Accounting for Projection Bias in Models of Delinquent Peer Influence: The Utility and Limits of Latent Variable Approaches
- 510 Downloads
Projection effects have been shown to bias respondent perceptions of peer delinquency, but network data required to measure peer delinquency directly are unavailable in most existing datasets. Some researchers have therefore attempted to adjust perceived peer behavior measures for bias via latent variable modeling techniques. The present study tested whether such adjustments render perceived peer coefficients equal to direct peer coefficients, using original data collected from 538 young adults (269 dyads).
After first replicating projection effects in our own data and examining the degree to which measures of personal, perceived peer, and direct peer violence represent empirically distinct constructs, we compared coefficients derived from two alternative models of personal violence. The first model included an error-adjusted latent measure of perceived peer violence as a predictor, whereas the second substituted a latent measure of directly-assessed, peer-reported violence.
Results suggest that personal, perceived peer, and direct peer measures each reflect fundamentally separate constructs, but call into question whether latent variable techniques used by prior researchers to correct for respondent bias are capable of rendering perceived peer coefficients equal to direct peer coefficients.
Research cannot bypass the collection of direct peer delinquency measures via latent variable modeling adjustments to perceived peer measures, nor should models of deviance view perceived peer and direct peer measures as alternative measures of the same underlying construct. Rather, theories of peer influence should elaborate and test models that simultaneously include both peer measures and, further, should attempt to identify those factors that account for currently unexplained variance in perceptions of peer behavior.
KeywordsPeers Delinquency Projection False-consensus Perceptions
- Akers RL (2009) Social learning and social structure: a general theory of crime and deviance. Transactional Publishers, BrunswickGoogle Scholar
- Akers RL, Lee G (1996) A longitudinal test of social learning theory: adolescent smoking. J Drug Issues 26:317–343Google Scholar
- Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS (1985) Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- Glueck S, Glueck E (1950) Unravelling juvenile delinquency. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
- Huizinga D, Elliott DS (1986) Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. J Quant Criminol 2:293–327Google Scholar
- Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1993a) LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1993b) PRELIS 2 user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Jussim L, Osgood DW (1989) Influence and similarity among friends: an integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Soc Psychol Q 52:98–112Google Scholar
- Kandel D (1996) The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: an algebra of interpersonal influences. J Drug Issues 26:289–315Google Scholar
- Katz D, Allport F (1931) Students’ attitudes. Craftsman Press, SyracuseGoogle Scholar
- Loehlin JC (1992) Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- Newcomb TM (1961) The acquaintance process. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Rebellon, CJ (2006) Do adolescents engage in delinquency to attract the social attention of peers? An extension and longitudinal test of the social reinforcement hypothesis. J Res Crime Delinq 43:387–411Google Scholar
- Rebellon, CJ (2012) Differential association and substance use: assessing the roles of discriminant validity, socialization, and selection in traditional empirical tests. Eur J Criminol 9:74–97Google Scholar
- Rebellon, CJ, Waldman, I (2003) Deconstructing “force and fraud”: an empirical assessment of the generality of crime. J Quant Criminol 19:303–331Google Scholar
- Sutherland EH (1947) The principles of criminology. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar