Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 163–186 | Cite as

Accounting for Projection Bias in Models of Delinquent Peer Influence: The Utility and Limits of Latent Variable Approaches

  • Cesar J. RebellonEmail author
  • Kathryn L. Modecki
Original Paper



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.


Peers Delinquency Projection False-consensus Perceptions 



We thank Robert Agnew, Tim Brezina, Ginger Lockhart, Michelle E. Manasse and Jacob T. N. Young for suggestions on a prior version of this manuscript. Preparation of this manuscript was funded in part by NIH Training Grant #T32 MH 018387. A previous version of this manuscript was presented at the 2012 Annual Meetings of the American Society of Criminology.


  1. Agnew R (1991) The interactive effect of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology 29:47–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akers RL (2009) Social learning and social structure: a general theory of crime and deviance. Transactional Publishers, BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  3. Akers RL, Lee G (1996) A longitudinal test of social learning theory: adolescent smoking. J Drug Issues 26:317–343Google Scholar
  4. Aseltine RH (1995) A reconsideration of parental and peer influences on adolescent deviance. J Health Soc Behav 36:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babakus E, Ferguson CE, Jöreskog KG (1987) The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. J Mark Res 24:222–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boman JH, Stogner JM, Miller BL, Griffin OH, Krohn MD (2012) On the operational validity of perceptual peer delinquency: exploring projection and elements contained in perceptions. J Res Crime Delinquency 49:601–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Browne MW (1984) Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. Br J Math Stat Psychol 37:62–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burgess RL, Akers RL (1966) A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Soc Probl 14:128–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell DT, Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56:81–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caspi A, Begg D, Dickson N, Harrington H, Langley J, Moffitt TE et al (1997) Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: evidence from a longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychol 73:1052–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Silva PA, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Krueger RF, Schmutte PS (2006) Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology 32:163–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Côté S, Tremblay RE, Nagin D, Zoccolillo M, Vitaro F (2002) The development of impulsivity, fearfulness, and helpfulness during childhood: patterns of consistency and change in the trajectories of boys and girls. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 43:609–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawes RM (1989) Statistical criteria for a truly false consensus effect. J Exp Soc Psychol 25:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Einhorn HJ (1986) Accepting error to make less error. J Pers Assess 50:387–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott DS, Huizinga D, Ageton SS (1985) Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans TD, Cullen FT, Burton VS, Dunaway RG, Benson ML (1997) The social consequences of self-control: testing the general theory of crime. Criminology 35:475–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geiser C, Lockhart G (2012) A comparison of four approaches to account for method effects in latent state-trait analyses. Psychol Methods 17:255–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glueck S, Glueck E (1950) Unravelling juvenile delinquency. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  20. Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik RJ, Arneklev BJ (1993) Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinquency 30:5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haynie DL (2001) Delinquent peers revisited: does network structure matter? Am J Sociol 106:1013–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haynie DL (2002) Friendship networks and delinquency: the relative nature of peer delinquency. J Quant Criminol 18:99–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haynie DL, Osgood DW (2005) Reconsidering peers and delinquency: how do peers matter? Soc Forces 84:1109–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holmes DS (1978) Projection as a defense mechanism. Psychol Bull 85:677–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holtz R, Miller N (1985) Assumed similarity and opinion certainty. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:890–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huizinga D, Elliott DS (1986) Reassessing the reliability and validity of self-report delinquency measures. J Quant Criminol 2:293–327Google Scholar
  27. Hymel S (1986) Interpretations of peer behavior: affective bias in childhood and adolescence. Child Dev 57:431–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iannotti RJ, Bush PJ (1992) Perceived vs. actual friends’ use of alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and cocaine: which has the most influence? J Youth Adolesc 21:375–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1993a) LISREL 8 user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1993b) PRELIS 2 user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Inc., ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  31. Judd CM, Johnson JT (1981) Attitudes, polarization, and diagnosticity: exploring the effect of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol 41:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jussim L, Osgood DW (1989) Influence and similarity among friends: an integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Soc Psychol Q 52:98–112Google Scholar
  33. Kandel D (1978) Homopily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am J Sociol 84:427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kandel D (1980) Drug and drinking behavior among youth. Ann Rev Sociol 6:235–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kandel D (1996) The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: an algebra of interpersonal influences. J Drug Issues 26:289–315Google Scholar
  36. Katz D, Allport F (1931) Students’ attitudes. Craftsman Press, SyracuseGoogle Scholar
  37. Kernis MH (1984) Need for uniqueness, self-schemas, and thought as moderators of the false-consensus effect. J Exp Soc Psychol 20:350–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knecht A, Snijders T, Baerveldt C, Steglich CEG, Werner R (2010) Friendship and delinquency: selection and influence processes in early adolescence. Soc Dev 19:494–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krueger J, Clement RW (1994) The truly false consensus effect: an ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:596–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loehlin JC (1992) Latent variable models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowenkamp CT, Cullen FT, Pratt TC (2003) Replicating Sampson and Groves’s test of social-disorganization theory: revisiting a criminological classic. J Res Crime Delinquency 40:351–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marks G, Miller N (1987) Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: an empirical and theoretical review. Psychol Bull 102:72–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matsueda RL, Anderson K (1998) The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. Criminology 36:269–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDougall PT, Hymel S (2007) Same-gender versus cross-gender friendship conceptions. Merrill-Palmer Q 53:347–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGloin JM, Shermer LON (2009) Self-control and deviant peer network structure. J Res Crime Delinquency 46(1):35–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Meldrum RC, Young JTN, Weerman FM (2009) Reconsidering the effect of self-control and delinquent peers: implications of measurement for theoretical significance. J Res Crime Delinquency 46:353–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mullen B, Atkins JL, Champion DS, Edwards C, Hardy D, Story JE, Vanderklok M (1985) The false consensus effect: a meta-analysis of 155 hypothesis tests. J Exp Soc Psychol 21:262–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Muthén B (1984) A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika 49:115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Newcomb TM (1961) The acquaintance process. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Oliva EM, Keyes M, Iacono WG, McGue M (2012) Adolescent substance use groups: antecedent and concurrent personality differences in a longitudinal study. J Pers 80:769–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Osgood DW, Schreck CJ (2007) A new method for studying the extent, stability, and predictors of individual specialization in violence. Criminology 45:273–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Osgood DW, Wilson JK, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnson LD (1996) Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. Am Sociol Rev 61:635–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Paternoster R, Brame R, Mazerolle P, Piquero A (1998) Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36:859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pratt TC, Cullen FT (2000) The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: a meta-analysis. Criminology 38:931–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prinstein MJ, Wang SS (2005) False consensus and adolescent peer contagion: examining discrepancies between perceptions and actual reported levels of friends’ deviant and health risk behaviors. J Abnorm Child Psychol 33:293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. Rebellon, CJ, Waldman, I (2003) Deconstructing “force and fraud”: an empirical assessment of the generality of crime. J Quant Criminol 19:303–331Google Scholar
  59. Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF (2000) The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 126:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ross L, Greene D, House P (1977) The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J Exp Soc Psychol 13:279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sampson RJ (1999) Techniques of research neutralization. Theor Criminol 3:438–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Saris WE, Aalberts C (2003) Different explanations for correlated disturbance terms in MTMM studies. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J 10:193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sherman SJ, Presson CC, Chassin L, Corty E, Olshavsky R (1983) The false consensus effect in estimates of smoking prevalence: underlying mechanisms. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 9:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sherman SJ, Presson CC, Chassin L (1984) Mechanisms underlying the false consensus effect: the special role of threats to the self. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 10:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sutherland EH (1947) The principles of criminology. Lippincott, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  66. Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL (2008) High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers 72:271–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thornberry TP (1987) Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology 25:863–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Urberg KA, Shyu S, Liang J (1990) Peer influence in adolescent cigarette smoking. Addict Behav 15:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Warr M (2002) Companions in crime: the social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weerman FM (2011) Delinquent peers in context: a longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology 49:1745–9125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weerman FM, Smeenk WH (2005) Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: a comparison using two measurement methods. Criminology 43:499–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wiecko FM (2010) Research note: assessing the validity of college samples: are students really that different? J Crim Justice 38:1186–1190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wills TA, Dishion TJ (2004) Temperament and adolescent substance use: a transactional analysis of emerging self-control. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 33:69–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wolfson S (2000) Students’ estimates of the prevalence of drug use: evidence for a false consensus effect. Psychol Addict Behav 14:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Young JT, Barnes JC, Meldrum RC, Weerman FM (2011) Assessing and explaining misperception of peer delinquency. Criminology 49:599–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zhang L, Messner SF (2000) The effects of alternative measures of delinquent peers on self-reported delinquency. J Res Crime Delinquency 37:323–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  2. 2.School of PsychologyMurdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia

Personalised recommendations