Deviancy and Normative Training Processes in Experimental Groups of Delinquent and Nondelinquent Male Adolescents

Abstract

The goal of this study was to identify the predictors and the moderators of group characteristics that influence deviancy and normative training processes in delinquent male adolescents. The authors experimentally tested the effects of group composition on deviant talk interaction processes among groups in which all members presented delinquent behaviors ("pure" delinquent group condition), those that included adolescents with no delinquent behaviors ("pure" normative group condition), and adolescents with both profiles ("mixed" group condition). Participants were 70 male adolescents aged 15-18 (M = 16.5; 56% Caucasian), with a random assignment to groups. Data were collected among three group sessions (T1, T2, T3), one session a week, using videotape. Two contents of interactions were also measured: antisocial and normative stories, counterbalanced across sessions. Results showed a significant group effect for antisocial talk and its reinforcement, with less antisocial talk within the mixed group condition in comparison to the pure delinquent group condition. The topic of interaction was also observed as a predictor of antisocial talk, with less normative interactions and more antisocial talk associated with antisocial topics. Finally, time moderated some relations between experimental groups and talk. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this work for future research on deviancy training processes.

Student behavioral engagement as a mediator between teacher, family, and peer support and school truancy

“…Whereas teachers are unlikely to accept truancy (Croninger & Lee, 2001), there may be parents who condone adolescents' disengagement from school (Attwood & Croll 2006). Those adolescents are at risk of associating with negative peers, which increases the risk of shared positive attitude toward low engagement, unaccepted absences from school, and peer deviancy training (see Mathys et al, 2013).…”

“…Sometimes its impact on students' behavioral engagement has been found to be positive (Furrer & Skinner, 2003), sometimes non-existent (Li, Lerner, & Lerner, 2010), and sometimes negative (Wang & Eccles, 2012b) STUDENT ENGAGEMENT, EMOTIONAL SUPPORT, AND TRUANCY stemming from the fact that students' school-related problems tend to cluster at the peer group level (Kiuru, 2008). In such peer groups, there is a risk of development of a collective atmosphere condoning absences from school and peer deviancy training (see Mathys, Hyde, Shaw, & Born, 2013). Taken together, these results suggest that teacher and parent support may be more important than peer support with respect to student behavioral engagement.…”

Observed Normativity and Deviance in Friendship Dyads’ Conversations About Sex and the Relations With Youths’ Perceived Sexual Peer Norms

“…Before the observations started, the research assistants explained the goals and procedure of the study, guaranteed confidentiality, and pointed out the option to withdraw participation at any time. The research assistants were not present during the assignments, but kept track of time outside of the observation space, in order to ensure maximum privacy, and to stimulate the dyads to talk freely (Mathys, Hyde, Shaw, & Born, 2013; Piehler & Dishion, 2007). After completing all assignments, each participant received a movie coupon (€10).…”

“…Besides topic codes, previous observation studies assessed various reaction codes to further evaluate the content of peer interactions, including laugh, pause, verbal assent, and nonverbal agreement (Dishion et al, 1996; Mathys et al, 2013; Piehler & Dishion, 2007). In the current study, two types of reaction codes were used: verbal reinforcement and nonverbal reinforcement.…”

Juvenile justice, mental health, and the transition to adulthood: A review of service system involvement and unmet needs in the U.S.

“…The involvement of family members in mental health interventions, a key factor in successful treatment, is rarely available to incarcerated youth, limiting both treatment effectiveness and maintenance of gains. Many treatments in correctional facilities are delivered in a group format, aggregating delinquent peers – a strategy shown to have iatrogenic effects on group members due to “deviance training” or the learning of new delinquent behaviors from deviant peers (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999; Mathys, Hyde, Shaw, & Born, 2013). There is also a lack of continuity of care for these youth as they transition from treatment providers in detention centers to those in their communities.…”