Abstract
Objective
The study of gang members is closely linked to the self-nomination method. It is timely to revisit the criterion validity of self-nomination, as recent theoretical and empirical advancements in gang disengagement necessitate further differentiating current from former gang members. This study assessed differences in gang embeddedness—a construct that taps individual immersion within deviant social networks—across three groups: current gang members, former gang members, and those individuals who have never joined a gang.
Methods
Data gathered in 2011 from a high-risk sample of 621 individuals in five cities were used to assess the validity of the self-nomination method. Standardized differences in a mixed graded response model of gang embeddedness were evaluated across the three statuses of gang membership.
Results
Self-nomination was strongly related to embeddedness in gangs, even after controlling for demographic, theoretical, and gang-related factors. The strongest predictor of gang embeddedness was self-nomination as a current or a former gang member, although current gang members maintained levels of gang embeddedness about one standard deviation greater than former gang members. Self-nomination was also the primary determinant of gang embeddedness for males, females, whites, blacks, and Hispanics.
Conclusion
The results of this study provide strong evidence in support of the use of self-nomination to differentiate between non-gang and gang members as well as current and former gang members, adding to a body of research demonstrating that self-nomination is a valid measure of gang membership.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“Self-nomination” and “self-report” are used interchangeably throughout the manuscript.
Indeed, the method is used in school-based surveys (e.g., Esbensen et al. 2010), regional and national longitudinal studies (e.g., Pyrooz 2013a; Thornberry et al. 2003), field-based research (e.g., Densley 2013; Harding 2010; Pyrooz et al. 2013a), and serves as the basis for studies outside of the U.S. Put simply, outside of some European contexts where “gang” takes on alternative meanings, necessitating the use of Eurogang indicators, studies overwhelmingly use some form of self-nomination to operationalize gang membership.
For example, Matsuda et al. (2013) recently compared three measures of gang membership, including self-nomination as a gang member, group of friends is a gang, and the Eurogang measure. While they found only limited overlap across the three measures, a similar set of predictors distinguished gang from non-gang youth. Craig et al. (2002) found only limited concordance across self-, teacher-, and parent-reports of gang membership. They held, however, that “Gang membership may be a peer activity to which adults are not privy” (p. 66) and that “adults are not aware generally of who belongs to a gang” (p. 67), alluding to points made by Densley (2013).
Most interviews were completed within 45- to 60- minutes. In the rare case that a respondent did not speak English, they were assigned to a Spanish-speaking interviewer. Very few individuals refused to participate in the study. In some cases, respondents declined to answer specific items in the questionnaire. Respondents in street settings were provided a small monetary incentive or store coupon for participating that did not exceed $25, but this was not permitted in the jail.
In an effort to add a temporal dimension to the cross-sectional study design, there is a natural constraint on the measure of gang embeddedness at the two time points. There is no fixed distance between peak and present gang embeddedness, compared to the Pathways to Desistance data where the items were asked of current gang members in 6- and 12-month intervals (see Sweeten et al. 2013). Present levels of gang embeddedness can never exceed peak levels of gang embeddedness.
Supplemental analyses within demographic groups shows that gang self-nomination is the primary determinant of gang embeddedness for males, females, whites, blacks and Hispanics. The only exception is that former female gang members do not have statistically higher gang embeddedness than female non-gang members, although we cannot rule out lack of statistical power as an explanation for this since the analysis included only 101 females. Current female gang members had substantially higher gang embeddedness than both former and non-gang members, supporting our main argument.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.
References
Anderson E (1999) Code of the street: decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W. W. Norton, New York
Ball RA, Curry GD (1995) The logic of definition in criminology: purposes and methods for defining “gangs”. Criminology 33:225–245
Barrows J, Huff RC (2009) Gangs and public policy. Criminol Public Policy 8:675–703
Bjerk D (2009) How much can we trust causal interpretations of fixed-effects estimators in the context of criminality? J Quant Criminol 25:391–417
Bjerregaard B (2002) Self-definitions of gang membership and involvement in delinquent activities. Youth Soc 34:31–54
Bloch H, Niederhoffer A (1958) The gang: a study in adolescent behavior. Philos Libr, New York
Cai L, Thissen D, du Toit SHC (2011) IRTPRO 2.1 for windows. Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL
Carson DC, Peterson D, Esbensen F-A (2013) Youth gang desistance: an examination of the effect of different operational definitions of desistance on the motivations, methods, and consequences associated with leaving the gang. Criminal Justice Rev 38:510–534
Craig WM, Vitaro F, Gagnon C, Tremblay RE (2002) The road to gang membership: characteristics of male gang and nongang members from ages 10 to 14. Soc Dev 11:53–68
Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52:281–302
Curry GD (2000) Self-reported gang involvement and officially recorded delinquency. Criminology 38:1253–1274
Decker SH, Lauritsen J (2002) Leaving the gang. In: Ronald Huff C (ed) Gangs in America, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (2010) On the validity and reliability of gang homicide: a comparison of disparate sources. Homicide Stud 14:359–376
Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (2013) Gangs: another form of organized crime? In: Paoli L (ed) Oxford handbook of organized crime. Oxford University Press, New York
Decker SH, Van Winkle B (1996) Life in the gang. Cambridge University Press, New York
Decker SH, Katz CM, Webb VJ (2008) Understanding the black box of gang organization: implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime Delinq 54:153–172
Decker SH, Melde C, Pyrooz DC (2013) What do we know about gangs and gang members and where to we go from here? Justice Q 30:369–402
Decker SH, Pyrooz DC, Moule Jr RK (2014) Gang disengagement as role transitions. J Res Adoles. Online First. doi:10.1111/jora.12074
Densley J (2013) How gangs work: an ethnography of youth violence. Palgrave, London
Esbensen F-A, Huizinga D (1993) Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31:565–590
Esbensen F-A, Peterson D, Taylor TJ, Freng A (2010) Youth violence: sex and race differences in offending, victimization, and gang membership. Temple University Press, Philadelphia
Esbensen F-A, Winfree LT Jr, Ne H, Taylor TJ (2001) Youth gangs and definitional issues: when is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime Delinq 47:105–130
Fagan J (1990) Social process of delinquency and drug use among urban gangs. In: Ron Huff C (ed) Gangs in America. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp 183–219
Glueck S, Glueck ET (1943) Criminal careers in retrospect. The Commonwealth Fund, New York
Gordon RA, Lahey BB, Kawai E, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Farrington DP (2004) Antisocial behavior and youth gang membership: selection and socialization. Criminology 42:55–88
Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
Hagan J (1993) The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology 31:465–491
Hallsworth S, Young T (2008) Gang talk and gang talkers. Crime Media Cult 4:175–195
Harding DJ (2010) Living the drama: community, conflict, and culture among inner-city boys. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1981) Measuring delinquency. Sage, Beverly Hills
Holtfreter K, Reisig MD, Piquero NL, Piquero AR (2010) Low self-control and fraud: offending, victimization, and their overlap. Criminal Justice Behav 37:188–203
Horowitz R (1983) Honor and the American dream. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick
Jensen GF, Thibodeaux J (2012) The gang problem: fabricated panics or real temporal patterns? Homicide Stud. doi:10.1177/1088767912460664
Katz CM (2001) The establishment of a police gang unit: an examination of organizational and environmental factors. Criminology 39:37–74
Katz CM, Fox AM, Britt C, Stevenson P (2012) Understanding police gang data at the aggregate level: an examination of the reliability of the national youth gang survey data. Justice Res Policy 14(2):103–128
Katz J, Jackson-Jacobs C (2004) The criminologists’ gang. In: Sumner C (ed) Blackwell companion to criminology. Blackwell, London, pp 91–124
Kissner J, Pyrooz DC (2009) Self-control, differential association, and gang membership: a theoretical and empirical extension of the literature. J Criminal Justice 37:478–487
Klein MW (1971) Street gangs and street workers. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Krohn MD, Thornberry TP, Gibson CL, Baldwin JM (2010) The development and impact of self-report measures of crime and delinquency. J Quant Criminol 26:509–525
Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, Boston
Lemert E (1967) Human deviance, social problems and social control. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Matsuda KN, Melde C, Taylor TJ, Freng A, Esbensen F-A (2013) Gang membership and adherence to the “code of the street”. Justice Q 30:440–468
McCorkle TD, Miethe RC (2001) Panic: the social construction of the street gang problem. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Meehan AJ (2000) The organizational career of gang statistics: the politics of policing gangs. Sociol Q 41:337–370
Melde C, Esbensen F-A (2011) Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology 49:513–552
Melde C, Esbensen F-A (2013) Gangs and violence: disentangling the impact of gang membership on the level and nature of offending. J Quant Criminol 29:143–166
Miller WB (2011) City gangs. http://gangresearch.asu.edu/walter_miller_library/walter-b.-miller-book/city-gangs-book
Moloney M, MacKenzie K, Hunt G, Joe-Laidler K (2009) The path and promise of fatherhood for gang members. Br J Criminol 49:305–325
Monti DJ (1991) The practice of gang research. Sociol Pract Rev 2:29–39
Monti DJ (1992) On the risks and rewards of ‘going native’. Qual Sociol 15:325–332
Moule RK Jr, Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (2013) Social capital, the life-course, and gangs. In: Melde CL, Krohn Marvin D (eds) Handbook of life-course criminology. Springer, New York, NY, pp 143–158
Nye FI, Short JF Jr (1957) Scaling delinquent behavior. Am Sociol Rev 22:326–331
Osgood DW, Anderson AL (2004) Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology 42:519–550
Osgood DW, Wilson JK, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnston LD (1996) Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. Am Sociol Rev 61:635–655
Papachristos AV, Hureau DM, Braga AA (2013) The corner and the crew: the influence of geography and social networks on gang violence. Am Sociol Rev 78:417–447
Piquero AR, MacIntosh R, Hickman M (2002) The validity of a self-reported delinquency scale: comparisons across gender, age, race, and place of residence. Sociol Methods Res 30:492–529
Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm: Background and recent developments. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 30. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 359–506
Porterfield AL (1943) Delinquency and outcome in court and college. Am J Sociol 49:199–208
Porterfield AL (1946) Youth in trouble. Leo Potishman Foundation, Fort Worth
Pyrooz DC (2013a) “From your first cigarette to your last dyin’ day”: the patterning of gang membership in the life-course. J Quant Criminol. Online First. doi:10.1007/s10940-013-9206-1
Pyrooz DC (2013b) Gangs, criminal offending, and an inconvenient truth: considerations for gang prevention and intervention in the lives of youth. Criminol Public Policy 12:427–436
Pyrooz DC, Decker SH (2011) Motives and methods for leaving the gang: understanding the process of gang desistance. J Criminal Justice 39:417–425
Pyrooz DC, Decker SH, Webb VJ (2010) The ties that bind: desistance from gangs. Crime Delinq. Online First. doi:10.1177/0011128710372191
Pyrooz DC, Decker SH, Moule Jr. RK (2013a) Criminal and routine activities in online settings: Gangs, offenders, and the internet. Justice Q. Online First. doi:10.1080/07418825.2013.778326
Pyrooz DC, Sweeten G, Piquero AR (2013b) Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. J Res Crime Delinq 50:239–271
Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press, College Station, TX
Samejima F (1969) Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom Monogr Suppl 17:100–114
Samejima F (1997) Graded response model. In: Van Der Linden Wim J, Hambleton Ronald K (eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York, pp 85–100
Short JF Jr, Nye FI (1957) Reported behavior as a criterion of deviant behavior. Soc Probl 5:207–213
Short JF Jr, Nye FI (1958) Extent of unrecorded juvenile delinquency: tENTATIVE conclusions. J Criminal Law Criminol 49:296–302
Smithson H, Armitage R, Monchuk L (2012) Gang member: who says? The process of defining the gang. In: Esbensen F-A, Maxson C (eds) Youth gangs in international perspective. Springer, London, pp 53–69
Smithson H, Ralphs R, Williams P (2013) Used and abused: the problematic usage of gang terminology in United Kingdom and its implication for ethnic minority use. Br J Criminol 53:113–128
Spano R, Freilich JD, Bolland J (2008) Gang membership, gun carrying, and employment: applying routine activities theory to explain violent victimization among inner city, minority youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Q 25:381–410
Stewart EA, Simons RL (2010) Race, code of the street, and violent delinquency: a multilevel investigation of neighborhood street culture and individual norms of violence. Criminology 48:569–605
Sullivan M (2005) Maybe we shouldn’t study ‘‘gangs’’: does reification obscure youth violence? J Contemp Criminal Justice 21:170–190
Sullivan M (2006) Are “gang” studies dangerous? Youth violence, local context and the problem of reification. In: Short James F, Hughes LA Jr (eds) Studying youth gangs. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD, pp 15–36
Sweeten G (2012) Scaling criminal offending. J Quant Criminol 28:533–557
Sweeten G, Pyrooz DC, Piquero AR (2013) Disengaging from gangs and desistance from crime. Justice Q 30:469–500
Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL (2004) High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers 72:271–322
Taylor TJ, Freng A, Esbensen F-A, Peterson D (2008) Youth gang membership and serious violent victimization: the importance of lifestyle/routine activities. J Interpers Violence 10:1–24
Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2000) The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In: Duffee D (ed) Measurement and analysis of crime and justice. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 33–84
Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Chard-Wierschem D (1993) The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 30:55–87
Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Smith CA, Tobin K (2003) Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge, New York
Thrasher FM (1927) The gang: a study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Vigil JD (1988) Barrio gangs: street life and identity in Southern California. University of Texas Press, Austin
Wallerstein JS, Wyle CJ (1947) Our law-abiding law-breakers. Probation 25:107–112
Webb VJ, Katz CM, Decker SH (2006) Assessing the validity of self-reports by gang members: results from the Arrestee Drug-Abuse Monitoring Program. Crime Delinq 52:232–252
Whyte WF (1943) Street corner society: the social structure of an Italian slum. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Winfree LT, Fuller K, Vigil T, Mays GL (1992) The definition and measurement of ‘gang status’: policy implications for juvenile justice. Juv Fam Court J 43:29–37
Yablonsky L (1962) The violent gang. Macmillan, New York
Zatz M (1987) Chicano youth gangs and crime: the creation of a moral panic. Contemp Crisis 11:129–158
Acknowledgments
Funding from Google Ideas supported this project. We are grateful for their support. The content of this paper, however, is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Google.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 5.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Decker, S.H., Pyrooz, D.C., Sweeten, G. et al. Validating Self-Nomination in Gang Research: Assessing Differences in Gang Embeddedness Across Non-, Current, and Former Gang Members. J Quant Criminol 30, 577–598 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9215-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9215-8