Research consistently demonstrates that both group offending and alcohol use change the anticipated rewards and consequences of offending, often exacerbating violent outcomes. Alcohol use is also a common feature of group delinquency and offending. Yet, scholars have yet to examine the interaction of these features of crime. Following this, this study investigates the interactive effects of co-offending and alcohol use on the severity of violent crimes using National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data. We find that the risk of serious injury is significantly higher in both crimes involving co-offending and crimes in which the suspects were using alcohol. The combination of co-offending and alcohol use intensifies this effect, even more so when the incident involves younger or male suspects. Intoxicated solo offenses, however, are strikingly similar to group offenses not involving alcohol in their propensity for injury, a finding that has significant theoretical implications for understanding the nature of group violence.
BeckerG. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/259394
4.
BiberS. N. H.HashwayR. N.AnnickJ. F. (1980). Drinking patterns of male and female collegians: Are the patterns converging?Journal of College Student Personnel, 21(4), 349–353.
5.
BreckenridgeS. P.AbbottE. (1912). The delinquent child and the home. Russell Sage Foundation.
6.
ClementsK.SchumacherJ. A. (2010). Perceptual biases in social cognition as potential moderators of the relationship between alcohol and intimate partner violence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.06.004
DickinsonT. (2015). Exploring the drugs/violence nexus among active offenders: Contributions from the St. Louis school. Criminal Justice Review, 40(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016814562422
9.
ExumM. L. (2002). The application and robustness of the rational choice perspective in the study of intoxicated and angry intentions to aggress. Criminology, 40(4), 933–966. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00978.x
FelsonR. B.StaffJ. (2010). The effects of alcohol intoxication on violent versus other offending. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(12), 1343–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810382003
12.
FestingerL.PepitoneA.NewcombT. (1952). Some consequences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057906
GardnerM.SteinbergL. (2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625
15.
GranovetterM. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443. https://doi.org/10.1086/226707
16.
GriffithsE.YuleC.GartnerR. (2011). Fighting over trivial things: Explaining the issue of contention in violent altercations. Criminology, 49(1), 61–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00218.x
LantzB. (2020). Co-offending group composition and violence: The impact of sex, age, and group size on co-offending violence. Crime & Delinquency, 66(1), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719834564
20.
LantzB. (2021). The consequences of crime in company: Co-offending, victim-offender relationship, and quality of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8), NP4363–NP4388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518786497
21.
LantzB. (2022). Why more agencies and researchers should embrace the upcoming NIBRS transition: Contributions and promises of the NIBRS data. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(3), 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09606-5
22.
LantzB.HutchisonR. (2015). Co-offender ties and the criminal career: The relationship between co-offender group structure and the individual offender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(5), 658–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815576754
23.
LantzB.KimJ. (2019). Hate crimes hurt more, but so do co-offenders: Separating the influence of co-offending and bias on hate-motivated physical injury. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(3), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818810314
24.
LantzB.WengerM. R. (2021). Guns, groups, and the Southern culture of honor: Considering the role of co-offenders in Southern firearm violence. Psychology of Violence, 11(4), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000352
25.
LantzB.WengerM. R. (2024). Co-offending and police notification: the differential reporting of young groups to the police. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(8), 799–822.
26.
LauritsenJ. L.HeimerK.LynchJ. P. (2009). Trends in the gender gap in violent offending: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminology, 47(2), 361–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00149.x
27.
LoughranT. A.PaternosterR.ChalfinA.WilsonT. (2016). Can rational choice be considered a general theory of crime? Evidence from individual-level panel data. Criminology, 54(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12097
LundholmL.HaggårdU.MöllerJ.HallqvistJ.ThiblinI. (2012). The triggering effect of alcohol and illicit drugs on violent crime in a remand prison population: A case crossover study. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 129(1–2), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.09.019
30.
McGloinJ. M.PiqueroA. R. (2009). “I wasn’t alone”: Collective behaviour and violent delinquency. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.42.3.336
McGloinJ. M.ThomasK. J. (2016). Incentives for collective deviance: Group size and changes in perceived risk, cost, and reward. Criminology, 54(3), 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12111
33.
McGloinJ. M.ThomasK. J.RowanZ. R.DeitzerJ. R. (2021). Can the group disincentivize offending? Considering opt-out thresholds and decision reversals. Criminology, 59(4), 738–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12289
34.
MizeT. D. (2019). Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociological Science, 6(4), 81–117. https://doi.org/10.15195/v6.a4
35.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). Substance use in women research report. National Institutes of Health.
ParkerR. N.RebhunL. (1995). Alcohol and homicide: A deadly combination of two American traditions. State University of New York Press.
39.
PearsonM. R.KiteB. A.HensonJ. M. (2013). Predictive effects of good self-control and poor regulation on alcohol-related outcomes: Do protective behavioral strategies mediate?Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028818
40.
PeraltaR. L. (2008). “Alcohol allows you to not be yourself”: Toward a structured understanding of alcohol use and gender difference among gay, lesbian, and heterosexual youth. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(2), 373–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/002204260803800201
41.
PernanenK. (1991). Alcohol in human violence. The Guilford Press.
42.
PiqueroA. R.PaternosterR.PogarskyG.LoughranT. (2011). Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7(1), 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404
43.
RandM. R.SabolW. J.SinclairM.SnyderH. (2010). Alcohol and crime: Data from 2002 to 2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
44.
SarneckiJ. (2001). Delinquent networks: Youth co-offending in Stockholm. Cambridge University Press.
45.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1931). Social factors in juvenile delinquency. US Government Printing Office.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019). Substance misuse prevention for young adults. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
48.
ThomasK. J.BaumerE. P.LoughranT. J. (2022). Structural predictors of choice: Testing a multilevel rational choice theory of crime. Criminology, 60(4), 606–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12314
49.
ThomasK. J.VogelM. (2019). Testing a rational choice model of “desistance”: Decomposing changing expectations and changing utilities. Criminology, 57(4), 687–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12223
TomsenS. (2005). “Boozers and bouncers”: Masculine conflict, disengagement and the contemporary governance of drinking-related violence and disorder. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.38.3.283
52.
TremblayP. (1993). Searching for suitable co-offenders. In ClarkeR. V.FelsonM. (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 5, pp. 17–36). Routledge.
53.
WarrM. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press.
54.
WeermanF. M. (2003). Co-offending as social exchange: Explaining characteristics of co-offending. British Journal of Criminology, 43(2), 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/43.2.398
55.
WengerM. R.LantzB.PupoJ. (2024). Constrained choice? The role of co-offenders and structural context in the decision to escalate interpersonal violence. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287241259471
WhiteH. R.ConwayF. N.WardJ. H. (2019). Comorbidity of substance use and violence. In WhiteH. R.ConwayF. N.WardJ. H. (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (2nd ed., pp. 513–532). Springer.
58.
ZimringF. E.HawkinsG. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. University of Chicago Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
