Group Cohesiveness, Gang Member Prestige, and Delinquency and Violence in Chicago, 1959–1962

Abstract

Data from Short and Strodtbeck's () study of gangs in Chicago, 1959–1962, are used to examine the association between intragang friendship networks and violent and delinquent behaviors among 248 boys from 11 different gangs (9 Black and 2 White). Contrary to expectations of tightly connected gangs being the most dangerous, estimates from multilevel overdispersed Poisson regression models showed significantly increased mean levels of violence among gangs with relatively low group cohesion. No relationship was observed between delinquency and gang cohesiveness, regardless of the specific network measure employed. At the individual level, popular boys were at a significantly increased risk for both delinquency and violence, suggesting a link between prestigious positions within the structure of gang friendship networks and conformity with group processes. The implications of these findings for detached worker intervention are discussed.

Friends in locked places: An investigation of prison inmate network structure

“…On average, inmates nominated 3.9 alters in the get along with network, which falls in the range of prior estimates of friends within correctional settings (1.8, Gallagher 1990; 2.7, MacRae 1960; 6.3, Colsher et al 1992; and 7, Killworth and Bernard 1974) and is close to estimates of the number of inmates liked (4.8, Goldweber et al 2014). In comparison, Hughes (2013) reports an average degree of 3.8 across the 11 gangs she studied; and the Add Health schools had a mean friendship degree of 4.3 (sd = 1.1) with a minimum of 1.6.…”

“…Though several studies have examined the network structure of delinquent populations, often gangs (Grund and Densley 2014; Hughes 2013; McCuish et al 2015; Papachristos 2006, 2013; Sarnecki 2001), these tend to focus outside the prison. Only a limited set of researchers have entered the prison to investigate social structure with formal network methods.…”

“…Hughes’ (2013) network-based re-analysis of the classic Short and Strodtbeck gang data demonstrated strong clustering by race into gangs, simply referring to gangs as “Black” or “White.” Numerous studies have documented race/ethnic homophily among co-offenders (Conover-Williams, Clemons, and Schwartz, 2012; Conway and McCord, 2002; Daly, 2005; Reiss, 1988). In a more stringent test using ERGMs to control for relational interdependence, Grund and Densley (2014) found ethnic homophily in co-offending relations among London gang members, an effect that grew stronger for members embedded in triads.…”

Uncovering the Pathways Between Gang Membership and Violent Victimization

“…These mechanisms operate at multiple levels of explanation (Short 1998), including micro-level gang processes and individual-level personal changes. Pyrooz et al (2014) provided a theoretical elaboration of endogenous gang processes by arguing that after adjusting for individual-level factors any residual relationship between gang membership and violent victimization was a product of gang-related group processes, such as collective identity, normative orientations toward criminal involvement, status acquisition and maintenance, and extra-individual liabilities (see also Decker 1996;Hughes 2013;McGloin and Decker 2010;Short and Strodtbeck 1965). Papachristos (2009) and Papachristos et al (2013) have modeled the spatial and network processes of violence between rival gangs in Boston and Chicago, finding that symbolic threats, geographic proximity, and ongoing network conflicts between rival gangs triggered violence and reciprocity in violence, all of which operates above and beyond individual-level motivations.…”

The Role of Adolescent Friendship Group Integration and Cohesion in Weapon-Related Violent Crime as a Young Adult

“…Recent studies (Braga et al 2001; Fleisher 2006; Hughes 2013; Papachristos et al 2013; Roman et al 2012) have successfully employed social network analysis to study group social networks and delinquent behavior, and our research will advance this literature. The data for our analyses come from Add Health, a nationally representative U.S. survey of 7 th through 12 th grade students, which is well-suited for social network analysis.…”