The Dynamics of Delinquent Peers and Delinquent Behavior*

Abstract

This analysis examines the dynamic reciprocal relationship between delinquent peer associations and delinquent behavior. It tests the hypothesis, derived from learning and interactional theories, that delinquent peers and delinquent behavior are reciprocally related—delinquent peer associations foster future delinquency, and delinquency increases the likelihood of associating with delinquent peers. It also tests the competing hypothesis, derived from control theories, that delinquent peers do not cause delinquency, but instead, the relationship is (1) spurious due to individual criminal propensity, (2) a result of the effects of delinquent behavior on future associations with delinquent peers, or (3) an artifact of problems of measuring delinquent peers. To test these propositions, we use data from the National Youth Survey and estimate a cross‐lagged panel model that corrects for measurement error in indicators of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. The model species a covariance structure model for ordinal measures. Parameters are estimated by (1) estimating a threshold model relating ordinal measures to continuous latent variables; (2) estimating a matrix of polychoric correlations relating observed variables, and (3) using an asymptotic distribution‐free estimator to estimate structural parameters. The results suggest that delinquent peer associations and delinquent behavior are reciprocally related, but the effect of delinquency on peer associations is larger than that of peer associations on delinquency.

Accounting for Projection Bias in Models of Delinquent Peer Influence: The Utility and Limits of Latent Variable Approaches

“…Results of their study yielded significant error correlations, thus suggesting to Matsueda and Anderson (1998:291) that "in examining the reciprocal relationships between [perceptual measures of] delinquent peers and delinquent behavior, it is important to control for this contamination" (see also Rebellon, 2012). Implicit in Matsueda and Anderson's (1998) analysis is the notion that, by estimating contemporaneous correlations among corresponding error terms for personal and perceived peer delinquency items, a researcher can bring structural estimates closer into line with those that would have emerged had direct measures of peer delinquency been available to use in place of perceived measures.…”

“…More recently, scholars have combined Sutherland's theory with the reinforcement paradigm in behavioral psychology (Burgess and Akers, 1966) and have theorized that delinquency results from an overall learning process comprised of exposure to delinquent associates, behavioral imitation of such associates, adoption of attitudes favorable to delinquency, and post-hoc reinforcement for delinquent behavior (Akers and Lee, 1996). Indeed, numerous longitudinal studies find that perceptions of peer delinquency at Time 1 are significantly associated with personal delinquency at Time 2 even after controlling statistically for personal delinquency at Time 1 (e.g., Matsueda and Anderson, 1998;Meldrum et al, 2009).…”

“…Other scholars, however, remain skeptical that a reciprocal relationship exists, instead arguing that the correlation reflects only the "tendency of people to seek the company of others like themselves" (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990:156). Empirical research comparing these alternative views remains equivocal, with some findings suggesting evidence of only socialization (e.g., Akers and Lee, 1996), others suggesting evidence of only selection (e.g., Rebellon, 2012), and others suggesting bidirectional causality (e.g., Matsueda and Anderson, 1998; see also Kandel, 1980). A third and final interpretation of the correlation between personal and perceived peer delinquency suggests that neither actually wields any causal influence over the other but rather that both are alternative measures of the same underlying construct.…”

“…As yet, however, a majority of empirical studies in the criminological literature continues to employ perceived peer delinquency measures, perhaps as a result of the added time, effort, and confidentiality issues involved in collecting and managing network data like those available in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth). Thus, while limited research purports to control for falseconsensus bias (e.g., Matsueda and Anderson, 1998;Rebellon, 2012) via latent variable adjustments to perceived peer coefficients, such studies' datasets have not included the direct peer measures necessary for verifying the effectiveness of such latent variable adjustments.…”

“…Finally, we provide what we believe to be the first empirical test to examine whether latent variable modeling techniques (e.g., Matsueda and Anderson, 1998;Rebellon, 2012) are capable of adjusting structural estimates of the relationship between personal and peer delinquency to counteract the inflation that appears to exist among coefficients linking perceived peer behavior with personal delinquency. Such techniques have been discussed at length by Matsueda and Anderson (1998:291) who "…tested the hypothesis that measures of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior are contaminated due to (1) respondents' imputing their own behavior to that of their friends, (2) respondents' imputing friendship to those who share their delinquency, and (3) respondents reporting… rumors that are correlated with their own delinquent status" (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990).…”