Do Cellmates Matter? A Causal Test of the Schools of Crime Hypothesis With Implications for Differential Association and Deterrence Theories

Abstract

In the schools of crime hypothesis, social interactions between inmates are assumed to produce criminogenic rather than deterrent prison peer effects, thus implicating them in the persistence of high recidivism rates and null or criminogenic prison effects. We assess the validity of the schools of crime hypothesis by estimating prison peer effects that result from differential cellmate associations in a male, first‐time release cohort from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. To isolate causal prison peer effects in the presence of essential heterogeneity, we use a semiparametric local instrumental variables estimation strategy. Our results do not support the school of crime hypothesis. In our sample, prison peer effects produced in interaction with more criminally experienced cellmates are always null or deterrent rather than criminogenic. Although we do not explicitly test for the operant conditioning mechanisms theorized to underlie social influence in the context of differential association, we argue that, under the assumption that the differential association context relates positively to the direction of peer influence, our universally noncriminogenic estimates exclude direct reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement, and direct punishment as potential drivers of prison peer effects produced in interaction with more criminally experienced cellmates. Our results support the assertion that operant conditioning mechanisms connect differential association and deterrence theories.

Evaluating peer-influence processes in a prison-based therapeutic community: a dynamic network approach

“…1 Another approach to measuring peer influence is the random assignment of peers to specific individuals. For example, several authors have examined if (randomly assigned) roommates or cellmates influence behavior (e.g., Harris et al, 2018). Such approaches are statistically appropriate for identifying peer influence processes, but less applicable for a unit-level peer-influence process such as in the TC.…”

Building Holistic Defense: The Design and Evaluation of a Social Work Centric Model of Public Defense

“…One way treatment variation deepens is through differential engagement with the program, a problem not unique to holistic defense (Hamilton et al, 2018; Hawken, 2012). To understand whether and how holistic defense works for different types of clients who engage differently, researchers should consider analyzing experimental data with methods such as instrumental variables or local instrumental variables, which can estimate person-level effects under such circumstances (Angrist, 2006; Harris et al, 2018; Heckman & Vytlacil, 2005).…”

Confinement as a two‐stage turning point: Do changes in identity or social structure predict subsequent changes in criminal activity?*

“…Criminal attitudes and identities—as well as techniques for engaging in crime—can also result from criminogenic peer influences during confinement (part of “prisonization”; Clemmer, 1958). But it should be noted that prison peer influences are far from universally criminogenic (e.g., Harris et al, 2018; Kreager et al., 2017). Nonetheless, if the struggles of confinement and initial reentry (or social processes during that period) lead to a hardening of one's criminal identity, then a subsequent exacerbation of criminal activity will be expected.…”