Upload
dinhdien
View
220
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
http://jrc.sagepub.com/and Delinquency
Journal of Research in Crime
http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/47/4/439The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0022427810375575
online 27 August 2010 2010 47: 439 originally publishedJournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Xiaojin Chen and Michele AdamsMoffitt's Theory
Are Teen Delinquency Abstainers Social Introverts?: A Test of
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
be found at: canJournal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyAdditional services and information for
http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jrc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/47/4/439.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Aug 27, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Oct 12, 2010Version of Record >>
at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Article
Are TeenDelinquencyAbstainers SocialIntroverts?: A Testof Moffitt’s Theory
Xiaojin Chen1 and Michele Adams1
AbstractPrior research has identified a small group of adolescents who completelyrefrain from delinquent behavior. Researchers have hypothesized that theseadolescents may be excluded from normative peer activities and arethus insulated from delinquent peer role models. A central argument inMoffitt’s account of delinquency abstention, for example, is that delinquencyabstainers are socially isolated due to certain unappealing physical/personal-ity characteristics. Using the detailed friendship network data from theNational Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), the authorsattempt to test Moffitt’s account of delinquency abstention, particularly theassociation between social exclusion and delinquency. Their results do notsuggest strong empirical support for the hypothesis that delinquencyabstention is ‘‘correlated with unpopularity and social isolation.’’ Thecomplex associations between adolescent friendship network characteris-tics and delinquency abstention highlight the necessity for future researchon peer contexts in which adolescents are embedded. The authors’ findings
1 Department of Sociology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Xiaojin Chen, Tulane University, Department of Sociology, 220 Newcomb Hall, New Orleans,
LA 70118, USA
Email: [email protected]
Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency
47(4) 439-468ª The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022427810375575http://jrcd.sagepub.com
439 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
appear to challenge Moffitt’s theory, suggesting the need for certainmodifications.
Keywordsdelinquency abstention, friendship network, life course theory
Prior research has identified groups with distinct offending trajectories over
the life course (e.g., Blokland, Nagin, and Nieuwbeerta 2005; Fergusson,
Horwood, and Nagin 2000; Moffitt 1993; Nagin, Farrington, and Moffitt
1995). The group considered to be life course offenders is relatively small,
while the vast majority of offenders only engage in some level of delin-
quency and criminal behavior during adolescence (Moffitt 1993; Piquero
and Brezina 2001). A third group, people who completely refrain from
delinquent behavior, has recently attracted research attention (Brezina and
Piquero 2007; Moffitt et al. 1996; Piquero, Brezina, and Turner 2005).
Given the prevalence of delinquency during adolescence (Hirschi 1969;
Thornberry and Krohn 2000) and the salience of peer influence in shaping
adolescents’ behavior (Warr 2002, 2005), some researchers have speculated
that these teens are ‘‘social introverts,’’ insulated from delinquent peer role
models because of their exclusion from normative peer activities (Moffitt
1993, 2006).
To date, few studies have attempted to examine the associations between
peer influence and delinquency abstention (but see Brezina and Piquero
2007; Moffitt et al. 1996; Piquero et al. 2005); thus, Moffitt’s theory on
delinquency abstention has not been fully tested. Specifically, little is
known about the structural and behavioral characteristics of the friendship
networks of delinquency abstainers and the role these attributes play in
shaping adolescents’ own behavior. Moffitt argues for additional research
to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis that ‘‘abstainers are social
introverts as teens,’’ noting that sociometric studies are needed to assess
‘‘if delinquent abstention is, indeed, correlated with unpopularity and social
isolation’’ (Moffitt 2006:292).
Heeding this suggestion (Moffitt 2006), we use the detailed friendship
network data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health
(Add Health) to test Moffitt’s account of delinquency abstention, in partic-
ular, the association between social exclusion and delinquency. This
research will expand the existing literature by shedding further light on the
personal characteristics of the members of this group. Consistent with the
current emphasis on the significance of social contexts, we use a social
440 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
440 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
network approach to explore the unique effects of structural and behavioral
dimensions of friendship network on adolescent delinquency involvement.
Moffitt’s Account of Delinquency Abstention
Much of the research interest on delinquency abstention comes from
Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, which proposes two groups of offen-
ders with distinct offending trajectories and etiological origins (Moffitt
1993, 2006). The first group, life course-persistent offenders, is small
(approximately 5 percent of the male population). Its members tend to exhi-
bit a personality disorder characterized by physical aggression and delin-
quency/criminal behavior from childhood to midlife. Such personality
disorder is generally a product of interaction between group members’ neu-
ropsychological deficits and their adverse early life social environment. In
contrast, members of the second group (referred to as ‘‘adolescence-lim-
ited’’) develop antisocial behavior as a normative adaptational response
only during adolescence. Their delinquency emerges mainly as a result of
(1) frustration over the ‘‘maturity gap’’—that is, the discrepancy between
their physical maturity and the lack of access to adult privileges (e.g., inde-
pendence, autonomy, and other ‘‘freedoms’’) during adolescence and (2)
social mimicry of antisocial models, particularly life course-persistent
offender peers. Although life course-persistent offenders are rare and con-
sidered pathological, adolescence-limited offending is much more com-
mon, viewed as normative and transient.
If adolescent delinquency is indeed normative and widespread, the
implication is that teens who completely refrain from delinquency are non-
normative and therefore merit scientific scrutiny (Moffitt 1993). Drawing
from a combination of social learning and anomie/stress theories, Moffitt
(1993, 2006) argues that abstainers from delinquency are those rare individ-
uals who are excluded from normative peer group activities in adolescence.
The ‘‘explanation most central’’ to her theory is that these individuals are
socially excluded because of their unappealing personality or physical char-
acteristics (Moffitt 1997:33). Personality characteristics such as being
timid, overcontrolled, or socially awkward may ‘‘make them unattractive
to other teens,’’ thus precluding adolescents from joining ‘‘newly popular
delinquent groups.’’ In addition, adolescents with certain unappealing phys-
ical characteristics, especially delayed pubertal development, may not
experience the stress created by the ‘‘maturity gap,’’ and thus lack the
hypothesized motivation for associating with deviant peers and experiment-
ing with crime (Felson and Haynie 2002; Haynie 2003; Moffitt 1997).
Chen and Adams 441
441 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Haynie (2003), for example, found that girls with delayed puberty were less
likely to be exposed to delinquent peers, and were less involved in deviant
activities, especially ‘‘party deviance,’’ including drinking, smoking, tru-
ancy, and disorderly conduct.
To date, the relatively few studies that have tested Moffitt’s theory on
delinquency abstention have provided mixed support (Brezina and Piquero
2007; Boutwell and Beaver 2008; Moffitt et al. 1996; Piquero et al. 2005).
Using data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development
study, Moffitt et al. (1996) found a small percentage of adolescents (less than
6 percent) who completely abstained from delinquent behavior. An examina-
tion of their personality profiles showed that, compared to other adolescents,
abstainers were conservative, overcontrolled, less aggressive, and socially
inept. Other related studies, although not directly addressing Moffitt’s
hypothesis, provide similar results (Farrington and West 1993; Shedler and
Block 1990). A longitudinal study on adolescent drug use and psychological
characteristics revealed that compared to drug experimenters, adolescents
who never used drugs seemed to be relatively anxious, emotionally
restricted, and lacking in social skills (Shedler and Block 1990). Similarly,
Farrington and West (1993) found that adolescent males who were never
convicted had personality profiles characterized by shyness, social isolation,
and having few friends. In addition, Giordano and colleagues (Giordano,
Cernkovich, and Pugh 1986) found that, compared to delinquents, nondelin-
quents had lower levels of interaction with their friends.
Moffitt’s unique account of delinquency abstention is in stark contrast to
traditional criminological theories, especially social bonding theory, which
implies that delinquency abstention is the result of strong bonding with con-
ventional institutions (Hirschi 1969). Cernkovich, Kaukinen, and Giordano
(N.d.), for example, have argued that conformity is ‘‘not merely the absence
of something (e.g., association with delinquent peers), but rather the pres-
ence of a host of characteristics and relationships that produce and maintain
conformity’’ (N. d.:35). Recent studies appear to provide some support for
the social bonding perspective (Brezina and Piquero 2007; Piquero et al.
2005). Using data from the Youths and Deterrence Survey, Brezina and
Piquero (2007) found that delinquency abstainers were not pathological;
instead, abstention was largely due to abstainers’ strong social bonding with
conventional institutions such as school and family, and their strong com-
mitment to moral beliefs. Similarly, Piquero and his colleagues (2005)
found that abstainers did not seem to fit the personality profiles described
by Moffitt; instead, they seemed to be happier, less depressive, and more
likely to associate with prosocial friends than their delinquent counterparts.
442 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
442 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Overall, previous studies have highlighted the importance of personal
characteristics and participation in peer activities in determining delin-
quency abstention. However, as Moffitt states (2006), the hypothesis that
these teens are ‘‘social introverts’’ remains to be confirmed. The lack of
confirmation to date may reflect two possible issues. First, the conceptual
measurement of ‘‘social introvert’’ is ambiguous, as some researchers con-
sider personality traits such as ‘‘overcontrolled, compliant, emotionally
constricted, noncurious’’ characteristic of ‘‘social introverts,’’ while others
consider such traits evidence of strong commitment to conventional moral
beliefs (Brezina and Piquero 2007; Cernkovich et al. N.d.). This highlights
the need for more objective measures such as adolescents’ involvement in
peer activities. Second, even when peer influence measures are included,
they are often conceptualized as ‘‘exposure’’ to delinquent or prosocial
friends, generally ignoring the underlying social structure or content of the
peer network. Other dimensions of the friendship network, including its
density, as well as adolescents’ popularity and network position, could con-
dition the peer–delinquency association (Haynie 2001). As a result of these
limitations, researchers have called for social network studies with ‘‘more
direct measures that assess whether and how often respondents actually
interact with friends, as well as the nature of those interactions’’ (Piquero
et al. 2005:49).
Friendship Network and Delinquency
We adopt a social network approach to test Moffitt’s hypothesis on delin-
quency abstention and social exclusion. According to Knoke and Yang, a
‘‘social network is a structure composed of a set of actors, some of whose
members are connected by a set of one or more relations’’ (2008:8). Social
networks generally imply ‘‘webs of association’’ in which actors are linked,
directly and indirectly, to others who occupy the same social space, broadly
or narrowly defined. Network analytic perspectives move beyond variable-
driven causal explanations of action to focus on interaction between net-
work actors—that is, network analysis focuses on relationships between
actors in a group or community setting. The structure of the network, thus,
plays an important part in such analysis; as Knoke and Yang observe, the
‘‘network perspective emphasizes structural relations as its key orienting
principle’’ (2008:4; italics in original).
A friendship network may be analyzed as one type of social network or
as a subset of a larger, more general network. Researchers engaged in one
study of friendship networks elicited a description of ‘‘friend’’ that was
Chen and Adams 443
443 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
characterized by help, trust, exchanging confidences, and enjoyable
companionship (Willmott 1987:82). Although friendships can involve
disagreement and conflict (Degirmencioglu et al. 1998; Giordano 2003;
Laursen 1996), friends generally tend to be seen in a positive light, and the
dynamics of friendships are largely assumed to be close and ‘‘richly reward-
ing’’ (Giordano 2003:261; see also Larson 1983). For adolescents in partic-
ular, friends tend to be primary socializing agents exercising increasing
influence as adolescents move to distance themselves from the family
sphere (see Giordano 2003; Warr 1993). Friendship networks are, therefore,
perceived as highly influential in affecting the positive and negative
behaviors and attitudes of its members.
To what extent do friendship networks influence the delinquency beha-
viors of its members? Although traditional wisdom and substantial empiri-
cal evidence suggest that adolescents’ delinquent behavior is associated
with their involvement in delinquent friendship networks (Warr 2002,
2005), early research was unable to evaluate the interaction or relationship
between adolescents in the context of a friendship network and its relation-
ship to delinquency behavior formation. Pioneering theoretical work was
done in this area by Marvin Krohn (1986), who postulated that network den-
sity and multiplexity would be related to delinquent behavior for network
participants. More recently, researchers have started to fill the lacuna in the
friendship network–delinquency behavior literature by accounting for the
structure of networks themselves, including the size of the network, its den-
sity, and the positioning of the adolescent respondent within the network
(see, for instance, Haynie 2001, 2002).
The network position occupied by a given actor reflects certain of their
characteristics in relation to others in the network, including ‘‘centrality’’
and ‘‘density’’ (Knoke and Yang 2008). Density indicates the extent to
which network actors know each other, such that the more interconnected
or integrated the network, the higher the density, and the more diffuse the
network, the lower the density. Centrality, however, essentially describes
an actor’s importance in the network, showing the number of direct connec-
tions between an actor and their peers, whether those connections are initi-
ated by the actor or by others in the network (Knoke and Yang 2008). The
more central an actor is within the network, the greater will be the number
of direct connections between that actor and their peers.
In studies of adolescents’ peer networks, these relationship characteris-
tics have been found to affect respondent’s delinquent behaviors, addres-
sing interactional effects that move beyond individual personality or
character traits in proneness to delinquency. Haynie (2001), for example,
444 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
444 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
finds that positioning and density are important—that centrally located
adolescents in cohesive friendship networks are more likely to conform
to the delinquency norms of that network than are adolescents located on
the margins of less cohesive networks (Haynie 2001:1051). Similarly,
Demuth (2004), although not analyzing respondents’ networks per se, found
that those adolescents who self-reported as having few or no friends were
less likely to engage in delinquent behavior.
Focus of Current Study
Drawing on the literature reviewed above, we attempt to assess Moffitt’s
account of delinquency abstention. First, as suggested by Piquero et al.
(2005), we go beyond the indirect measures of peer influence and use more
detailed social network data, including measures of adolescents’ popularity
and involvement, to examine the hypothesized correlation between social
exclusion and delinquency abstention. One advantage of using these mea-
sures is the fact that friendship network data are based on peers’ own reports
rather than adolescents’ self-report of their friends’ behavior, the latter of
which could lead to a biased estimation of peer influence (Jussim and
Osgood 1989). Second, we examine the process that links peer network
characteristics to delinquency abstention. In this regard, we ask: does each
dimension of friendship network have independent effects? Do friendship
network dimensions interact with each other? Finally, we analyze the asso-
ciations between each dimension of friendship network and delinquency
abstention in male and female subgroups, taking account of previous
research suggesting that abstention rates, as well as effects of implicated
variables on abstention, may differ across gender (Piquero et al. 2005;
Thornberry and Krohn 2000).
Data and Measurement
The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health
This study uses data from the three waves of the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a data set consisting of a nation-
ally representative sample of adolescents in grades 7 to 12 in the United
States during 1994 to 1995. The Add Health was designed to examine the
health of adolescents, including the effects of multiple social contexts, one
of which is delinquency (Udry 2003). To obtain a representative sample, a
school-based, clustered sampling design was used; a sample of 134 eligible
high schools, which included at least an 11th grade and an enrollment of
Chen and Adams 445
445 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
more than 30 students, and their ‘‘feeder schools,’’ was first selected. The
sample was stratified by region, urbanicity (urban/suburban/rural), school
type (public/private/parochial), ethnic mix, and size.
For the initial in-school survey, all students attending these high schools
and ‘‘feeder schools’’ were asked to provide some brief information regard-
ing their demographic characteristics, friendships, and certain prosocial and
deviant activities (n ¼ 90,118). This sample provides the basis for con-
structing the measures of friendship network characteristics. A random sub-
set of the sample was then selected and interviewed at home (wave 1, n ¼20,745). In 1996, the second wave of the in-home survey was conducted, in
which all adolescents in grades 7 to 11 at wave 1 were interviewed (n ¼14,738). The third wave of data collection, conducted between August
2001 and April 2002, contains follow-up interviews from 14,979 original
wave 1 respondents. The sample of respondents selected for the current
study is limited to those who were interviewed in schools, were subse-
quently interviewed at home in all three waves, were assigned valid sam-
pling weights, had valid friendship network data, and had no missing data
on the dependent variable. These restrictions result in a sample of 6,964
respondents.1,2
Measurement
Dependent Variable. We adopted the approach used by Boutwell and Beaver
(2008) to construct the dependent variable delinquency abstention. First, a
composite delinquency scale was created for each of the three waves of
data. At wave 1, we used 15 items, including minor delinquency (painting
graffiti, shoplifting, etc.), status offense (running away), and more serious
behavior (physical fight, seriously injuring someone, etc.) to create a com-
posite delinquency scale (a¼ .83). Similarly, a wave 2 delinquent behavior
scale was constructed using 14 items, which consisted of many of the same
questions used in wave 1 (a ¼ .82). At wave 3, 13 items indexing physical
violence, cheating, stealing, and selling drugs were used to tap delinquency
and criminal behavior during early adulthood (a ¼ .71). For each wave,
respondents were asked how often they engaged in each of the delinquent
behaviors in the past 12 months. For each of the composite scales, 0 indi-
cated that the adolescent did not participate any of the activities; the higher
the score, the higher the antisocial behavior.
The three composite delinquency scales were then combined to identify
adolescent delinquency abstainers. Only those who scored 0 in each of the
three waves, that is, adolescents who had never participated in any of the
446 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
446 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
delinquent/criminal activities over time, were defined as abstainers. Similar
to past research (Boutwell and Beaver 2008; Piquero and Brezina 2005;
Thornberry and Krohn 2000), 9.9 percent were identified as abstainers,
including about 11.5 percent of females, and 8 percent of males.3
Independent VariablesFriendship network characteristics. Friendship network characteristics are
key independent variables in this study. To fully capture adolescents’ friend-
ship characteristics, we measured the structural and behavioral dimensions of
peer networks from the initial in-school survey. The structural peer network
characteristics include three measures: number of friends at school, degree
centrality, and peer network density. Number of friends at school measures
the number of times the respondent was nominated by other students as a
friend in the school. Degree centrality measures adolescent’s connections
in the peer network, weighted by the centrality of those to whom he or she
sent ties (Bonacich 1987). Peer network density measures the degree to
which members in the network knew and interacted with each other, calcu-
lated using number of total ties in the peer network divided by the number
of possible total ties in the group. In addition, three indicators are used to
measure behavioral characteristics of friendship network: peer deviance,
peer grade point average (GPA), and peer extracurricular activities. Peer
deviance measures how often respondent’s friends commit 6 minor deviant
activities in the past 12 months, including smoking cigarettes, drinking
alcohol, getting drunk, doing something dangerous, and skipping school.
Peer GPA measures friends’ mean grade across four core subjects:
English/language arts, mathematics, history/social studies, and science. Peer
extracurricular activities measures friends’ involvement in a series of extra-
curricular activities, including participating in different clubs, sports, or
other school-based organizations. The variable was top-coded at 10 since
reports of more than 10 extracurricular activities appeared to be unreliable.
Personality. Respondents’ personality profiles represent another set of
independent variables. Using items similar to those adopted in the ‘‘Big
Five’’ personality dimensions (Oliver and Srivastava 1999), we used wave
1 at-home data to construct four scales to capture multiple dimensions of
adolescents’ personality. These scales include self-esteem, nonconfronta-
tion, rationality, and stress reaction. Self-esteem consists of six items,
including being proud, liking yourself, doing everything right, having a lot
of good qualities, being socially accepted, and being loved and wanted (a¼.85). A higher score indicated higher self-esteem for the respondent.
Chen and Adams 447
447 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Nonconfrontation consists of two items, never arguing and never criticizing
others, with a higher score indicating having a less confrontational interac-
tion style. Rationality measures whether adolescents use a rational approach
to make decisions, including whether they get as many facts as possible
before making decisions, whether they try to think of many different ways
to find a solution, whether they use a systematic method, and whether they
analyze the results (a ¼ .74). Higher scores on this measure indicated
respondent’s use of a more rational approach. Finally, stress reaction mea-
sures how adolescents respond to stress by asking whether they try to avoid
problems and whether difficult problems make them upset, with a higher
score indicating a less effective coping strategy.
Unappealing physical characteristics. We use two variables, delayed pub-
erty development and physical disability to capture adolescents’ unappeal-
ing physical characteristics. To measure delayed puberty development,
adolescents were asked how advanced their physical development is com-
pared to their same-aged peers, with low values indicating delayed develop-
ment. In addition, adolescents with physical disability may experience
discrimination from peers and therefore be excluded from the normative
peer network. This variable is measured by asking adolescents whether they
have had difficulty using their hands, arms, legs, or feet because of a phys-
ical condition in the last 12 months.
Social bonding. We use two measures to reflect social bonding. Attach-
ment to parents measures adolescents’ perception of caring parents and how
closely parents are attached to them. A separate measure was first created
for adolescent’s attachment to mother (a ¼ .62) and attachment to father
(a ¼ .71). A mean procedure was then performed to create the attachment
to parents measure (a ¼ .59). School grade assesses adolescents’ academic
performance in school, measured by averaging grades of four core courses:
English, Math, History, and Science (a ¼ .79).
A series of variables that are associated with variations in friendship and
delinquency are controlled in the model. Age, gender, race, household
income, residential place (urban/suburban/rural), and intact family are
straightforward measures similar to those used in previous studies. In addi-
tion, we control for two other individual level variables: new to school, and
number of out-of-school friends. We control for the situation in which ado-
lescents are new to school since moving to a new place may disrupt their
establishment of a friendship network, or they may not be added to the
school roster thus precluding their nomination as friends by other peers.
448 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
448 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Number of out-of-school friends measures connections with outside
networks, as association with out-of-school friends may expose adolescents
to more deviant peer models and delinquent activities.
Analytic Strategy
We begin by examining bivariate differences between offenders and abstai-
ners in friendship network characteristics and personality profiles. We then
estimate a series of survey corrected logistic regression equations to exam-
ine the effects of friendship network characteristics on the likelihood of
delinquency abstention, net of our control variables. In addition, we present
models that incorporate interaction terms between friendship network struc-
tural and behavioral characteristics. For all analyses, we use the survey cor-
rection procedures available in Mplus5.0 to obtain unbiased parameter
estimates and standard errors that adjust for the nonindependence in the data
(Chantala and Suchindra 2006). Finally, sampling weights and a subpopu-
lation command in Mplus were applied to correct for design effects and
obtain national representativeness. Table 1 reports means, standard devia-
tions, and range for all of the study variables.
One common concern in a longitudinal study is missing data. To address
this problem, Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) is applied.
FIML computes maximum likelihood estimates and standard errors for
regression models using observed data points (Enders 2006; Little and
Rubin 1987). Previous studies have shown that compared with traditional
techniques, FIML provides efficient estimation of statistical parameters and
less biased estimates of standard errors (Schafer 1997). In addition, FIML
standard errors are estimated using the observed rather than expected infor-
mation matrix, which provides less biased standard errors even when data
are not missing completely at random (Enders 2006). Furthermore, analyses
based on data without missing cases (a listwise deletion) were performed,
which produced substantively similar results. For these reasons, FIML is
used in the current study to address missing case problems.
Results
Descriptive Analysis
We first compared the structural and behavioral school friendship network
characteristics between offenders and abstainers (Table 2). In terms of
structural characteristics of friendship network, we found that abstainers
had a slightly smaller number of peers nominating them as friends.
Chen and Adams 449
449 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
However, there was no difference in peer network density or centrality,
indicating that abstainers affiliated with networks as cohesive as those of
offenders, and were as influential as offenders in their respective peer net-
works. The behavioral characteristics of these two groups’ friendship net-
works did appear to differ, as abstainers had friends with higher GPA in
school and lower engagement in minor deviant activities. We found no dif-
ference between these two groups regarding their friends’ involvement in
extracurricular activities.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Included Variables
MeanStandardDeviation Minimum Maximum
Age 15.79 1.58 11.55 21.19Gender(male ¼ 1 female ¼ 2)
1.53 0.50 1.00 2.00
Black 0.21 0.40 0.00 1.00Hispanic 0.16 0.37 0.00 1.00Other 0.09 0.28 0.00 1.00Family structure(intact family ¼ 1)
0.70 0.46 0.00 1.00
Household income 3.56 0.84 0.00 6.91# of out school friends 1.28 2.03 0.00 10.00New to the school 0.29 0.45 0.00 1.00Rural 0.28 0.45 0.00 1.00Suburban 0.39 0.49 0.00 1.00Physical disability 0.02 0.15 0.00 1.00Delayed puberty development 3.22 1.11 1.00 5.00Self-esteem 4.11 0.60 1.00 5.00Stress reaction 3.38 0.82 1.00 5.00Rationality oriented 3.80 0.63 1.00 5.00Nonconfrontational 3.51 0.81 1.00 5.00Friendship size 4.79 3.69 0.00 30.00Friendship network density 0.29 0.14 0.06 1.00Centrality 0.87 0.64 0.00 4.29Friend minor deviance 0.94 0.59 0.00 6.00Friend GPA 2.83 0.50 1.00 4.00Friend extracurricular activities 2.31 1.18 0.00 9.00Parental bonding 4.63 0.56 1.00 5.00School GPA 2.86 0.78 1.00 4.00Delinquency abstention 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00
Note: GPA ¼ grade point average.
450 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
450 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le2.
Frie
ndsh
ipN
etw
ork
Char
acte
rist
ics
Bet
wee
nD
elin
quen
cyA
bst
ainer
san
dO
ffen
der
s
Tota
l(n¼
6,9
64)
Mal
e(n¼
3,1
41)
Fem
ale
(n¼
3,8
23)
Abst
ainer
(n¼
689)
Offe
nder
(n¼
6,27
5)A
bst
ainer
(n¼
251)
Offe
nder
(n¼
2,89
0)A
bst
ainer
(n¼
438)
Offen
der
(n¼
3,3
85)
Stru
ctura
lch
arac
teri
stic
sSi
ze4.3
24.8
4**
3.9
34.6
1**
4.5
45.0
4**
Den
sity
0.3
00.2
90.3
10.2
90.3
00.3
0C
entr
ality
0.9
00.8
70.8
30.8
30.9
50.9
1Beh
avio
ralch
arac
teri
stic
sA
vera
gepee
rdev
iance
0.7
90.9
5**
0.7
81.0
0**
0.7
90.9
2**
Ave
rage
pee
rG
PA
2.9
22.8
2**
2.8
72.8
22.9
52.8
2**
Ave
rage
pee
rex
trac
urr
icula
rac
tivi
ties
2.3
12.3
12.2
42.2
82.3
52.3
3
Not
e:G
PA¼
grad
epoin
tav
erag
e.**
p<
.01.
451 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
We also examined differences in social network characteristics between
abstainers and offenders across gender. Both male and female abstainers
had fewer friends, and their friends were less engaged in minor deviant
activities; moreover, female abstainers were more likely to have friends
with good academic standing while there was no significant difference
between male abstainers and offenders.
We then compared personality profiles, unappealing physical character-
istics, and adolescent social bonding with schools and parents (Table 3).
Consistent with previous studies (Farrington and West 1993; Shedler and
Block 1990), our findings indicated that abstainers were more rationality-
oriented, had better stress coping strategies, and were less likely to have
confrontational interaction styles (e.g., tendency to argue with or criticize
others). Moreover, abstainers also reported a higher level of self-esteem.
These patterns were identical across gender. In addition, compared to offen-
ders, abstainers entered puberty later; this difference, however, was only
significant for girls but not for boys. Finally, as predicted by Moffitt
(1993), delinquency abstainers had better grades in school and were more
closely attached to parents. No gender difference was found in terms of
social bonding and delinquency abstention.
Survey-Corrected Logistic Regression Models
The unique effect of each friendship network dimension on delinquency
abstention was investigated in a series of survey-corrected logistic regression
models (Table 4). First, all the control variables were entered simultaneously
in model 1, with gender, intact family structure, and number of out-of-school
friends reaching statistical significance. Results indicated that females,
adolescents from families with two parents, and adolescents with fewer
out-of-school friends were more likely to be delinquency abstainers.
We then investigated whether unappealing physical characteristics and
personality traits contribute to delinquency abstention (model 2). As pre-
dicted by Moffitt (1993), late puberty development increased the probabil-
ity of delinquency abstention. In addition, all of the four personality
dimensions were statistically significant. Adolescents who were more
rationality-oriented, less confrontational, more self-confident, and who had
effective coping strategies were more likely to refrain from delinquency.
Effects of family structure and number of out-of-school friends became sta-
tistically insignificant when physical characteristics and personality profiles
were entered.
452
452 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le3.
Per
sonal
Char
acte
rist
ics
and
Soci
alBondin
gbet
wee
nD
elin
quen
cyA
bst
ainer
san
dO
ffen
der
s
Tota
l(n¼
6,9
64)
Mal
e(n¼
3,1
41)
Fem
ale
(n¼
3,8
23)
Abst
ainer
(n¼
689)
Offe
nder
(n¼
6,27
5)A
bst
ainer
(n¼
251)
Offe
nder
(n¼
2,89
0)A
bst
ainer
(n¼
438)
Offen
der
(n¼
3,3
85)
Per
sonal
ity
pro
files
Self-
este
em4.2
74.1
0**
4.3
44.2
1**
4.2
44.0
1**
Rat
ional
ity
3.9
43.7
9**
3.9
83.8
0**
3.9
23.7
8**
Nonco
nfr
onta
tional
3.2
03.5
6**
3.1
73.5
1**
3.2
13.6
0**
Neg
ativ
est
ress
reac
tion
3.2
43.3
7**
3.1
63.3
1**
3.2
93.4
3**
Phys
ical
char
acte
rist
ics
Phys
ical
dis
abili
ty0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
2D
elay
edpuber
tydev
elopm
ent
3.1
13.2
6**
3.1
93.2
13.0
63.3
1**
Soci
albondin
gBondin
gw
ith
par
ents
4.7
84.6
2**
4.8
64.6
9**
4.7
44.5
6**
Bondin
gw
ith
school
3.0
82.8
4**
2.9
42.7
6**
3.1
62.9
1**
**p
<.0
1.
453 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le4.
Surv
ey-C
orr
ecte
dLo
gist
icR
egre
ssio
nM
odel
sPre
dic
ting
Del
inquen
cyA
bst
ention
Model
1M
odel
2M
odel
3M
odel
4M
odel
5
BO
dds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
io
Inte
rcep
t�
2.1
3�
1.5
9�
2.4
6�
5.7
1�
5.4
4A
ge�
0.0
60.9
4�
0.0
40.9
70.0
01.0
00.0
31.0
30.0
31.0
3G
ender
(mal
e¼
1fe
mal
e¼
2)
0.5
8**
1.7
90.7
1**
2.0
40.7
4**
2.0
90.7
2**
2.0
50.6
9**
1.9
9Bla
cka
�0.1
80.8
3�
0.2
50.7
8�
0.3
10.7
4�
0.2
70.7
7�
0.3
00.7
4H
ispan
ic�
0.1
30.8
8�
0.2
10.8
1�
0.2
70.7
6�
0.2
50.7
8�
0.1
90.8
2O
ther
0.2
91.3
40.1
61.1
8�
0.0
10.9
9�
0.0
30.9
80.0
81.0
8Fa
mily
stru
cture
(inta
ctfa
mily¼
1)
0.3
4*
1.4
10.2
81.3
20.2
51.2
80.2
61.3
00.2
51.2
8
House
hold
inco
me
�0.1
10.9
0�
0.1
10.9
0�
0.1
00.9
1�
0.1
20.8
9�
0.1
50.8
6#
ofout
schoolfr
iends
�0.0
8*
0.9
2�
0.0
60.9
4�
0.0
7*
0.9
3�
0.0
7*
0.9
3�
0.0
7*
0.9
3N
ewto
the
school
0.1
41.1
50.1
91.2
10.1
81.2
00.2
11.2
30.2
5*
1.2
8R
ura
lb0.1
51.1
70.1
51.1
60.1
71.1
80.1
81.1
90.1
41.1
5Su
burb
an�
0.0
70.9
3�
0.1
00.9
0�
0.0
90.9
2�
0.0
60.9
5�
0.0
80.9
3Phys
ical
dis
abili
ty�
0.3
00.7
4�
0.3
50.7
0�
0.3
40.7
1�
0.2
50.7
8D
elay
edpuber
tydev
elopm
ent
�0.1
5**
0.8
6�
0.1
2*
0.8
9�
0.1
2*
0.8
9�
0.1
3*
0.8
8Se
lf-es
teem
0.3
2**
1.3
80.3
2**
1.3
80.1
81.2
00.1
61.1
7St
ress
reac
tion
�0.3
2**
0.7
3�
0.2
8**
0.7
5�
0.2
5**
0.7
8�
0.2
6**
0.7
7R
atio
nal
ity
ori
ente
d0.2
2*
1.2
50.2
3*
1.2
60.2
1*
1.2
30.2
1*
1.2
3N
onco
nfr
onta
tional
�0.5
1**
0.6
0�
0.5
1**
0.6
0�
0.5
1*
0.6
0�
0.5
2**
0.6
0Fr
iendsh
ipsi
ze�
0.2
6**
0.7
7�
0.2
7*
0.7
6Fr
iendsh
ipnet
work
den
sity
0.0
31.0
30.0
11.0
1
(con
tinue
d)
454 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le4
(co
nti
nu
ed
)
Model
1M
odel
2M
odel
3M
odel
4M
odel
5
BO
dds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
io
Cen
tral
ity
0.0
61.0
60.0
41.0
4�
0.1
20.8
9Fr
iend
min
or
dev
iance
�0.2
4**
0.7
8�
0.2
2**
0.8
1�
0.3
0**
0.7
4Fr
iend
GPA
0.2
3**
1.2
60.1
41.1
5Fr
iend
extr
acurr
icula
rac
tivi
ties
�0.1
5*
0.8
6�
0.1
6*
0.8
6Par
enta
lbondin
g0.5
6**
1.7
40.5
6**
1.7
5Sc
hoolG
PA
0.3
1*
1.3
60.3
0**
1.3
5C
entr
ality*
Frie
nd
min
or
dev
iance
�0.1
7*
0.8
4
Note
:G
PA¼
grad
epoin
tav
erag
e;N¼
6,9
64.
aW
hite
isth
ere
fere
nce
cate
gory
.b
Urb
anis
the
refe
rence
cate
gory
.*p
<.0
5.
**p
<.0
1.
455 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
We assessed whether friendship network characteristics affect
delinquency abstention in model 3.4 Consistent with results from bivariate
analysis, friendship size had negative effects on delinquency abstention;
however, other structural aspects of friendship network such as network
density and adolescents’ position in the friendship network did not have
significant effects. In addition, the behavioral characteristics of friendship
network significantly affected adolescents’ own delinquency behavior.
Adolescents whose friends engaged in a higher level of minor deviance and
whose friends had lower GPAs in school were less likely to completely
refrain from delinquency. Interestingly, friends’ involvement in extracurri-
cular activities decreased the probability of delinquency abstention.
Finally, as suggested by previous researchers (Brezina and Piquero 2007;
Cernkovich et al. N.d.), we evaluated whether social bonding has an
independent effect on delinquency abstention (model 4). Our results indi-
cated that adolescents’ own bonding with parents and school had strong and
significant effects.
Gender-specific models. Finally, we tested whether effects of friendship
network and other implicated factors operated differently across gender
(Table 5 model 1). It appears that certain predictors were correlated signif-
icantly with delinquency abstention in the female subpopulation but not in
the male group. For example, puberty development, effective coping strate-
gies, and peers’ extracurricular activities were significantly associated with
delinquency abstention for females but not for males. However, a formal
test of the equality of the partial unstandardized regression coefficients
(Cohen and Cohen 1983; Paternoster et al. 1998) across gender showed
no significant differences, with only one exception: adolescent’s self-
esteem differed significantly between males and females (z ¼ 3.38, results
not shown). Self-esteem was positively associated with delinquency absten-
tion for girls, but had negative, although nonsignificant, effects on delin-
quency abstention for boys.
Interaction models. Previous research has suggested that the translation of
peer behavior into adolescents’ own behavior is conditional on the struc-
tural characteristics of their friendship networks. Assessing this possibility
requires interaction models (Jaccard 2001), so we tested the interactions
between network structural characteristics and behavioral characteristics.
For ease of interpretation, each interaction was tested separately, with a
total of nine interactions (3 Structural Items � 3 Behavioral Items). Of the
nine interactions, only the interaction between centrality and friends’ minor
456
456 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le5.
Surv
eyC
orr
ecte
dLo
gist
icR
egre
ssio
nM
odel
sPre
dic
ting
Male
and
Fem
ale
Del
inquen
cyA
bst
ention
Mal
e(n¼
3,1
41)
Fem
ale
(n¼
3,8
23)
Model
1In
tera
ctio
nM
odel
Model
1In
tera
ctio
nM
odel
BO
dds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
io
Inte
rcep
t�
4.0
5�
3.7
8�
4.6
2�
4.4
0A
ge0.0
31.0
30.0
21.0
30.0
21.0
20.0
21.0
2Bla
cka
�0.2
80.7
6�
0.3
00.7
4�
0.3
20.7
3�
0.3
70.6
9H
ispan
ic�
0.2
70.7
7�
0.2
40.7
9�
0.2
50.7
8�
0.1
80.8
3O
ther
�0.0
60.9
40.0
11.0
1�
0.0
80.9
20.0
51.0
5Fa
mily
stru
cture
(inta
ctfa
mily¼
1)
0.2
31.2
60.2
21.2
40.2
61.3
00.2
61.2
9H
ouse
hold
inco
me
�0.0
60.9
5�
0.0
50.9
5�
0.1
70.8
4�
0.2
2*
0.8
0#
ofout
schoolfr
iends
�0.0
60.9
4�
0.0
50.9
5�
0.0
60.9
4�
0.0
70.9
3N
ewto
the
school
0.1
81.2
00.2
01.2
20.2
01.2
20.2
41.2
7R
ura
lb0.0
61.0
70.0
51.0
60.2
71.3
10.2
21.2
5Su
burb
an�
0.3
30.7
2�
0.3
40.7
10.1
01.1
00.0
71.0
7Phys
ical
dis
abili
ty�
0.2
70.7
6�
0.2
40.7
9�
0.4
20.6
6�
0.2
70.7
7D
elay
edpuber
tydev
elopm
ent
�0.0
40.9
7�
0.0
40.9
6�
0.1
8*
0.8
4�
0.1
9*
0.8
3Se
lf-es
teem
�0.3
90.6
8�
0.4
3*
0.6
50.4
8**
1.6
20.4
7**
1.5
9St
ress
reac
tion
�0.2
20.8
0�
0.2
20.8
0�
0.2
6**
0.7
7�
0.2
7**
0.7
7R
atio
nal
ity
ori
ente
d0.3
01.3
50.3
01.3
50.1
51.1
60.1
51.1
7N
onco
nfr
onta
tional
�0.6
5**
0.5
2�
0.6
6**
0.5
2�
0.4
5**
0.6
4�
0.4
5**
0.6
4Fr
iendsh
ipsi
ze�
0.2
3*
0.7
9�
0.2
9**
0.7
5Fr
iendsh
ipnet
work
den
sity
0.0
21.0
2�
0.0
10.9
9C
entr
ality
�0.0
10.9
9�
0.1
10.9
00.0
71.0
7�
0.1
20.8
8
(con
tinue
d)
457 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le5
(co
nti
nu
ed
)
Mal
e(n¼
3,1
41)
Fem
ale
(n¼
3,8
23)
Model
1In
tera
ctio
nM
odel
Model
1In
tera
ctio
nM
odel
BO
dds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
ioB
Odds
Rat
io
Frie
nd
min
or
dev
iance
�0.3
3*
0.7
2�
0.4
0*
0.6
7�
0.1
40.8
7�
0.2
2*
0.8
0Fr
iend
GPA
0.1
01.1
00.1
9*
1.2
1Fr
iend
extr
acurr
icula
rac
tivi
ties
�0.0
50.9
5�
0.2
2*
0.8
1Par
enta
lbondin
g0.7
62.1
30.7
42.1
00.4
7*
1.6
00.4
8*
1.6
2Sc
hoolG
PA
0.3
9*
1.4
70.3
9*
1.4
80.2
7*
1.3
10.2
7*
1.3
1C
entr
ality*
frie
nd
min
or
dev
iance
�0.1
20.8
9�
0.2
0*
0.8
1
Not
e:a W
hite
isth
ere
fere
nce
cate
gory
.b
Urb
anis
the
refe
rence
cate
gory
.N
ote
:*p
<.0
5.
**p
<.0
1.
458 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
deviance was statistically significant (Table 4 model 5). We also tested
these interactions for each gender group. No significant interaction was
found for males, but the interaction between centrality and friends’ minor
deviance was significant for females (Table 5 interaction model). Similarly,
we tested the magnitudes of interaction across gender but detected no sig-
nificant difference. To better understand the nature of these findings, we
graphed the significant interaction for the whole sample and for the female
subgroup.
Figure 1 illustrates the centrality and friends’ minor deviance interaction
for the whole sample. The graph shows that peer effect depends largely on
adolescent’s own position in the friendship network. As peer deviant activ-
ities increase, the probability of delinquency abstention decreased more
rapidly, if the adolescent occupied a central position in the network, com-
pared with those who were marginal members (Figure 1), particularly if the
subject adolescent was female (Figure 2). With the increase of average peer
deviant activities from �2 (2 standard deviations below the mean) to 2 (2
standard deviations above the mean), the predicted probability of abstention
remained almost the same for marginal members; however, the predicted
probability decreased dramatically for those occupying central positions
in the group.
Figure 1. Interaction: Centrality by friends’ minor deviance.
Chen and Adams 459
459 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Discussion and Conclusion
Our original goals in this article were to (1) test Moffitt’s hypothesis that
delinquency abstention is associated with social exclusion due to abstai-
ners’ unappealing personal characteristics and (2) to investigate whether
individual peer network characteristics have unique effects on delinquency
abstention. With respect to the former, several findings merit note. First, the
personal characteristics of delinquency abstainers generally appear to fit the
prevailing stereotype. Relative to offenders, abstainers are more likely to be
‘‘controlled,’’ have delayed physical development, and have stronger social
bonds with both parents and schools. However; although previous studies
have described delinquency abstainers as ‘‘fearful, interpersonally timid,
and socially inept’’ (Moffitt 2006:291), our results suggest that these teens,
especially girls, report a higher level of self-esteem.
Second, our detailed analysis of adolescent friendship network charac-
teristics shows that delinquent abstainers are not as popular as delinquent
adolescents; however, they are not socially excluded from peer groups nor
are they marginalized in their peer networks. Instead, they have prosocial
friends who are good students and who are less likely to participate in devi-
ant activities. These results are inconsistent with Moffitt’s hypothesis and
some previous studies (Farrington and West 1993; Moffitt 1993, 2006; She-
dler and Block 1990) but resonate with findings from more recent research
(Brezina and Piquero 2007; Piquero et al. 2005).
Figure 2. Interaction: Centrality by friends’ minor deviance (female).
460 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
460 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Given the above, our findings do not provide strong empirical support for
Moffitt’s hypothesis that delinquency abstention is ‘‘correlated with unpopu-
larity and social isolation’’ and contradicts the idea that these teens are
‘‘social introverts.’’ Instead, our results suggest that delinquency abstention
is due to the presence ‘‘of a host of [positive] characteristics and relationships
that produce and maintain conformity’’ (Cernkovich et al. N.d.:8). These
results appear to challenge Moffitt’s assumption that youth group activities
are criminogenic in nature and suggest that teen delinquency is not inevitable
when adolescents associate with other youth. The smaller but more prosocial
peer network of delinquency abstainers is probably the result of careful par-
ental monitoring and adolescents’ own strong moral beliefs, which prevents
these teens from associating with more delinquent peers (Brezina and
Piquero 2007; Knoester, Haynie, and Stephens 2006; Warr 2005).
We addressed our second goal using multivariate regression models to
examine the complicated process that links friendship network characteristics
and delinquency abstention. These models suggest several major findings.
First, our study shows that, besides the traditional measure of deviant peer
exposure, other structural and behavioral dimensions of adolescents’ friendship
network characteristics, especially number of friends and friends’ prosocial
activities, have independent and unique effects on delinquency abstention
(Giordano et al. 1986; Haynie 2001; Kandel 1978; Kandel and Davies 1991).
Consistent with other studies (Demuth 2004; Farrington and West 1993;
Shedler and Block 1990), our research indicates that the size of adolescent’s
friendship network is negatively associated with delinquency abstention.
This negative association may be due to the fact that popular adolescents
are more likely to be exposed to and interact with deviant friends, as most
adolescent friendship networks, whether prosocial or antisocial in nature,
include both conventional and delinquent group members (Giordano
2003; Haynie 2002). In addition, previous studies have shown that popular
adolescents prefer to engage in social group, rather than solitary, activities
(Bruyn and Cillessen 2008), which are generally unsupervised and unstruc-
tured and prone to delinquency (Jensen and Brownfield 1986; Mustaine and
Tewksbury 1998; Osgood et al. 1996).
Our results regarding the effects of peers’ prosocial activities on adoles-
cent’s delinquency, however, are puzzling. Consistent with previous studies
(Piquero et al. 2005), we find that peers’ academic performance is posi-
tively associated with delinquency abstention; however, peers’ involvement
in prosocial activities such as sports and school-related clubs is negatively
associated with females’ delinquency abstention. This is an interesting
finding in relation to the argument of lifestyle and opportunity theorists who
Chen and Adams 461
461 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
suggest that adolescents who spent time in structured and supervised activ-
ities are less likely to engage in delinquency (Osgood et al. 1996). We pro-
pose two possible reasons for this inconsistency. First, our measure of
extracurricular activities consists largely of sports, in which male adoles-
cents are more likely to participate (Barnett 2008); thus, female adolescents
with friends who are involved with multiple extracurricular activities may
have a high proportion of male friends. As many studies have shown,
affiliation with male friends is a risk factor for girls’ engagement in delin-
quency (e.g., Haynie 2001). Second, as Hirschi (1969) suggested, delin-
quency does not require a large amount of time; time spent in structured
activities does not prevent adolescents from engaging in delinquent activi-
ties in other unsupervised settings.
Besides independent effects, we find that adolescents’ involvement with
delinquency may be affected by the interaction of various friendship net-
work characteristics. More specifically, our research shows that delin-
quency abstention is more likely when adolescents are well connected in
prosocial peer groups, as definitions and behavioral patterns favorable to
conventional activities are likely to be transmitted with heightened expo-
sure and fewer antisocial opportunities. These results provide further sup-
port for prior studies suggesting that a one-dimensional peer network
measure (such as deviant peer association) is insufficient for understanding
the association between delinquency and peer affiliation (Giordano et al.
1986; Haynie 2001; Kandel 1978; Kandel and Davies 1991).
Although not a central focus, our study tests whether delinquency absten-
tion rates, as well as the mechanisms that lead to abstention, differ across gen-
der. As documented in previous studies (Boutwell and Beaver 2008; Piquero
and Brezina 2005; Thornberry and Krohn 2000), our research indicates that
females are much more likely to be delinquency abstainers than males. The
influence of risk/protective factors on delinquency abstention, however,
appears to be largely the same across these two groups. These findings are
consistent with the argument that theories of the origins of distinct offending
trajectories are explanatory across gender (Moffitt 2006).
The findings presented here should be considered in light of the follow-
ing limitations. First, although our data contain many abstention correlates,
particularly detailed measures of peer network, our focus is on testing the
hypothesis regarding social exclusion and delinquency abstention. Other
mechanisms leading to delinquency abstention, such as a lack of maturity
gap or early access to adult roles, should be explored in future studies.
Second, as described in the data section, our peer network measures are
based on cross-sectional data, which limits the causal inferences we can
462 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
462 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
make about the relationship between peer network and delinquency.
Although a growing body of research has explored this association, future
studies using longitudinal data that track the change in peer network
composition and delinquency over time are needed.
Finally, our analysis of peer network is limited in that adolescents’
friendships outside of school are not captured in Add Health’s network data.
Frequent involvement with friends outside of school may indicate adoles-
cents’ association with peers who do not conform to school norms or who
have dropped out of school. However, Add Health data do have information
regarding the number of friends whose names are not on the roster of parti-
cipating schools, and we have controlled this variable in our analysis. In
addition, as previous studies have indicated, most adolescent social net-
works are formed based on the natural boundaries of schools (Haynie 2002).
Despite these limitations, this study provides a rigorous test of Moffitt’s
hypothesis regarding the association between social exclusion and delin-
quency abstention and concludes that, contrary to Moffitt’s argument, these
abstainers are not ‘‘social introverts’’ or ‘‘pathological.’’ These results appear
to further challenge Moffitt’s theory and suggest that certain modifications
are needed. In addition, the complicated associations between adolescent
friendship network characteristics and delinquency abstention highlight the
need for future research on peer contexts in which adolescents are embedded.
Considering the salience of peer influence in Moffitt’s developmental taxon-
omy and in adolescent delinquency literature in general, studies that adopt a
social network approach may provide further insight into the causal process
that links adolescent friendship and delinquency.
Authors’ Note
A version of this article was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the
American Society of Criminology in St. Louis, Missouri. The authors want
to thank Dr. Timothy Brezina, Dr. Lisa Thrane, Dr. Eric Stewart, and the
three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions
of this paper. This research uses data from Add Health, a program project
designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Har-
ris. The findings and opinions in this document are those of the authors and
do not represent the view of the Add Health research team.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Chen and Adams 463
463 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Funding
This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by
Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman,
and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with coopera-
tive funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. No direct sup-
port was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.
Notes
1. There were 10,827 respondents who were interviewed at all three waves and who
had valid sampling weights. We deleted 11 cases due to lack of age information,
131 cases because these respondents did not respond to questions assessing delin-
quency abstention, and 3,721 cases due to lack of valid friendship network data.
Friendship network data were not calculated for students who came from schools
in which less than 50 percent of the student body completed the questionnaire,
whose names did not appear on the roster from which friends were identified,
or who did not complete the questionnaire. Beyond these cases, certain network
measures were missing for substantive or mathematical reasons (Udry 2003).
2. Our sample excluded students who had no valid friendship network data. It is
speculated that these missing cases might be overrepresented by ‘‘loners.’’ If
Moffitt’s hypothesis regarding delinquency abstention and social exclusion was
correct and these missing cases were overrepresented by ‘‘loners,’’ we would
expect a higher prevalence of delinquency abstention in the missing case sample.
Further analysis was performed to examine this possibility. We found no signif-
icant difference in delinquency abstention prevalence between sample with and
without valid friendship network data for each friendship network measure
(friend size, centrality, density, average peer deviance, average peer grade point
average (GPA), and average peer extracurricular activities). For example, the
prevalence of delinquency abstention was 9.97 percent for those with valid friend
size data and 9.42 percent for those without valid friend size data. We thus con-
cluded that either Moffitt’s hypothesis was not supported or ‘‘loners’’ were not
overrepresented in missing cases. In either case, the exclusion of missing cases
will not affect our results. We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their sug-
gestion to address this issue.
3. Our data are limited in that Add Health currently has only three waves and cannot
capture respondents’ delinquent activities during childhood and late adulthood.
We do not believe this limitation would greatly affect our classification of delin-
quency abstention. First, we measure students’ delinquent activities during
464 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
464 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
adolescence (two waves) and early adulthood (one wave), in which the preva-
lence of delinquency is the highest. As suggested by Moffitt, it is not highly prob-
able that early offenders become abstainers during adolescence or adolescent
abstainers engage in delinquency during middle or late adulthood (Moffitt
2006). Second, our criteria of delinquency abstention are very strict as more than
10 items ranging from minor delinquency to serious crime were used at each
wave to create the scale. Third, our prevalence of delinquency abstention is com-
parable with other studies (Boutwell and Beaver 2008; Piquero and Brezina
2005; Thornberry and Krohn 2000).
4. To avoid collinearity in logistic regression models with interaction terms, all friend-
ship measures were standardized in these multivariate analyses (Jaccard 2001).
References
Barnett, L. 2008. ‘‘Predicting Youth Participation in Extracurricular Recreational
Activities: Relationships with Individual, Parent, and Family Characteristics.’’
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 26:28-60.
Blokland, A. J., D. S. Nagin, and P. Nieuwbeerta. 2005. ‘‘Lifespan Offending Tra-
jectories of a Dutch Conviction Cohort.’’ Criminology 43:919-54.
Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal
of Sociology 92: 1170-1182.
Boutwell, B. B. and K. M. Beaver. 2008. ‘‘A Biosocial Explanation of Delinquency
Abstention.’’ Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 18:59-74.
Brezina, T. and A. R. Piquero. 2007. ‘‘Moral Beliefs, Isolation from Peers, and
Abstention from Delinquency.’’ Deviant Behavior 28:433-65.
Bruyn, E. H. and A. H. Cillessen. 2008. ‘‘Leisure Activity Preference and Perceived
Popularity in Early Adolescence.’’ Journal of Leisure Research 40:442-57.
Cernkovich, S. A., C. E. Kaukinen, and P. C. Giordano. (N.d.). ‘‘Challenging the
‘‘Goodie-Goodie’’ Stereotype: Contemporary and Longitudinal Correlates of
Adolescent Conformity.’’ Unpublished manuscript.
Chantala, K. and C. Suchindra. 2006. ‘‘Adjusting for Unequal Selection Probability
in Multilevel Models: A Comparison of Software Packages.’’ Unpublished tech-
nical Report.
Cohen, J. and P. Cohen. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analyses
for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Degirmencioglu, S. M., K. A. Urberg, J. M. Tolson, and P. Richard. 1998. ‘‘Adoles-
cent Friendship Networks: Continuity and Change over the School Year.’’
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 44:313-37.
Demuth, S. 2004. ‘‘Understanding the Delinquency and Social Relationships of
Loners.’’ Youth & Society 35:366-92.
Chen and Adams 465
465 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Enders, C. K. 2006. ‘‘Analyzing Structural Equation Models with Missing Data.’’
Pp. 315-44 in A Second Course in Structural Equation Modeling, edited by
G. R. Hancock and R. O. Mueller. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Farrington, D. P. and D. J. West. 1993. ‘‘Criminal, Penal, and Life Histories of
Chronic Offenders: Risk and Protective Factors of Early Identification.’’ Crim-
inal Behavior and mental Health 3:492-523.
Felson, R. B. and D. L. Haynie. 2002. ‘‘Puberty Development, Social Factors, and
Delinquency Among Adolescent Boys.’’ Criminology 40:967-88.
Fergusson, D. M., L. J. Horwood, and D. S. Nagin. 2000. ‘‘Offending Trajectories in
a New Zealand Birth Cohort.’’ Criminology 38:525-51.
Giordano, P. C. 2003. ‘‘Relationships in Adolescence.’’ Annual Review of Sociology
29:257-81.
Giordano, P. C., S. A. Cernkovich, and M. D. Pugh. 1986. ‘‘Friendships and Delin-
quency.’’ The American Journal of Sociology 91:1170-202.
Haynie, D. 2001. Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter? The
American Journal of Sociology 106:1013-57.
Haynie, D. L. 2002. ‘‘Friendship Networks and Delinquency: The Relative Nature
of Peer Delinquency.’’ Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18:99-134.
Haynie, D. L. 2003. ‘‘Contexts of Risk? Explaining the Link between Girls’
Pubertal Development and Their Delinquency Involvement.’’ Social Forces
82:355-97.
Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Jaccard, J. 2001. Interaction Effects in Logistic Regression. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Jensen, G. F. and D. Brownfield. 1986. ‘‘Gender, Lifestyles, and Victimization:
Beyond Routine Activity.’’ Violence and Victims 1:85-99.
Jussim, L. and D. W. Osgood. 1989. ‘‘Influence and Similarity among Friends: An
Integrated Model Applied to Incarcerated Adolescents.’’ Social Psychology
Quarterly 52:98-112.
Kandel, D. B. 1978. ‘‘Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent
Friendships.’’ The American Journal of Sociology 84:427-36.
Kandel, D. B. and M. Davies. 1991. ‘‘Friendship Networks, Intimacy, and Illicit
Drug Use in Young Adulthood: A comparison of two competing theories.’’
Criminology 29:441-69.
Knoester, C., D. L. Haynie, and C. M. Stephens. 2006. ‘‘Parenting Practices and
Adolescents’ Friendship Networks.’’ Journal of Marriage and Family
68:1247-60.
Knoke, D. and S. Yang. 2008. Social Network Analysis. 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
466 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
466 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Krohn, M. D. 1986. ‘‘The Web of Conformity: A Network Approach to the
Explanation of Delinquent Behavior.’’ Social Problems 33:601-13.
Larson, R. W. 1983. ‘‘Adolescents’ Daily Experience with Family and Friends:
Contrasting Opportunity Systems.’’ Journal of Marriage and Family
45:739-50.
Laursen, B. 1996. ‘‘Closeness and Conflict in Adolescent Peer Relationships: Interde-
pendence with Friends and Romantic Partners.’’ Pp. 186-210 in The Company They
Keep: Friendship in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by W. M. Bukowski, A. F.
Newcomb, and W. W. Hartup. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Little, R. J. A. and D. B. Rubin. 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New
York: Wiley.
Moffitt, T. E. 1993. ‘‘Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial
Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.’’ Psychological Review 100:674-701.
Moffitt, T. E. 1997. ‘‘Neuropsychology, Antisocial Behavior, and Neighborhood
Context.’’ Pp. 116–70 in Violence and Childhood in the Inner City, edited by
J. McCord. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Moffitt, T. E. 2006. ‘‘A Review of Research on the Taxonomy of Life-Course Persis-
tent versus Adolescence-Limited Antisocial Behavior.’’ Pp. 277-311 in Taking
Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory, Vol. 15, edited by F. T. Cullen,
J. P. Wright, and K. R. Blevins. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.
Moffitt, T. E., A. Caspi, N. Dickson, P. Silva, and W. Stanton. 1996. ‘‘Childhood-
Onset versus Adolescent-Onset Antisocial Conduct Problems in Males:
Natural History from Ages 3 to 18 Years.’’ Development and Psychopathology
8:399-424.
Mustaine, E. E. and R. Tewksbury. 1998. ‘‘Predicting Risks of Larcency Theft Vic-
timization: A Routine Activity Analysis using Refined Activity Measure.’’ Crim-
inology 36:829-58.
Nagin, D., D. Farrington, and T. Moffitt. 1995. ‘‘Life-Course Trajectories of Differ-
ent Types of Offenders.’’ Criminology 33:111-39.
Oliver, P. J. and S. Srivastava. 1999. ‘‘The Big-Five Taxonomy: History, Measure-
ment, and Theoretical Perspectives.’’ in Handbook of Personality: Theory and
Research (2d ed.) edited by L. Pervin and O. P. John. New York: Guilford.
Osgood, D. W., J. K. Wilson, P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, and L. D. Johnson.
1996. ‘‘Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior.’’ American Sociolo-
gical Review 61:635-55.
Paternoster, R., R. Brame, P. Mazerolle, and A. Piquero. 1998. ‘‘Using the Correct
Statistical Test for the Equality of Regression Coefficients.’’ Criminology
36:859-66.
Piquero, A. R. and T. Brezina. 2001. ‘‘Testing Moffitt’s Account of Adolescence-
Limited Delinquency.’’ Criminology 39:353-70.
Chen and Adams 467
467 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Piquero, A. R., T. Brezina, and M. G. Turner. 2005. ‘‘Testing Moffitt’s Account of
Delinquency Abstention.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
42:27-54.
Schafer, J. L. 1997. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London, England:
Chapman & Hall.
Shedler, J. and J. Block. 1990. ‘‘Adolescent drug use and psychological health.’’
American Psychologist 45:612-30.
Thornberry, T. P. and M. D. Krohn. 2000. ‘‘The Self-Report Method for Measuring
Delinquency and Crime.’’ Pp. 33-83 in Measurement and Analysis of Crime and
Justice: Criminal Justice 2000, Vol. 4, edited by D. Duffee. Washington, DC:
Department of Justice.
Udry, J. R. 2003. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add
Health), wave III, 2001-2002 (Data set Q1–Q9, E. A. McKean and J. J. Card).
Warr, M. 1993. ‘‘Age, peers, and delinquency.’’ Criminology 31:17-40.
Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Warr, M. 2005. ‘‘Making Delinquent Friends: Adult Supervision and Children’s
Affiliations.’’ Criminology 43:77-106.
Willmott, P. 1987. Friendship Networks and Social Support. London, England:
Policy Studies Institute.
Bios
Xiaojin Chen is an assistant professor at Department of Sociology, Tulane Univer-
sity, New Orleans, LA 70118. His research interest includes life course criminology,
victimization, mental disorder, and application of advanced statistical techniques.
Michele Adams is a sociologist whose work focuses on families, gender, and cul-
ture. She received her PhD degree in Sociology from the University of California,
Riverside in 2003. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at
Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Her current research focuses on child
custody determinations in the context of domestic violence.
468 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)
468 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from