Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validating Self-Nomination in Gang Research: Assessing Differences in Gang Embeddedness Across Non-, Current, and Former Gang Members

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Quantitative Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The study of gang members is closely linked to the self-nomination method. It is timely to revisit the criterion validity of self-nomination, as recent theoretical and empirical advancements in gang disengagement necessitate further differentiating current from former gang members. This study assessed differences in gang embeddedness—a construct that taps individual immersion within deviant social networks—across three groups: current gang members, former gang members, and those individuals who have never joined a gang.

Methods

Data gathered in 2011 from a high-risk sample of 621 individuals in five cities were used to assess the validity of the self-nomination method. Standardized differences in a mixed graded response model of gang embeddedness were evaluated across the three statuses of gang membership.

Results

Self-nomination was strongly related to embeddedness in gangs, even after controlling for demographic, theoretical, and gang-related factors. The strongest predictor of gang embeddedness was self-nomination as a current or a former gang member, although current gang members maintained levels of gang embeddedness about one standard deviation greater than former gang members. Self-nomination was also the primary determinant of gang embeddedness for males, females, whites, blacks, and Hispanics.

Conclusion

The results of this study provide strong evidence in support of the use of self-nomination to differentiate between non-gang and gang members as well as current and former gang members, adding to a body of research demonstrating that self-nomination is a valid measure of gang membership.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Self-nomination” and “self-report” are used interchangeably throughout the manuscript.

  2. Indeed, the method is used in school-based surveys (e.g., Esbensen et al. 2010), regional and national longitudinal studies (e.g., Pyrooz 2013a; Thornberry et al. 2003), field-based research (e.g., Densley 2013; Harding 2010; Pyrooz et al. 2013a), and serves as the basis for studies outside of the U.S. Put simply, outside of some European contexts where “gang” takes on alternative meanings, necessitating the use of Eurogang indicators, studies overwhelmingly use some form of self-nomination to operationalize gang membership.

  3. For example, Matsuda et al. (2013) recently compared three measures of gang membership, including self-nomination as a gang member, group of friends is a gang, and the Eurogang measure. While they found only limited overlap across the three measures, a similar set of predictors distinguished gang from non-gang youth. Craig et al. (2002) found only limited concordance across self-, teacher-, and parent-reports of gang membership. They held, however, that “Gang membership may be a peer activity to which adults are not privy” (p. 66) and that “adults are not aware generally of who belongs to a gang” (p. 67), alluding to points made by Densley (2013).

  4. Most interviews were completed within 45- to 60- minutes. In the rare case that a respondent did not speak English, they were assigned to a Spanish-speaking interviewer. Very few individuals refused to participate in the study. In some cases, respondents declined to answer specific items in the questionnaire. Respondents in street settings were provided a small monetary incentive or store coupon for participating that did not exceed $25, but this was not permitted in the jail.

  5. In an effort to add a temporal dimension to the cross-sectional study design, there is a natural constraint on the measure of gang embeddedness at the two time points. There is no fixed distance between peak and present gang embeddedness, compared to the Pathways to Desistance data where the items were asked of current gang members in 6- and 12-month intervals (see Sweeten et al. 2013). Present levels of gang embeddedness can never exceed peak levels of gang embeddedness.

  6. Supplemental analyses within demographic groups shows that gang self-nomination is the primary determinant of gang embeddedness for males, females, whites, blacks and Hispanics. The only exception is that former female gang members do not have statistically higher gang embeddedness than female non-gang members, although we cannot rule out lack of statistical power as an explanation for this since the analysis included only 101 females. Current female gang members had substantially higher gang embeddedness than both former and non-gang members, supporting our main argument.

  7. We thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this point.

References

  • Anderson E (1999) Code of the street: decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W. W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball RA, Curry GD (1995) The logic of definition in criminology: purposes and methods for defining “gangs”. Criminology 33:225–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrows J, Huff RC (2009) Gangs and public policy. Criminol Public Policy 8:675–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerk D (2009) How much can we trust causal interpretations of fixed-effects estimators in the context of criminality? J Quant Criminol 25:391–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerregaard B (2002) Self-definitions of gang membership and involvement in delinquent activities. Youth Soc 34:31–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch H, Niederhoffer A (1958) The gang: a study in adolescent behavior. Philos Libr, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai L, Thissen D, du Toit SHC (2011) IRTPRO 2.1 for windows. Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson DC, Peterson D, Esbensen F-A (2013) Youth gang desistance: an examination of the effect of different operational definitions of desistance on the motivations, methods, and consequences associated with leaving the gang. Criminal Justice Rev 38:510–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig WM, Vitaro F, Gagnon C, Tremblay RE (2002) The road to gang membership: characteristics of male gang and nongang members from ages 10 to 14. Soc Dev 11:53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE (1955) Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 52:281–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry GD (2000) Self-reported gang involvement and officially recorded delinquency. Criminology 38:1253–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Lauritsen J (2002) Leaving the gang. In: Ronald Huff C (ed) Gangs in America, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (2010) On the validity and reliability of gang homicide: a comparison of disparate sources. Homicide Stud 14:359–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (2013) Gangs: another form of organized crime? In: Paoli L (ed) Oxford handbook of organized crime. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Van Winkle B (1996) Life in the gang. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Katz CM, Webb VJ (2008) Understanding the black box of gang organization: implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime Delinq 54:153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Melde C, Pyrooz DC (2013) What do we know about gangs and gang members and where to we go from here? Justice Q 30:369–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker SH, Pyrooz DC, Moule Jr RK (2014) Gang disengagement as role transitions. J Res Adoles. Online First. doi:10.1111/jora.12074

  • Densley J (2013) How gangs work: an ethnography of youth violence. Palgrave, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Esbensen F-A, Huizinga D (1993) Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31:565–590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esbensen F-A, Peterson D, Taylor TJ, Freng A (2010) Youth violence: sex and race differences in offending, victimization, and gang membership. Temple University Press, Philadelphia

  • Esbensen F-A, Winfree LT Jr, Ne H, Taylor TJ (2001) Youth gangs and definitional issues: when is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime Delinq 47:105–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan J (1990) Social process of delinquency and drug use among urban gangs. In: Ron Huff C (ed) Gangs in America. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp 183–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Glueck S, Glueck ET (1943) Criminal careers in retrospect. The Commonwealth Fund, New York

  • Gordon RA, Lahey BB, Kawai E, Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Farrington DP (2004) Antisocial behavior and youth gang membership: selection and socialization. Criminology 42:55–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagan J (1993) The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology 31:465–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallsworth S, Young T (2008) Gang talk and gang talkers. Crime Media Cult 4:175–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding DJ (2010) Living the drama: community, conflict, and culture among inner-city boys. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1981) Measuring delinquency. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtfreter K, Reisig MD, Piquero NL, Piquero AR (2010) Low self-control and fraud: offending, victimization, and their overlap. Criminal Justice Behav 37:188–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz R (1983) Honor and the American dream. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen GF, Thibodeaux J (2012) The gang problem: fabricated panics or real temporal patterns? Homicide Stud. doi:10.1177/1088767912460664

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz CM (2001) The establishment of a police gang unit: an examination of organizational and environmental factors. Criminology 39:37–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz CM, Fox AM, Britt C, Stevenson P (2012) Understanding police gang data at the aggregate level: an examination of the reliability of the national youth gang survey data. Justice Res Policy 14(2):103–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz J, Jackson-Jacobs C (2004) The criminologists’ gang. In: Sumner C (ed) Blackwell companion to criminology. Blackwell, London, pp 91–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Kissner J, Pyrooz DC (2009) Self-control, differential association, and gang membership: a theoretical and empirical extension of the literature. J Criminal Justice 37:478–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein MW (1971) Street gangs and street workers. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

  • Krohn MD, Thornberry TP, Gibson CL, Baldwin JM (2010) The development and impact of self-report measures of crime and delinquency. J Quant Criminol 26:509–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives: delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, Boston

  • Lemert E (1967) Human deviance, social problems and social control. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda KN, Melde C, Taylor TJ, Freng A, Esbensen F-A (2013) Gang membership and adherence to the “code of the street”. Justice Q 30:440–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCorkle TD, Miethe RC (2001) Panic: the social construction of the street gang problem. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehan AJ (2000) The organizational career of gang statistics: the politics of policing gangs. Sociol Q 41:337–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melde C, Esbensen F-A (2011) Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology 49:513–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melde C, Esbensen F-A (2013) Gangs and violence: disentangling the impact of gang membership on the level and nature of offending. J Quant Criminol 29:143–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller WB (2011) City gangs. http://gangresearch.asu.edu/walter_miller_library/walter-b.-miller-book/city-gangs-book

  • Moloney M, MacKenzie K, Hunt G, Joe-Laidler K (2009) The path and promise of fatherhood for gang members. Br J Criminol 49:305–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monti DJ (1991) The practice of gang research. Sociol Pract Rev 2:29–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Monti DJ (1992) On the risks and rewards of ‘going native’. Qual Sociol 15:325–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moule RK Jr, Decker SH, Pyrooz DC (2013) Social capital, the life-course, and gangs. In: Melde CL, Krohn Marvin D (eds) Handbook of life-course criminology. Springer, New York, NY, pp 143–158

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nye FI, Short JF Jr (1957) Scaling delinquent behavior. Am Sociol Rev 22:326–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood DW, Anderson AL (2004) Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology 42:519–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood DW, Wilson JK, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnston LD (1996) Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. Am Sociol Rev 61:635–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papachristos AV, Hureau DM, Braga AA (2013) The corner and the crew: the influence of geography and social networks on gang violence. Am Sociol Rev 78:417–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Piquero AR, MacIntosh R, Hickman M (2002) The validity of a self-reported delinquency scale: comparisons across gender, age, race, and place of residence. Sociol Methods Res 30:492–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm: Background and recent developments. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 30. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 359–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Porterfield AL (1943) Delinquency and outcome in court and college. Am J Sociol 49:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porterfield AL (1946) Youth in trouble. Leo Potishman Foundation, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyrooz DC (2013a) “From your first cigarette to your last dyin’ day”: the patterning of gang membership in the life-course. J Quant Criminol. Online First. doi:10.1007/s10940-013-9206-1

  • Pyrooz DC (2013b) Gangs, criminal offending, and an inconvenient truth: considerations for gang prevention and intervention in the lives of youth. Criminol Public Policy 12:427–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyrooz DC, Decker SH (2011) Motives and methods for leaving the gang: understanding the process of gang desistance. J Criminal Justice 39:417–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyrooz DC, Decker SH, Webb VJ (2010) The ties that bind: desistance from gangs. Crime Delinq. Online First. doi:10.1177/0011128710372191

  • Pyrooz DC, Decker SH, Moule Jr. RK (2013a) Criminal and routine activities in online settings: Gangs, offenders, and the internet. Justice Q. Online First. doi:10.1080/07418825.2013.778326

  • Pyrooz DC, Sweeten G, Piquero AR (2013b) Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. J Res Crime Delinq 50:239–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A (2008) Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata, 2nd edn. Stata Press, College Station, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Samejima F (1969) Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychom Monogr Suppl 17:100–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Samejima F (1997) Graded response model. In: Van Der Linden Wim J, Hambleton Ronald K (eds) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York, pp 85–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Short JF Jr, Nye FI (1957) Reported behavior as a criterion of deviant behavior. Soc Probl 5:207–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short JF Jr, Nye FI (1958) Extent of unrecorded juvenile delinquency: tENTATIVE conclusions. J Criminal Law Criminol 49:296–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smithson H, Armitage R, Monchuk L (2012) Gang member: who says? The process of defining the gang. In: Esbensen F-A, Maxson C (eds) Youth gangs in international perspective. Springer, London, pp 53–69

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smithson H, Ralphs R, Williams P (2013) Used and abused: the problematic usage of gang terminology in United Kingdom and its implication for ethnic minority use. Br J Criminol 53:113–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spano R, Freilich JD, Bolland J (2008) Gang membership, gun carrying, and employment: applying routine activities theory to explain violent victimization among inner city, minority youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Q 25:381–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart EA, Simons RL (2010) Race, code of the street, and violent delinquency: a multilevel investigation of neighborhood street culture and individual norms of violence. Criminology 48:569–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan M (2005) Maybe we shouldn’t study ‘‘gangs’’: does reification obscure youth violence? J Contemp Criminal Justice 21:170–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan M (2006) Are “gang” studies dangerous? Youth violence, local context and the problem of reification. In: Short James F, Hughes LA Jr (eds) Studying youth gangs. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD, pp 15–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeten G (2012) Scaling criminal offending. J Quant Criminol 28:533–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeten G, Pyrooz DC, Piquero AR (2013) Disengaging from gangs and desistance from crime. Justice Q 30:469–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney JP, Baumeister RF, Boone AL (2004) High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. J Pers 72:271–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor TJ, Freng A, Esbensen F-A, Peterson D (2008) Youth gang membership and serious violent victimization: the importance of lifestyle/routine activities. J Interpers Violence 10:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2000) The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In: Duffee D (ed) Measurement and analysis of crime and justice. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC, pp 33–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Chard-Wierschem D (1993) The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 30:55–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberry TP, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Smith CA, Tobin K (2003) Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. Cambridge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrasher FM (1927) The gang: a study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigil JD (1988) Barrio gangs: street life and identity in Southern California. University of Texas Press, Austin

  • Wallerstein JS, Wyle CJ (1947) Our law-abiding law-breakers. Probation 25:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb VJ, Katz CM, Decker SH (2006) Assessing the validity of self-reports by gang members: results from the Arrestee Drug-Abuse Monitoring Program. Crime Delinq 52:232–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte WF (1943) Street corner society: the social structure of an Italian slum. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Winfree LT, Fuller K, Vigil T, Mays GL (1992) The definition and measurement of ‘gang status’: policy implications for juvenile justice. Juv Fam Court J 43:29–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yablonsky L (1962) The violent gang. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zatz M (1987) Chicano youth gangs and crime: the creation of a moral panic. Contemp Crisis 11:129–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding from Google Ideas supported this project. We are grateful for their support. The content of this paper, however, is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Google.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    Scott H. Decker, Gary Sweeten & Richard K. Moule Jr.

  2. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

    David C. Pyrooz

Authors
  1. Scott H. Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David C. Pyrooz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Sweeten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Richard K. Moule Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott H. Decker.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 5.

Table 5 Gang embeddedness graded response model
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Decker, S.H., Pyrooz, D.C., Sweeten, G. et al. Validating Self-Nomination in Gang Research: Assessing Differences in Gang Embeddedness Across Non-, Current, and Former Gang Members. J Quant Criminol 30, 577–598 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9215-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9215-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation