Journal of Research in Crime and...

http://jrc.sagepub.com/and Delinquency

Journal of Research in Crime

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/47/4/439The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0022427810375575

online 27 August 2010 2010 47: 439 originally publishedJournal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

Xiaojin Chen and Michele AdamsMoffitt's Theory

Are Teen Delinquency Abstainers Social Introverts?: A Test of

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York

be found at: canJournal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyAdditional services and information for

http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jrc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/47/4/439.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 27, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 12, 2010Version of Record >>

at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jrc.sagepub.com/

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/47/4/439

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.newark.rutgers.edu/rscj/index.shtml

http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jrc.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/47/4/439.refs.html

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/47/4/439.full.pdf

http://jrc.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/07/01/0022427810375575.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Article

Are TeenDelinquencyAbstainers SocialIntroverts?: A Testof Moffitt’s Theory

Xiaojin Chen1 and Michele Adams1

AbstractPrior research has identified a small group of adolescents who completelyrefrain from delinquent behavior. Researchers have hypothesized that theseadolescents may be excluded from normative peer activities and arethus insulated from delinquent peer role models. A central argument inMoffitt’s account of delinquency abstention, for example, is that delinquencyabstainers are socially isolated due to certain unappealing physical/personal-ity characteristics. Using the detailed friendship network data from theNational Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), the authorsattempt to test Moffitt’s account of delinquency abstention, particularly theassociation between social exclusion and delinquency. Their results do notsuggest strong empirical support for the hypothesis that delinquencyabstention is ‘‘correlated with unpopularity and social isolation.’’ Thecomplex associations between adolescent friendship network characteris-tics and delinquency abstention highlight the necessity for future researchon peer contexts in which adolescents are embedded. The authors’ findings

1 Department of Sociology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Xiaojin Chen, Tulane University, Department of Sociology, 220 Newcomb Hall, New Orleans,

LA 70118, USA

Email: [email protected]

Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency

47(4) 439-468ª The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022427810375575http://jrcd.sagepub.com

439 at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from


appear to challenge Moffitt’s theory, suggesting the need for certainmodifications.

Keywordsdelinquency abstention, friendship network, life course theory

Prior research has identified groups with distinct offending trajectories over

the life course (e.g., Blokland, Nagin, and Nieuwbeerta 2005; Fergusson,

Horwood, and Nagin 2000; Moffitt 1993; Nagin, Farrington, and Moffitt

1995). The group considered to be life course offenders is relatively small,

while the vast majority of offenders only engage in some level of delin-

quency and criminal behavior during adolescence (Moffitt 1993; Piquero

and Brezina 2001). A third group, people who completely refrain from

delinquent behavior, has recently attracted research attention (Brezina and

Piquero 2007; Moffitt et al. 1996; Piquero, Brezina, and Turner 2005).

Given the prevalence of delinquency during adolescence (Hirschi 1969;

Thornberry and Krohn 2000) and the salience of peer influence in shaping

adolescents’ behavior (Warr 2002, 2005), some researchers have speculated

that these teens are ‘‘social introverts,’’ insulated from delinquent peer role

models because of their exclusion from normative peer activities (Moffitt

1993, 2006).

To date, few studies have attempted to examine the associations between

peer influence and delinquency abstention (but see Brezina and Piquero

2007; Moffitt et al. 1996; Piquero et al. 2005); thus, Moffitt’s theory on

delinquency abstention has not been fully tested. Specifically, little is

known about the structural and behavioral characteristics of the friendship

networks of delinquency abstainers and the role these attributes play in

shaping adolescents’ own behavior. Moffitt argues for additional research

to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis that ‘‘abstainers are social

introverts as teens,’’ noting that sociometric studies are needed to assess

‘‘if delinquent abstention is, indeed, correlated with unpopularity and social

isolation’’ (Moffitt 2006:292).

Heeding this suggestion (Moffitt 2006), we use the detailed friendship

network data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

(Add Health) to test Moffitt’s account of delinquency abstention, in partic-

ular, the association between social exclusion and delinquency. This

research will expand the existing literature by shedding further light on the

personal characteristics of the members of this group. Consistent with the

current emphasis on the significance of social contexts, we use a social

440 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47(4)



network approach to explore the unique effects of structural and behavioral

dimensions of friendship network on adolescent delinquency involvement.

Moffitt’s Account of Delinquency Abstention

Much of the research interest on delinquency abstention comes from

Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, which proposes two groups of offen-

ders with distinct offending trajectories and etiological origins (Moffitt

1993, 2006). The first group, life course-persistent offenders, is small

(approximately 5 percent of the male population). Its members tend to exhi-

bit a personality disorder characterized by physical aggression and delin-

quency/criminal behavior from childhood to midlife. Such personality

disorder is generally a product of interaction between group members’ neu-

ropsychological deficits and their adverse early life social environment. In

contrast, members of the second group (referred to as ‘‘adolescence-lim-

ited’’) develop antisocial behavior as a normative adaptational response

only during adolescence. Their delinquency emerges mainly as a result of

(1) frustration over the ‘‘maturity gap’’—that is, the discrepancy between

their physical maturity and the lack of access to adult privileges (e.g., inde-

pendence, autonomy, and other ‘‘freedoms’’) during adolescence and (2)

social mimicry of antisocial models, particularly life course-persistent

offender peers. Although life course-persistent offenders are rare and con-

sidered pathological, adolescence-limited offending is much more com-

mon, viewed as normative and transient.

If adolescent delinquency is indeed normative and widespread, the

implication is that teens who completely refrain from delinquency are non-

normative and therefore merit scientific scrutiny (Moffitt 1993). Drawing

from a combination of social learning and anomie/stress theories, Moffitt

(1993, 2006) argues that abstainers from delinquency are those rare individ-

uals who are excluded from normative peer group activities in adolescence.

The ‘‘explanation most central’’ to her theory is that these individuals are

socially excluded because of their unappealing personality or physical char-

acteristics (Moffitt 1997:33). Personality characteristics such as being

timid, overcontrolled, or socially awkward may ‘‘make them unattractive

to other teens,’’ thus precluding adolescents from joining ‘‘newly popular

delinquent groups.’’ In addition, adolescents with certain unappealing phys-

ical characteristics, especially delayed pubertal development, may not

experience the stress created by the ‘‘maturity gap,’’ and thus lack the

hypothesized motivation for associating with deviant peers and experiment-

ing with crime (Felson and Haynie 2002; Haynie 2003; Moffitt 1997).

Chen and Adams 441



Haynie (2003), for example, found that girls with delayed puberty were less

likely to be exposed to delinquent peers, and were less involved in deviant

activities, especially ‘‘party deviance,’’ including drinking, smoking, tru-

ancy, and disorderly conduct.

To date, the relatively few studies that have tested Moffitt’s theory on

delinquency abstention have provided mixed support (Brezina and Piquero

2007; Boutwell and Beaver 2008; Moffitt et al. 1996; Piquero et al. 2005).

Using data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development

study, Moffitt et al. (1996) found a small percentage of adolescents (less than

6 percent) who completely abstained from delinquent behavior. An examina-

tion of their personality profiles showed that, compared to other adolescents,

abstainers were conservative, overcontrolled, less aggressive, and socially

inept. Other related studies, although not directly addressing Moffitt’s

hypothesis, provide similar results (Farrington and West 1993; Shedler and

Block 1990). A longitudinal study on adolescent drug use and psychological

characteristics revealed that compared to drug experimenters, adolescents

who never used drugs seemed to be relatively anxious, emotionally

restricted, and lacking in social skills (Shedler and Block 1990). Similarly,

Farrington and West (1993) found that adolescent males who were never

convicted had personality profiles characterized by shyness, social isolation,

and having few friends. In addition, Giordano and colleagues (Giordano,

Cernkovich, and Pugh 1986) found that, compared to delinquents, nondelin-

quents had lower levels of interaction with their friends.

Moffitt’s unique account of delinquency abstention is in stark contrast to

traditional criminological theories, especially social bonding theory, which

implies that delinquency abstention is the result of strong bonding with con-

ventional institutions (Hirschi 1969). Cernkovich, Kaukinen, and Giordano

(N.d.), for example, have argued that conformity is ‘‘not merely the absence

of something (e.g., association with delinquent peers), but rather the pres-

ence of a host of characteristics and relationships that produce and maintain

conformity’’ (N. d.:35). Recent studies appear to provide some support for

the social bonding perspective (Brezina and Piquero 2007; Piquero et al.

2005). Using data from the Youths and Deterrence Survey, Brezina and

Piquero (2007) found that delinquency abstainers were not pathological;

instead, abstention was largely due to abstainers’ strong social bonding with

conventional institutions such as school and family, and their strong com-

mitment to moral beliefs. Similarly, Piquero and his colleagues (2005)

found that abstainers did not seem to fit the personality profiles described

by Moffitt; instead, they seemed to be happier, less depressive, and more

likely to associate with prosocial friends than their delinquent counterparts.




Overall, previous studies have highlighted the importance of personal

characteristics and participation in peer activities in determining delin-

quency abstention. However, as Moffitt states (2006), the hypothesis that

these teens are ‘‘social introverts’’ remains to be confirmed. The lack of

confirmation to date may reflect two possible issues. First, the conceptual

measurement of ‘‘social introvert’’ is ambiguous, as some researchers con-

sider personality traits such as ‘‘overcontrolled, compliant, emotionally

constricted, noncurious’’ characteristic of ‘‘social introverts,’’ while others

consider such traits evidence of strong commitment to conventional moral

beliefs (Brezina and Piquero 2007; Cernkovich et al. N.d.). This highlights

the need for more objective measures such as adolescents’ involvement in

peer activities. Second, even when peer influence measures are included,

they are often conceptualized as ‘‘exposure’’ to delinquent or prosocial

friends, generally ignoring the underlying social structure or content of the

peer network. Other dimensions of the friendship network, including its

density, as well as adolescents’ popularity and network position, could con-

dition the peer–delinquency association (Haynie 2001). As a result of these

limitations, researchers have called for social network studies with ‘‘more

direct measures that assess whether and how often respondents actually

interact with friends, as well as the nature of those interactions’’ (Piquero

et al. 2005:49).

Friendship Network and Delinquency

We adopt a social network approach to test Moffitt’s hypothesis on delin-

quency abstention and social exclusion. According to Knoke and Yang, a

‘‘social network is a structure composed of a set of actors, some of whose

members are connected by a set of one or more relations’’ (2008:8). Social

networks generally imply ‘‘webs of association’’ in which actors are linked,

directly and indirectly, to others who occupy the same social space, broadly

or narrowly defined. Network analytic perspectives move beyond variable-

driven causal explanations of action to focus on interaction between net-

work actors—that is, network analysis focuses on relationships between

actors in a group or community setting. The structure of the network, thus,

plays an important part in such analysis; as Knoke and Yang observe, the

‘‘network perspective emphasizes structural relations as its key orienting

principle’’ (2008:4; italics in original).

A friendship network may be analyzed as one type of social network or

as a subset of a larger, more general network. Researchers engaged in one

study of friendship networks elicited a description of ‘‘friend’’ that was

Chen and Adams 443



characterized by help, trust, exchanging confidences, and enjoyable

companionship (Willmott 1987:82). Although friendships can involve

disagreement and conflict (Degirmencioglu et al. 1998; Giordano 2003;

Laursen 1996), friends generally tend to be seen in a positive light, and the

dynamics of friendships are largely assumed to be close and ‘‘richly reward-

ing’’ (Giordano 2003:261; see also Larson 1983). For adolescents in partic-

ular, friends tend to be primary socializing agents exercising increasing

influence as adolescents move to distance themselves from the family

sphere (see Giordano 2003; Warr 1993). Friendship networks are, therefore,

perceived as highly influential in affecting the positive and negative

behaviors and attitudes of its members.

To what extent do friendship networks influence the delinquency beha-

viors of its members? Although traditional wisdom and substantial empiri-

cal evidence suggest that adolescents’ delinquent behavior is associated

with their involvement in delinquent friendship networks (Warr 2002,

2005), early research was unable to evaluate the interaction or relationship

between adolescents in the context of a friendship network and its relation-

ship to delinquency behavior formation. Pioneering theoretical work was

done in this area by Marvin Krohn (1986), who postulated that network den-

sity and multiplexity would be related to delinquent behavior for network

participants. More recently, researchers have started to fill the lacuna in the

friendship network–delinquency behavior literature by accounting for the

structure of networks themselves, including the size of the network, its den-

sity, and the positioning of the adolescent respondent within the network

(see, for instance, Haynie 2001, 2002).

The network position occupied by a given actor reflects certain of their

characteristics in relation to others in the network, including ‘‘centrality’’

and ‘‘density’’ (Knoke and Yang 2008). Density indicates the extent to

which network actors know each other, such that the more interconnected

or integrated the network, the higher the density, and the more diffuse the

network, the lower the density. Centrality, however, essentially describes

an actor’s importance in the network, showing the number of direct connec-

tions between an actor and their peers, whether those connections are initi-

ated by the actor or by others in the network (Knoke and Yang 2008). The

more central an actor is within the network, the greater will be the number

of direct connections between that actor and their peers.

In studies of adolescents’ peer networks, these relationship characteris-

tics have been found to affect respondent’s delinquent behaviors, addres-

sing interactional effects that move beyond individual personality or

character traits in proneness to delinquency. Haynie (2001), for example,




finds that positioning and density are important—that centrally located

adolescents in cohesive friendship networks are more likely to conform

to the delinquency norms of that network than are adolescents located on

the margins of less cohesive networks (Haynie 2001:1051). Similarly,

Demuth (2004), although not analyzing respondents’ networks per se, found

that those adolescents who self-reported as having few or no friends were

less likely to engage in delinquent behavior.

Focus of Current Study

Drawing on the literature reviewed above, we attempt to assess Moffitt’s

account of delinquency abstention. First, as suggested by Piquero et al.

(2005), we go beyond the indirect measures of peer influence and use more

detailed social network data, including measures of adolescents’ popularity

and involvement, to examine the hypothesized correlation between social

exclusion and delinquency abstention. One advantage of using these mea-

sures is the fact that friendship network data are based on peers’ own reports

rather than adolescents’ self-report of their friends’ behavior, the latter of

which could lead to a biased estimation of peer influence (Jussim and

Osgood 1989). Second, we examine the process that links peer network

characteristics to delinquency abstention. In this regard, we ask: does each

dimension of friendship network have independent effects? Do friendship

network dimensions interact with each other? Finally, we analyze the asso-

ciations between each dimension of friendship network and delinquency

abstention in male and female subgroups, taking account of previous

research suggesting that abstention rates, as well as effects of implicated

variables on abstention, may differ across gender (Piquero et al. 2005;

Thornberry and Krohn 2000).

Data and Measurement

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

This study uses data from the three waves of the National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), a data set consisting of a nation-

ally representative sample of adolescents in grades 7 to 12 in the United

States during 1994 to 1995. The Add Health was designed to examine the

health of adolescents, including the effects of multiple social contexts, one

of which is delinquency (Udry 2003). To obtain a representative sample, a

school-based, clustered sampling design was used; a sample of 134 eligible

high schools, which included at least an 11th grade and an enrollment of

Chen and Adams 445



more than 30 students, and their ‘‘feeder schools,’’ was first selected. The

sample was stratified by region, urbanicity (urban/suburban/rural), school

type (public/private/parochial), ethnic mix, and size.

For the initial in-school survey, all students attending these high schools

and ‘‘feeder schools’’ were asked to provide some brief information regard-

ing their demographic characteristics, friendships, and certain prosocial and

deviant activities (n ¼ 90,118). This sample provides the basis for con-

structing the measures of friendship network characteristics. A random sub-

set of the sample was then selected and interviewed at home (wave 1, n ¼20,745). In 1996, the second wave of the in-home survey was conducted, in

which all adolescents in grades 7 to 11 at wave 1 were interviewed (n ¼14,738). The third wave of data collection, conducted between August

2001 and April 2002, contains follow-up interviews from 14,979 original

wave 1 respondents. The sample of respondents selected for the current

study is limited to those who were interviewed in schools, were subse-

quently interviewed at home in all three waves, were assigned valid sam-

pling weights, had valid friendship network data, and had no missing data

on the dependent variable. These restrictions result in a sample of 6,964

respondents.1,2

Measurement

Dependent Variable. We adopted the approach used by Boutwell and Beaver

(2008) to construct the dependent variable delinquency abstention. First, a

composite delinquency scale was created for each of the three waves of

data. At wave 1, we used 15 items, including minor delinquency (painting

graffiti, shoplifting, etc.), status offense (running away), and more serious

behavior (physical fight, seriously injuring someone, etc.) to create a com-

posite delinquency scale (a¼ .83). Similarly, a wave 2 delinquent behavior

scale was constructed using 14 items, which consisted of many of the same

questions used in wave 1 (a ¼ .82). At wave 3, 13 items indexing physical

violence, cheating, stealing, and selling drugs were used to tap delinquency

and criminal behavior during early adulthood (a ¼ .71). For each wave,

respondents were asked how often they engaged in each of the delinquent

behaviors in the past 12 months. For each of the composite scales, 0 indi-

cated that the adolescent did not participate any of the activities; the higher

the score, the higher the antisocial behavior.

The three composite delinquency scales were then combined to identify

adolescent delinquency abstainers. Only those who scored 0 in each of the

three waves, that is, adolescents who had never participated in any of the




delinquent/criminal activities over time, were defined as abstainers. Similar

to past research (Boutwell and Beaver 2008; Piquero and Brezina 2005;

Thornberry and Krohn 2000), 9.9 percent were identified as abstainers,

including about 11.5 percent of females, and 8 percent of males.3

Independent VariablesFriendship network characteristics. Friendship network characteristics are

key independent variables in this study. To fully capture adolescents’ friend-

ship characteristics, we measured the structural and behavioral dimensions of

peer networks from the initial in-school survey. The structural peer network

characteristics include three measures: number of friends at school, degree

centrality, and peer network density. Number of friends at school measures

the number of times the respondent was nominated by other students as a

friend in the school. Degree centrality measures adolescent’s connections

in the peer network, weighted by the centrality of those to whom he or she

sent ties (Bonacich 1987). Peer network density measures the degree to

which members in the network knew and interacted with each other, calcu-

lated using number of total ties in the peer network divided by the number

of possible total ties in the group. In addition, three indicators are used to

measure behavioral characteristics of friendship network: peer deviance,

peer grade point average (GPA), and peer extracurricular activities. Peer

deviance measures how often respondent’s friends commit 6 minor deviant

activities in the past 12 months, including smoking cigarettes, drinking

alcohol, getting drunk, doing something dangerous, and skipping school.

Peer GPA measures friends’ mean grade across four core subjects:

English/language arts, mathematics, history/social studies, and science. Peer

extracurricular activities measures friends’ involvement in a series of extra-

curricular activities, including participating in different clubs, sports, or

other school-based organizations. The variable was top-coded at 10 since

reports of more than 10 extracurricular activities appeared to be unreliable.

Personality. Respondents’ personality profiles represent another set of

independent variables. Using items similar to those adopted in the ‘‘Big

Five’’ personality dimensions (Oliver and Srivastava 1999), we used wave

1 at-home data to construct four scales to capture multiple dimensions of

adolescents’ personality. These scales include self-esteem, nonconfronta-

tion, rationality, and stress reaction. Self-esteem consists of six items,

including being proud, liking yourself, doing everything right, having a lot

of good qualities, being socially accepted, and being loved and wanted (a¼.85). A higher score indicated higher self-esteem for the respondent.

Chen and Adams 447



Nonconfrontation consists of two items, never arguing and never criticizing

others, with a higher score indicating having a less confrontational interac-

tion style. Rationality measures whether adolescents use a rational approach

to make decisions, including whether they get as many facts as possible

before making decisions, whether they try to think of many different ways

to find a solution, whether they use a systematic method, and whether they

analyze the results (a ¼ .74). Higher scores on this measure indicated

respondent’s use of a more rational approach. Finally, stress reaction mea-

sures how adolescents respond to stress by asking whether they try to avoid

problems and whether difficult problems make them upset, with a higher

score indicating a less effective coping strategy.

Unappealing physical characteristics. We use two variables, delayed pub-

erty development and physical disability to capture adolescents’ unappeal-

ing physical characteristics. To measure delayed puberty development,

adolescents were asked how advanced their physical development is com-

pared to their same-aged peers, with low values indicating delayed develop-

ment. In addition, adolescents with physical disability may experience

discrimination from peers and therefore be excluded from the normative

peer network. This variable is measured by asking adolescents whether they

have had difficulty using their hands, arms, legs, or feet because of a phys-

ical condition in the last 12 months.

Social bonding. We use two measures to reflect social bonding. Attach-

ment to parents measures adolescents’ perception of caring parents and how

closely parents are attached to them. A separate measure was first created

for adolescent’s attachment to mother (a ¼ .62) and attachment to father

(a ¼ .71). A mean procedure was then performed to create the attachment

to parents measure (a ¼ .59). School grade assesses adolescents’ academic

performance in school, measured by averaging grades of four core courses:

English, Math, History, and Science (a ¼ .79).

A series of variables that are associated with variations in friendship and

delinquency are controlled in the model. Age, gender, race, household

income, residential place (urban/suburban/rural), and intact family are

straightforward measures similar to those used in previous studies. In addi-

tion, we control for two other individual level variables: new to school, and

number of out-of-school friends. We control for the situation in which ado-

lescents are new to school since moving to a new place may disrupt their

establishment of a friendship network, or they may not be added to the

school roster thus precluding their nomination as friends by other peers.




Number of out-of-school friends measures connections with outside

networks, as association with out-of-school friends may expose adolescents

to more deviant peer models and delinquent activities.

Analytic Strategy

We begin by examining bivariate differences between offenders and abstai-

ners in friendship network characteristics and personality profiles. We then

estimate a series of survey corrected logistic regression equations to exam-

ine the effects of friendship network characteristics on the likelihood of

delinquency abstention, net of our control variables. In addition, we present

models that incorporate interaction terms between friendship network struc-

tural and behavioral characteristics. For all analyses, we use the survey cor-

rection procedures available in Mplus5.0 to obtain unbiased parameter

estimates and standard errors that adjust for the nonindependence in the data

(Chantala and Suchindra 2006). Finally, sampling weights and a subpopu-

lation command in Mplus were applied to correct for design effects and

obtain national representativeness. Table 1 reports means, standard devia-

tions, and range for all of the study variables.

One common concern in a longitudinal study is missing data. To address

this problem, Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) is applied.

FIML computes maximum likelihood estimates and standard errors for

regression models using observed data points (Enders 2006; Little and

Rubin 1987). Previous studies have shown that compared with traditional

techniques, FIML provides efficient estimation of statistical parameters and

less biased estimates of standard errors (Schafer 1997). In addition, FIML

standard errors are estimated using the observed rather than expected infor-

mation matrix, which provides less biased standard errors even when data

are not missing completely at random (Enders 2006). Furthermore, analyses

based on data without missing cases (a listwise deletion) were performed,

which produced substantively similar results. For these reasons, FIML is

used in the current study to address missing case problems.

Results

Descriptive Analysis

We first compared the structural and behavioral school friendship network

characteristics between offenders and abstainers (Table 2). In terms of

structural characteristics of friendship network, we found that abstainers

had a slightly smaller number of peers nominating them as friends.

Chen and Adams 449



However, there was no difference in peer network density or centrality,

indicating that abstainers affiliated with networks as cohesive as those of

offenders, and were as influential as offenders in their respective peer net-

works. The behavioral characteristics of these two groups’ friendship net-

works did appear to differ, as abstainers had friends with higher GPA in

school and lower engagement in minor deviant activities. We found no dif-

ference between these two groups regarding their friends’ involvement in

extracurricular activities.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Included Variables

MeanStandardDeviation Minimum Maximum

Age 15.79 1.58 11.55 21.19Gender(male ¼ 1 female ¼ 2)

1.53 0.50 1.00 2.00

Black 0.21 0.40 0.00 1.00Hispanic 0.16 0.37 0.00 1.00Other 0.09 0.28 0.00 1.00Family structure(intact family ¼ 1)

0.70 0.46 0.00 1.00

Household income 3.56 0.84 0.00 6.91# of out school friends 1.28 2.03 0.00 10.00New to the school 0.29 0.45 0.00 1.00Rural 0.28 0.45 0.00 1.00Suburban 0.39 0.49 0.00 1.00Physical disability 0.02 0.15 0.00 1.00Delayed puberty development 3.22 1.11 1.00 5.00Self-esteem 4.11 0.60 1.00 5.00Stress reaction 3.38 0.82 1.00 5.00Rationality oriented 3.80 0.63 1.00 5.00Nonconfrontational 3.51 0.81 1.00 5.00Friendship size 4.79 3.69 0.00 30.00Friendship network density 0.29 0.14 0.06 1.00Centrality 0.87 0.64 0.00 4.29Friend minor deviance 0.94 0.59 0.00 6.00Friend GPA 2.83 0.50 1.00 4.00Friend extracurricular activities 2.31 1.18 0.00 9.00Parental bonding 4.63 0.56 1.00 5.00School GPA 2.86 0.78 1.00 4.00Delinquency abstention 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00

Note: GPA ¼ grade point average.




Tab

le2.

Frie

ndsh

ipN

etw

ork

Char

acte

rist

ics

Bet

wee

nD

elin

quen

cyA

bst

ainer

san

dO

ffen

der

s

Tota

l(n¼

6,9

64)

Mal

e(n¼

3,1

41)

Fem

ale

(n¼

3,8

23)

Abst

ainer

(n¼

689)

Offe

nder

(n¼

6,27

5)A

bst

ainer

(n¼

251)

Offe

nder

(n¼

2,89

0)A

bst

ainer

(n¼

438)

Offen

der

(n¼

3,3

85)

Stru

ctura

lch

arac

teri

stic

sSi

ze4.3

24.8

4**

3.9

34.6

1**

4.5

45.0

4**

Den

sity

0.3

00.2

90.3

10.2

90.3

00.3

0C

entr

ality

0.9

00.8

70.8

30.8

30.9

50.9

1Beh

avio

ralch

arac

teri

stic

sA

vera

gepee

rdev

iance

0.7

90.9

5**

0.7

81.0

0**

0.7

90.9

2**

Ave

rage

pee

rG

PA

2.9

22.8

2**

2.8

72.8

22.9

52.8

2**

Ave

rage

pee

rex

trac

urr

icula

rac

tivi

ties

2.3

12.3

12.2

42.2

82.3

52.3

3

Not

e:G

PA¼

grad

epoin

tav

erag

e.**

p<

.01.



We also examined differences in social network characteristics between

abstainers and offenders across gender. Both male and female abstainers

had fewer friends, and their friends were less engaged in minor deviant

activities; moreover, female abstainers were more likely to have friends

with good academic standing while there was no significant difference

between male abstainers and offenders.

We then compared personality profiles, unappealing physical character-

istics, and adolescent social bonding with schools and parents (Table 3).

Consistent with previous studies (Farrington and West 1993; Shedler and

Block 1990), our findings indicated that abstainers were more rationality-

oriented, had better stress coping strategies, and were less likely to have

confrontational interaction styles (e.g., tendency to argue with or criticize

others). Moreover, abstainers also reported a higher level of self-esteem.

These patterns were identical across gender. In addition, compared to offen-

ders, abstainers entered puberty later; this difference, however, was only

significant for girls but not for boys. Finally, as predicted by Moffitt

(1993), delinquency abstainers had better grades in school and were more

closely attached to parents. No gender difference was found in terms of

social bonding and delinquency abstention.

Survey-Corrected Logistic Regression Models

The unique effect of each friendship network dimension on delinquency

abstention was investigated in a series of survey-corrected logistic regression

models (Table 4). First, all the control variables were entered simultaneously

in model 1, with gender, intact family structure, and number of out-of-school

friends reaching statistical significance. Results indicated that females,

adolescents from families with two parents, and adolescents with fewer

out-of-school friends were more likely to be delinquency abstainers.

We then investigated whether unappealing physical characteristics and

personality traits contribute to delinquency abstention (model 2). As pre-

dicted by Moffitt (1993), late puberty development increased the probabil-

ity of delinquency abstention. In addition, all of the four personality

dimensions were statistically significant. Adolescents who were more

rationality-oriented, less confrontational, more self-confident, and who had

effective coping strategies were more likely to refrain from delinquency.

Effects of family structure and number of out-of-school friends became sta-

tistically insignificant when physical characteristics and personality profiles

were entered.

452


at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Tab

le3.

Per

sonal

Char

acte

rist

ics

and

Soci

alBondin

gbet

wee

nD

elin

quen

cyA

bst

ainer

san

dO

ffen

der

s

Tota

l(n¼

6,9

64)

Mal

e(n¼

3,1

41)

Fem

ale

(n¼

3,8

23)

Abst

ainer

(n¼

689)

Offe

nder

(n¼

6,27

5)A

bst

ainer

(n¼

251)

Offe

nder

(n¼

2,89

0)A

bst

ainer

(n¼

438)

Offen

der

(n¼

3,3

85)

Per

sonal

ity

pro

files

Self-

este

em4.2

74.1

0**

4.3

44.2

1**

4.2

44.0

1**

Rat

ional

ity

3.9

43.7

9**

3.9

83.8

0**

3.9

23.7

8**

Nonco

nfr

onta

tional

3.2

03.5

6**

3.1

73.5

1**

3.2

13.6

0**

Neg

ativ

est

ress

reac

tion

3.2

43.3

7**

3.1

63.3

1**

3.2

93.4

3**

Phys

ical

char

acte

rist

ics

Phys

ical

dis

abili

ty0.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

10.0

2D

elay

edpuber

tydev

elopm

ent

3.1

13.2

6**

3.1

93.2

13.0

63.3

1**

Soci

albondin

gBondin

gw

ith

par

ents

4.7

84.6

2**

4.8

64.6

9**

4.7

44.5

6**

Bondin

gw

ith

school

3.0

82.8

4**

2.9

42.7

6**

3.1

62.9

1**

**p

<.0

1.



Tab

le4.

Surv

ey-C

orr

ecte

dLo

gist

icR

egre

ssio

nM

odel

sPre

dic

ting

Del

inquen

cyA

bst

ention

Model

1M

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4M

odel

5

BO

dds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

io

Inte

rcep

t�

2.1

3�

1.5

9�

2.4

6�

5.7

1�

5.4

4A

ge�

0.0

60.9

4�

0.0

40.9

70.0

01.0

00.0

31.0

30.0

31.0

3G

ender

(mal

e¼

1fe

mal

e¼

2)

0.5

8**

1.7

90.7

1**

2.0

40.7

4**

2.0

90.7

2**

2.0

50.6

9**

1.9

9Bla

cka

�0.1

80.8

3�

0.2

50.7

8�

0.3

10.7

4�

0.2

70.7

7�

0.3

00.7

4H

ispan

ic�

0.1

30.8

8�

0.2

10.8

1�

0.2

70.7

6�

0.2

50.7

8�

0.1

90.8

2O

ther

0.2

91.3

40.1

61.1

8�

0.0

10.9

9�

0.0

30.9

80.0

81.0

8Fa

mily

stru

cture

(inta

ctfa

mily¼

1)

0.3

4*

1.4

10.2

81.3

20.2

51.2

80.2

61.3

00.2

51.2

8

House

hold

inco

me

�0.1

10.9

0�

0.1

10.9

0�

0.1

00.9

1�

0.1

20.8

9�

0.1

50.8

6#

ofout

schoolfr

iends

�0.0

8*

0.9

2�

0.0

60.9

4�

0.0

7*

0.9

3�

0.0

7*

0.9

3�

0.0

7*

0.9

3N

ewto

the

school

0.1

41.1

50.1

91.2

10.1

81.2

00.2

11.2

30.2

5*

1.2

8R

ura

lb0.1

51.1

70.1

51.1

60.1

71.1

80.1

81.1

90.1

41.1

5Su

burb

an�

0.0

70.9

3�

0.1

00.9

0�

0.0

90.9

2�

0.0

60.9

5�

0.0

80.9

3Phys

ical

dis

abili

ty�

0.3

00.7

4�

0.3

50.7

0�

0.3

40.7

1�

0.2

50.7

8D

elay

edpuber

tydev

elopm

ent

�0.1

5**

0.8

6�

0.1

2*

0.8

9�

0.1

2*

0.8

9�

0.1

3*

0.8

8Se

lf-es

teem

0.3

2**

1.3

80.3

2**

1.3

80.1

81.2

00.1

61.1

7St

ress

reac

tion

�0.3

2**

0.7

3�

0.2

8**

0.7

5�

0.2

5**

0.7

8�

0.2

6**

0.7

7R

atio

nal

ity

ori

ente

d0.2

2*

1.2

50.2

3*

1.2

60.2

1*

1.2

30.2

1*

1.2

3N

onco

nfr

onta

tional

�0.5

1**

0.6

0�

0.5

1**

0.6

0�

0.5

1*

0.6

0�

0.5

2**

0.6

0Fr

iendsh

ipsi

ze�

0.2

6**

0.7

7�

0.2

7*

0.7

6Fr

iendsh

ipnet

work

den

sity

0.0

31.0

30.0

11.0

1

(con

tinue

d)



Tab

le4

(co

nti

nu

ed

)

Model

1M

odel

2M

odel

3M

odel

4M

odel

5

BO

dds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

io

Cen

tral

ity

0.0

61.0

60.0

41.0

4�

0.1

20.8

9Fr

iend

min

or

dev

iance

�0.2

4**

0.7

8�

0.2

2**

0.8

1�

0.3

0**

0.7

4Fr

iend

GPA

0.2

3**

1.2

60.1

41.1

5Fr

iend

extr

acurr

icula

rac

tivi

ties

�0.1

5*

0.8

6�

0.1

6*

0.8

6Par

enta

lbondin

g0.5

6**

1.7

40.5

6**

1.7

5Sc

hoolG

PA

0.3

1*

1.3

60.3

0**

1.3

5C

entr

ality*

Frie

nd

min

or

dev

iance

�0.1

7*

0.8

4

Note

:G

PA¼

grad

epoin

tav

erag

e;N¼

6,9

64.

aW

hite

isth

ere

fere

nce

cate

gory

.b

Urb

anis

the

refe

rence

cate

gory

.*p

<.0

5.

**p

<.0

1.



We assessed whether friendship network characteristics affect

delinquency abstention in model 3.4 Consistent with results from bivariate

analysis, friendship size had negative effects on delinquency abstention;

however, other structural aspects of friendship network such as network

density and adolescents’ position in the friendship network did not have

significant effects. In addition, the behavioral characteristics of friendship

network significantly affected adolescents’ own delinquency behavior.

Adolescents whose friends engaged in a higher level of minor deviance and

whose friends had lower GPAs in school were less likely to completely

refrain from delinquency. Interestingly, friends’ involvement in extracurri-

cular activities decreased the probability of delinquency abstention.

Finally, as suggested by previous researchers (Brezina and Piquero 2007;

Cernkovich et al. N.d.), we evaluated whether social bonding has an

independent effect on delinquency abstention (model 4). Our results indi-

cated that adolescents’ own bonding with parents and school had strong and

significant effects.

Gender-specific models. Finally, we tested whether effects of friendship

network and other implicated factors operated differently across gender

(Table 5 model 1). It appears that certain predictors were correlated signif-

icantly with delinquency abstention in the female subpopulation but not in

the male group. For example, puberty development, effective coping strate-

gies, and peers’ extracurricular activities were significantly associated with

delinquency abstention for females but not for males. However, a formal

test of the equality of the partial unstandardized regression coefficients

(Cohen and Cohen 1983; Paternoster et al. 1998) across gender showed

no significant differences, with only one exception: adolescent’s self-

esteem differed significantly between males and females (z ¼ 3.38, results

not shown). Self-esteem was positively associated with delinquency absten-

tion for girls, but had negative, although nonsignificant, effects on delin-

quency abstention for boys.

Interaction models. Previous research has suggested that the translation of

peer behavior into adolescents’ own behavior is conditional on the struc-

tural characteristics of their friendship networks. Assessing this possibility

requires interaction models (Jaccard 2001), so we tested the interactions

between network structural characteristics and behavioral characteristics.

For ease of interpretation, each interaction was tested separately, with a

total of nine interactions (3 Structural Items � 3 Behavioral Items). Of the

nine interactions, only the interaction between centrality and friends’ minor

456


at UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS on April 27, 2014jrc.sagepub.comDownloaded from


Tab

le5.

Surv

eyC

orr

ecte

dLo

gist

icR

egre

ssio

nM

odel

sPre

dic

ting

Male

and

Fem

ale

Del

inquen

cyA

bst

ention

Mal

e(n¼

3,1

41)

Fem

ale

(n¼

3,8

23)

Model

1In

tera

ctio

nM

odel

Model

1In

tera

ctio

nM

odel

BO

dds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

io

Inte

rcep

t�

4.0

5�

3.7

8�

4.6

2�

4.4

0A

ge0.0

31.0

30.0

21.0

30.0

21.0

20.0

21.0

2Bla

cka

�0.2

80.7

6�

0.3

00.7

4�

0.3

20.7

3�

0.3

70.6

9H

ispan

ic�

0.2

70.7

7�

0.2

40.7

9�

0.2

50.7

8�

0.1

80.8

3O

ther

�0.0

60.9

40.0

11.0

1�

0.0

80.9

20.0

51.0

5Fa

mily

stru

cture

(inta

ctfa

mily¼

1)

0.2

31.2

60.2

21.2

40.2

61.3

00.2

61.2

9H

ouse

hold

inco

me

�0.0

60.9

5�

0.0

50.9

5�

0.1

70.8

4�

0.2

2*

0.8

0#

ofout

schoolfr

iends

�0.0

60.9

4�

0.0

50.9

5�

0.0

60.9

4�

0.0

70.9

3N

ewto

the

school

0.1

81.2

00.2

01.2

20.2

01.2

20.2

41.2

7R

ura

lb0.0

61.0

70.0

51.0

60.2

71.3

10.2

21.2

5Su

burb

an�

0.3

30.7

2�

0.3

40.7

10.1

01.1

00.0

71.0

7Phys

ical

dis

abili

ty�

0.2

70.7

6�

0.2

40.7

9�

0.4

20.6

6�

0.2

70.7

7D

elay

edpuber

tydev

elopm

ent

�0.0

40.9

7�

0.0

40.9

6�

0.1

8*

0.8

4�

0.1

9*

0.8

3Se

lf-es

teem

�0.3

90.6

8�

0.4

3*

0.6

50.4

8**

1.6

20.4

7**

1.5

9St

ress

reac

tion

�0.2

20.8

0�

0.2

20.8

0�

0.2

6**

0.7

7�

0.2

7**

0.7

7R

atio

nal

ity

ori

ente

d0.3

01.3

50.3

01.3

50.1

51.1

60.1

51.1

7N

onco

nfr

onta

tional

�0.6

5**

0.5

2�

0.6

6**

0.5

2�

0.4

5**

0.6

4�

0.4

5**

0.6

4Fr

iendsh

ipsi

ze�

0.2

3*

0.7

9�

0.2

9**

0.7

5Fr

iendsh

ipnet

work

den

sity

0.0

21.0

2�

0.0

10.9

9C

entr

ality

�0.0

10.9

9�

0.1

10.9

00.0

71.0

7�

0.1

20.8

8

(con

tinue

d)



Tab

le5

(co

nti

nu

ed

)

Mal

e(n¼

3,1

41)

Fem

ale

(n¼

3,8

23)

Model

1In

tera

ctio

nM

odel

Model

1In

tera

ctio

nM

odel

BO

dds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

ioB

Odds

Rat

io

Frie

nd

min

or

dev

iance

�0.3

3*

0.7

2�

0.4

0*

0.6

7�

0.1

40.8

7�

0.2

2*

0.8

0Fr

iend

GPA

0.1

01.1

00.1

9*

1.2

1Fr

iend

extr

acurr

icula

rac

tivi

ties

�0.0

50.9

5�

0.2

2*

0.8

1Par

enta

lbondin

g0.7

62.1

30.7

42.1

00.4

7*

1.6

00.4

8*

1.6

2Sc

hoolG

PA

0.3

9*

1.4

70.3

9*

1.4

80.2

7*

1.3

10.2

7*

1.3

1C

entr

ality*

frie

nd

min

or

dev

iance

�0.1

20.8

9�

0.2

0*

0.8

1

Not

e:a W

hite

isth

ere

fere

nce

cate

gory

.b

Urb

anis

the

refe

rence

cate

gory

.N

ote

:*p

<.0

5.

**p

<.0

1.



deviance was statistically significant (Table 4 model 5). We also tested

these interactions for each gender group. No significant interaction was

found for males, but the interaction between centrality and friends’ minor

deviance was significant for females (Table 5 interaction model). Similarly,

we tested the magnitudes of interaction across gender but detected no sig-

nificant difference. To better understand the nature of these findings, we

graphed the significant interaction for the whole sample and for the female

subgroup.

Figure 1 illustrates the centrality and friends’ minor deviance interaction

for the whole sample. The graph shows that peer effect depends largely on

adolescent’s own position in the friendship network. As peer deviant activ-

ities increase, the probability of delinquency abstention decreased more

rapidly, if the adolescent occupied a central position in the network, com-

pared with those who were marginal members (Figure 1), particularly if the

subject adolescent was female (Figure 2). With the increase of average peer

deviant activities from �2 (2 standard deviations below the mean) to 2 (2

standard deviations above the mean), the predicted probability of abstention

remained almost the same for marginal members; however, the predicted

probability decreased dramatically for those occupying central positions

in the group.

Figure 1. Interaction: Centrality by friends’ minor deviance.

Chen and Adams 459



Discussion and Conclusion

Our original goals in this article were to (1) test Moffitt’s hypothesis that

delinquency abstention is associated with social exclusion due to abstai-

ners’ unappealing personal characteristics and (2) to investigate whether

individual peer network characteristics have unique effects on delinquency

abstention. With respect to the former, several findings merit note. First, the

personal characteristics of delinquency abstainers generally appear to fit the

prevailing stereotype. Relative to offenders, abstainers are more likely to be

‘‘controlled,’’ have delayed physical development, and have stronger social

bonds with both parents and schools. However; although previous studies

have described delinquency abstainers as ‘‘fearful, interpersonally timid,

and socially inept’’ (Moffitt 2006:291), our results suggest that these teens,

especially girls, report a higher level of self-esteem.

Second, our detailed analysis of adolescent friendship network charac-

teristics shows that delinquent abstainers are not as popular as delinquent

adolescents; however, they are not socially excluded from peer groups nor

are they marginalized in their peer networks. Instead, they have prosocial

friends who are good students and who are less likely to participate in devi-

ant activities. These results are inconsistent with Moffitt’s hypothesis and

some previous studies (Farrington and West 1993; Moffitt 1993, 2006; She-

dler and Block 1990) but resonate with findings from more recent research

(Brezina and Piquero 2007; Piquero et al. 2005).

Figure 2. Interaction: Centrality by friends’ minor deviance (female).




Given the above, our findings do not provide strong empirical support for

Moffitt’s hypothesis that delinquency abstention is ‘‘correlated with unpopu-

larity and social isolation’’ and contradicts the idea that these teens are

‘‘social introverts.’’ Instead, our results suggest that delinquency abstention

is due to the presence ‘‘of a host of [positive] characteristics and relationships

that produce and maintain conformity’’ (Cernkovich et al. N.d.:8). These

results appear to challenge Moffitt’s assumption that youth group activities

are criminogenic in nature and suggest that teen delinquency is not inevitable

when adolescents associate with other youth. The smaller but more prosocial

peer network of delinquency abstainers is probably the result of careful par-

ental monitoring and adolescents’ own strong moral beliefs, which prevents

these teens from associating with more delinquent peers (Brezina and

Piquero 2007; Knoester, Haynie, and Stephens 2006; Warr 2005).

We addressed our second goal using multivariate regression models to

examine the complicated process that links friendship network characteristics

and delinquency abstention. These models suggest several major findings.

First, our study shows that, besides the traditional measure of deviant peer

exposure, other structural and behavioral dimensions of adolescents’ friendship

network characteristics, especially number of friends and friends’ prosocial

activities, have independent and unique effects on delinquency abstention

(Giordano et al. 1986; Haynie 2001; Kandel 1978; Kandel and Davies 1991).

Consistent with other studies (Demuth 2004; Farrington and West 1993;

Shedler and Block 1990), our research indicates that the size of adolescent’s

friendship network is negatively associated with delinquency abstention.

This negative association may be due to the fact that popular adolescents

are more likely to be exposed to and interact with deviant friends, as most

adolescent friendship networks, whether prosocial or antisocial in nature,

include both conventional and delinquent group members (Giordano

2003; Haynie 2002). In addition, previous studies have shown that popular

adolescents prefer to engage in social group, rather than solitary, activities

(Bruyn and Cillessen 2008), which are generally unsupervised and unstruc-

tured and prone to delinquency (Jensen and Brownfield 1986; Mustaine and

Tewksbury 1998; Osgood et al. 1996).

Our results regarding the effects of peers’ prosocial activities on adoles-

cent’s delinquency, however, are puzzling. Consistent with previous studies

(Piquero et al. 2005), we find that peers’ academic performance is posi-

tively associated with delinquency abstention; however, peers’ involvement

in prosocial activities such as sports and school-related clubs is negatively

associated with females’ delinquency abstention. This is an interesting

finding in relation to the argument of lifestyle and opportunity theorists who

Chen and Adams 461



suggest that adolescents who spent time in structured and supervised activ-

ities are less likely to engage in delinquency (Osgood et al. 1996). We pro-

pose two possible reasons for this inconsistency. First, our measure of

extracurricular activities consists largely of sports, in which male adoles-

cents are more likely to participate (Barnett 2008); thus, female adolescents

with friends who are involved with multiple extracurricular activities may

have a high proportion of male friends. As many studies have shown,

affiliation with male friends is a risk factor for girls’ engagement in delin-

quency (e.g., Haynie 2001). Second, as Hirschi (1969) suggested, delin-

quency does not require a large amount of time; time spent in structured

activities does not prevent adolescents from engaging in delinquent activi-

ties in other unsupervised settings.

Besides independent effects, we find that adolescents’ involvement with

delinquency may be affected by the interaction of various friendship net-

work characteristics. More specifically, our research shows that delin-

quency abstention is more likely when adolescents are well connected in

prosocial peer groups, as definitions and behavioral patterns favorable to

conventional activities are likely to be transmitted with heightened expo-

sure and fewer antisocial opportunities. These results provide further sup-

port for prior studies suggesting that a one-dimensional peer network

measure (such as deviant peer association) is insufficient for understanding

the association between delinquency and peer affiliation (Giordano et al.

1986; Haynie 2001; Kandel 1978; Kandel and Davies 1991).

Although not a central focus, our study tests whether delinquency absten-

tion rates, as well as the mechanisms that lead to abstention, differ across gen-

der. As documented in previous studies (Boutwell and Beaver 2008; Piquero

and Brezina 2005; Thornberry and Krohn 2000), our research indicates that

females are much more likely to be delinquency abstainers than males. The

influence of risk/protective factors on delinquency abstention, however,

appears to be largely the same across these two groups. These findings are

consistent with the argument that theories of the origins of distinct offending

trajectories are explanatory across gender (Moffitt 2006).

The findings presented here should be considered in light of the follow-

ing limitations. First, although our data contain many abstention correlates,

particularly detailed measures of peer network, our focus is on testing the

hypothesis regarding social exclusion and delinquency abstention. Other

mechanisms leading to delinquency abstention, such as a lack of maturity

gap or early access to adult roles, should be explored in future studies.

Second, as described in the data section, our peer network measures are

based on cross-sectional data, which limits the causal inferences we can




make about the relationship between peer network and delinquency.

Although a growing body of research has explored this association, future

studies using longitudinal data that track the change in peer network

composition and delinquency over time are needed.

Finally, our analysis of peer network is limited in that adolescents’

friendships outside of school are not captured in Add Health’s network data.

Frequent involvement with friends outside of school may indicate adoles-

cents’ association with peers who do not conform to school norms or who

have dropped out of school. However, Add Health data do have information

regarding the number of friends whose names are not on the roster of parti-

cipating schools, and we have controlled this variable in our analysis. In

addition, as previous studies have indicated, most adolescent social net-

works are formed based on the natural boundaries of schools (Haynie 2002).

Despite these limitations, this study provides a rigorous test of Moffitt’s

hypothesis regarding the association between social exclusion and delin-

quency abstention and concludes that, contrary to Moffitt’s argument, these

abstainers are not ‘‘social introverts’’ or ‘‘pathological.’’ These results appear

to further challenge Moffitt’s theory and suggest that certain modifications

are needed. In addition, the complicated associations between adolescent

friendship network characteristics and delinquency abstention highlight the

need for future research on peer contexts in which adolescents are embedded.

Considering the salience of peer influence in Moffitt’s developmental taxon-

omy and in adolescent delinquency literature in general, studies that adopt a

social network approach may provide further insight into the causal process

that links adolescent friendship and delinquency.

Authors’ Note

A version of this article was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the

American Society of Criminology in St. Louis, Missouri. The authors want

to thank Dr. Timothy Brezina, Dr. Lisa Thrane, Dr. Eric Stewart, and the

three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions

of this paper. This research uses data from Add Health, a program project

designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Har-

ris. The findings and opinions in this document are those of the authors and

do not represent the view of the Add Health research team.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the

authorship and/or publication of this article.

Chen and Adams 463



Funding

This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by

Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman,

and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel

Hill, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with coopera-

tive funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. No direct sup-

port was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Notes

1. There were 10,827 respondents who were interviewed at all three waves and who

had valid sampling weights. We deleted 11 cases due to lack of age information,

131 cases because these respondents did not respond to questions assessing delin-

quency abstention, and 3,721 cases due to lack of valid friendship network data.

Friendship network data were not calculated for students who came from schools

in which less than 50 percent of the student body completed the questionnaire,

whose names did not appear on the roster from which friends were identified,

or who did not complete the questionnaire. Beyond these cases, certain network

measures were missing for substantive or mathematical reasons (Udry 2003).

2. Our sample excluded students who had no valid friendship network data. It is

speculated that these missing cases might be overrepresented by ‘‘loners.’’ If

Moffitt’s hypothesis regarding delinquency abstention and social exclusion was

correct and these missing cases were overrepresented by ‘‘loners,’’ we would

expect a higher prevalence of delinquency abstention in the missing case sample.

Further analysis was performed to examine this possibility. We found no signif-

icant difference in delinquency abstention prevalence between sample with and

without valid friendship network data for each friendship network measure

(friend size, centrality, density, average peer deviance, average peer grade point

average (GPA), and average peer extracurricular activities). For example, the

prevalence of delinquency abstention was 9.97 percent for those with valid friend

size data and 9.42 percent for those without valid friend size data. We thus con-

cluded that either Moffitt’s hypothesis was not supported or ‘‘loners’’ were not

overrepresented in missing cases. In either case, the exclusion of missing cases

will not affect our results. We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their sug-

gestion to address this issue.

3. Our data are limited in that Add Health currently has only three waves and cannot

capture respondents’ delinquent activities during childhood and late adulthood.

We do not believe this limitation would greatly affect our classification of delin-

quency abstention. First, we measure students’ delinquent activities during




adolescence (two waves) and early adulthood (one wave), in which the preva-

lence of delinquency is the highest. As suggested by Moffitt, it is not highly prob-

able that early offenders become abstainers during adolescence or adolescent

abstainers engage in delinquency during middle or late adulthood (Moffitt

2006). Second, our criteria of delinquency abstention are very strict as more than

10 items ranging from minor delinquency to serious crime were used at each

wave to create the scale. Third, our prevalence of delinquency abstention is com-

parable with other studies (Boutwell and Beaver 2008; Piquero and Brezina

2005; Thornberry and Krohn 2000).

4. To avoid collinearity in logistic regression models with interaction terms, all friend-

ship measures were standardized in these multivariate analyses (Jaccard 2001).

References

Barnett, L. 2008. ‘‘Predicting Youth Participation in Extracurricular Recreational

Activities: Relationships with Individual, Parent, and Family Characteristics.’’

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 26:28-60.

Blokland, A. J., D. S. Nagin, and P. Nieuwbeerta. 2005. ‘‘Lifespan Offending Tra-

jectories of a Dutch Conviction Cohort.’’ Criminology 43:919-54.

Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal

of Sociology 92: 1170-1182.

Boutwell, B. B. and K. M. Beaver. 2008. ‘‘A Biosocial Explanation of Delinquency

Abstention.’’ Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 18:59-74.

Brezina, T. and A. R. Piquero. 2007. ‘‘Moral Beliefs, Isolation from Peers, and

Abstention from Delinquency.’’ Deviant Behavior 28:433-65.

Bruyn, E. H. and A. H. Cillessen. 2008. ‘‘Leisure Activity Preference and Perceived

Popularity in Early Adolescence.’’ Journal of Leisure Research 40:442-57.

Cernkovich, S. A., C. E. Kaukinen, and P. C. Giordano. (N.d.). ‘‘Challenging the

‘‘Goodie-Goodie’’ Stereotype: Contemporary and Longitudinal Correlates of

Adolescent Conformity.’’ Unpublished manuscript.

Chantala, K. and C. Suchindra. 2006. ‘‘Adjusting for Unequal Selection Probability

in Multilevel Models: A Comparison of Software Packages.’’ Unpublished tech-

nical Report.

Cohen, J. and P. Cohen. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analyses

for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Degirmencioglu, S. M., K. A. Urberg, J. M. Tolson, and P. Richard. 1998. ‘‘Adoles-

cent Friendship Networks: Continuity and Change over the School Year.’’

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 44:313-37.

Demuth, S. 2004. ‘‘Understanding the Delinquency and Social Relationships of

Loners.’’ Youth & Society 35:366-92.

Chen and Adams 465



Enders, C. K. 2006. ‘‘Analyzing Structural Equation Models with Missing Data.’’

Pp. 315-44 in A Second Course in Structural Equation Modeling, edited by

G. R. Hancock and R. O. Mueller. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Farrington, D. P. and D. J. West. 1993. ‘‘Criminal, Penal, and Life Histories of

Chronic Offenders: Risk and Protective Factors of Early Identification.’’ Crim-

inal Behavior and mental Health 3:492-523.

Felson, R. B. and D. L. Haynie. 2002. ‘‘Puberty Development, Social Factors, and

Delinquency Among Adolescent Boys.’’ Criminology 40:967-88.

Fergusson, D. M., L. J. Horwood, and D. S. Nagin. 2000. ‘‘Offending Trajectories in

a New Zealand Birth Cohort.’’ Criminology 38:525-51.

Giordano, P. C. 2003. ‘‘Relationships in Adolescence.’’ Annual Review of Sociology

29:257-81.

Giordano, P. C., S. A. Cernkovich, and M. D. Pugh. 1986. ‘‘Friendships and Delin-

quency.’’ The American Journal of Sociology 91:1170-202.

Haynie, D. 2001. Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter? The

American Journal of Sociology 106:1013-57.

Haynie, D. L. 2002. ‘‘Friendship Networks and Delinquency: The Relative Nature

of Peer Delinquency.’’ Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18:99-134.

Haynie, D. L. 2003. ‘‘Contexts of Risk? Explaining the Link between Girls’

Pubertal Development and Their Delinquency Involvement.’’ Social Forces

82:355-97.

Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

Jaccard, J. 2001. Interaction Effects in Logistic Regression. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Jensen, G. F. and D. Brownfield. 1986. ‘‘Gender, Lifestyles, and Victimization:

Beyond Routine Activity.’’ Violence and Victims 1:85-99.

Jussim, L. and D. W. Osgood. 1989. ‘‘Influence and Similarity among Friends: An

Integrated Model Applied to Incarcerated Adolescents.’’ Social Psychology

Quarterly 52:98-112.

Kandel, D. B. 1978. ‘‘Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent

Friendships.’’ The American Journal of Sociology 84:427-36.

Kandel, D. B. and M. Davies. 1991. ‘‘Friendship Networks, Intimacy, and Illicit

Drug Use in Young Adulthood: A comparison of two competing theories.’’

Criminology 29:441-69.

Knoester, C., D. L. Haynie, and C. M. Stephens. 2006. ‘‘Parenting Practices and

Adolescents’ Friendship Networks.’’ Journal of Marriage and Family

68:1247-60.

Knoke, D. and S. Yang. 2008. Social Network Analysis. 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.




Krohn, M. D. 1986. ‘‘The Web of Conformity: A Network Approach to the

Explanation of Delinquent Behavior.’’ Social Problems 33:601-13.

Larson, R. W. 1983. ‘‘Adolescents’ Daily Experience with Family and Friends:

Contrasting Opportunity Systems.’’ Journal of Marriage and Family

45:739-50.

Laursen, B. 1996. ‘‘Closeness and Conflict in Adolescent Peer Relationships: Interde-

pendence with Friends and Romantic Partners.’’ Pp. 186-210 in The Company They

Keep: Friendship in Childhood and Adolescence, edited by W. M. Bukowski, A. F.

Newcomb, and W. W. Hartup. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Little, R. J. A. and D. B. Rubin. 1987. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New

York: Wiley.

Moffitt, T. E. 1993. ‘‘Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial

Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.’’ Psychological Review 100:674-701.

Moffitt, T. E. 1997. ‘‘Neuropsychology, Antisocial Behavior, and Neighborhood

Context.’’ Pp. 116–70 in Violence and Childhood in the Inner City, edited by

J. McCord. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Moffitt, T. E. 2006. ‘‘A Review of Research on the Taxonomy of Life-Course Persis-

tent versus Adolescence-Limited Antisocial Behavior.’’ Pp. 277-311 in Taking

Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory, Vol. 15, edited by F. T. Cullen,

J. P. Wright, and K. R. Blevins. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.

Moffitt, T. E., A. Caspi, N. Dickson, P. Silva, and W. Stanton. 1996. ‘‘Childhood-

Onset versus Adolescent-Onset Antisocial Conduct Problems in Males:

Natural History from Ages 3 to 18 Years.’’ Development and Psychopathology

8:399-424.

Mustaine, E. E. and R. Tewksbury. 1998. ‘‘Predicting Risks of Larcency Theft Vic-

timization: A Routine Activity Analysis using Refined Activity Measure.’’ Crim-

inology 36:829-58.

Nagin, D., D. Farrington, and T. Moffitt. 1995. ‘‘Life-Course Trajectories of Differ-

ent Types of Offenders.’’ Criminology 33:111-39.

Oliver, P. J. and S. Srivastava. 1999. ‘‘The Big-Five Taxonomy: History, Measure-

ment, and Theoretical Perspectives.’’ in Handbook of Personality: Theory and

Research (2d ed.) edited by L. Pervin and O. P. John. New York: Guilford.

Osgood, D. W., J. K. Wilson, P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, and L. D. Johnson.

1996. ‘‘Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior.’’ American Sociolo-

gical Review 61:635-55.

Paternoster, R., R. Brame, P. Mazerolle, and A. Piquero. 1998. ‘‘Using the Correct

Statistical Test for the Equality of Regression Coefficients.’’ Criminology

36:859-66.

Piquero, A. R. and T. Brezina. 2001. ‘‘Testing Moffitt’s Account of Adolescence-

Limited Delinquency.’’ Criminology 39:353-70.

Chen and Adams 467



Piquero, A. R., T. Brezina, and M. G. Turner. 2005. ‘‘Testing Moffitt’s Account of

Delinquency Abstention.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency

42:27-54.

Schafer, J. L. 1997. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. London, England:

Chapman & Hall.

Shedler, J. and J. Block. 1990. ‘‘Adolescent drug use and psychological health.’’

American Psychologist 45:612-30.

Thornberry, T. P. and M. D. Krohn. 2000. ‘‘The Self-Report Method for Measuring

Delinquency and Crime.’’ Pp. 33-83 in Measurement and Analysis of Crime and

Justice: Criminal Justice 2000, Vol. 4, edited by D. Duffee. Washington, DC:

Department of Justice.

Udry, J. R. 2003. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add

Health), wave III, 2001-2002 (Data set Q1–Q9, E. A. McKean and J. J. Card).

Warr, M. 1993. ‘‘Age, peers, and delinquency.’’ Criminology 31:17-40.

Warr, M. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Warr, M. 2005. ‘‘Making Delinquent Friends: Adult Supervision and Children’s

Affiliations.’’ Criminology 43:77-106.

Willmott, P. 1987. Friendship Networks and Social Support. London, England:

Policy Studies Institute.

Bios

Xiaojin Chen is an assistant professor at Department of Sociology, Tulane Univer-

sity, New Orleans, LA 70118. His research interest includes life course criminology,

victimization, mental disorder, and application of advanced statistical techniques.

Michele Adams is a sociologist whose work focuses on families, gender, and cul-

ture. She received her PhD degree in Sociology from the University of California,

Riverside in 2003. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at

Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Her current research focuses on child

custody determinations in the context of domestic violence.




Journal of Research in Crime and...

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Research in Crime and...