Friendships of Delinquent and Non-delinquent Adolescents in Classrooms

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

In the study at hand I investigate predictions from the social ability model and the social disability model, two competing theoretical approaches to adolescent friendships and delinquency. Using a social network approach we test these predictions with data gathered from pupils in early adolescence in secondary schools throughout the Netherlands. Our findings show that hypotheses derived from the social disability model cannot be confirmed at all, and hypotheses derived from the social ability model can be confirmed in part. This finding suggests that other theoretical reasons account for processes related to delinquency and friendship, and these reasons have to be considered in further theoretical development and empirical research.

Keywords

Social (dis)ability model Delinquent behavior Friendship networks Early adolescence 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baerveldt, C., R. Van Rossem, M. Vermande, and F. Weerman. 2004. Students’ delinquency and correlates with strong and weaker ties: A study of student’s networks in Dutch high schools. Connections 26(1): 11–28.Google Scholar
  2. Claes, M., and R. Simard. 1992. Friendship characteristics of delinquent adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 3(3–4): 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohn, E.G., and D.P. Farrington. 1999. Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1990 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice 27(4): 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Bruyn, E.H., and A.H.N. Cillessen. 2006. Popularity in early adolescence: Prosocial and antisocial subtypes. Journal of Adolescent Research 21(6): 607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Demuth, S. 2004. Understanding the delinquency and social relationships of loners. Youth and Society 35(3): 366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Durkin, K. 1995. Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Dishion, T.J., D.W. Andrews, and L. Crosby. 1995. Antisocial boys and their friends in early adolescence: Relationship characteristics, quality, and interactional process. Child Development 66(1): 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fletcher, A.C., N.E. Darling, L. Steinberg, and S.M. Dornbusch. 1995. The company they keep: Relation of adolescents’ adjustment and behavior to their friends’ perceptions of authoritative parenting in the social network. Developmental Psychology 31(2): 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gottfredson, M.R., and T. Hirschi. 1990. A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Granovetter, M.S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansell, S., and M.D. Wiatrowski. 1981. Competing conceptions of delinquent peer relations. In Sociology of delinquency: Current issues, ed. Gary.F. Jensen, 93–108. CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Haynie, D.L. 2001. Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology 106(4): 1013–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hirschi, T. 1977. Causes and prevention of juvenile delinquency. Sociological inquiry 47(3–4): 322–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houtzager, B., and C. Baerveldt. 1999. Just like normal: A social network study of the relation between petty crime and the intimacy of adolescent friendships. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 27(2): 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jussim, L., and D.W. Osgood. 1989. Influence and similarity among friends: An integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Social Psychology Quarterly 52(2): 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knecht, A. 2006. The dynamics of networks and behavior in early adolescence [2003/04] (ICS-Codebook no. 61). Utrecht: University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Knecht, A., C. Baerveldt, T.A.B. Snijders, C. Steglich, and W. Raub. 2010. Friendship and delinquency: selection and influence processes in early adolescence. Social Development 19(3): 494–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. LaFontana, K.M., and A.H.N. Cillessen. 2002. Children’s perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multi method assessment. Developmental Psychology 38(5): 635–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marcus, R.F. 1996. The friendships of delinquents. Adolescence 31(1): 145–158.Google Scholar
  20. Pabon, E., O. Rodriguez, and G. Gurin. 1992. Clarifying peer relations and delinquency. Youth and Society 24(2): 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Reed, M.D., and D.R. Rose. 1998. Doing what Simple Simon says? Estimating the underlying causal structures of delinquent associations, attitudes, and serious theft. Criminal Justice and Behavior 25(2): 240–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rodkin, P.C., T.W. Farmer, R. Pearl, and R. Van Acker. 2000. Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology 36(1): 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smångs, M. 2010. Delinquency, social skills and the structure of peer relations: Assessing criminological theories by social network theory. Social Forces 89(2): 609–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sutherland, Edwin, H. and Cressey, D.R. 1978. Criminology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  25. Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weerman, F.M., and C.C.J.H. Bijleveld. 2007. Birds of different feathers. European Journal of Criminology 4(4): 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wiatrowski, M.D., D.B. Griswold, and M.K. Roberts. 1981. Social control theory and delinquency. American Sociological Review 46(5): 525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rechts- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät (RW)Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Universität Erlangen-NürnbergNürnbergGermany

Personalised recommendations