One Bad Apple May Not Spoil the Whole Bunch: Best Friends and Adolescent Delinquency

Carter Rees; Greg Pogarsky

doi:10.1007/s10940-010-9103-9

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

June 2011, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 197–223 | Cite as

One Bad Apple May Not Spoil the Whole Bunch: Best Friends and Adolescent Delinquency

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Carter Rees
Greg PogarskyEmail author

Original Paper

First Online: 28 July 2010

660 Downloads
24 Citations

Abstract

This study compared the association of adolescent delinquency with that of their best friend and remaining social network. Findings are reported from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a multi-wave nationally representative panel study of adolescents who were in grades 7–12 in 1994. Four delinquent outcomes were examined: Smoking, getting drunk, fighting, and a variety index of general delinquency. All analyses were replicated for three distinct criteria for identifying a “best friend.” We also examined several moderating factors and potential interrelationships between the best friend and remaining friendship group. Relative to the influence of the best friend, the influence of the remaining friendship group increased with group size, and with larger absolute disparities in delinquency levels between best and remaining friends. Our findings extend knowledge on the influence of best friends, and further underscore the importance of whether peer behaviors are measured directly (from the peers themselves) or indirectly (when focal respondents estimate the delinquent behavior of their peers).

Keywords

Peers Delinquency Social networks Social learning Best friend Add health

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgment

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 cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6

Coding of Variables

Variable	Description
Dependent variables and lags
Respondent general delinquency (wave II)	Respondents reported the number of times they committed each of 14 different forms of delinquency in the past 12 months. These 14 delinquency items were: painting graffiti, damaging others’ property, shoplifting, stealing something worth more than $50, stealing something worth less than $50, burglarizing a building, borrowing someone’s car without permission, selling drugs, getting into fights, seriously injuring another person, participating in a group fight, using or threatening to use a weapon, pulling a knife/gun on someone, and stabbing/shooting someone. Each response was ordinal but then dichotomized to reflect whether the respondent ever (1) or never (0) committed the corresponding act in the 12 months preceding the wave 1 interview. The dichotomized scores were then summed for each respondent creating a variety index of general delinquency ranging from 0 to 14
Respondent general delinquency (in-school)	Respondent’s in-school general delinquency index was created by summing the response to the following six questions which were on an ordinal scale of (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day: During the past 12 months how often did you—smoke cigarettes, drink beer, wine, or liquor, get drunk, race on a bike, on a skateboard or roller blades, or in a boat or car, do something dangerous because you were dared to, and skip school without an excuse? Respondent in-school general delinquency ranges from 0 to 36
Respondent smoking (wave II)	Respondents indicated the number of days out of the past 30 that they smoked cigarettes. Values range from 0 to 30
Respondent smoking (in-school)	Respondent in-school smoking was controlled for using the in-school question “During the past 12 months how often did you smoke cigarettes?” This variable has a range of (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Respondent getting drunk (wave II)	Respondents indicated the number of days over the past 12 months that they “got drunk or very, very high on alcohol. The original scale of this variable was (1) every day or almost every day to (7) no days but this scale was re-coded so higher values reflected more drinking. The re-codes scale ranges from (0) no days to (6) every day or almost every day
Respondent getting drunk (in-school)	Respondent’s in-school getting drunk behavior was measured by the question “During the past 12 months how often did you get drunk?” This variable has a range of (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Respondent fighting (wave II)	Respondents were also asked how often during the past 12 months they “got into a serious physical fight.” Ordinal responses to this question were dichotomized to reflect either having been in a serious physical fight one or more times (1) or never having been in a serious physical fight (0)
Respondent fighting (in-school)	Lag respondent fighting was measured using the in-school question “In the past 12 months how often have you gotten into a physical fight?” This variable has a range of (0) never, (1) 1 or 2 times, (2) 3–5 times, (3) 6 or 7 times to (4) more than 7 times
Independent variables (measured at in-school survey unless otherwise indicated)
Gender	1 if respondent is male; 0 if female
Other	1 if respondent is Asian or Native American; 0 otherwise
Black	1 if respondent is black; 0 otherwise
White	1 if respondent is white; 0 otherwise
Age	Respondent’s age in years at in-school survey
Respondent GPA	Respondent’s grade point average (GPA) was measured during the in-school survey. GPA was calculated using the respondent’s english/language arts, mathematics, social science/history, and science grade from the most recent grading period. The GPA ranged was (1) D, (2) C, (3) B, (4) A. 169 students indicated they were expelled or suspended during this period and were missing grades for some or all of these subjects. In these cases we assigned them the lowest grade indicated on the survey which was a “D”
School attachment	Respondent school attachment is the average response to the in-school questions “I feel close to people at this school”, “I feel like I am part of this school”, and “I am happy to be at this school” The original scale of these variable s were (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree but this scale was re-coded so higher values reflected more drinking. The re-codes scale ranges from (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) agree, (5) strongly agree
Parent education (wave 1)	1 if best caretaker at wave 1 graduated from high school; 0 otherwise
Parental attachment	Respondents level of parental attachment to both their mother and father was based on the question “How much do you think he/she cares about you?”. This variable ranged from (1) not at all, (2) a little, (3) some, (4) quite a bit, (5) very. If both parents answered this question the average response was used. If only one parent answered the question that value was used
Public assistance (wave 1)	If the best caretaker indicated that family received at least one of the following forms of public assistance during the month preceding the wave 1 interview (and 0 otherwise): Social security or railroad retirement, supplemental security income (SSI), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps, unemployment or worker’s compensation, or a housing subsidy
Two parents at home(wave 1)	1 if respondent identified they live with two parental figures in the home (i.e. bio-mother/father, step-mother/father or a combination of the two) at wave I; 0 otherwise
Nomination network general delinquency	Measured by summing the average response of all identified friends to 6 delinquency items from the in-school questionnaire. Each friend reported how often they committed six different acts in the past 12 months: smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, getting drunk, skipping school without an excuse, doing dangerous things on a dare, and racing vehicles such as cars or motorcycles. Responses were given on the following ordinal scale: (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Best friend general delinquency	Best friend general delinquency was measured by summing the response to the following six questions which were on an ordinal scale of (0) never to (6) nearly every day: During the past 12 months how often did you—smoke cigarettes, drink beer, wine, or liquor, get drunk, race on a bike, on a skateboard or roller blades, or in a boat or car, do something dangerous because you were dared to, and skip school without an excuse?
Remaining friends’ general delinquency	The remaining friends’ general delinquency is measured by summing the average response of all identified friends to 6 delinquency items from the in-school questionnaire. Each friend reported how often they committed six different acts in the past 12 months: smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, getting drunk, skipping school without an excuse, doing dangerous things on a dare, and racing vehicles such as cars or motorcycles. Responses were given on the following ordinal scale: (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Nomination network smoking	Nomination network smoking was created by averaging the response of each nominated friend to the in-school smoking question: During the past 12 months how often did you smoke cigarettes? Responses were given on the following ordinal scale: (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Best friend smoking	Best friend smoking was measured using the in-school question “During the past 12 months how often did you smoke cigarettes?” This variable has a range of (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Remaining friends’ smoking	Remaining friends’ smoking was measured by averaging the response of each remaining nominated friend to the in-school smoking question: During the past 12 months how often did you smoke cigarettes? Responses were given on the following ordinal scale: (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Nomination network getting drunk	Nomination network getting drunk was created by averaging the response of each nominated friend to the in-school getting drunk question: During the past 12 months how often did you get drunk? Responses were given on the following ordinal scale: (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Best friend getting drunk	Best friend in-school getting drunk behavior was measured by the in-school question “During the past 12 months how often did you get drunk?” This variable has a range of (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Remaining getting drunk	Remaining friends’ getting drunk was measured by averaging the response of each remaining nominated friend to the in-school question: During the past 12 months how often did you get drunk? Responses were given on the following ordinal scale: (0) never, (1) once or twice, (2) once a month or less, (3) Two or three times a month, (4) once or twice a week, (5) 3–5 days a week, (6) nearly every day
Nomination network fighting	Nomination network fighting was created by averaging the response of each nominated friend to the in-school fighting question: In the past year, how often have you gotten into a physical fight? Responses to the fighting question (0) never, (1) 1 or 2 times, (2) 3–5 times, (3) 6 or 7 times to (4) more than 7 times
Best friend fighting	Best friend fighting was measured using the in-school question “In the past 12 months how often have you gotten into a physical fight?” Responses to the fighting question (0) never, (1) 1 or 2 times, (2) 3–5 times, (3) 6 or 7 times to (4) more than 7 times
Remaining friends’ fighting	Remaining friends’ fighting was measured using the question: In the past year, how often have you gotten into a physical fight? Responses to the fighting question (0) never, (1) 1 or 2 times, (2) 3–5 times, (3) 6 or 7 times to (4) more than 7 times

References

Akers RL (1985) Deviant behavior: a social learning approach. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
Akers RL, Jensen GF (2006) The empirical status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: the past, present, and future. In: Cullen FT, Wright JP, Blevins KR (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 37–76Google Scholar
Ary DV, Biglan A (1988) Longitudinal changes in adolescent cigarette smoking behavior: onset and cessation. J Behav Med 11:361–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerveldt C, Van Rossem R, de Verman M, Weerman F (2004) Student’s delinquency and correlates with strong and weaker ties: a study of students’ networks in Dutch high schools. Connections 26:11–28Google Scholar
Bauman K, Carver K, Gleiter K (2001) Trends in parent and friend influence during adolescence: the case of adolescent cigarette smoking. Addict Behav 26:349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brendgen Mara, Vitaro Frank, Bukowski WM (2000) Deviant friends and early adolescents’ emotional and behavioral adjustment. J Res Adolesc 10:173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess R, Akers RC (1966) A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Soc Probl 14:336–383Google Scholar
Chantala K, Tabor J (1999) Strategies to perform a design-based analysis using the add health data.http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/pubs/guides
Chassin L, Presson CC, Sherman SJ, Montello D, McGrew J (1986) Changes in peer and parent influence during adolescence: longitudinal versus cross-sectional perspectives on smoking initiation. Dev Psychol 22:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRosier ME, Cillessen AHN, Coie JD, Dodge KA (1994) Group social context and children’s aggressive behavior. Child Dev 65:1068–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott DS, Menard S (1996) Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior: temporal and developmental patterns. In: Hawkins DJ (ed) Delinquency and crime current theories. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 28–67Google Scholar
Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS (1985) Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
Ennett ST, Bauman KE (1994) The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: the case of adolescent cigarette smoking. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:653–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger L, Hoffman PJ, Lawrence DH (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7:117–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuligni AJ, Eccles JS, Barber BL (1995) The long-term effects of seventh-grade ability grouping in mathematics. J Early Adolesc 15:58–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford-Smith M, Dodge KA, Dishion TJ, McCord J (2005) Peer influence in children and adolescents: crossing the bridge from development to intervention science. J Abnorm Child Psychol 33:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giordano PC (1995) The wider circle of friends in adolescence. Am J Sociol 101:661–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glueck S, Glueck E (1950) Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
Gottfredson M, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallinan MT (1979) Structural effects of children’s friendships and cliques. Soc Psychol Q 42:43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartup WH (1993) Adolescents and their friends. New Dir Child Dev 60:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie DL (2001) Delinquent peers revisited: does network structure matter? Am J Sociol 106:1013–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie DL (2002) Friendship networks and delinquency: the relative nature of peer delinquency. J Quant Criminol 18:99–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynie DL, Osgood DW (2005) Reconsidering peers and delinquency: how do peers matter? Soc Forces 84:1109–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschi T (1969) Causes of delinquency. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
Howes C (1989) Peer interaction of young children. Monographs of the society for research in child development. 53 (Serial No 217)Google Scholar
Hussong A (2002) Differentiating peer contexts and risk for adolescent substance abuse. J Youth Adolesc 31:207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iannotti RJ, Bush PJ, Weinfurt KP (1996) Perceptions of friends’ use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana: a longitudinal analysis. Addict Behav 21:615–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaccard J, Blanton H, Dodge T (2005) Peer influences on risk behavior: an analysis of the effects of a close friend. Dev Psychol 41:135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jang SJ (1999) Age-varying effects of family, school, and peers on delinquency: a multilevel modeling test of interactional theory. Criminology 37:643–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jussim L, Osgood DW (1989) Influence and similarity among friends: an integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Soc Psychol Q 52:98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel DB (1978) Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am J Sociol 84:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn EL, Graubard BI (1990) Simultaneous testing of regression coefficients with complex survey data: use of bonferroni t statistics. Am Stat 44:270–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn MD, Massey J, Zielinski M (1988) Role overlap, network multiplexity, and adolescent deviant behavior. Soc Psychol Q 51(4):346–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Thornberry TP, Smith C, McDowall D (1996) Reciprocal causal relationships among drug use, peers and beliefs: a five-wave panel model. J Drug Issues 26:405–428Google Scholar
Laird RD, Petite GS, Dodge KA, Bates JE (1999) Best friendships, group relationships, and antisocial behavior in early adolescence. J Early Adolesc 19:413–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M (1986) Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice, vol 7. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 29–149Google Scholar
Maguin E, Loeber R (1996) Academic performance and delinquency. Crime And Justice: A Rev Res 20:145–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsueda R, Anderson K (1998) The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. Criminology 36:269–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGloin JM (2009) Delinquency balance: revisiting peer influence. Criminology 47:439–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGloin JM, Piquero A (2010) On the relationship between co-offending network redundancy and offending versatility. J Res Crime Delinq 47:63–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGloin JM, Piquero A, Sullivan C, Bacon S (2008) Investigating stability of co-offending and co-offenders among a sample of youthful offenders. Criminology 46:155–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison GM, D’Incau B (1997) The web of zero-tolerance: characteristics of students who are recommended for expulsion from school. Educ Treat Children 20:316–335Google Scholar
Nagin D, Paternoster R (2000) Population heterogeneity and state dependence: state of the evidence and directions for future research. J Quant Criminol 16:117–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcomb AF, Bagwell CL (1995) Children’s friendship relations: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 117:306–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park KA (1992) Preschoolers reactions to loss of a best friend: developmental trends and individual differences. Child Study J 22:233–252Google Scholar
Paternoster R, Brame R, Mazerolle P, Piquero A (1998) Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36(4):859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne D, Cornwell B (2007) Reconsidering peer influences on delinquency: do less proximate contacts matter? J Quant Criminol 23:127–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinstein MJ (2007) Assessment of adolescents’ preference–and reputation–based peer status using sociometric experts. Merrill Palmer Q 53:243–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royston P (2004) Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata J 4:227–241Google Scholar
Royston P (2005a) Multiple imputation of missing values: update. Stata J 5:188–201Google Scholar
Royston P (2005b) Multiple Imputation of missing Values: update of ice”. Stata J 5:527–536Google Scholar
Sarnecki J (2001) Delinquent networks. Youth co-offending in stockholm Cambridge studies in criminology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebanc AM, Kearns KT, Hernandez MD, Galvin KB (2007) Predicting having a best friend in young children: individual characteristics and friendship features. J Genet Psychol 168:81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selfhout M, Branje S, Meeus W (2008) The development of delinquency and perceived friendship quality in adolescent best friendship dyads. J Abnorm Child Psychol 36:471–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafford M, Warr M (1993) A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 30:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland EH (1947) Criminology. JB, LippincottGoogle Scholar
Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (1997) Peers, drug use, and delinquency. In: Stoff DM, Breiling J, Maser JD (eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior. Wiley, New York, pp 218–233Google Scholar
Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth M, Jang SJ (1991) Testing interactional theory: an examination of reciprocal causal relationships among family, school and delinquency. J Crim Law Criminol 82:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth M, Jang SJ (1994) Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: a longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology 32:1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tolson J, Urberg KA (1993) Similarity among adolescent best friends. J Adolesc Res 8:274–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urberg K (1992) Locus of peer influence: social crowd and best friend. J Youth Adolesc 21:439–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urberg KA, Shyu SJ, Liang J (1990) Peer influence in adolescent cigarette smoking. Addict Behav 15:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urberg K, Degirmencioglu SM, Pilgrim C (1997) Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Dev Psychol 33:834–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warr M (1993) Age, peers, and delinquency. Soc Forces 72:247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warr M (2002) Companions in crime: the social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Weerman F, Smeenk WH (2005) Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: a comparison using two measurement models. Criminology 43:499–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson JQ, Herrnstein RJ (1985) Crime and human nature. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Zhang L, Messner SF (2000) The effects of alternative measures of delinquent peers on self-reported delinquency. J Res Crime Delinq 37:324–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Carter Rees
- 1
Greg Pogarsky
- 1
Email author

1.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA

One Bad Apple May Not Spoil the Whole Bunch: Best Friends and Adolescent Delinquency

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgment

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article