Journal of Youth and Adolescence

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 746–762 | Cite as

Dual Trajectories of Gang Affiliation and Delinquent Peer Association During Adolescence: An Examination of Long-Term Offending Outcomes

  • Beidi DongEmail author
  • Marvin D. Krohn
Empirical Research


Prior research has demonstrated that both adolescent gang affiliation and perceived delinquent peer association are important predictors of individual offending. A crucial question is whether and how youth gang affiliation contributes to a spectrum of criminal acts above and beyond the influence of associating with delinquent peers. Using 14 waves of data from the Rochester Youth Developmental Study, an ongoing longitudinal panel study aimed at understanding the causes and consequences of delinquency and drug use in an urban sample of adolescents, the current study employs a relatively new modeling technique—dual trajectory analysis—to illustrate the dynamic relationship between these two measures among 666 male youth. The results suggest that the two measures, while overlapping, may constitute distinct concepts that operate in different ways. The most convincing evidence of gang effects, above and beyond the influence of perceived peer delinquency, is for violent behavior and by extension police arrest. Our findings contribute to developmental research and provide information that informs future gang control efforts.


Gang membership Perceived peer delinquency Dual trajectories Life course Adolescence 



Support for the Rochester Youth Development Study has been provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (86-JN-CX-0007), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA005512, R01DA020195), the National Science Foundation (SBR-9123299), and the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH63386). Work on this project was also aided by grants to the Center for Social and Demographic Analysis at the University at Albany from NICHD (P30HD32041) and NSF (SBR-9512290). Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the funding agencies.

Authors Contributions

B. D. conceived of the study, performed the statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript. M. K. aided in interpretation of the results and revised the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Agnew, R. (1991). The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology, 29, 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: Norton.Google Scholar
  4. Ariza, J., Cebulla, A., Aldridge, J., Shute, J., & Ross, A. (2014). Proximal adolescent outcomes of gang membership in England and Wales. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 168–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battin, S. R., Hill, K. G., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1998). The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology, 36, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conger, R. D. (1991). Adolescence and youth: Psychological development in a changing world (4th ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Craig, W. M., Vitaro, F., Gagnon, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (2002). The road to gang membership: Characteristics of male gang and nongang members from ages 10 to 14. Social Development, 11, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Curry, G. D. (2000). Self-reported gang involvement and officially recorded delinquency. Criminology, 38, 1253–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Decker, S. H., & Curry, G. D. (2000). Addressing key features of gang membership: Measuring the involvement of young members. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Decker, S. H., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2008). Understanding the black box of gang organization: Implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime and Delinquency, 54, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Decker, S. H., & Lauritsen, J. (2002). Leaving the gang. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in American (3rd ed., pp. 51–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Decker, S. H., Melde, C., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). What do we know about gangs and gang members and where do we go from here? Justice Quarterly, 30, 369–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decker, S. H., Pyrooz, D. C., Sweeten, G., & Moule, R. K. (2014). Validating self-nomination in gang research: Assessing differences in gang embeddedness across non-, current, and former gang members. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends and violence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dong, B., Gibson, C. L., & Krohn, D. M. (2015). Gang membership in a developmental and life-course perspective. In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The handbook of gangs (pp. 78–97). London: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Downes, D. M. (1966). The delinquent solution. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  18. Esbensen, F. A., & Deschenes, E. P. (1998). A multisite examination of youth gang membership: Does gender matter? Criminology, 36, 799–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Esbensen, F. A., Deschenes, E. P., & Winfree, L. T. (1999). Differences between gang girls and gang boys: Results from a multisite survey. Youth and Society, 31, 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Esbensen, F. A., Winfree, L. T., He, N., & Taylor, T. J. (2001). Youth gangs and definitional issues: When is a gang a gang, and why does it matter? Crime and Delinquency, 47, 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & McDuff, P. (2005). Youth gangs, delinquency and drug use: A test of the selection, facilitation, and enhancement hypotheses. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1178–1190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilman, A. B., Hill, K. G., & Hawkins, J. D. (2014). Long-term consequences of adolescent gang membership for adult functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 938–945.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Gordon, R. A., Lahey, B. B., Kawai, E., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Farrington, D. (2004). Antisocial behavior and youth gang membership: Selection and socialization. Criminology, 42, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hallsworth, S., & Young, T. (2008). Gang talk and gang talkers: A critique. Crime, Media, Culture, 4, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Helgeson, V. S., Snyder, P., & Seltman, H. (2004). Psychological and physical adjustment to breast cancer over 4 years: Identifying distinct trajectories of change. Health Psychology, 23, 3–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hennigan, K. M., Maxson, C. L., Sloane, D. C., Kolnick, K. A., & Vindel, F. (2014). Identifying high-risk youth for secondary gang prevention. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37, 104–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, K. G., Howell, J. C., Hawkins, J. D., & Battin-Pearson, S. R. (1999). Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 300–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hipp, J. R., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Local solutions in the estimation of growth mixture models. Psychological Methods, 11, 36–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Horowitz, R. (1983). Honor and the American dream: Culture and identity in a Chicano community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Howell, J. C. (2012). Gangs in America’s communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Howell, J. C., & Egley, A. (2005). Moving risk factors into developmental theories of gang membership. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 334–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huizinga, D. (1996). The influence of delinquent peers, gangs, and co-offending on violence. Washington, DC: Official of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  33. Kennedy, D. M. (2009). Gangs and public policy: Constructing and deconstructing gang databases. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 711–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Klein, M. W. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kreager, D., Rulison, K., & Moody, J. (2011). Delinquency and the structure of adolescent peer groups. Criminology, 49, 95–127.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Krohn, M. D. (1986). The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems, 33, 581–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krohn, M. D., & Thornberry, T. P. (2008). Longitudinal perspectives on adolescent street gangs. In A. Liberman (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 128–160). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lacourse, E., Nagin, D., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., & Claes, M. (2003). Developmental trajectories of boys’ delinquent group membership and facilitation of violent behaviors during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 183–197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lahey, B., Gordon, R., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Farrington, D. (1999). Boys who join gangs: A prospective study of predictors of first gang entry. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 261–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lien, I. (2002). The pain of crime and gang mentality. Oslo: The Norwegian Institute of Urban and Regional Research.Google Scholar
  42. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Melde, C., & Esbensen, F. A. (2011). Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology, 49, 513–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Melde, C., & Esbensen, F. A. (2014). The relative impact of gang status transitions: Identifying the mechanisms of change in delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 349–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meldrum, R. C., & Boman, J. H. (2013). Similarities and differences between perceptions of peer delinquency, peer self-reported delinquency, and respondent delinquency: An analysis of friendship dyads. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller, W. B. (1982). Crime by youth gangs and groups in the United States. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  47. Miller, J. (2001). One of the guys: Girls, gangs and gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, J. W. (1978). Homeboys: Gangs, drugs and prison in the barrios of Los Angeles. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Moore, J. W. (1991). Going down to the barrio: Homeboys and homegirls in change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Moore, J. W., & Vigil, J. D. (1989). Chicano gangs: Group norms and individual factors related to adult criminality. Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 18, 31–42.Google Scholar
  51. Morash, M. (1983). Gangs, groups and delinquency. The British Journal of Criminology, 23, 309–335.Google Scholar
  52. Nagin, D. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 1181–1196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Analyzing developmental trajectories of distinct but related behaviors: A group-based method. Psychological Methods, 6, 18–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 74–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). Gangs, criminal offending, and an inconvenient truth. Criminology and Public Policy, 12, 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pyrooz, D. C. (2014a). From colors and guns to caps and gowns? The effects of gang membership on educational attainment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 56–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pyrooz, D. C. (2014b). “From your first cigarette to your last dyin’ day”: The patterning of gang membership in the life-course. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 349–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pyrooz, D. C., Sweeten, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2013). Continuity and change in gang membership and gang embeddedness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 239–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). How do we study what happen next? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Sweeten, G. (2012). Scaling criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 533–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2005). Applying interactional theory to the explanation of continuity and change in antisocial behavior. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending (pp. 183–210). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., & Chard-Wierschem, D. (1993). The role of juvenile gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., Smith, C. A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs and delinquency in developmental perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Tita, G. E., & Ridgeway, G. (2007). The impact of gang formation on local patterns of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 275–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in Southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  70. Warr, M. (1993). Age, peers, and delinquency. Criminology, 31, 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Warr, M. (1996). Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology, 34, 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Young, J. T. N., Rebellon, C. J., Barnes, J. C., & Weerman, F. M. (2014). Unpacking the black box of peer similarity in deviance: Understanding the mechanisms linking personal behavior, peer behavior, and perceptions. Criminology, 52, 60–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Young, J. T. N., Rebellon, C. J., Barnes, J. C., & Weerman, F. M. (2015). What do alternative measures of peer behavior tell us? Examining the discriminant validity of multiple methods of measuring peer deviance and the implications for etiological models. Justice Quarterly, 32, 626–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Penn Injury Science Center, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology and Criminology and LawUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations