Egocentric measures of peer delinquency, obtained through a census of a social network, have become the preferred operationalization for examining the relationships between social influence and delinquency. Studies regressing ego’s delinquency on the delinquency of nominated friend/s (i.e. alter/s) conclude that a statistically significant coefficient provides evidence of social influence. However, the inferences drawn from these studies may be biased by the introduction of artificial statistical dependence as a consequence of using social network data in a regression framework. Recent work (Shalizi and Thomas Sociol Methods Res 40:211–239, 2011) shows that latent homophily, or unmeasured confounding of observables, may lead to nonzero estimates of social influence, even if there is no causal significance. To examine this possibility, sensitivity analyses have been created (e.g. VanderWeele and Arah Epidemiology 22:42–52, 2011; VanderWeele Sociol Methods Res 40:240–255, 2011) to determine the robustness of an estimated coefficient to latent homophily.
In this research note, I examine the robustness of estimates for social influence from two articles (Haynie Am J Sociol 106:1013–1057, 2001; Meldrum et al. J Res Crime Delinq 46:353–376, 2009) using egocentric measures of peer delinquency.
Findings indicate that for large, precise point estimates, highly improbable conditions are needed to explain away the effects of social influence. However, less precise point estimates (i.e. large standard errors) are more sensitive to latent homophily.
The analyses indicate that studies using egocentric measures should conduct sensitivity tests, particularly when the estimated effect is weak and/or has a relatively large standard error. Scripts written in the free programming language R (R Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2012) are provided for researchers to conduct such analyses.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Perceptual measures use self-reports from a respondent regarding the delinquency of his/her peers and are also referred to as “indirect” or “subjective” measures. Egocentric measures use self-reported delinquency from an individual's friends nominated through a roster and are also referred to as “direct” or “objective” measures.
For a list of publications using AddHealth see: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/publications.
Agnew R (1991) The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology 29:47–72
Akers R (2009) Social learning and social structure: a general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press, Lebanon
Aseltine RH (1995) A reconsideration of parental and peer influences on adolescent deviance. J Health Soc Behav 36:103–121
Beaver KM, Gibson CL, Turner MG, DeLisi M, Vaughn MG, Holand A (2009) Stability of delinquent peer associations: a biosocial test of warr’s sticky-friends hypothesis. Crime Delinq 57:907–927
Boman JH, Stogner JM, Miller BL, Griffin OH, Krohn MD (2011) On the operational validity of perceptual measures. J Res Crime Delinq 49:601–621
Cohen AK (1955) Delinquent boys: the culture of the gang. The Free Press, New York
Dijkstra JK, Lindenberg S, Veenstra R, Steglich C, Isaacs J, Card NA, Hodges EVE (2010) Influence and selection processes in weapon carrying during adolescence: the roles of status, aggression, and vulnerability. Criminology 48:187–220
Elwert F, Winship C (2008) Endogenous selection bias. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison (unpublished manuscript)
Feld S (1982) Social structural determinants of similarity. Am Sociol Rev 47:797–801
Glueck S, Glueck E (1950) Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Commonwealth
Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto
Haynie D (2001) Delinquent peers revisited: does network structure matter? Am J Sociol 106:1013–1057
Haynie D (2002) Friendship networks and delinquency: the relative nature of peer delinquency. J Quant Criminol 18:99–134
Haynie D, Osgood DW (2005) Reconsidering peers and delinquency: how do peers matter? Soc Forces 84:1109–1130
Jussim L, Osgood DW (1989) Influence and similarity among friends: an integrated model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Soc Psychol Q 52:98–112
Kreager DA (2007) When it’s good to be ‘bad’: violence and adolescent peer acceptance. Criminology 45:893–923
Mcgloin JM (2009) Delinquency balance: revisiting peer influence. Criminology 47:439–477
Mcgloin JM, Shermer L (2008) Self-control and deviant peer network structure. J Res Crime Delinq 46:35–72
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444
Megens KCIM, Weerman FM (2010) Attitudes, delinquency and peers: the role of social norms in attitude-behaviour inconsistency. Eur J Criminol 7:299–316
Meldrum RC, Young JTN, Weerman FM (2009) Peers, self-control, and crime: assessing effect size across different measures of delinquent peers. J Res Crime Delinq 46:353–376
Paternoster R, McGloin JM, Nguyen H, Thomas KJ (2012) The causal impact of exposure to deviant peers: an experimental investigation. J Res Crime Delinq. doi:10.1177/0022427812444274
Pearl J (2000) Causality: models, reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Piquero NL, Gover AR, MacDonald JM, Piquero AR (2005) The influence of delinquent peers on delinquency: does gender matter? Youth Soc 36:251–275
Pratt TC, Cullen FT (2000) The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: a meta-analysis. Criminology 38:931–964
Rebellon CJ, Modecki KL (2013) Accounting for projection bias in models of delinquent peer influence: the utility and limits of latent variable approaches. J Quant Criminol. doi:10.1007/s10940-013-9199-9
Rivera MT, Soderstrom SB, Uzzi B (2010) Dynamics of dyads in social networks: assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Ann Rev Sociol 36:91–115
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB, Apr N (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70:41–55
Rosenthal R (1979) The ‘file drawer problem’ and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 86:638–641
Schaefer DR (2010) A configurational approach to homophily using lattice visualization. Connections 31:21–40
Schaefer DR (2012) Homophily through nonreciprocity: results of an experiment. Soc Forces 90:1271–1295
Shalizi CR, Thomas AC (2011) Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociol Methods Res 40:211–239
Short JF Jr, Strodtbeck FL (1965) Group process and gang delinquency. University of Chicago, Chicago
Snijders TAB (2001) The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociol Methodol 31:361–395
Stigler SM (1999) Statistics on the table: the history of statistical concepts and methods. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Sutherland EH (1947) Principles of criminology, 4th edn. Lippincott, Philadelphia
R Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/
VanderWeele TJ (2011) Sensitivity analysis for contagion effects in social networks. Sociol Methods Res 40:240–255
Vanderweele TJ, Arah OA (2011) Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders. Epidemiology 22:42–52
Weerman FM (2011) Delinquent peers in context: a longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology 49:253–286
Weerman FM, Smeenk WH (2005) Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: a comparison using two measurement methods. Criminology 43:499–523
Warr M (2002) Companions in crime: the social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Young JTN (2011) How do they ‘end up together’? A social network analysis of self-control, homophily, and adolescent relationships. J Quant Criminol 27:251–273
Young JTN, Rees C (2013) Social networks and delinquency in adolescence: implications for life-course criminology. In: Gibson C, Krohn M (eds) Handbook of life-course criminology. Springer, New York, pp 159–180
Young JTN, Weerman FM (2013) Misperception of peer delinquency and its consequences: examining a mechanism of social influence and delinquency. Soc Probl 60(3):334–356
Young JTN, Barnes JC, Meldrum R, Weerman FM (2011) Assessing and explaining misperceptions of peer delinquency. Criminology 49:599–630
Young JTN, Rebellon CJ, Barnes JC, Weerman FM (2013) Are we measuring what we think we are? A latent variable approach to the discriminant validity of personal and peer delinquency measures. Justice Q (in press)
I would like to thank Ryan Meldrum, Brooks Louton, Carter Rees, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
About this article
Cite this article
Young, J.T.N. A Sensitivity Analysis of Egocentric Measures of Peer Delinquency to Latent Homophily: A Research Note. J Quant Criminol 30, 373–387 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9207-0
- Peer influence
- Social networks