This study examines the influence of online peers who are not regularly seen in person by considering if online, pro-delinquent support is associated with self-reported delinquency independently of delinquent peers.
Methods:
Data come from a longitudinal, panel survey of two cohorts of middle and high school students located within six school districts (N = 1,177). Analyses first examine the overlap between online peer support for delinquency and perceived peer delinquency. Next, models consider how measures of online peer support for delinquency are associated with the prevalence (logit), variety (negative binomial), and changes (first difference) in self-reported delinquency.
Results:
Online peers generally do not enable exposure to new messages supportive of delinquency; rather, they supplement influences derived from delinquent peers. Little evidence was found that online peer support was associated with general delinquency and violence, although changes in online peer support were associated with changes in these outcomes. Partial evidence was found that online peers are associated with the prevalence, variety, and changes in self-reported theft and substance use.
Conclusions:
The influence from unique online peers is largely secondary to offline peers, although this depends upon the crime type under investigation.
BarronBrigidGomezKimberleyPinkardNicholeMartinCaitlin K.. 2014. The Digital Youth Network: Cultivating Digital Media Citizenship in Urban Communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Boman IVJohn H.MowenThomas J.HigginsGeorge E.. 2019. “Social Learning, Self- Control, and Offending Specialization and Versatility among Friends.” American Journal of Criminal Justice44:3-22.
9.
Boman IVJohn H.WardJeffrey T.. 2014. “Beyond Projection: Specifying the Types of Peer Delinquency Misperception at the Item and Scale Levels.” Deviant Behavior35:555-80.
10.
BranleyDawn BeverleyCoveyJudith. 2017. “Is Exposure to Online Content Depicting Risky Behavior Related to Viewers’ Own Risky Behavior Offline?” Computers in Human Behavior75:283–87.
11.
BuhrmesterDuanePragerKaren. 1995. “Patterns and Functions of Self-Disclosure During Childhood and Adolescence.” Pp. 10–56 in Disclosure Processes in Children and Adolescents, edited by RotenbergKen J.New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CostelloBarbara J.HopeTrina L.. 2016. Peer Pressure, Peer Prevention: The Role of Friends in Crime and Conformity. New York: Routledge.
13.
DanahBoyd. 2014. It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
DanahBoydHargittaiEszter. 2013. “Connected and Concerned: Variation in Parents’ Online Safety Concerns.” Policy & Internet5:245-69.
DishionThomas J.PiehlerTimothy F.MyersMichael W.. 2008. “Dynamics and Ecology of Adolescent Peer Influence.” Pp. 33–84 in Understanding Peer Influence in Children and Adolescents, edited by PrinsteinMitchel J.DodgeKenneth A.. New York: Guilford Press.
GallupeOwenMcLeveyJohnBrownSarah. 2018. “Selection and Influence: A Meta-analysis of the Association between Peer and Personal Offending.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology35:313–35.
20.
GeorgeMadeleine J.OdgersCandice L.. 2015. “Seven Fears and the Science of How Mobile Technologies may be Influencing Adolescents in the Digital Age.” Perspectives on Psychological Science10:832–51.
21.
GlueckSheldonGlueckEleanor. 1950. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
GottfredsonGary D.GottfredsonDenise C.PayneAllison AnnGottfredsonNisha C.. 2005. “School Climate Predictors of School Disorder: Results from a National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency42:412–44.
23.
GottfredsonMichaelHirschiTravis. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
GrasmickHarold G.TittleCharles R.BursikRobert J.JrArneklevBruce J.. 1993. “Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency30:5–29.
25.
HaynieDana L.Wayne OsgoodD.. 2005. “Reconsidering Peers and Delinquency: How Do Peers Matter?” Social Forces84:1109–30.
26.
HirschiTravis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkley: University of California Press.
27.
HuangGrace C.UngerJennifer B.SotoDanielFujimotoKayoPentzMary AnnJordan-MarshMaryaliceValenteThomas W.. 2014. “Peer Influences: The Impact of Online and Offline Friendship Networks on Adolescent Smoking and Alcohol Use.” Journal of Adolescent Health54:508–14.
28.
HuntMelissa G.MarxRachelLipsonCourtneyYoungJordyn. 2018. “No more FOMO: Limiting Social Media Decreases Loneliness and Depression.” Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology37:751–68.
29.
JacksonElton F.TittleCharles R.BurkeMary Jean. 1986. Offense-Specific Models of the Differential Association Process. Social Problems33:335–56.
30.
JaishankarKaruppannan. 2008. “Space Transition Theory of Cyber Crimes.” Pp. 283–301 in Crimes of the Internet, edited by SchmallagerFrank J.PitteroMichael. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
JanssenHeleen J.EichelsheimVeroni I.DekovićMajaBruinsmaGerben J. N.. 2016. “How Is Parenting Related to Adolescent Delinquency? A Between- and Within-Person Analysis of The Mediating Role of Self-Control, Delinquent Attitudes, Peer Delinquency, and Time Spent in Criminogenic Settings.” European Journal of Criminology13:169–94.
32.
JensenGary F.1972. “Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action: A Test of the Differential Association Perspective.” American Journal of Sociology78: 562–75.
33.
JoinsonAdam N.2001. “Self-Disclosure in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Role of Self-Awareness And Visual Anonymity.” European Journal of Social Psychology31:177–92.
34.
KandelDenise B.1996. “The Parental and Peer Contexts of Adolescent Deviance: An Algebra of Interpersonal Influence.” Journal of Drug Issues26:289–316.
35.
KrautRobertKieslerSaraBonevaBonkaCummingsJonathonHelgesonVickiCrawfordAnne. 2002. “Internet Paradox Revisited.” Journal of Social Issues58:49–74.
36.
KrossEthanVerduynPhilippeDemiralpEmreParkJiyoungLeeDavid SeungjaeLinNatalieShablackHollyJonidesJohnYbarraOscar. 2013. “Facebook Use Predicts Declines in Subjective Well-being in Young Adults.” PloS One8:e69841.
37.
LeeSook Jung. 2009. “Online Communication and Adolescent Social Ties: Who Benefits More from Internet Use?” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14:509–31.
MatsuedaRoss L.1982. “Testing Control Theory and Differential Association: A Causal Modeling Approach.” American Sociological Review47:489–504.
41.
MatsuedaRoss L. 1988. “The Current State of Differential Association Theory.” Crime & Delinquency34:277–306.
42.
McCuddyTimothyVogelMatt. 2015a. “More Than Just Friends: Online Social Networks and Offending.” Criminal Justice Review40:169–89.
43.
McCuddyTimothyVogelMatt. 2015b. “Beyond Traditional Interaction: Exploring the Functional Forms of the Exposure-Offending Association Across Online Network Size.” Journal of Criminal Justice43:89–98.
44.
McGloinJean M.ShermerLauren O’Neill. 2009. “Self-Control and Deviant Peer Network Structure.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency46:35–72.
45.
McGloinJean M.ThomasKyle J.. 2016. “Considering the Elements That Inform Perceived Peer Deviance.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency53:597–627.
46.
McGloinJean M.ThomasKyle J.. 2019. “Peer Influence and Delinquency.” Annual Review of Criminology2:241–64.
47.
MeldrumRyan C.ClarkJim. 2015. “Adolescent Virtual Time Spent Socializing with Peers, Substance Use, and Delinquency.” Crime & Delinquency61:1104–1126.
48.
MillerBrookeMorrisRobert G.. 2014. “Virtual Peer Effects in Social Learning Theory.” Crime & Delinquency. 62:1543–69.
49.
MorenoMegan A.BrinerLeslie R.WilliamsAmandaWalkerLeslieChristakisDimitri A.. 2009. “Real use or ‘Real Cool’: Adolescents Speak Out about Displayed Alcohol References on Social Networking Websites.” Journal of Adolescent Health45:420–22.
50.
NegriffSonya. 2019. “The Influence of Online-only Friends on the Substance Use of Young Adults with a History of Childhood Maltreatment.” Substance Use & Misuse54:120–29.
51.
OrcuttJames D. 1987. “Differential Association and Marijuana Use: A Closer Look at Sutherland (With A Little Help from Becker).” Criminology25:341–58.
52.
OsgoodD. WayneWilsonJanet K.O’MalleyPatrick M.BachmanJerald G.JohnstonLloyd D.. 1996. “Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior.” American Sociological Review61:635–55.
53.
PalfreyJohnGasserUrs. 2008. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books.
54.
PattersonGeraldDeBarysheBarbara D.RamseyElizabeth. 1989. “A Developmental Perspective on Antisocial Behavior.” American Psychologist44:329–35.
55.
PrattTravis C.CullenFrancis T.SellersChristine S.Thomas WinfreeL.MadensenTamara D.DaigleLeah E.FearnNoelle E.GauJacinta M.. 2010. “The Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory: A Meta-Analysis.” Justice Quarterly27:765–02.
56.
PrenskyMarc. 2001. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On the Horizon9:1–6.
57.
RoystonParick. 2005. “Multiple imputation of missing values: Update of ice.” Stata Journal5:527–36.
58.
SchoutenAlexander P.ValkenburgPattiPeterJochen. 2007. “Precursors and Underlying Processes of Adolescents’ Online Self-Disclosure: Developing and Testing an ‘Internet Attribute-Perception’ Model.” Media Psychology10:292–314.
59.
StoddardSarah A.BauermeisterJose A.Gordon-MesserDeborahJohnsMichelleZimmermanMarc A.. 2012. “Permissive Norms and Young Adults’ Alcohol and Marijuana Use: The Role of Online Communities.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs73: 968–75.
60.
SubrahmanyamKaveriGreenfieldPatricia. 2008. “Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships.” The Future of Children18:119–46.
61.
SubrahmanyamKaveriSmahelDavid. 2010. Digital Youth: The Role of Media in Development. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
62.
SulerJohn. 2016. Psychology of the Digital Age: Humans Become Electric. New York: Cambridge University Press.
63.
SutherlandEdwin. 1947. Principles of Criminology. 4th ed. Chicago: Lippincott.
64.
SweetenGary. 2012. “Scaling Criminal Offending.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology28:533–57.
65.
SykesGresham M.MatzaDavid. 1957. “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency.” American Sociological Review22: 664–670.
66.
ThomasKyle J.2015. “Delinquent Peer Influence on Offending Versatility: Can Peers Promote Specialized Delinquency?” Criminology53:280–308.
67.
ThomasKyle J.McCuddyTimothy. 2020 “Affinity, Affiliation, and Guilt: Examining between-and within-person Variability in Delinquent Peer Influence.” Justice Quarterly37:715–38.
68.
ThornberryTerrence P.1987. “Toward an Interactional Theory of Delinquency.” Criminology25:863–92.
69.
TittleCharles R.BurkeMary JeanJacksonElton F.. 1986. “Modeling Sutherland’s Theory of Differential Association: Toward an Empirical Clarification.” Social Forces65:405–32.
70.
TwengeJean M.SpitzbergBrian H.Keith CampbellW.. 2019. “Less In-person Social Interaction with Peers among US Adolescents in the 21st Century and Links to Loneliness.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships36:1892–13.
71.
ValkenburgPatti M.PeterJochen. 2009. “The Effects of Instant Messaging on the Quality of Adolescents’ Existing Friendships: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Communication59:79–97.
72.
WarrMarkStaffordMark. 1991. “Influence of Delinquent Peers: What they think or what they do.” Criminology29:851–66.
73.
WarrMark. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. New York: Cambridge University Press.
74.
YoungJacob T. N.BarnesJ. C.MeldrumRyan C.WeermanFrank M.. 2011. “Assessing and Explaining Misperceptions of Peer Delinquency.” Criminology49:599–630.
75.
YoungJacob T. N.RebellonCesar J.BarnesJ. C.WeermanFrank M.. 2014. “Unpacking the black box of peer similarity in deviance: Understanding the Mechanisms Linking Personal Behavior, Peer Behavior, and Perceptions.” Criminology52:60–86.
76.
YoungSean D.JordanAlexander H.. 2013. “The Influence of Social Networking Photos on Social Norms and Sexual Health Behaviors.” Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking16:243–47.
