Peer effects in offending behaviour across contexts: Disentangling selection, opportunity and learning processes
| Author | Harald Beier |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370813486865 |
| Published date | 01 January 2014 |
| Date | 01 January 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
2014, Vol 11(1) 73 –90
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370813486865
euc.sagepub.com
Peer effects in offending
behaviour across contexts:
Disentangling selection,
opportunity and learning
processes
Harald Beier
University of Mannheim, Germany; University of Cologne, Germany
Abstract
Selection, opportunity and learning have been proposed as possible mechanisms linking adolescents’
offending to that of their peers. This study tests competing hypotheses derived from these
theoretical accounts, focusing on the so far unresolved question of the context specificity of peer
effects. I investigate whether offending behaviour by the peer group of adolescents shown in one
context is related only to adolescents’ own offending in the same context or also to offending in
other contexts. Using data from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime and applying
random intercepts logistic regression models, I find evidence for context-specific peer effects of
theft in different contexts. Peers’ self-reported theft in any context is related to adolescents’ self-
reported theft in the same context but, with one exception, not to adolescents’ theft in other
contexts. These results support learning as an important mechanism explaining peer similarity in
offending, possibly alongside opportunity, while contradicting selection as an alternative explanation.
Theoretically, the article argues for complementing learning theories with situational theories of
action to obtain a more comprehensive picture of what adolescents learn from their peer group.
Keywords
Context specificity, learning, model of frame selection, peer group, routine activities, self-
control, situational action theory
Introduction
The relationship between adolescents’ offending and the delinquent behaviour of their
peer group1 is one of the best-established facts in criminology (Akers, 1998; Warr, 2002),
Corresponding author:
Harald Beier, Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES), University of Mannheim, 68131
Mannheim, Germany.
Email: harald.beier@mzes.uni-mannheim.de
486865EUC11110.1177/1477370813486865European Journal of CriminologyBeier
2013
Article
74 European Journal of Criminology 11(1)
yet theoretical propositions as to why this relationship exists differ to a large extent.
Broadly speaking, three different mechanisms have been proposed in the literature to
account for it. First, friendship selection has been proposed by some authors. Self-control
theory (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990), for instance, claims that self-control is the rea-
son for similarity in offending behaviour between adolescents and their peers. Friendships
of adolescents high in self-control are expected to be more stable than friendships of
adolescents with low self-control. As a result, adolescents high in self-control are
expected to befriend adolescents with levels of self-control similar to their own, whereas
adolescents with low levels of self-control ‘end up’ befriending each other because of a
lack of alternatives. Because self-control is also seen as the main predictor of offending,
this is thought to culminate in a spurious similarity of peers regarding offending. Second,
opportunity has been raised as a possible mechanism linking juvenile offending with that
of their peers. The routine activity approach (Felson and Boba, 2010; Osgood et al.,
1996) considers time spent with peers as offering more opportunities for delinquency,
but time spent with peers is considered as more criminogenic than time spent without
peers, irrespective of the peer group’s involvement in offending (Haynie and Osgood,
2005). No causal link between adolescents’ offending and offending by their peers is
proposed. Similarity in the offending behaviour of adolescents and that of their peers,
though, would be expected if they engage in similar routine activities. If the daily lives
of friends are similar, for example because of the time they spend together, this could
result in similar offending behaviours on the part of adolescents and their peers. Third,
the literature stresses the role of the peer group as an important learning context.
According to social learning theory (Akers, 1973, 1998), for example, adolescents imi-
tate the behaviour of their peers, acquire beliefs regarding offending as well as relevant
skills in their peer group, and are differentially reinforced for their behaviour depending
on their peer group. Peers’ offending behaviour would therefore be causally related to
adolescents’ offending.
Because all three different mechanisms expect a correlation between adolescents’
offending and that of their friends, one needs to derive more specific implications in
order to adjudicate between them. Previous attempts to do so have produced inconsistent
evidence (for example, Haynie and Osgood, 2005; Matsueda and Anderson, 1998;
Rebellon, 2012; Sijtsema et al., 2010; Svensson and Oberwittler, 2010). Applying longi-
tudinal network models to data on complete networks, Weerman (2011), for example,
reports evidence in favour of influence processes, while finding no evidence for either
selection or time spent with peers. Using the same statistical method, however, Knecht et
al. (2010) report evidence in support of selection processes but not of influence. Hence,
there is still a great need for research that tests the different perspectives on why juvenile
offending is related to that of their peer group.
The current study contributes to this task by exploring the so far unresolved question
of the context specificity of peer effects, that is, whether the offending behaviour of the
peer group shown in one context is related only to adolescents’ offending in the same
context or if it is related to offending in any context. For example, peers’ offending
behaviour at home could be predictive of adolescents’ offending at home but not of ado-
lescents’ offending in other contexts (signifying context specificity), or it could be pre-
dictive of adolescents’ offending in general irrespective of context (signifying the
To continue reading
Request your trial