This study uses National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) data to explore the co-evolution of friendship networks and delinquent behaviors. Using a stochastic actor–based (SAB) model, we simultaneously estimate the network structure, influence process, and selection process on adolescents in 12 small schools (N = 1,284) and 1 large school (N = 976) over three time periods. Our results indicate the presence of both selection and influence processes. Moderating effects were tested for density, centrality, and popularity, with only a weak interaction effect for density and influence in the small schools (p < .10). Contexts outside the school affected school networks: adolescents in the large school were particularly likely to form ties to others from equally disadvantaged neighborhoods, and adolescents in the small schools with more outside of school ties increased their delinquency over time. These findings support the importance of delinquency in peer selection and influence processes.
AgnewR. (1991). A longitudinal test of social control theory and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 28, 126-156. doi:10.1177/0022427891028002002
2.
AkersR. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
3.
AkersR. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
4.
AseltineR. H. (1995). A reconsideration of parental and peer influences on adolescent deviance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 103-121. doi:10.2307/2137219
5.
BaerveldtC.VolkerB.Van RossemR. (2008). Revisiting selection and influence: An inquiry into the friendship networks of high school students and their association with delinquency. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50, 559-587. doi:10.1353/ccj.0.003210.3138/cjccj.50.5.559
6.
BearmanP. S.MoodyJ.StovelK. (2004). Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 44-91.
7.
BronfenbrennerU. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
BurkW. J.KerrM.StattinH. (2008). The co-evolution of early adolescent friendship networks, school involvement and delinquent behaviors. Revue Francaise de Sociologie, 49, 499-522.
9.
BurkW. J.SteglichC. E. G.SnijdersT. A. B. (2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 397-404. doi:10.1177/0165025407077762
10.
ButtsC. (2011, June). Modeling networks with missing data in statnet. Paper presented at the Political Networks Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.
11.
CheadleJ. E.GoosbyB. J. (2012). The small school friendship dynamics of adolescent depressive symptoms. Society and Mental Health, 2, 99-119. doi:10.1177/2156869312445211
12.
CheadleJ. E.SchwadelP. (2012). The “friendship dynamics of religion,” or the “religious dynamics of friendship”? A social network analysis of adolescents who attend small schools. Social Science Research, 41, 1198-1212.
13.
de CuyperR.WeermanF.RuiterS. (2009). The co-evolution of friendship and relationships delinquent behavior among Dutch youth. People & Society, 84(3), 300-328.
14.
DijkstraJ. K.CillessenA. H. N.BorchC. (2013). Popularity and adolescent friendship networks: Selection and influence dynamics. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1242-1252. doi:10.1037/a0030098
15.
ElliottD. S.WilsonW. J.HuizingaD.SampsonR. J.ElliottA.RankinB. H. (1996). The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 33, 389-426.
16.
EnnettS. T.FarisR.HippJ. R.FosheeV. A.BaumanK. E.HussongA.CaiL. (2008). Peer smoking, other peer attributes, and adolescent cigarette smoking: A social network analysis. Prevention Science, 9, 88-98.
17.
EnnettS. T.FosheeV. A.BaumanK. E.HussongA.CaiL.ReyesH. L. M.. . . DuRantR. (2009). The social ecology of adolescent alcohol misuse: An integration of social ecology, social learning, and social control theories. Child Development, 79, 1777-1791. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01225.x
18.
EnnettS. T.FosheeV. A.BaumanK. E.HussongA.FarisR.HippJ. R.CaiL. (2010). A social contextual analysis of youth cigarette smoking development. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12, 950-962.
19.
EriksonE. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
20.
FeldmanR. A. (1992). The St. Louis experiment: Effective treatment of antisocial youths in prosocial peer groups. In McCordJ.TremblayR. E. (Eds.), Preventing antisocial behavior: Interventions from birth through adolescence (pp. 233-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
FriedkinN. E. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
22.
FriedkinN. E. (2001). Norm formation in social influence networks. Social Networks, 23, 167-189.
23.
FriedkinN. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409-425.
24.
FriedkinN. E.JohnsenE. C. (1999). Social influence networks and opinion change. Advances in Group Processes, 16(1), 1-29.
25.
GlueckS.GlueckE. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
GrunwaldH. E.LockwoodB.HarrisP. W.MennisJ. (2010). Influences of neighborhood context, individual history and parenting behavior on recidivism among juvenile offenders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1067-1079. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9518-5
27.
HaynieD. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013-1057.
28.
HaynieD. L. (2002). Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 99-134.
29.
HaynieD. L.DooganN. J.SollerB. (2014). Gender, friendship networks, and delinquency: A dynamic network approach. Criminology, 52, 688-722. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12052
30.
HaynieD. L.OsgoodD. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter?Social Forces, 84, 1109-1130.
31.
HaynieD. L.SilverE.TeasdaleB. (2006). Neighborhood characteristics, peer networks, and adolescent violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 147-169. doi:10.1007/s10940-006-9006-y
32.
HippJ. R.WangC.ButtsC. T.JoseR.LakonC. M. (2015). Research note: The consequences of different methods for handling missing network data in stochastic actor models. Social Networks, 41, 56-71. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2014.12.004
33.
HirschiT. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkley: University of California Press.
34.
HochstetlerA.CopesH.DeLisiM. (2002). Differential association in group and solo offending. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 559-566.
35.
JarjouraG. R. (1993). Does dropping out of school enhance delinquent involvement? Results from a large-scale national probability sample. Criminology, 31, 149-172.
36.
JoynerK.KaoG. (2000). School racial composition and adolescent racial homophily. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 810-825.
37.
KandelD. B. (1996). The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: An algebra of interpersonal influences. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 289-315.
38.
KnechtA. B. (2008). Friendship selection and friends’ influence: Dynamics of networks and actor attributes in early adolescence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands). Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/25950
39.
LazarsfeldP. F.MertonR. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In BergerM.AbelT.PageC. H. (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18-66). New York, NY: Van Nostrand.
40.
MathysC.BurkW. J.CillessenA. H. N. (2013). Popularity as a moderator of peer selection and socialization of adolescent alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco use. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 513-523. doi:10.1111/jora.12031
41.
MatsuedaR. L.AndersonK. (1998). The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. Criminology, 36, 269-308. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01249.x
42.
McGloinJ. M.ShermerL. O. (2009). Self-control and deviant peer network structure. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 46, 35-72. doi:10.1177/0022427808326585
43.
MoffittT. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
44.
MoffittT. E. (1994). Natural histories of delinquency. In WeitekampE. M.KernerH.-J. (Eds.), Cross-national longitudinal research on human development and criminal behavior (Vol. 76, pp. 3-61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
45.
MoffittT. E. (2006). Life-course-persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In CicchettiD.CohenD. J. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 570-598). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
46.
PaxtonP.MoodyJ. (2003). Structure and sentiment: Explaining emotional attachment to group. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(1), 34-47.
47.
PearsonM.SteglichC.SnijdersT. A. B. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. Connections, 27(1), 47-63.
48.
PetersonA. C.KennedyR. E.SullivanP. (1991). Coping with adolescence. In ColtonM. E.GoreS. (Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 93-110). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
49.
RamirezM.PaikA.SanchagrinK.HeimerK. (2012). Violent peers, network centrality, and intimate partner violence among young men. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51, 503-509. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.02.016
50.
RankinB. H.QuaneJ. M. (2002). Social contexts and urban adolescent outcomes: The interrelated effects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African-American youth. Social Problems, 49(1), 79-100.
51.
ReedM. D.RoseD. R. (1998). Doing what simple Simon says? Estimating the underlying causal structures of delinquent associations, attitudes, and serious theft. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 240-274.
SampsonR. J.MorenoffJ. D.Gannon-RowleyT. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443-478.
54.
SchaeferD. R.HaasS. A.BishopN. (2012). A dynamic model of US adolescents’ smoking and friendship networks. American Journal of Public Health, 102(6), e12-e18.
55.
ShawC. T.McKayH. D. (1931). Report on the causes of crime (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
56.
SimonsR. L.JohnsonC.BeamanJ.CongerR. D.WhitbeckL. B. (1996). Parents and peer group as mediators of the effect of community structure on adolescent problem behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 145-171.
57.
SimpkinsS. D.SchaeferD. R.PriceC. D.VestA. E. (2013). Adolescent friendships, BMI, and physical activity: Untangling selection and influence through longitudinal social network analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 537-549. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00836.x.
58.
SnijdersT. A. B.BaerveldtC. (2003). A multilevel network study of the effects of delinquent behavior on friendship evolution. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27, 123-151. doi:10.1080/00222500390213119
59.
SnijdersT. A. B.SteglichC. E. G.SchweinbergerM. (2007). Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In van MontfortK.OudH.SatorraA. (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
60.
SnijdersT. A. B.vandeBuntG. G.SteglichC. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32, 44-60. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004
61.
SteglichC.SnijdersT. A. B.PearsonM. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329-393. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01225.x
62.
SutherlandE. H. (1939). Principles of criminology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.
63.
SutherlandE. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott.
64.
SutherlandE. H.CresseyD. R.LuckenbillD. F. (1992). Principles of criminology (11th ed.). Lanham, MD: General Hall.
65.
ThornberryT. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology, 25, 863-891. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00823.x
66.
ThornberryT. P.LizotteA. J.KrohnM. D.FarnworthM.JangS. J. (1994). Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology, 32, 47-83. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01146.x
67.
VeenstraR.DijkstraJ. K.SteglichC.Van ZalkM. H. W. (2013). Network–behavior dynamics. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 399-412. doi:10.1111/jora.12070
68.
WarrM. (1996). Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology, 34, 11-37.
69.
WarrM. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
70.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
71.
WeermanF. M. (2011). Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology, 49, 253-286.
72.
WeermanF. M.SmeenkW. H. (2005). Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: A comparison using two measurement methods. Criminology, 43, 499-524.
73.
YoungJ. T. N.ReesC. (2013). Social networks and delinquency in adolescence: Implications for life-course criminology. In GibsonC. L.KrohnM. D. (Eds.), Handbook of life-course criminology (pp. 159-180). New York, NY: Springer.
