit ic al a ff ili at io n? [R ef er en ce G ro up = D em oc ra ts ] 0 = N ot R ep ub lic an 1 = R ep ub lic an 14 0 28 (8 3. 3% ) (1 6. 7% ) 0. 17 0. 37 4 O th er P ol iti ca l A ff ili at io n M ot he rs 0 = N ot O th er 1 = O th er 15 4 14 (9 1. 7% ) (8 .3 % ) 0. 08 0. 27 7 Pa st M ar iju an a C on su m pt io n H av e yo u ev er c on su m ed m ar iju an a (i n an y fo rm ) i n yo ur li fe ? 1 = N o 2 = Y es 10 9 11 1 (4 9. 5% ) (5 0. 5% ) 1. 50 0. 50 1 Pe rc ep tio n of Pe er C on su m pt io n D o yo u be lie ve th at a m aj or ity o f yo ur c ol le ge pe er s us e m ar iju an a? 1 = N o 2 = Y es 32 11 8 (2 1. 3% ) (7 8. 7% ) 1. 79 .4 11 R E SO C IA L IZ A T IO N I N S T U D E N T S T O W A R D M A R IJ U A N A b y M ic ha el B ou ve t 11 5 C A L IF O R N IA S O C IO L O G Y J O U R N A L , 2 01 1, V O L . 3 (I SS U E 1 : 9 2- 11 6) T ab le 2 :P ea rs on ’s C or re la ti on C oe ff ic ie nt s of V ar ia bl es U se d in th e A na ly si s 1 (a ) (b ) (c ) (d ) (e ) (f ) (g ) (h ) (i ) (j ) (k ) (l) (m ) (n ) (o ) (p ) (q ) (r ) (s ) (t ) (a ) S up po rt Le ga liz at io n 1. 00 (b ) C ur re nt C ol le ge E du ca tio n 0. 23 1. 00 (c ) G en de r -0 .1 2 -0 .0 8 1. 00 (d ) A ge 0. 11 0. 49 -0 .1 2 1. 00 (e ) M ot he r's E du ca tio n 0. 06 -0 .0 3 -0 .1 2 -0 .0 2 1. 00 (f ) P ro te st an t R es po nd en ts 0. 04 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 4 0. 06 0. 13 1. 00 (g ) B ud dh is t R es po nd en ts -0 .0 3 -0 .0 8 0. 00 -0 .0 8 -0 .0 8 -0 .0 9 1. 00 (h ) A gn os tic R es po nd en ts 0. 01 0. 12 0. 11 -0 .0 1 -0 .0 2 -0 .0 8 -0 .0 8 1. 00 (i ) A th ei st R es po nd en ts 0. 10 0. 10 -0 .1 9 -0 .0 3 0. 08 -0 .0 9 -0 .0 8 -0 .0 7 1. 00 (j ) O th er D en om in at io n R es po nd en ts 0. 02 0. 06 -0 .0 1 0. 11 0. 14 -0 .1 7 -0 .1 6 -0 .1 4 -0 .1 5 1. 00 (k ) P ro te st an t M ot he rs 0. 11 0. 02 -0 .0 6 0. 10 0. 09 0. 75 -0 .1 1 -0 .0 4 0. 06 -0 .0 7 1. 00 (l) B ud dh is t M ot he rs -0 .0 2 -0 .0 8 0. 00 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8 -0 .1 1 0. 85 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 4 -0 .1 2 -0 .1 3 1. 00 (m ) O th er D en om in at io n M ot he rs -0 .0 8 -0 .0 1 0. 05 0. 01 0. 21 -0 .1 2 -0 .1 5 0. 10 0. 00 0. 65 -0 .1 9 -0 .1 8 1. 00 (n ) R ep ub lic an R es po nd en ts -0 .1 8 -0 .1 4 -0 .0 7 -0 .0 8 0. 07 0. 13 0. 04 -0 .1 0 0. 01 -0 .0 6 0. 08 0. 10 -0 .0 1 1. 00 (o ) I nd ep en de nt R es po nd en ts 0. 11 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 5 0. 10 0. 01 -0 .0 2 0. 17 0. 10 0. 04 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 5 0. 09 -0 .1 5 1. 00 (p ) O th er P ol iti ca l A ff ili at io n R es po nd en ts 0. 12 0. 06 -0 .0 3 -0 .0 3 0. 13 -0 .0 5 -0 .0 4 0. 11 0. 03 0. 24 0. 07 -0 .0 6 0. 26 -0 .1 2 -0 .1 3 1. 00 (q ) R ep ub lic an M ot he rs -0 .1 2 -0 .2 1 0. 00 -0 .1 3 0. 22 0. 25 0. 05 -0 .0 5 0. 04 -0 .0 5 0. 14 0. 08 0. 01 0. 63 0. 12 -0 .0 6 1. 00 (r ) O th er P ol iti ca l A ff ili at io n M ot he rs 0. 06 0. 08 -0 .0 2 0. 13 -0 .0 4 -0 .0 9 0. 15 0. 01 -0 .0 7 0. 25 -0 .0 4 0. 13 0. 22 -0 .1 1 0. 28 0. 33 -0 .1 3 1. 00 (s ) P as t M ar iju an a C on su m pt io n 0. 36 0. 24 -0 .1 9 0. 14 0. 08 0. 00 -0 .1 4 0. 07 0. 09 -0 .0 2 0. 07 -0 .1 2 -0 .1 1 -0 .1 2 -0 .0 3 0. 04 -0 .1 7 -0 .0 1 1. 00 (t ) P er ce pt io n of P ee r C on su m pt io n 0. 03 -0 .2 3 0. 28 -0 .1 2 -0 .0 3 0. 02 0. 15 0. 05 -0 .2 3 -0 .0 7 0. 01 0. 06 0. 01 0. 04 0. 03 0. 09 0. 07 -0 .0 3 -0 .1 4 1. 00 C or re la ti on is s ig ni fi ca nt a t t he 0 .0 1 le ve l ( 2- ta ile d) . C or re la ti on is s ig ni fi ca nt a t t he 0 .0 5 le ve l ( 2- ta ile d) . 1 Pe ar so n’ s co rr el at io n co ef fi ci en t i s m ea ni ng le ss f or m ul tin om in al v ar ia bl es s uc h as o ur re lig io us a ff ili at io n ty pe s. A cc or di ng ly , I re co de d th es e va ri ab le s in to fo ur d ic ho to m ou s va ri ab le s (e .g . P ro te st an t R es po nd en ts is 1 if a re sp on de nt is a P ro te st an t a nd 0 o th er w is e) . I u se th es e di ch ot om ou s ve rs io ns o f t he R el ig io us A ff ili at io n an d Po lit ic al A ff ili at io n ty pe s va ri ab le s in th is b iv ar ia te c or re la tio n. RESOCIALIZATION IN STUDENTS TOWARD MARIJUANA by Michael Bouvet 116 CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 92-116) Table 3:Logistic Regression Analysis of Support for the Legalization of Marijuana on Selected Variables Independent Variables Regression Coefficients Standard Error (s.e.) Intercept 1 1.465 (1.760) Intercept 2 3.346 (1.782) Current College Education .584 (.229) Gender .070 (.436) Age -.049 (.042) Mother's Education .141 (.171) Protestant Respondents -1.404 (1.758) Buddhist Respondents -20.463 (.964) Agnostic Respondents .427 (1.000) Atheist Respondents .859 (.999) Other Denomination Respondents .232 (.788) Protestant Mothers 2.013 (1.734) Buddhist Mothers -20.778 (.727) Other Denomination Mothers -.639 (.761) Republican Respondents -2.559 (.895) Independent Respondents .060 (.790) Other Political Affiliation Respondents 1.118 (1.010) Republican Mothers .612 (.849) Other Political Affiliation Mothers -.065 (.975) Past Marijuana Consumption .631 (.423) Perception of Peer Consumption .606 (.515) Likelihood Ratio chi-square 37.512 Nagelkerke R-square .321 Score test for Parallel Regression Lines 25.002 Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).