Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285 – 1298

The Orientation of Social Support measure

Farrokh Alemia,*, Richard Stephensb, Shirley Llorensa, Diane Schaeferd,1,
Susanna Nemesa, Robert Arendtc
a
College of Nursing and Health Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030-4444, USA
b
Department of Sociology, University of Akron, Akron, OH 44325-1905, USA
c
Department of Pediatrics Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
d
Ballantine Hall 744, Bloomington, IN 47405-6628, USA
Accepted 19 March 2002

Abstract

In this study we proposed and tested the theory that behavior is affected by the orientation of the
members of one’s social network. We collected data from 98 women (some drug users) with the
Orientation of Social Support (OSS) scale and two other widely used measures: the Social Support
Questionnaire (SSQ), and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS). Drug use
was measured with the Addiction Severity Index (ASI). Pairwise correlations showed that the OSS had
no correlation with the SSQ or the MSPSS. Subjects’ ASI scores were regressed on the three measures
of support. The only variable that entered stepwise regression was the OSS scale. This study confirmed
our theory that it is important to examine the orientation of and not just the extent of social support.
The paper provides the questionnaire and the scoring procedures for measurement of extent of peer
pressure.
D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Social support measure; Orientation of social network; Alcohol and drug use; Peer Pressure

* Corresponding author. 1319 Ozkan Street, McLean, VA 22101, USA. Tel.: +1-703-748-1629.
E-mail address: falemi@gmu.edu (F. Alemi).
1
Present address: Sociology and Anthropology Department, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL 61920.

0306-4603/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00251-4
1286 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298

1. Introduction

Health services researchers for some time have shown that peer and family support affect
both illness and utilization of services (Counte & Glandon, 1991; Ward & Pratt, 1996). At
least two theories explain why and how social networks affect illness:

1.1. Buffer effect

This is one of the earliest theories of social support. According to the buffer hypothesis,
poor social ties reduce feedback, and consequently, the individual becomes confused and his/
her susceptibility to disease increases (Caplan & Caplan, 2000; Cassel, 1976; Coyne &
Downey, 1991). This theory suggests that social support protects an individual and acts as a
buffer to environmental stresses like divorce and loss of loved ones.

1.2. Direct effect

This theory assumes that practical and financial assistance from friends can alleviate and/or
prevent some stressful life events, can provide a sense of belonging and positive reinforce-
ment, and can improve satisfaction with life. Thus, individuals receiving such assistance are
likely to have fewer physical and mental problems. In contrast to the buffer theory, the direct
effect theory does not assume that social support only has an impact on behavior and illness
during stressful times. Rather, social support has an effect even in the absence of stressful life
events, primarily through improving the individual’s standard of living (Dalgard & Tambs,
1997; Kessler & McLeod, 1985).
These two theories suggest that as support increases the risk for illness and
subsequent utilization of services is reduced. We find many occasions where this pre-
diction does not hold. For example, gang membership increases sense of belonging and
availability of practical and financial support, but at the same time, it puts the individual
at increased risk of violence and potential mortality. Similarly, drug addicts feel socially
supported by their peer group even though such support can lead to drug use and
illness.
Finally, when faced with illness in the family, social ties encourage spouses to adopt
behaviors that make them vulnerable to psychological distress, anxiety and depression
(Stewart, Davidson, Meade, Hirth, & Makrides, 2000). In all of these situations, social ties
involve the individual in actions that are detrimental to the individual’s health. Thus, contrary
to the theories presented, it is not necessarily true that increasing support will necessarily
improve an individual’s health.
We believe that it is more important to examine what one’s social support is for, as opposed
to how much support is available. The nature of the support, rather than the existence of it,
seems to determine whether one is at increased risk of illness and other hazards. Furthermore,
members of one’s social network may be supportive of different social roles. Therefore, some
people in one’s network may be supportive of one’s parenting role but against one’s role as a
drug user.
 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298 1287

2. A role theory perspective of social support

We are proposing a theory in which individuals maintain different social roles. A social
role is a set of behavioral expectations and accompanying symbolic rituals. Roles are
established through interaction with others and are affected by both the individual’s self-
concept (e.g., sense of acceptance) as well as the expectations of others. Individuals maintain
multiple and at times conflicting roles. Such conflicting roles are maintained in separate
social environments. Each role has its accompanying social group, which to the extent that
roles are compatible may involve the same individuals. Individuals have different levels of
commitment to roles and to relationships (Stephens, 1991).
The proposed theory borrows many elements from the theories of social support described
earlier. First, dysfunctional roles prescribe dangerous behaviors that put an individual at
increased risk of physical illness, as suggested by the direct theory of social support. As
suggested by the buffer theory of social support, roles can also be protective. At times of
confusion due to environmental stress, roles allow an individual to rely on a set of rituals and
to avoid behavioral experimentation that can aggravate the situation. What differentiates our
proposed theory from existing approaches is that role theory explains how support can be
counterproductive to the physical well-being of the individual.

3. Measurement of social support

Social support has been measured in five conceptually different ways. Research has
focused on (1) participation in social institutions; (2) sense of support; (3) nominations; (4)
daily log of support incidents; and (5) network measures.
First, measures that rely on participation in social institutions ask, for example, about
marriage, existence of confidants, membership in clubs, and membership in church (Medalie,
Strange, Zyzanski, & Goldbourt, 1992; Olsen, Olsen, Gunner-Svensson & Waldstrom, 1991).
Second, measures related to sense of support ask questions about the availability of support in
particular situations [e.g., ‘‘I have someone on whom I can rely to look after a family member
when I am away,’’ (Barrera, Sandler, & Ramsay, 1981)], or might ask the individual to
evaluate his/her support [e.g., ‘‘My friends give me all the moral support that I need’’
(Holahan & Moos, 1982; Holahan, Moos, Holahan, & Cronkite, 1999; Procidano & Heller,
1983)]. Third, nominations refer to the naming of people who may provide social support in
different circumstances. For example, one may be asked, ‘‘Who do you talk to when you are
not sure what to do?’’ Respondents are expected to list names of people and then to answer a
series of questions related to their satisfaction, the availability, and the importance of
nominees (Barrera, 1981; Dean, Holst, Kreiner, Schoenborn, & Wilson, 1994; McFarlane,
Neale, Norman, Roy, & Streiner, 1981; Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason, 1992; Sarason, Levine,
Basham, & Sarason, 1983). The fourth method used to measure social support is to ask
respondents to log instances of support. Participants list the individuals they have interacted
with during the day, note the duration of the interactions, and rate their satisfaction with the
interactions (DeFour & Hirsch, 1990; Hirsch & DuBois, 1992) Finally, the fifth way of
1288 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298

measuring support is with network measures. Respondents are asked to specify people in their
social network and their relationships to them and among them. These measures differ from
asking for nominations for specific support activities in the emphasis they put on relationships
among friends (Hirsch & DuBois, 1992).
These five approaches to measuring social support differ in brevity and in the extent to
which they ask about specific social relationships. Among these approaches to measuring
social support, we prefer to measure social support by asking respondents for specific
nominations of people because this technique is relatively brief and allows for specification of
how social ties affect the individual. We developed a measure using nominations and rank
ordering of relationships to examine how social support affects one’s behavior. This measure
is known as the Orientation of Social Support (OSS).

3.1. The Orientation of Social Support measure

The OSS measure was developed as a generic instrument that could be modified to
examine orientation to drug use or any social role. It was designed to incorporate aspects of
other social support measures (e.g., number of supporters, frequency of contact) and to add
the new dimension of orientation. Clients were asked to answer the following six questions:

1. Think through your day-to-day activities and the people you see from when you wake up
until you sleep. List the initials of people you have contact with in order of how often you
see them. The first person listed is the person you see most often.
2. Think of all the people that are important to you, including the people you do not see
often. List, in order of importance, the initials of the people you have contact with. The
first person you list is the person whose opinions and thoughts are most important to
you.
3. List the initials of people who most accept you as you are. These are the people who accept
both your best and worst points and who make you feel good about yourself. The person
who most accepts you should be listed first.
4. List the initials of the people who are most willing to help you or do favors for you. The
person who is most helpful should be listed first.
5. List the initials of the people you know who use drugs.
6. List the initials of the people you know who object to drug use by you or by others.

The subjects are not required to list a fixed number of people, nor are they required to rate
the same people on all dimensions. Any person named on at least one dimension is
considered to be a member of the subject’s social network. The rank ordering of people
for each question is used to quantify the relative influence of each supporter. Rank orders are
transformed to an interval scale by a modification of procedures recommended by Ludke
(1977). The scoring procedure for the OSS measure is presented in detail in Appendix A and
an example of the calculations is provided in Appendix B.
The OSS also includes a measure of the direction of each supporter’s influence. Subjects
are asked questions to assess the orientation (attitudes for or against a particular social role).
 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298 1289

This component of the OSS can be adapted to evaluate different social roles. In this particular
study, we were interested in examining orientation toward drug use (Questions 5 and 6
above). The people listed for Question 5 received an orientation score of 0.0, which indicated
drug use; while those listed for Question 6 receive a score of 1.0, which indicated opposed to
drug use. Individuals who are listed for both questions or neither question receive a neutral
score of 0.5.

4. Methods

4.1. Study population

For this study, 98 women were recruited from a pediatric clinic at University Hospitals of
Cleveland. Women who visited the clinic for their child’s care between August 1992 and
September 1992 were approached by an interviewer in the clinic waiting room and invited to
participate. In addition, an interviewer contacted women who were participating in the
University Hospital’s Neonatal Neurobehavioral Sequelae of Cocaine Exposure In Utero
Project (NNSCEUP) and invited them to participate. The interviewer described the study to
the women and explained that they would be expected to respond to questions about their
social support networks and drug use. The interviewer scheduled interview appointments for
the women who agreed to participate. Appointments were generally scheduled to coincide
with their child’s pediatric appointments.

4.2. Data collection

Before beginning the interview, interviewers explained the study and asked subjects to
complete a consent form. Subjects were then asked to complete a series of four
questionnaires. They were asked to provide demographic information (age, race, education)
and to respond to questions from the Alcohol/Drug use section of the Addiction Severity
Index (ASI), the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ), the Multidimensional Scale of
Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and to the OSS. A description of the ASI, SSQ, and
MSPSS follows.

4.2.1. The Addiction Severity Index

The ASI was developed as a tool for assessing the treatment problems found in alcohol
and drug-abusing patients and has been commonly used for initial intake evaluations, drug
treatment planning, and for making referral decisions (McLellan, Luborsky, & Cacciola,
1985). In its entirety, the ASI consists of 180 items that were divided among seven prob-
lem areas: medical status, employment/support status, drug use, alcohol use, legal status,
family and social relationships, and psychiatric status. In this study, subjects were only
asked to answer questions from the Alcohol/Drug use section of the ASI. Drug use
composite scores were calculated using standard procedures to determine the extent of
subjects’ drug use.
1290 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298

4.2.2. The Social Support Questionnaire

The SSQ was first introduced by Sarason et al. (1983). The SSQ consists of 27 items, each of
which has two parts. First, respondents were asked to name people who support them in a
particular circumstance. Then, they were asked to rate how satisfied they have been with that
person’s support. The satisfaction ratings were on a 6-point scale ranging from very satisfied
(1) to very dissatisfied (6). The SSQ yields two subscores. An overall support score was
calculated by averaging the total number of supporters named, and an overall satisfaction score
was calculated by averaging the 27 satisfaction ratings. Both scores were used in our analysis.

4.2.3. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support

The MSPSS was designed to assess one’s perceptions of social support from family, friends,
and significant others (Canty-Mitchell & Zimet, 2000; Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet, & Farley, 1988).
Twelve questions assess the adequacy of the respondent’s social support; four questions inquire
about family, four questions inquire about friends, and four questions inquire about support
from a significant other. Responses to the questions were on a 7-point rating scale ranging from
very strongly disagree (1) to very strongly agree (7). The scale included three subscales: family
support, friend support, significant other support. For this study, we calculated an overall
MSPSS score by averaging the answers to all 12 questions. Our reason for using this overall
score was to make the MSPSS more comparable to the OSS and SSQ measures.

4.3. Data analyses

The goal of our first set of analyses was to determine which combination of variables
(frequency, importance, acceptance, and/or help) should be included in the calculation of the
OSS score. OSS scores were calculated seven different ways for each subject and the resulting
scores were compared to drug use composite scores using pairwise correlations. The OSS score
that showed a statistically significant relationship to drug use was used in subsequent analysis.
The objective of the second part of our study was to examine the relationship between
various measures of social support. Pairwise correlations were calculated to determine
whether the OSS, SSQ, and MSPSS are measuring the same dimensions of social support.
Stepwise forward selection multiple regression was also used to examine the relationship
between social support and drug use. The SSQ satisfaction score, the SSQ overall support
scores, the MSPSS perceived social support score, and the OSS score were the independent
variables included in the procedure. The percentage of variation in drug use explained by the
social support measures is reported.

5. Results

5.1. Demographics

In this study, all of the subjects were women whose children were receiving care at a
pediatric clinic of University Hospitals of Cleveland. Demographic information was availa-
 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298 1291

ble for 94 (95.9%) of the 98 women recruited for this study. The subjects were predom-
inantly Black (98.9%, n = 94). The mean age for this sample was 27.4 years (S.D. = 5.39).
The majority of the sample (80.8%) completed either some or all of high school. Forty-two
percent (41.5%) reported that they completed at least some high school, 39.3% reported that
they completed all of high school or had the equivalent of high school (GED). Only 1%
reported having no high school education. Eighteen percent (18.1%) reported technical
training or at least some college.
In terms of employment, 21.3% reported that they were employed full time, 25.5%
reported that they were employed part time, and 3.2% reported that they were students.
Almost half of the women (48.9%) reported that they were unemployed.
On average, 4% of the people that the subjects saw frequently were reported to be drug
users, and 2% of those who provided support to the subjects and who were important to them
were reported to be drug users.

5.2. Analyses of OSS scores

To determine which combination of variables (frequency, importance, acceptance, and/or

help) should be included in the calculation of the OSS score, we calculated OSS scores seven
different ways. We examined the following combinations of variables: (1) frequency,
importance, acceptance, and orientation; (2) frequency, importance, and orientation; (3)
frequency, acceptance, help, and orientation; (4) frequency, importance, help, and orientation;
(5) frequency and orientation; (6) importance and orientation; and (7) acceptance and
orientation. The calculated OSS scores for each combination were correlated with drug use
composite scores. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 1.
Of the combinations examined, we found that only two had statistically significant
relationships with drug use. The index based on frequency, importance, and orientation
had a correlation of
.217 ( P=.02, n = 92) and the index based on frequency and orientation
had a correlation of
.219 ( P =.02, n = 92) with drug use. Both of these relationships are in
the hypothesized direction (i.e., those with higher support use less drugs and vice versa) and

Table 1
Pairwise correlations of OSS scores and drug use (n = 92)
OSS measures Correlations (r) P values
Freq, Impt, Accept, Orient
.170 .05
Freq, Impt, Orient
.217 .02
Freq, Accept, Help, Orient
.124 .12
Freq, Impt, Help, Orient
.166 .06
Freq, Orient
.219 .02
Impt, Orient
.036 .37
Accept, Orient
.098 .18
Freq = frequency of contact; Impt = importance of thoughts and opinions; Accept = acceptance of the subject;
Help = helps the subject; Orient = orientation toward drug use.
1292 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298

Table 2
Pairwise correlations of social support measures and drug use
Measures Correlations P value Number of cases
OSS based on frequency, importance, and orientation
.22 .02 92
OSS based on frequency and orientation
.22 .02 92
SSQ satisfaction .06 .29 93
SSQ avg. no. of supporters
.21 .02 93
MSPSS
.08 .23 92

one is not more accurate than the other. Even though the latter index is more parsimonious,
we selected to use the former index because it has more face validity: People generally
believe that friends/family members who are important to the client should have more
influence on the client than other supporters.
Correlations between the SSQ and MSPSS social support measures were also calculated.
See Table 2 for a comparison of the various measures.
The results suggest that measures of satisfaction with social support are not related to drug
use. Both the satisfaction score from the SSQ and the overall perceived social support score
from the MSPSS were not statistically significant. However, the social support score from the
SSQ, which is based on an average number of supporters named, was found to be statistically
related to drug use (n = 93, r =
.207, P=.02).
To examine whether the OSS, SSQ, and MSPSS are measuring the same dimensions of
social support, the measures were correlated with each other. The results of these analyses are
shown in Table 3.
The results indicate that the SSQ and MSPSS scores are correlated with r values
greater than .35 ( P=.00). In contrast, OSS measures (using frequency, importance, and
orientation variables) did not have statistically significant correlations with any of the
other measures.
A forward selection multiple regression procedure was used to examine the extent to
which drug use can be explained by social support. The SSQ satisfaction score, the SSQ
overall support scores, the MSPSS perceived social support score, and the OSS score
were included as the independent variables. The results are reported in Table 4. The OSS

Table 3
Pairwise correlations of social support measures (n = 91)
Measures SSQ satisfaction SSQ support MSPSS
r ( P value) r ( P value) r ( P value)
OSS Freq, Impt, Orient .110 (.15) .018 (.43) .064 (.27)
OSS Freq, Orient .034 (.38) .134 (.10) .184 (.04)
SSQ Satisfaction 1.000
.239 (.01)a .384 (.00)
SSQ no. of supporters
.239 (.01)a 1.000 .356 (.00)
MSPSS .384 (.00) .356 (.00) 1.000
a
For these cells, n = 94.
 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298 1293

Table 4
Regression results: social support measures regressed on drug use
Factors in model R2 B S.E.B Constant F P
Frequency, importance, and orientation .05
.071 .033 .101 4.62 .03

score entered the stepwise regression in the first step and no other measure entered the
equation thereafter. Five percent of the variation in drug use was explained with the OSS
measure.

6. Discussion

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new measure, the OSS measure, which was
developed to examine how social support affects behavior and illness. Unlike other measures
of social support, the OSS emphasizes the orientation of individual members in one’s social
network. The measure provides a method for determining which members are supportive of a
particular social role, which members are opposed to it, and which members are neutral.
Using this method, the OSS accounts for the fact that not all people in one’s support network
are supportive of the same roles.
The OSS was designed as a generic measure that can be modified to examine a variety
of social roles. In this study, we tested the measure among drug-using and non-drug-using
women whose children received care at the same pediatric clinic. We were interested in
looking at how orientation is related to drug-using behavior. Subjects were asked to name
and rank order people who they see frequently, people whose opinions were important to
them, people who were accepting of them, and people who were willing to provide them
with help. They were also asked questions to determine each person’s orientation toward
drug use. To determine which dimensions of social support (frequency, importance,
acceptance, help) were most predictive of drug-using behavior, we calculated OSS scores
seven different ways. The results of our analyses suggest that an index based on
measuring orientation and frequency and an index based on measuring orientation,
frequency, and importance of supporters were most predictive of drug-using behavior.
Other factors (i.e., whether supporters were accepting of the person and whether they were
willing to help him/her in times of need) were not relevant for understanding the
relationship between social support and drug use. This finding does not support recent
theoretical arguments that the supporter’s acceptance of the client is important in
measuring the influence of the supporter. We recommend that until proven otherwise,
investigators should use the OSS scale based on importance, frequency, and orientation
and ignore other dimensions.
Our comparison of the OSS measure (based on frequency, importance, and orientation)
with the SSQ and MSPSS social support scores indicated that the SSQ and MSPSS are
not related to OSS, and in predicting drug use these measures of social support do not
1294 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298

provide any information not available in the OSS index. These findings suggest that
satisfaction with support and the perception of the presence/absence of social support are
not the same as the orientation of support. Our assumption that the orientation of
supporters is important in understanding behavior makes sense intuitively and is
supported by our data.
Investigators and clinicians who use OSS or any other measure of social support should be
warned that a small percentage of the variance in the subjects’ drug use was explained by
measures of social support. Among the indices we examined, the OSS was statistically
significant and the best predictor of behavior; but it only explained 5% of the variation in the
behavior of subjects. Should social support explain a larger percentage of subjects’ behavior?
While many studies propose that social support predicts behavior, few provide what
percentage of behavior is explained. Therefore, we cannot compare the significance of our
findings to these studies. We believe additional studies should be done to explore what
percentage of behavior could be explained by social support. In some populations, for
example, cults or gangs, investigators may find a larger percentage of behavior explained by
social support. In addition, it is possible that self-report is inaccurate as a measure of drug use.
Finally, investigators should keep in mind that human behavior is explained by many factors
besides social support.
There are two important limitations that should be considered when interpreting the
findings from this pilot study. The first is that data on the reliability of the instrument are
not available. The second is that the sample in this study was predominantly Black, so
the external validity of the instrument is limited. The findings may not be generalizable
to other ethnic groups. The instrument has also not been studied for use with males.
We developed the OSS measure to distinguish between the concepts of positive and
negative support. This study suggests that orientation matters, and that people are likely
to adopt social roles supported by the people who they see most frequently and by those
whose opinions are most important to them. The OSS measure provides a method for
quantifying the influence of each supporter and the net impact of their orientations
toward a particular social role. Further research using the OSS measure should be
directed toward examining other social roles and behaviors (e.g., caregiving role, gang
membership, etc.) and in conducting more comparative studies of various measures of
social support.

Acknowledgements

Dr. Alemi’s earlier work on this research was supported by the National Institute of Drug
Abuse grant member 5-R18-DA06913-02. Dr. Alemi and Nemes were later supported by
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant in Support of the Substance Abuse Policy Research
(Grant number 041106). The authors acknowledge the contribution of Mike Sabier Ph.D. and
the Collaborative Care Project at Cleveland State University. The Orientation of Social
Support questionnaire (see 6 items listed in the text of the paper) and the scoring procedure
are in public domain and can be used royalty free.
 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298 1295

Appendix A. Calculations of orientation of social support scores

The following method was used to calculate OSS scores. This method accounts for the size
of one’s social network, the orientation of each supporter in one’s network, and the relative
influence of each supporter in terms of frequency seen and importance to the subject.
STEP 1: Count the total number of supporters named.
STEP 2: Calculate Oi, a variable measuring the orientation of each member of the social
network. Based on answers to the orientation question we assigned:

0 = Supports Drug Use

0.5 = Neutral
1 = Opposes Drug Use

STEP 3: Calculate Fi, the frequency of contact between the client and each member of
social network. If we assume that n is the total number of supporters named in the client’s
network, and m = n + 2, then:

1. Assign the people named in the network who were not ranked in the response to the
question on frequency of contact as having an (n + 1) rank in that question.
2. Estimate the distance between the name ranked first and the name ranked second as:
1=m½1=m þ 1=m
1 þ 1=m
2 þ 1=m
3 þ . . . þ 1

3. Estimate the distance between the name ranked second and the name ranked third as:
1=m½1=m þ 1=m
1 þ 1=m
2 þ 1=m
3 þ . . . þ 1=2

4. Continue estimating the distance between any two subsequently ranked individuals until
the distance between the n
1 rank and the nth rank can be estimated as:
½1=m½1=m
1

5. Calculate an unadjusted value for each rank ( j) by summing the distances for the jth rank
and all preceding ranks (1,2,. . .,j) and subtracting the total from 1.
6. Standardize values by dividing unadjusted values by the sum of the unadjusted values.
7. Assign the appropriate values to each supporter’s rank.

STEP 4: Calculate Ii, the importance of each member of the social network to the client
using procedures defined above.
STEP 5: Calculate the OSS score using the following formula:
X X
OSS ¼ Fi Ii Oi = Fi Ii
i i
where Fi is the frequency of contact for the ith person, Ii is the importance of the ith person,
and Oi is the orientation of the ith person.
1296 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298

Appendix B. Application of the OSS scoring procedures

Assume that a person has given the following information about 16 people in her support
group (note that 17 has been entered wherever the individual was not ranked):

First name Orientation Rank on Rank on

of supporters toward frequency importance
drug use of contacts respondents
Bar1 Opposed 1 17
Bar2 Opposed 17 3
Bil1 Opposed 6 1
Bil2 Neither 2 17
Don Supports 17 17
Kiki Neither 4 17
Lore Neither 17 6
Lou Supports 17 17
Mim Neither 5 17
Rich Opposed 17 4
Rob Both 17 17
Ron Opposed 17 8
Sue Neither 3 17
Wil1 Opposed 17 5
Wil2 Neither 17 7
Yve Opposed 17 2

The following table shows how the above data are analyzed:

Name or Oi or Fi or Ii or FiIiOi FiIi

initials orientation frequency importance
Bar1 1.0 .189606 .000726 .0001377 .0001377
Bar2 1.0 .000726 .130911 .0000950 .0000950
Bil1 1.0 .074893 .189606 .0142002 .0142002
Bil2 0.5 .156991 .000726 .0000570 .0001140
Don 0.0 .000726 .000726 .0000000 .0000005
Kiki 0.5 .109188 .000726 .0000396 .0000793
Lore 0.5 .000726 .074893 .0000272 .0000544
Lou 0.0 .000726 .000726 .0000000 .0000005
Mim 0.5 .090734 .000726 .0000329 .0000659
Rich 1.0 .000726 .109188 .0000793 .0000793
Rob 0.5 .000726 .000726 .0000003 .0000005
Ron 1.0 .000726 .049438 .0000359 .0000359
Sue 0.5 .130911 .000726 .0000475 .0000950
Wil1 1.0 .000726 .090734 .0000659 .0000659
Wil2 0.5 .000726 .061232 .0000222 .0000445
Yve 1.0 .000726 .156991 .0001140 .0001140
Total .0149547 .0151826

OSS = 0.0149547/0.0151826 = 0.98.

 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298 1297

References

Barrera, M. (1981). Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents: Assessment issues. In B. H. Gottlieb
(Ed.), Social Networks and Social Support (pp. 69 – 96). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Barrera, M., Sandler, I. N., & Ramsay, T. B. (1981). Preliminary development of a scale of social support: Studies
on college students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 435 – 447.
Canty-Mitchell, J., & Zimet, G. D. (2000). Psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived
Social Support in urban adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(3), 391 – 400.
Caplan, G., & Caplan, R. (2000). Principles of community psychiatry. Community Mental Health Journal, 36(1),
7 – 24.
Cassel, J. (1976). The contribution of the social environment to host resistance. The Fourth Wade Hampton Frost
Lecture. American Journal of Epidemiology, 141(9), 798 – 814.
Counte, M. A., & Glandon, G. L. (1991). A panel study of life stress, social support and the health service
utilization of older persons. Medical Care, 29(4), 348 – 361.
Coyne, J. C., & Downey, G. (1991). Social factors and psychopathology: Stress, social support, and coping
processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 401 – 425.
Dalgard, O. S., & Tambs, K. (1997). Urban environment and mental health: A longitudinal study. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 171, 530 – 536.
Dean, K., Holst, E., Kreiner, S., Schoenborn, C., & Wilson, R. (1994). Measurement issues in research on social
support and health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 48(2), 201 – 206.
DeFour, D. C., & Hirsch, B. J. (1990). The adaptation of black graduate students: A social network approach.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(3), 487 – 503.
Hirsch, B. J., & DuBois, D. L. (1992). The relation of peer social support and psychological symptomatology
during the transition to junior high school: A two-year longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 20(3), 333 – 347.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., & Cronkite, R. C. (1999). Resource loss, resource gain, and
depressive symptoms: A 10-year model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 620 – 629.
Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1982). Social support and adjustment: Predictive benefits of social climate indices.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 403 – 413.
Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1985). Social support and mental health in community samples. In S. Cohen, &
S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Ludke, R. (1977). Comparison of five methods for estimating subjective probability distributions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 162 – 179.
McFarlane, A. H., Neale, K. A., Norman, G. R., Roy, R. G., & Streiner, D. L. (1981). Methodological issues in
developing a scale to measure social support. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 7, 90 – 100.
McLellan, A. T., Luborsky, L., & Cacciola, J. (1985). New data from the Addiction Severity Index: Reliability and
validity in three centers. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 173(7), 412 – 423.
Medalie, J. H., Stange, K. C., Zyzanski, S. J., & Goldbourt, U. (1992). The importance of biopsychosocial factors
in the development of duodenal ulcer in a cohort of middle-aged men. American Journal of Epidemiology,
136(10), 1280 – 1287.
Olsen, R. B., Olsen, J., Gunner-Svensson, F., & Waldstrom, B. (1991). Social networks and longevity. A 14 year
follow-up study among elderly in Denmark. Social Science Medicine, 33(10), 1189 – 1195.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1992). General and specific support expectations and stress as
predictors of perceived supportiveness: An experimental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63(2), 297 – 307.
Procidano, M., & Heller, K. (1983). Measurements of perceived social support from friends and from family:
Three validational studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 1 – 24.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The Social
Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 127 – 139.
Stephens, R. C. (1991). The street addict role. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
1298 F. Alemi et al. / Addictive Behaviors 28 (2003) 1285–1298

Stewart, M., Davidson, K., Meade, D., Hirth, A., & Makrides, L. (2000). Myocardial infarction: Survivors’ and
spouses’ stress, coping, and support. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6), 1351 – 1360.
Ward, A., & Pratt, C. (1996). Psychosocial influences on the use of health care by children. Australia and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health, 20(3), 309 – 316.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social
support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 30 – 41.