Top

Gepubliceerd in:

09-01-2016 | Empirical Research

Dual Trajectories of Gang Affiliation and Delinquent Peer Association During Adolescence: An Examination of Long-Term Offending Outcomes

Auteurs: Beidi Dong, Marvin D. Krohn

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Youth and Adolescence | Uitgave 4/2016

Abstract

Prior research has demonstrated that both adolescent gang affiliation and perceived delinquent peer association are important predictors of individual offending. A crucial question is whether and how youth gang affiliation contributes to a spectrum of criminal acts above and beyond the influence of associating with delinquent peers. Using 14 waves of data from the Rochester Youth Developmental Study, an ongoing longitudinal panel study aimed at understanding the causes and consequences of delinquency and drug use in an urban sample of adolescents, the current study employs a relatively new modeling technique—dual trajectory analysis—to illustrate the dynamic relationship between these two measures among 666 male youth. The results suggest that the two measures, while overlapping, may constitute distinct concepts that operate in different ways. The most convincing evidence of gang effects, above and beyond the influence of perceived peer delinquency, is for violent behavior and by extension police arrest. Our findings contribute to developmental research and provide information that informs future gang control efforts.

vorige artikel Sex Differences in Sources of Resilience and Vulnerability to Risk for Delinquency

volgende artikel Chronic and Acute Relational Risk Factors for Dating Aggression in Adolescence and Young Adulthood

We recognize that there is debate on the level of organization or structure associated with youth gangs. For example, studies in a growing number of cities show that “gangs are generally loosely organized groups that are constantly changing—consolidating, reorganizing, and splintering” (Howell 2012, p. 32). We thus propose this argument as one of the several possible mechanisms through which gangs may uniquely contribute to crime and delinquency; this is not a necessary or sufficient reason.

“The matched group of non-members actually reports having a significantly greater number of delinquent peers than do the gang members” (Thornberry et al. 2003, p. 147).

Several studies have included peer delinquency as a covariate when calculating a propensity score of gang participation (e.g. Ariza et al. 2014; Gilman et al. 2014; Pyrooz 2014a).

As a robustness check, we also ran analyses when the incarcerated respondents were included. The same substantive findings were observed.

As a robustness check, we also created a frequency score for violence. The same substantive findings were observed.

It is worth mentioning that the model selection process is not a purely statistical practice. “There is no correct model. Statistical models are just approximations” (Nagin 2005, p. 77). Nagin’s recommendation is to select a model with no more groups than is necessary to communicate the distinct features of the data.

To guard against local solutions in the estimation of growth mixture models, we estimated trajectory models using multiple sets of starting values (Hipp and Bauer 2006).

Consistent with Nagin and Tremblay (2001), we indeed observed that “trajectories emerging from joint estimation differ little from their univariate counterparts” (p. 26).

We excluded G2 subjects from the outcome analysis if they have missing information regarding the outcome variables, although criminal outcomes at wave 14 were included in the imputation model. We found no statistically significant differences between the analysis sample (N = 502) and those not included in the analysis with respect to membership of gang affiliation and delinquent peer association trajectories, race/ethnicity, academic aptitude, risky time with friends, parental supervision, aggression, self-esteem and prior delinquent acts. However, those not included in the analysis sample were slightly older, experienced lower levels of depression and higher levels of family poverty.

Following the suggestion of Helgeson et al. (2004), higher order terms are removed from the model if they fall short of statistical significance.

It is worth pointing out that multicollinearity is not a concern in the outcome analysis. The VIF scores are below 2.35 for all included variables.

In these two models, the posterior probabilities defining peer delinquency group membership do not have a jointly significant relationship with violence or arrest (Nagin and Tremblay 1999).

We observed that for the “early adolescence” trajectory of gang affiliation, its incidence rate ratio (IRR) increased from 1.967 in Table 3 (not significant) to 3.990 in Table 4 (significant), whereas for the “late adolescence” trajectory, its IRR decreased from 3.100 in Table 3 (significant) to 2.193 (not significant).

It is worth pointing out that we did not perform a formal test of discriminant validity in the current study. See Young et al. (2015) for a detailed discussion on how to use measurement models to examine discriminant validity of related constructs.

At the present time, only a handful of gang programs have acceptable scientific evidence of effectiveness in preventing or reducing gang activity; the effect sizes of these programs are small (Howell 2012; Klein and Maxson 2006).

Agnew, R. (1991). The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology, 29, 45–72.CrossRef

Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: Norton.

Ariza, J., Cebulla, A., Aldridge, J., Shute, J., & Ross, A. (2014). Proximal adolescent outcomes of gang membership in England and Wales. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 168–199.CrossRef

Battin, S. R., Hill, K. G., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology, 36, 93–115.CrossRef

Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67–88.CrossRef

Conger, R. D. (1991). Adolescence and youth: Psychological development in a changing world (4th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Craig, W. M., Vitaro, F., Gagnon, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (2002). The road to gang membership: Characteristics of male gang and nongang members from ages 10 to 14. Social Development, 11, 53–68.CrossRef

Curry, G. D. (2000). Self-reported gang involvement and officially recorded delinquency. Criminology, 38, 1253–1274.CrossRef

Decker, S. H., & Curry, G. D. (2000). Addressing key features of gang membership: Measuring the involvement of young members. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 473–482.CrossRef

Decker, S. H., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2008). Understanding the black box of gang organization: Implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime and Delinquency, 54, 153–172.CrossRef

Decker, S. H., & Lauritsen, J. (2002). Leaving the gang. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in American (3rd ed., pp. 51–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRef

Decker, S. H., Melde, C., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). What do we know about gangs and gang members and where do we go from here? Justice Quarterly, 30, 369–402.CrossRef

Decker, S. H., Pyrooz, D. C., Sweeten, G., & Moule, R. K. (2014). Validating self-nomination in gang research: Assessing differences in gang embeddedness across non-, current, and former gang members. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 577–598.CrossRef

Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends and violence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Dong, B., Gibson, C. L., & Krohn, D. M. (2015). Gang membership in a developmental and life-course perspective. In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The handbook of gangs (pp. 78–97). London: Wiley.CrossRef

Downes, D. M. (1966). The delinquent solution. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Esbensen, F. A., & Deschenes, E. P. (1998). A multisite examination of youth gang membership: Does gender matter? Criminology, 36, 799–827.CrossRef

Esbensen, F. A., Deschenes, E. P., & Winfree, L. T. (1999). Differences between gang girls and gang boys: Results from a multisite survey. Youth and Society, 31, 27–53.CrossRef

Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime and Delinquency, 47, 105–130.CrossRef

Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & McDuff, P. (2005). Youth gangs, delinquency and drug use: A test of the selection, facilitation, and enhancement hypotheses. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1178–1190.CrossRefPubMed

Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2014). Long-term consequences of adolescent gang membership for adult functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 938–945.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gordon, R. A., Lahey, B. B., Kawai, E., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Farrington, D. (2004). Antisocial behavior and youth gang membership: Selection and socialization. Criminology, 42, 55–87.CrossRef

Hallsworth, S., & Young, T. (2008). Gang talk and gang talkers: A critique. Crime, Media, Culture, 4, 175–195.CrossRef

Helgeson, V. S., Snyder, P., & Seltman, H. (2004). Psychological and physical adjustment to breast cancer over 4 years: Identifying distinct trajectories of change. Health Psychology, 23, 3–15.CrossRefPubMed

Hennigan, K. M., Maxson, C. L., Sloane, D. C., Kolnick, K. A., & Vindel, F. (2014). Identifying high-risk youth for secondary gang prevention. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37, 104–128.CrossRef

Hill, K. G., Howell, J. C., Hawkins, J. D., & Battin-Pearson, S. R. (1999). Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 300–322.CrossRef

Hipp, J. R., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Local solutions in the estimation of growth mixture models. Psychological Methods, 11, 36–53.CrossRefPubMed

Horowitz, R. (1983). Honor and the American dream: Culture and identity in a Chicano community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Howell, J. C. (2012). Gangs in America’s communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howell, J. C., & Egley, A. (2005). Moving risk factors into developmental theories of gang membership. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 334–354.CrossRef

Huizinga, D. (1996). The influence of delinquent peers, gangs, and co-offending on violence. Washington, DC: Official of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Kennedy, D. M. (2009). Gangs and public policy: Constructing and deconstructing gang databases. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 711–716.CrossRef

Klein, M. W. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Kreager, D., Rulison, K., & Moody, J. (2011). Delinquency and the structure of adolescent peer groups. Criminology, 49, 95–127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Krohn, M. D. (1986). The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems, 33, 581–593.CrossRef

Krohn, M. D., & Thornberry, T. P. (2008). Longitudinal perspectives on adolescent street gangs. In A. Liberman (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 128–160). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Lacourse, E., Nagin, D., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & Claes, M. (2003). Developmental trajectories of boys’ delinquent group membership and facilitation of violent behaviors during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 183–197.CrossRefPubMed

Lahey, B., Gordon, R., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Farrington, D. (1999). Boys who join gangs: A prospective study of predictors of first gang entry. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 261–276.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, I. (2002). The pain of crime and gang mentality. Oslo: The Norwegian Institute of Urban and Regional Research.

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Melde, C., & Esbensen, F. A. (2011). Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology, 49, 513–552.CrossRef

Melde, C., & Esbensen, F. A. (2014). The relative impact of gang status transitions: Identifying the mechanisms of change in delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 349–376.CrossRef

Meldrum, R. C., & Boman, J. H. (2013). Similarities and differences between perceptions of peer delinquency, peer self-reported delinquency, and respondent delinquency: An analysis of friendship dyads. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 395–406.CrossRef

Miller, W. B. (1982). Crime by youth gangs and groups in the United States. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Moore, J. W. (1978). Homeboys: Gangs, drugs and prison in the barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Moore, J. W. (1991). Going down to the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Moore, J. W., & Vigil, J. D. (1989). Chicano gangs: Group norms and individual factors related to adult criminality. Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 18, 31–42.

Morash, M. (1983). Gangs, groups and delinquency. The British Journal of Criminology, 23, 309–335.

Nagin, D. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 1181–1196.CrossRefPubMed

Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Analyzing developmental trajectories of distinct but related behaviors: A group-based method. Psychological Methods, 6, 18–34.CrossRefPubMed

Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 74–128.CrossRef

Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). Gangs, criminal offending, and an inconvenient truth. Criminology and Public Policy, 12, 427–436.CrossRef

Pyrooz, D. C. (2014a). From colors and guns to caps and gowns? The effects of gang membership on educational attainment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 56–87.CrossRef

Pyrooz, D. C. (2014b). “From your first cigarette to your last dyin’ day”: The patterning of gang membership in the life-course. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 349–372.CrossRef

Pyrooz, D. C., Sweeten, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 239–271.CrossRef

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRef

Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). How do we study what happen next? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 131–144.CrossRef

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Sweeten, G. (2012). Scaling criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 533–557.CrossRef

Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2005). Applying interactional theory to the explanation of continuity and change in antisocial behavior. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending (pp. 183–210). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., & Chard-Wierschem, D. (1993). The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 55–87.CrossRef

Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tita, G. E., & Ridgeway, G. (2007). The impact of gang formation on local patterns of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 275–308.CrossRef

Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in Southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Warr, M. (1993). Age, peers, and delinquency. Criminology, 31, 17–40.CrossRef

Warr, M. (1996). Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology, 34, 11–37.CrossRef

Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Young, J. T. N., Rebellon, C. J., Barnes, J. C., & Weerman, F. M. (2014). Unpacking the black box of peer similarity in deviance: Understanding the mechanisms linking personal behavior, peer behavior, and perceptions. Criminology, 52, 60–86.CrossRef

Young, J. T. N., Rebellon, C. J., Barnes, J. C., & Weerman, F. M. (2015). What do alternative measures of peer behavior tell us? Examining the discriminant validity of multiple methods of measuring peer deviance and the implications for etiological models. Justice Quarterly, 32, 626–652.CrossRef

Titel: Dual Trajectories of Gang Affiliation and Delinquent Peer Association During Adolescence: An Examination of Long-Term Offending Outcomes
Auteurs: Beidi Dong
Marvin D. Krohn
Publicatiedatum: 09-01-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Youth and Adolescence / Uitgave 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0047-2891
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-6601
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0417-2

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2016

Shared Risk Factors for the Perpetration of Physical Dating Violence, Bullying, and Sexual Harassment Among Adolescents Exposed to Domestic Violence

Self-Control Assessments and Implications for Predicting Adolescent Offending

From Violence in the Home to Physical Dating Violence Victimization: The Mediating Role of Psychological Distress in a Prospective Study of Female Adolescents

Skin Conductance Level Reactivity Moderates the Association Between Parental Psychological Control and Relational Aggression in Emerging Adulthood

Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA) and Catechol-O-Methyltransferase (COMT) Gene Polymorphisms Interact with Maternal Parenting in Association with Adolescent Reactive Aggression but not Proactive Aggression: Evidence of Differential Susceptibility

Adolescent and Parental Contributions to Parent–Adolescent Hostility Across Early Adolescence