Affinity, Affiliation, and Guilt: Examining Between- and Within-Person Variability in Delinquent Peer Influence

Abstract

A longstanding debate in criminology concerns whether peers influence delinquency or if they are of no significance because criminal propensity develops independent of associations. Matza (1969) criticized these competing perspectives, suggesting instead that the peer–delinquency relationship is nuanced, such that there is both between- and within-person variability in the influence of friends. Drawing on his choice-based perspective, we hypothesize that peers have a stronger influence on the delinquent tendencies of individuals low in criminal propensity. Further, we predict that the influence of peers varies within-individuals across crime types, such that delinquent friends are less influential for behaviors that individuals anticipate more guilt. Using data from the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) evaluation, we find support for these hypotheses. Perceived peer delinquency is a stronger predictor of offending for those lower in criminal propensity. Further, individuals are less susceptible to delinquent peers for acts in which they anticipate higher levels of guilt.

Keywords:

• Delinquent peers
• Matza
• differential susceptibility

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Jean McGloin, Holly Nguyen, and Lee Slocum for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 The Stata .do file detailing the coding of the variables and the structuring of the data is available upon request. All analyses were completed using Hierarchical Linear Modeling software (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

2 For two of the five analytic waves only factor 1 had an Eigenvalue greater than 1 and for the remaining waves there was a sharp decline in the Eigenvalues from the first and second factors. Using the criteria outlined in DiStefano, Zhu, and Mindrila (2009; e.g. Eigenvalues, screeplots) we proceeded with a unidimensional construct reflecting the generality of deviance which is further reinforced by the unidimensional nature of perceived peer deviance and anticipated guilt (see below).

3 Although there are six waves of data available in the G.R.E.A.T. evaluation, we used lagged predictors to establish time-ordering, which reduces the panel regression waves to five. That is, self-reported offending from waves 2 through 6 were regressed on the predictor variables from waves 1 through 5, respectively.

4 We calculate Huber-White standard errors to adjust for the nested structure of the data (i.e. students nested within classrooms).

5 The ratio of ratios is calculated using the equation${\mathit{OR}}_{\mathit{Low} \mathit{Propensity}}/{\mathit{OR}}_{\mathit{High} \mathit{Propensity}},$ where OR = odds ratio.

6 The results were also similar for the between-individuals models. These results are available upon request.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kyle J. Thomas

Kyle Thomas is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder. His research interests include offender decision making and peer influence.

Timothy Mccuddy

Timothy McCuddy is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis. His research interests are peer influence, juvenile delinquency, and how technology influences social processes related to crime.