Differential Social Support, Differential Coercion, and Organized Criminal Activities

Abstract

Utilizing differential social support and coercion theory, the study examines how levels of social support and coercion lead to involvement in organized criminal activities through the development of anger, low self-control, low social control, and access to illegitimate social support. The findings show that the association between social support and organized criminal activities is mediated through anger, self-control, social control, and access to illegitimate social support. Similarly, the relationship between coercion and organized criminal activities is mediated through anger, self-control, and illegitimate social support. The results also reveal that coercion has a direct effect on crime. The study offers preliminary theoretical support but more theoretical and empirical work is required to clarify the causal continuum of erraticness and consistency of central variables.

Keywords:

• differential coercion
• differential social support
• organized criminal activities

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Special thanks also to Nic Swagger for his research assistance. The author would also like to recognize the contributions of Cassia Spohn and the three anonymous reviewers as well as Fiona Kay.

Notes

¹ The analysis was replicated utilizing a retrospective measure of offending where respondents were asked to report how many times in the previous 12 months they have broken into a car, broken into a house, and sold drugs. The results were substantively the same as those reported using the prospective measure. Additional analysis also explored if the impact of social support on prospective and retrospective organized offending was moderated by anger, self-control, social control, and illegitimate social support. None of the four interaction terms emerged as significant predictors of either form of organized offending when entered into the model individually.

² This model was replicated using the retrospective measure of organized criminal activities producing similar results. Further, to guard against the influence of forms of coercion utilized as part of the selection criteria into the study, an alternative measure of coercion was created that dropped the unemployment and homelessness items from the variable. The prospective and retrospective models were reproduced with this more restricted measure of coercion. The results for these models indicated that in the prospective model coercion no longer had a direct effect on crime while the retrospective model produced no results substantively different from the model that contained the broader coercion measure. In addition, to control for other theoretical explanations (see Agnew, 2006), analysis also explored if the impact of coercion on prospective and retrospective organized offending was moderated by anger, self-control, social control, and illegitimate social support. None of the four interaction terms emerged as significant predictors of either form of organized offending when entered into the model individually. This analysis was replicated with the restricted version of coercion with similar results.

³ The model in Figure 3 was replicated using the retrospective measure of organized criminal activities. This analysis showed the results to be substantively similar as those presented in the text. The only difference to emerge was that coercion no longer had a direct effect on the dependent variable. Additional exploration using the restricted measure of coercion that excluded unemployment and homelessness showed that in the prospective model coercion failed to have a direct relationship with organized crime, while in the retrospective model the coercion measure continued to have a direct relationship with crime.

⁴ The analysis also investigated the impact of the nine interaction terms utilizing the retrospective measure of offending. The results mirrored those presented in the text. Further, the interactions containing coercion were reproduced using the restricted measure of coercion that excluded homelessness and unemployment. Replicating the analysis, for both prospective and retrospective offending, revealed similar outcomes.

⁵ The analysis of the interaction effects between the mediating variables was replicated using the retrospective offending as the dependent variable. Here, the anger/self-control interaction did not emerge as a significant predictor. Instead, the anger/social control interaction was significantly associated with past organized criminal activities. This relationship, however, was positive, suggesting that crime was more likely when the individual had high levels of anger and high levels of social control. Analyses with the restricted version of coercion predicting both the prospective and retrospective dependent variables produced similar results. Additional work exploring those models that contained either only social support, or either measure of coercion, across both the dependent variables produced results that mirrored those reviewed above.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stephen W. Baron

Stephen W. Baron is a professor in the Department of Sociology at Queen’s University. His research focuses on homeless street youth and crime and substance abuse. His work has appeared in Justice Quarterly, Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Deviant Behavior.