Differential association and social learning theory assume delinquent peers to be instigators and reinforcers of delinquent behaviour and norms favourable of delinquency. Control theory, on the other hand, assumes that delinquents will group together with peers that share a common normative and behavioural background. Interactional theory as an integrative paradigm argues that both – influence and selection – processes might be active simultaneously and are embedded in a reciprocal causal relationship. This paper tests the reciprocity between the association with delinquent peer groups, the acceptance of pro-violent norms and violent delinquency during adolescence with data from a German longitudinal panel study in a longitudinal structural equation model. Results indicate that peers, norms and violence are interactionally related and that influence and selection processes are active simultaneously. Moreover, further structural dimensions are able to explain delinquent peer group association, the acceptance of pro-violent norms and violence in early adolescence.
AkersRL (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
2.
AndreassenTWLorentzenBGOlssonUH (2006) The impact of nonnormality and estimation methods in SEM on satisfaction research in marketing. Quality & Quantity40(1): 39–58.
3.
AseltineRH (1995) A reconsideration of parental and peer influences on adolescent deviance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior36(2): 103–121.
4.
BaerveldtCVölkerBVan 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 Justice50(5): 559–587.
5.
BoersKSeddigDReineckeJ (2009) Sozialstrukturelle Bedingungen und Delinquenz im Verlauf des Jugendalters: Analysen mit einem kombinierten Markov- und Wachstumsmodell. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform92(2/3): 267–288.
6.
BoersKReineckeJSeddigD. (2010) Explaining the development of adolescent violent delinquency. European Journal of Criminology7(6): 499–520.
7.
BollenKA (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
8.
BollenKACurranPJ (2006) Latent Curve Models: A Structural Equation Perspective. New York: Wiley.
CameronACTrivediPK (1998) Regression Analysis of Count Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
DunawayRGCullenFTBurtonVSJr. (2000) The myth of social class and crime revisited: An examination of class and adult criminality. Criminology38(2): 589–632.
12.
DurkheimE (1982) The Rules of Sociological Method, LukesS (ed.). New York: Free Press.
13.
ElderGH (1998) The life course as developmental theory. Child Development69(1): 1–12.
14.
ElliottDSMenardS (1996) Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior: Temporal and developmental patterns. In: HawkinsDJ (ed.) Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.28–67.
15.
EllisLMcDonaldJN (2000) Crime, delinquency and social status: A reconsideration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation32(3): 23–52.
16.
EndersCK (2001) The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models with missing data. Psychological Methods6(4): 352–370.
17.
EndersCKBandalosDL (2001) The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling8(3): 430–457.
18.
FinkbeinerC (1979) Estimation for the multiple factor model when data are missing. Psychometrika44(4): 409–420.
19.
FrønesI (1995) Among Peers. On the Meaning of Peers in the Process of Socialisation. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
20.
GlueckSGlueckE (1950) Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. London: Oxford University Press.
21.
GottfredsonMRHirschiT (1990) A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
22.
HancockGRMuellerRO (2006) Structural Equation Modeling. A Second Course. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
23.
HaynieDL (2001) Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?American Journal of Sociology106(4): 1013–1057.
24.
HaynieDL (2002) Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology18(2): 99–134.
25.
HilbeJM (2008) Negative Binomial Regression, 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HirschiT (1969) Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
HradilS (1987) Sozialstrukturanalyse in einer fortgeschrittenen Gesellschaft. Von Klassen und Schichten zu Lagen und Milieus. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
28.
HuLBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6(1): 1–55.
KluckhohnC (1967) Values and value orientation in the theory of action. An exploration in definition and classification. In: ParsonsTShilsE (eds) Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp.388–433.
31.
LaubJHSampsonRJ (1993) Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology31(3): 301–325.
32.
LongJS (1983) Covariance Structure Models. An Introduction to LISREL. Newbury Park: Sage.
33.
MatsuedaRLAndersonK (1998) The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. Criminology36(2): 269–306.
34.
MegensKCIMWeermanFM (2012) The social transmission of delinquency: Effects of peer attitudes and behavior revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency49(3): 420–443.
35.
MenardSElliottDS (1994) Delinquent bonding, moral beliefs, and illegal behavior: A three- wave panel model. Justice Quarterly11(2): 173–188.
36.
MertonRK (1968) Social structure and anomie. In: MertonRK (ed.) Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, pp.185–214.
37.
MillerHV (2010) If your friends jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too? Delinquent peers and susceptibility to peer influence. Justice Quarterly27(4): 473–491.
38.
OlssonUHFossTTroyeSV. (2000) The performance of ML, GLS, and WLS estimation in structural equation modeling under conditions of misspecification and nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling7(4): 557–595.
39.
ParsonsT (1960) Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: Free Press.
40.
ReedMDRoseDR (1998) Doing what simple Simon says? Estimating the underlying causal structures of delinquent associations, attitudes, and serious theft. Criminal Justice and Behavior25(2): 240–274
41.
ReineckeJ (2013) Growth curve models and panel dropouts: Applications with criminological panel data. Netherlands Journal of Psychology67: 122–131.
42.
ReineckeJSeddigD (2011) Growth mixture models in longitudinal research. Advances in Statistical Analysis95(4): 415–434.
43.
ReineckeJWeinsC (2012) The development of delinquency during adolescence: A methodological analysis of missing data techniques. Quality & Quantity47(6): 3319–3334.
44.
RhemtullaMBrosseau-LiardPÉSavaleiV (2012) When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods17(3): 354–373.
45.
SampsonRJLaubJH (2003) Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology41(3): 555–592.
46.
SeddigD (2013) Crime inhibiting, interactional and co-developmental patterns of school bonds and the acceptance of legal norms. Crime and Delinquency (in press).
47.
SmithDJEcobR (2013) The influence of friends on teenage offending: How long does it last?European Journal of Criminology10(1): 40–58.
48.
SutherlandEH (1947) Principles of Criminology, 4th edn.Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
49.
ThornberryTP (1987) Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology25(4): 863–891.
50.
ThornberryTP (1996) Empirical support for interactional theory: A review of the literature. In: HawkinsDJ (ed.) Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.198–235.
51.
ThornberryTPLizotteAJKrohnMD. (1994) Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behaviour: A longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology32(1): 47–83.
52.
TittleCRMeierRF (1990) Specifying the SES/delinquency relationship. Criminology28(2): 271–299.
53.
Van MontfortKMooijaartAMeijerinkF (2009) Estimating structural equation models with non-normal variables by using transformations. Statistica Neerlandica63(2): 213–226.
54.
WarrM (1993) Age, peers and delinquency. Criminology31(1): 17–40.
55.
WarrM (2002) Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
WarrMStaffordM (1991) The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do?Criminology29(4): 851–866.
57.
WeermanFM (2011) Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology49(1): 253–286.
58.
WidamanKFFerrerECongerRD (2010) Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives4(1): 10–18.
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.
