Peer Influence and Delinquency Study Notes

Annual Review of Criminology: Peer Influence and Delinquency

Authors:

  • Jean Marie McGloin, University of Maryland

  • Kyle J. Thomas, University of Missouri

Abstract:

  • Peer influence plays a crucial role in understanding delinquency in criminology.

  • Historical perspectives have varied, with some viewing peer influence as a key causal process, while others view it skeptically as a spurious correlation.

  • This review summarizes decades of research, acknowledges advancements, and identifies gaps needing attention with suggestions for future work.

Keywords:

  • Peer influence

  • Deviant peers

Introduction

  • Historical Context:

    • Breckinridge & Abbott (1912) stated that it's difficult to find a delinquent without a delinquent peer group, suggesting even lone offenders are influenced by peers.

    • Shaw (1931) emphasized the critical role of friends and mentors in delinquency initiation and persistence.

  • Current Status:

    • Peer influence is a central topic within criminology, leading to extensive literature.

    • Despite the volume of research, skepticism remains, indicating a divide in the understanding of peer influence.

  • Major Theorist Critique:

    • Travis Hirschi has critiqued the notion of peer influence, leading to a considerable debate in research.

    • Hirschi (1969) argues that strong social bonds decrease the likelihood of delinquency, while others focus on the influence of deviant peers.

  • Review Focus:

    • Examine foundational theories of peer influence and what is currently understood, highlighting critical areas needing further exploration.

Theoretical Foundations of Peer Influence

Two Main Theoretical Traditions:

  1. Normative Influence Perspective:

    • Deviant peers socialize acceptance of delinquent values and behaviors.

  2. Situational Perspective:

    • Emphasizes immediate social contexts over the nature of peers themselves; highlights how delinquency can arise spontaneously in unstructured environments.

Importance of Control Theories:

  • Although differing from the aforementioned perspectives, control theories offer substantial critique regarding peer influence.

Normative Influence Theories

1. Differential Association Theory (DAT):

  • Sutherland's propositions (1947):

    • Learning: Criminal behavior is learned through interaction.

    • Definitions:

    • Involves techniques to commit crime and definitions favorable to criminality (attitudes and rationalizations).

    • Associational Influence weighted by:

    • Priority: E.g., earlier associations impact behavior more.

    • Duration: Long associations have more weight than short ones.

    • Frequency: More frequent interactions have more impact.

    • Intensity: Strong attachments lead to greater influence.

2. Social Learning Theory:

  • Developed from DAT by incorporating principles from psychology, highlighting:

    • Differential reinforcement: Rewards and punishments influence behavior.

    • Imitation: Behavior learned by observing peers.

3. Symbolic Interactionism:

  • Influences identity and definition of situations based on peer associations.

  • Creates a pro-delinquent identity that promotes delinquency through reflective interactions.

Situational Perspective:

  • Osgood et al. (1996) argue delinquency arises from interaction in unstructured settings without supervision, leading to spontaneous criminal behavior.

Theoretical Skeptics - Control Theorists:

  • Hirschi asserts peer influence is spurious, emphasizing that those with strong social bonds do not associate with delinquents, while weakly bonded individuals do.

  • Gottfredson & Hirschi: Low self-control leads to delinquent friendships, not peer influence causing delinquency.

Theoretical Compromise:

  • Concepts of selection (predisposed to delinquency) vs. socialization (influence from peers) have evolved, acknowledging both phenomena can interact.

  • Matza (1964) and Thornberry (1987) highlight interactions between individual risk factors and peer influence.

Research on Peer Influence

Causality Questions:

  1. Do peers causally influence delinquency?

  2. What mechanisms underlie this influence?

Causality Assessment Standards (John Stuart Mill):

  • Statistical relationship between cause and effect.

  • Cause must precede effect.

  • Rule out alternative explanations.

Statistical Associations:

  • Peer influence consistently correlates with delinquency.

  • Studies (e.g., by Short and Glaser) affirm peer association is a strong predictor of delinquent behavior.

Temporal Order:

  • Longitudinal studies show that delinquent peer associations precede delinquency.

  • The notion arises that delinquent behavior may also lead to deviant friendship selection.

Ruling Out Alternative Explanations:

  • Concerns of faulty measurement have led researchers to use social network data to connect peers' self-reported deviance with respondents' delinquency.

  • Findings suggest that peer influence remains, though effects may be more modest than perceptual measures indicate.

Selection Effects:

  • Critics argue delinquent selection among peers is misattributed causally to peer influence.

  • Research employs various methodologies to reveal sustained peer effects despite controlling for selection.

Future Research Directions

Mechanism Identification:

  • Need further investigation into how peers influence behaviors and attitudes.

  • Explore the potential for integration of findings from behavioral economics and psychology.

Selection Process Understanding:

  • Investigate how individuals select friends and the dynamics of peer groups as they relate to delinquency.

Broader Conceptualization of Peers:

  • Expand focus beyond friends to include various social connections influencing behavior, including romantic partners and online communities.

Conclusion:

  • Much has been learned about peer influence over the past century; however, significant gaps remain.

  • Future research should concentrate on elucidating mechanisms rather than solely proving causality to further enhance criminological understanding.

Social Learning

Sutherland and Differential Association

·      Edwin Sutherland

o   Prominent early criminologist

o   Author of Princciples of Criminology

o   Interested in explaining how criminal values and attitudes could be transferred intergenerationally

·      Differential Association

o   Deviant behaviors/attitudes adopted by associating with those that are different (deviant)

o   These associations matter most along…

§  Frequency

§  Duration

§  Priority

§  Intensity

·      What is the tipping point toward deviant behavior

o   When the definitions favorable to crime outweigh the definitions unfavorable to crime

Elements of Differential Association

·      Criminal behavior is learned

·      Criminal behavior is lerned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication

·      The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups

·      When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes:

o   Techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes very simple

o   The specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes

·      The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable

·      A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law

·      Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity

·      The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning

·      When criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.                    

The Gleucks and Peers

·      Sheldon and Eleanor Gleuck

o   Harvard researchers that published Unravelling juvenile Delinquency

o   Criticized cultural, strain, and peer influences in criminology

o   “Birds of a feather flock together”

§  Thus, we do not learn from others that are different because we will probably not associate with them anyways

·      Modern peer work related to the Gleucks

o   Sampson and Laub

§  Followed up on the Gleuck data and revisitied the same study participants

§  Found hat an age-graded model of social control was more influential than social learning

§  Howeve, changes occurred with major turning point life events

o   Costello and Hope

§  Peer pressure, peer prevention

§  Positive and negative peer influence

§  Essentially, we experience some influence, bu it is maintained in a range

Social learning and conditions of learning

·      Humans are born as a “blank slates”

o   We acquire knowledge and behavioral patterns through communication

o   Continued participation or observation and strengthen these outcomes

·      Classical conditioning

o   Species learn through association between stimuli and responses

§  Dinner bell and food, smells/tastes/sounds and memory, etc.

§  Sort of a call/response pattern

·      Operant conditioning

o   Species learn through associations between action and feedback

§  Achievements and re4wards, failure and punishments

§  Humans are active in their behavior and benefit from positive/negative reinforcement

·      Modeling/Imitation Conditioning

o   Species learn through observation, but not necessarily any conditioning/responses/feedback

§  Mimicking parents, heroes, television, etc

Differential influence

·      Differential influence

o   Learning can take place through those close to us AND through reference gr4oups that are distant from us

·      These distant influences can be cultural, psychological, behavioral, etc

o   What influences us directly and personally?

o   What influences are distant and impersonal?

o   How do “we” and society react to these differential influences?

·      Why are individuals worried about differential influence?

o   Modeling

o   Imitation

o   Stereotypes/Discrimination

The “Hardening” process

·      Hirschi proposed that individuals who neutralize or use “excuses” for their behavior are becoming “hardened” to the offense

o   Although he was speaking about neutralization theory, this concept applies to social learning theories

·      Hardening

o   Becoming numb to the offense, behavior, or crime

o   Reducing the impact of guilt, shame, or disappointment

o   Gaining experience in the deviant “crafts”

·      When applied to social learning

o   Individuals face the seduction of crime, the invitational edge” of deviance, and the learning or definitions favorable to the offense

o   Repeating these steps create a feedback loop of acceptability or relization

o   State-dependency'

4 Mechanisms of Positive Influence

  • Overview

    • The criminological literature has largely focused on negative peer influence or the peer effect as synonymous with negative influences, highlighting a significant oversight in understanding positive peer influence.

    • The correlation between delinquency and peer delinquency has typically supported normative and social learning theories while downplaying alternatives like social control and routine activities theories.

  • Critique of Existing Theories

    • Most studies favor cultural deviance or learning theories explanations for delinquent behavior over self-selection and do not adequately account for norm transference, essential in learning theories linking contact with deviant peers to individual delinquency.

    • The dominance of learning theories in criminology has led to a neglect of cultural deviance theory's potential explanations and the role of social control theory, which emphasizes conformity over deviance.

Social Control Theory

  • Focus and Assumptions

    • Social control theory, introduced by Hirschi (1969), assumes that human nature is fundamentally asocial or selfish, viewing crime and deviance as rewarding in themselves.

    • The central question of this theory is, “Why don’t we commit crimes?”

    • Hirschi highlighted attachments to others, including peers, as providing indirect control, whereby concern for others’ opinions acts as a deterrent against deviance.

  • Criticism of Hirschi's View

    • Hirschi's premise overlooks the potential for peers to exert direct controls on each other against crime, beyond the influence of self-selection.

    • He argued that deviant behaviors are disapproved even by peers engaging in them, neglecting direct mutual prohibition due to strong peer attachments.

Psychological Literature on Peer Influence

  • Positive Peer Influence Recognition

    • Researchers have explored positive peer influence in psychological literature, suggesting that peer impacts are often misconceived as predominantly negative.

    • Berndt and Murphy (2002) identified that peer influence typically steers behavior towards conformity, countering the prevalent narrative of universally negative peer reinforcement.

    • Youniss and Smollar (1985) described children's friendships as based on trust, loyalty, and mutual concern, leading to conformity towards positive behaviors through peer support.

  • Examples of Positive Influence

    • Adolescents can deter friends from engaging in undesirable actions (e.g., “A friend can keep the other from doing something wrong.”) - Youniss and Smollar (1985).

    • Cairns & Cairns (1994) noted peer influence is often unjustly blamed for negative outcomes while neglecting its contributions to moral values and academic performance.

Positive and Negative Influences in Peer Groups

  • Influences of Friends on Behavior

    • Research shows friends can have substantial effects on academic performance (Epstein 1983) and discourage drug use and delinquent behavior (Clasen & Brown 1985).

    • Pressure experienced from peers can incline youths away from deviance more than towards it, particularly among younger children (Clasen & Brown 1985).

  • Situational Correlates of Peer Social Control

    • Literature on violence situational correlates indicates that witnesses can either prevent violence or instigate it, depending on group dynamics and situation context, emphasizing the need to understand individual attributes and influence mechanisms in these scenarios.

Research on Positive Peer Influence Methodology

  • Data Collection Methods

    • Two sets of data were analyzed: papers from URI freshmen in 2009 and open-ended survey questions completed by URI and Oklahoma students in 2012 regarding observable incidents of positive peer influence.

    • Students were prompted to describe instances where they acted as either the influencer or the influencee, affecting behaviors away from delinquency or encouraging positive actions.

    • Similar coding categories to negative influence were adapted for analyzing positive influence reports.

  • Findings: Positive Influence vs. Negative Influence

    • A total of 549 incidents of positive peer influence were reported in the 2012 survey, surpassing the 422 reported instances of negative influence, highlighting a significant gap in criminological research.

    • 276 positive influence attempts were classified across both survey years compared to 189 negative attempts, indicating a potential underrepresentation of positive influences in criminological literature.

Mechanisms of Positive Influence

  • Types of Influences Reported

    • The types of positive peer influences and their methodologies could be classified, revealing a nuanced understanding of how peers can positively impact one another:

    • General Pressure/Influence: A broad category encompassing various forms of peer influence, representing 62% of the 2012 responses.

    • Emulation of Models/Setting a Good Example: Accounts where individuals act as role models, accounting for 4% of 2012 responses.

    • Simple Offers or Invitations: Instances where peers offered suggestions without coercion, comprising 22% of 2012 narratives.

    • Maximizing Negative/Positive Consequences: Strategies emphasizing potential harms of negative behavior (28% in 2012) or benefits of positive actions.

    • Coercive Tactics: Instances of overtly trying to control peer behavior through various means, more common for positive backings than negative ones.

  • Qualitative Accounts of Positive Influence

    • Students reported attempts to help peers make healthier decisions, remain sober or stay focused on their studies, often through direct conversation or intervention that pointed out potential negative consequences of undesirable behavior.

    • Many narratives supported positive influence that moved peers towards constructive behaviors, showcasing mutual accountability among friends.

Understanding the Outcomes of Positive Influence

  • Examining Cases of Direct Intervention

    • Positive influence attempts included scenarios such as:

    • Categorical intervention of drunk friends refusing to allow others to drive intoxicated, which proved successful in preventing potentially harmful incidents.

    • Situations where individuals intervened physically or verbally in problematic scenarios, often showcasing willing involvement beyond previous theoretical expectations regarding social control.

  • Normalizing Positive Peer Pressure

    • The analysis of interviews indicates that while typical peer narratives have underrepresented instances of altruistic and beneficial peer interactions, it is crucial for criminologists to acknowledge these behaviors as influential and potentially vital to understanding broader behavioral patterns.

Conclusions

  • Final Thoughts

    • The findings reaffirm the significance of understanding positive peer influence as a genuine mechanism of social behavior moderation, indicating it is a common phenomenon that could potentially overshadow the negative peer influence narrative. - Implication for Future Research: Necessitates further exploration into positive peer influence dynamics, including the context, type of influence, and the traits of individuals likely to engage in these positive influence attempts, guiding future criminology studies toward a more balanced view of peer impacts on behavior.

Study Guide – Learning Theories

• Nature of Human Behavior in Social Learning Theories:

  • Social learning theorists view human behavior as learned through interactions with others, with significant emphasis on observing and modeling behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions. Learning occurs through processes such as imitation and reinforcement.

• Differential Association and Tipping Point:

  • Differential association theorists describe the "tipping point" as the moment when an individual begins to adopt deviant behavior due to an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over those unfavorable. This can happen without direct exposure to deviant peers, as individuals can be influenced by surrounding cultural norms, media, or other social environments that endorse delinquency.

• Specific Elements in Differential Association:

  • Key elements include frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of associations, which can be influential in varying situations:

    • Childhood: familial influence and peer environments.

    • Family: modeling of values and attitudes.

    • School: peer groups' norms around academic performance and behavior.

    • Work: workplace culture and peer behavior.

    • Free Time: recreational contexts where peers may engage in deviant or non-deviant activities.

• Burgess and Akers:

  • A “two-edged” theory may provide a better understanding of deviant behavior as it incorporates both social learning and control theories, acknowledging the dual nature of human influences.

  • Respondent behavior (automatic responses to stimuli) differs from operant behavior (behavior based on consequences), with each serving unique roles in Sutherland’s differential association theory as they shape learned behaviors through varying mechanisms of influence.

  • Examples of Differential Association Propositions:

    • Proposition 1: Criminal behavior is learned through interaction.

    • Proposition 2: The learning occurs within intimate personal groups.

    • The author's reformulation aims to clarify and focus on mechanisms of learning within specific contexts, potentially altering how previous examples are applied by emphasizing the relational dynamics of learning processes.

• Costello and Hope:

  • Authors reframe peer influence by highlighting its potential for positive influences, as opposed to solely focusing on negative impacts traditionally emphasized in scholarly work.

  • Categories of peer influence include:

    • General Pressure/Influence (most commonly noted), Emulation of Models, Simple Offers, Maximizing Consequences, and Coercive Tactics.

    • These methods can reflect negative peer influence tactics by shaping behaviors through social pressures.

  • Certain theorists may discredit peer influence due to beliefs that delinquency arises more from individual characteristics rather than social contexts or subcultures.

• McGloin and Thomas:

  • The lineage of social learning theories traces back to early criminological insights emphasizing social interactions and observational learning.

  • Major critiques include identifying a spurious link between peers and crime, which complicates establishing causative relationships in theories. Issues arise when peer influences are thought to be the sole cause of delinquency, sidelining individual-level factors.

  • Authors suggest future research avenues such as:

    • Mechanism Identification (examining how peer influences operate).

    • Broader Conceptualization to include various social networks.

    • An example might be integrating behavioral economics to understand peer selections in varying environments.