FEMALE ADOLESCENT FRIENDSHIP AND DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR.
Young female offenders (n = 29) and female high school students (n. = 47) were compared in terms of delinquent behavior, and relationships with their best female friend and peer group. Young offenders exhibited significantly more delinquent behavior than did high school students in the past year. Delinquents and nondelinquents did not significantly differ in amount of companionship, conflict, help, security, and closeness with their best female friend, and amount of trust, alienation, and perceived intimacy in their peer group. Less communication and more perceived peer pressure in the peer group distinguished delinquent females from nondelinquent females. Perceived peer pressure significantly predicted delinquent behavior in female adolescents. In short, friendships of delinquent and nondelinquent female adolescents are essentially similar despite higher levels of peer pressure among delinquents.
The relationship between delinquency and quality of friendship in adolescent females is a question of current interest, since the incidence of female delinquency is reported to be increasing. A deviant peer group is the strongest predicator of female adolescent delinquency when parents, school, and other interpersonal factors are controlled for (Aseltine, 1995; Brownfield & Thompson, 1991; Gomme, 1985), and friendship is an important aspect of peer relationships. The emotional and attachment aspects of the peer group are, however, unclear because there are confounding notions of delinquent friendships as "intimate" versus "nonintimate." Essentially, the two portraits of adolescent friendship are the products of two theories of delinquency: social control theory (nonintimate) and social learning theory (intimate delinquent peer relationships).
Social control theorists propose that individuals are delinquent because controls are absent or defective (Shoemaker, 1996). According to Hirschi (1969), these controls are either intraindividual (e.g., impulse control) or interpersonal (e.g., attachment, commitment, and involvement with regard to family, school, peers, and religion). Hirschi suggests that there is a negative relationship between attachment/commitment and delinquency. Social control theory also sees delinquent friendships as conflicted, troubled, unstable, and marked by feelings of less trust and lower security. Poor social skills, weak familial relations, and overall low attachment to social institutions do not allow for healthful friendships between delinquents. Such disturbed relationships between female delinquents--relationships that are less trusting and more conflicted--have been reported by Brownfield and Thompson (1991), Giordano, Cernkovich, and Pugh (1986), Marcus (1996), Windle (1994), and Yates, Hecht-Lewis, Fritsch, and Goodric h (1993).
In contrast, social learning theorists propose that delinquent friendships are close, intimate, and essentially similar to those of nondelinquents. According to social learning theory, an individual cannot be influenced by someone or something unless there is some vested interest or attachment (Cotterell, 1996; Sutherland & Cressey, 1978). Thus, the stronger the attachment, the stronger the potential influence. If delinquents are encouraged, taught, or pressured to be delinquent by other delinquents, there must be some level of attachment. Several researchers have noted that attachment to female peers is positively associated with delinquency (Brownfield & Thompson, 1991; Bowker & Klein, 1983; Claes & Simard, 1992; Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Erickson & Jensen, 1977; Gardner & Shoemaker, 1989; Giordano, 1978). These researchers have looked at aspects of trust, self-esteem, identity, intimacy, conflict, and peer pressure in relation to delinquency, and have reported mixed results regarding trust in deli nquent friendships. According to Giordano et al. (1986), there are no differences between delinquents and nondelinquents in caring and trust, although females display higher levels of both. Brownfield and Thompson (1991) and Jaffe et al. (1985), however, have reported that delinquents are less trusting of each other than are nondelinquents. Brownfield and Thompson (1991) have stated that trust in friends neither reduces nor increases self-reported delinquency.
In general, it may be that delinquent friendships have the same positive effect on social development and well-being as found for nondelinquent friendships. There is evidence that delinquency and association with a delinquent peer group help increase self-esteem in adolescents (Angenent & de Man, 1996). Further, both delinquent and nondelinquent friendships have been found to supply the same amount of identity support, although less so for males (Giordano et al., 1986).
Self-disclosure is thought to be an important identifier of attachment and friendship. Delinquents and nondelinquents show little difference in levels of intimacy, attachment, and self-disclosure; in fact, delinquents and females self-disclose more (Claes & Simard, 1992; Giordano et al., 1986; Windle, 1994).
Although conflict is a normal facet of adolescent relationships and is found at elevated levels among delinquents (Claes & Simard, 1992; Jaffe et al., 1985; Marcus, 1996; Windle, 1994), Simons et al. (1991) have hypothesized that the conflict is a result of aggressive individuals seeking out similar peers who negotiate through displays of power. Thus, conflict does not necessarily indicate poorer relations, but merely reflects learned and admired behavior within the group. Further, Bukowski, Hoza and Boivin (1994) have noted that there is no difference in amount of conflict between stable and unstable friendships.
Research into gender differences in how peer pressure is exercised and experienced has been extended to delinquency. In theory, the more susceptible the adolescent and the stronger the nonconforming attitudes of the peer group, the more likely the adolescent will be deviant. Males are more likely to feel that their friends are pressuring them (Angenent & de Man, 1996; Giordano et al., 1986), and early-maturing females are more susceptible to peer pressure from males and older peers than are on-time or late-maturing females (Caspi et al., 1993; Ge et al., 1996). In support of the theory, both males and early-maturing girls are more likely to be delinquent (Canter, 1982; Phelps & McClintock, 1994).
Females conform to their peers more than do males, but there is greater social disapproval for female delinquency (Chesney-Lind, 1986; Ge et al., 1996; Gomme, 1985; Heaven, 1992). Even in mixed-gender peer groups, females conform more to female, rather than male, expectations (Bowker & Klein, 1983; Giordano, 1978; Giordano et al., 1986). It appears that it is more important for the female delinquent to have the approval of other females than males. This challenges the notion of the female offender as the male's accomplice (Berger, 1989).
Marcus (1996) concluded that delinquent adolescents do not have comparable friendships to those of nondelinquents. Although studies have found distressing qualities in deviant peer relations, many researchers have argued that delinquent and nondelinquent friendships are similar (Angenent & de Man, 1996; Claes & Simard, 1992; Elliott et al., 1985; Henggeler, 1989). Using unstructured interviews over a 14-year period, Giordano et al. (1986) found a number of similarities in delinquent and nondelinquent friendships. Aside from higher levels of conflict, Giordano et al. rejected the "cold and brittle" image of delinquent friendships. They concluded that delinquent friendships are rewarding, as well as characterized by caring, trust, and intimacy. In addition, more self-disclosure was found among delinquents, particularly females.
Brownfield and Thompson (1991) were among the first to distinguish between delinquents' relationship with best friend and relationship with peer group. Using data from the Seattle Youth Study, they examined the associations between peer attachment and self-reported delinquency in Caucasian males. Although less trust and security and elevated conflict were found among delinquent friends, the delinquents had the ability to form close relationships with a single, best friend, as opposed to a peer group. Claes and Simard (1992), in one of the few studies on male and female delinquent friendships based on Canadian data, found no differences in levels of attachment and intimacy. Thus, they abandoned the theory that delinquent relationships are nonintimate.
The research cited above found little or no difference between female and male delinquent friendships. This is curious in light of numerous gender differences found in the nondelinquent population. Nondelinquent females report a wider breadth of attachment and quality in their friendships than do males (Marcus, 1996; Serafica & Blyth, 1985). Females also report more giving and sharing, trust, loyalty, help, closeness, and security in their friendships than do males (Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994; Marcus, 1996; Sharabany et al., 1981).
Few studies have focused their attention on the friendships of female delinquents, and even fewer have distinguished between best friend and peer group. The present research focused on best friends and peer groups of female adolescent offenders and nonoffenders in order to compare the friendships of delinquents and nondelinquents.
The ethnicity of the participants was as follows: 21 Aboriginal and 8 Caucasian delinquents, and 45 Caucasian and 2 Asian nondelinquents. Ethnicity was collapsed into Caucasian and non-Caucasian (Aboriginal and Asian). There was a significantly different distribution of ethnicity between the groups ([[chi].sup.2] = 39.477, df = 1, p [less than].001); however, there is no evidence that quality of adolescent friendship differs across ethnic groups (Berndt, 1982; Serafica & Blyth, 1985; Sharabany et al., 1981; Youniss & Smollar, 1985).
The delinquent sample ranged in age from 13 to 18 years, with a mean age of 15.14 (SD = 1.46). The nondelinquent sample ranged in age from 16 to 18 years, with a mean age of 16.51 (SD = .66). The nondelinquent sample was significantly older than the delinquent sample (t = 5.619, p [less than] .001), probably due to the wider age range of the delinquents and the more homogeneous age range of the nondelinquents. There is no evidence that quality and attachment of friendship varies significantly with age, but age does play a role in peer pressure (i.e, there is a higher level of peer pressure in younger adolescents).
The level of education (or last grade completed) of the delinquent group ranged from grade 5 to grade 10, with a mean grade level of 7.93 (SD = 1.07). The education level of the nondelinquent group ranged from grade 9 to grade 11, with a meangrade level of 9.94 (SD = .64). The nondelinquent sample had a significantly higher education level than did the delinquent sample (t = 10.262, p [less than] .001).
Participants were asked to describe the gender of their peer group: all females, mostly females, mostly males, or all males. Nondelinquent females were significantly more likely to describe their four to five closest friends as all females or mostly females than were delinquent females ([[chi].sup.2] = 14.392, df = 3, p [less than] .01).
The response rates of both the nondelinquent and delinquent groups (28% and 14%, respectively) regarding estimated parental income were inadequate to make any comparison meaningful.
Hindelang, Hirschi, and Weis's (1981) self-report delinquency scale was used to measure the frequency of delinquent acts committed in the past year (or year previous to custody) in order to determine if there was a significant difference in levels of delinquency between groups. The questionnaire consists of 64 items which fall under the following categories: serious crimes, delinquency, drug use, and school and family offenses. Respondents indicate the number of times, ranging from 0 to 99 times, that they participated in each activity. Scores can range from 0 to 6,336.
Bukowski, Hoza, and Boivin's (1994) Friendship Qualities Scale was used to assess relationship with best female friend. The 24-item scale focuses on companionship, conflict, help, security, and closeness, with responses made on a 5-point Likert scale.
Armsden and Greenberg's (1987) Peer Attachment Inventory was used to assess friendship and attachment within the peer group. The 25-item scale measures levels of trust, communication, and alienation. Participants were asked to rate, on a 5-point Likert scale, their relationship with the peer group (four or five closest friends, not including their best female friend).
Giordano, Cernkovich, and deMaris's (1993) scale was used to assess the amount of perceived peer pressure and intimacy in the delinquent and nondelinquent peer groups. Participants rated, on a 5-point Likert scale, how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each of the 13 items.
For the delinquent sample, questionnaires were administered in a secure youth custody facility in western Canada. Data collection occurred in the summer of 1998 and resulted in a total of 29 female participants. Female offenders were offered a $5 incentive to complete the questionnaire. For the nondelinquent sample, questionnaires were administered in a private residential high school in west central Regina, Saskatchewan. Data collection occurred in the spring of 1998 and resulted in a total of 47 female participants. Demographic information gathered included age, last grade completed, ethnicity, predominant gender of the participant's peer group, and estimated income of parent(s) or guardian(s).
Delinquency scores were analyzed using a t test in order to determine if there were significant differences between the delinquent and nondelinquent groups. As predicted, the high school females had a significantly lower mean delinquency score (M = 78.96) than did those in the youth custody facility (M = 892.00).
A series of two-sample t tests were conducted to compare the delinquent and nondelinquent groups on each best friend and peer group variable. Scores on alienation, communication, and perceived peer pressure (peer group variables) were found to be significantly different (Table 1). However, using Bonferroni's correction (p [less than] .005) for multiple t tests, only the difference in perceived peer pressure remained significant.
A stepwise discriminant function analysis conducted on the best friend variables of companionship, conflict, help, security, and closeness excluded all of the variables. The analysis was unsuccessful in finding a discriminant function between the two groups based on these variable scores. One-way ANOVAs revealed no statistically significant difference between the dependent variable mean scores (delinquency) for the independent variables of companionship, conflict, help, security, and closeness (Table 2).
A stepwise discriminant function analysis conducted on the peer group variables of trust, communication, alienation, perceived intimacy, and perceived peer pressure entered perceived peer pressure and communication, and excluded trust, alienation, and perceived intimacy (Table 3). There was a statistically significant difference between delinquency means for perceived peer pressure and communication. Alienation was not entered into the stepwise discriminant analysis but was significant at p [less than] .05. Further, the one-way ANOVAs revealed no statistically significant difference between the dependent variable means (delinquency) for trust and perceived intimacy (Table 4).
A multiple regression analysis was conducted on the continuous delinquency data and the variables that showed a statistically significant difference between the delinquent and nondelinquent groups: perceived peer pressure and communication in the peer group (Table 5). There was a much stronger relationship between perceived peer pressure and delinquency (r = .425) than between communication and delinquency (r = - .196). Thus, it would appear that delinquents experience higher levels of perceived peer pressure and slightly less communication in their peer groups when compared to nondelinquents.
A stepwise multiple regression with the continuous delinquency data and all five best friend relationship variables (companionship, conflict, help, security, and closeness) was employed to test the strength of the association between these variables and delinquency. Although there was a significant relationship between help and delinquency (r = -.228, p [less than] .05), no variables entered into the regression.
A stepwise multiple regression analysis was run on the continuous delinquency data and all five peer group relationship variables (trust, communication, alienation, perceived intimacy, and perceived peer pressure). Although there was a significant relationship for trust, alienation, and perceived peer pressure, only perceived peer pressure entered into the regression (Table 6).
To determine if age and level of education were influencing the quality of friendship, stepwise multiple regressions were run on age and the best friend and peer group variables, as well as level of education and the best friend and peer group variables. A stepwise multiple regression, using age as a dependent variable and the best friend variables as predictors, entered closeness into the analysis. In terms of bivariate correlations, there was a significant relationship between closeness and age (r = .351, p [less than] .01). No variables entered into the analysis using the peer group variables as predictors of age.
A stepwise multiple regression, using grade level as a dependent variable and the peer group variables as predictors, entered peer pressure into the analysis. Bivariate correlations indicated that there was a significant negative relationship between grade level and perceived peer pressure (r = -.260, p [less than] .05). No variables entered into the analysis using the best friend variables as predictors of grade level.
Since perceived peer pressure and communication entered into the delinquency and peer group discriminant analysis demonstrating a significant difference between delinquent and nondelinquent groups, it is important to further analyze these variables. A series of t tests were run on the eight perceived peer pressure items and eight communication items to determine if significant differences existed between delinquent and nondelinquent females on these items. Using Bonferroni's correction (p [less than] .00625), a significant difference in means was found on the following perceived peer pressure item: "I sometimes do things because my close friends are doing them" (p [less than] .001). Delinquent females tended to score higher on this item. Using Bonferroni's correction (p [less than] .00625), a significant difference in means was found on the following communication item: "When we discuss things, my friends consider my point of view" (p [less than] .001). Delinquent females tended to score lower on this item.
Perceived peer pressure and communication items were run in separate stepwise discriminant analyses to determine which items predicted group membership: delinquent or nondelinquent. Only one perceived peer pressure item, "I sometimes do things because my close friends are doing them," entered into the analysis. Two communication items, "When we discuss things, my friends consider my point of view" and "My friends encourage me to talk about my difficulties," entered into the analysis.
There were no differences between delinquent and nondelinquent friendships in terms of intimacy, attachment, help, closeness, loyalty, security, and trust (see Claes & Simard, 1992; Elliot & Voss, 1974; Giordano, 1978; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Pugh, 1986; Henggeler, 1989). This, however, is contrary to studies reporting that delinquent adolescents are less trusting and less secure in their friendships (Brownfield & Thompson, 1991; Marcus, 1996; Windle, 1994).
Delinquents did not show higher conflict than did nondelinquents in their relationships with a best friend. This finding contradicts previous research that found heightened levels of conflict in delinquents' friendships (Brownfield & Thompson, 1991; Claes & Simard, 1992; Giordano et al., 1986; Jaffe et al., 1985; Marcus, 1996; Windle, 1994).
Analysis of the peer group relationship provided valuable information in respect to intimacy versus affiliation. Previous research has indicated that delinquents exhibit significantly more loyalty to each other than do nondelinquents (Giordano et al., 1986), which suggests a strong affiliation between delinquent peers. However, it has been argued that delinquents have a larger and more conflicted network of friends and acquaintances than do nondelinquents (Claes & Simard, 1992; McClelland, 1982; Yates et al., 1993). These characteristics are seen as indications of weaker attachment and intimacy in delinquent relationships (Marcus, 1996; McClelland, 1982; Yates et al., 1993). Yet, evidence that closeness and attachment to friends automatically weakens with more extensive relationships was not found in the relevant literature (Cotterell, 1996; Serafica & Blyth, 1985; Sharabany et al., 1981). Further, conflict in delinquent friendships is likely to be the result of aggressive, coercive individuals seeking out ot hers with similar traits (Cashwell & Vacc, 1996; Simons et al., 1981). Aggressive behavior is rewarded, accepted, and tolerated in these peer groups and does not necessarily represent a lack of trust, intimacy, and closeness (Simons et al., 1991). Finally, Brownfield and Thompson (1991) have proposed that "cold and brittle" relationships are more likely in organized gangs, as opposed to delinquent peer groups.
In the present study, it was possible to discriminate between delinquents and nondelinquents based on amounts of perceived peer pressure and communication in the peer group. Trust, alienation, perceived intimacy, and communication, however, did not vary as a function of delinquency.
This finding supports past delinquent friendship research (Claes & Simard, 1992; Elliot & Voss, 1974; Giordano et al., 1986; Henggeler, 1989). Delinquent females showed significantly higher levels of perceived peer pressure than did nondelinquent females.
Although peer pressure is a factor in delinquency, it plays a role in all friendships (Agnew, 1993; Angenent & de Man, 1996; Borduin et al., 1995; Bowker & Klein, 1983; Brownfield & Thompson, 1991; Caspi et al., 1993; Cotterell, 1996; Erickson & Jensen, 1977; Fletcher et al., 1995; Giordano et al., 1986; Phelps & McClintock, 1994; Windle, 1994). Researchers have found that female adolescents conform more to peer expectations than do males (Gomme, 1985), but in a mixed female and male peer group, females conform more to female than male expectations (Bowker & Klein, 1983; Giordano, 1978; Giordano et al., 1986). Aseltine (1995) and Cotterell (1996) have stated that peer pressure is not always overt. In the present research, female delinquents agreed more strongly than did nondelinquent females with the statement, "I sometimes do things because my close friends are doing them." This supports the notion that delinquent behavior is a result of an environment conducive to law-breaking attitudes and behaviors, rathe r than a product of being hassled, afraid of being seen as chicken, or fearful of losing the respect of friends (Aseltine, 1995; Cotterell, 1996).
The exact mechanisms of peer pressure are as yet unknown. Level of communication may influence level of perceived peer pressure in delinquents. Here, delinquent females were less likely than nondelinquent females to agree with the statement, "When we discuss things, my friends consider my point of view." The fact that their close friends are "doing things" may be reason enough to engage in delinquent behavior. Delinquent females were also less likely to agree with the statements, "My friends encourage me to talk about my difficulties." This does not mean that they did not self-disclose: the two groups had comparable levels of intimacy, companionship, closeness, and security. Further, it has been found that self-disclosure is higher in females and delinquents than in males and nondelinquents (Claes & Simard, 1992; Giordano et al., 1986; Windle, 1994). Rather, this finding would appear to indicate a lack of interrogatory concern, which may be characteristic of offenders. Delinquents divulge as much as other ado lescents, yet may not make inquiries into the personal problems or afairs of others if this information is not offered.
Delinquent and nondelinquent females in this research differed significantly in age, education level, ethnicity, and peer group gender. It is important to address each of these variables as potential confounders in the analyses.
All participants were asked to describe the gender of their peer group (i.e., the gender of their four or five closest friends, not including their best female friend). A significant difference in the gender of delinquent and nondelinquent peer groups was found. More delinquent females than nondelinquent females claimed to have a peer group consisting of females and males (86.2% and 70.21%, respectively). Researchers have noted that females tend to be delinquent in a mixed peer group (Caspi et al., 1993; Claes & Simard, 1992; Ge et al., 1996; Gomme, 1985; Giordano, 1978; McClelland, 1982). However, it must be stressed that the majority of both delinquent and nondelinquent female participants reported that males were among their four or five closest friends. Being friends with males was not a strong predictor of delinquency in the present research.
This study is one of the few that distinguished between the female best friend and peer group. It was found that female delinquents were capable of both intimacy and affiliation with their peers. It would be problematic to generalize these findings to male delinquent and nondelinquent friendships. Although few differences have been detected in female and male delinquent relationships (Claes & Simard, 1992; Marcus, 1996), many gender differences have been found in nondelinquent friendships (Berndt, 1989; Cotterell, 1996; Serafica & Blyth, 1985; Sharabany et al., 1981). It is thus crucial that future investigations make the distinction between the best friend and peer group relationships of delinquent adolescents. Differences between these types of friendships may help researchers isolate the origins of law-violating attitudes and behaviors. In addition, gender and ethnicity should be further investigated as factors that may promote or inhibit delinquent behavior.
It is also essential to scrutinize the mechanics of peer pressure and influence in delinquent associations. Researchers have only just begun to look at how peer influence is exercised in delinquent friendships (Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews, & Patterson, 1997). It is necessary to know how attitudes toward delinquent behavior evolve and how they are accepted, encouraged, or rewarded within the group. Researchers should examine how peer pressure is experienced by delinquent and nondelinquent females and males. Specifically, studies need to focus on how peer pressure is transmitted--its content, delivery, and reception. Are there verbal and physical components of peer pressure? Is it explicit or implied?
The role of peer pressure in delinquency is relevant to law enforcement agencies, psychologists, and criminologists working with youth. Since most delinquent behavior is a group activity (Angenent & de Man, 1996; Erickson & Jensen, 1977), approaches to dealing with youth delinquency should not be entirely individualistic. Theorists should acknowledge the role and importance of the peer group in explanations of crime and delinquency. Only then can the delinquent peer group be incorporated into models of crime prevention, as well as intervention measures.
It is also too simplistic to view the delinquent peer group as acting independently from society. In doing so, crime and delinquency are seen as the consequence of individual pathology and association with a "bad crowd." This assessment releases society from any moral or legal responsibility for the criminal behaviors of its members. Rather, the criminogenic and psychological variables that coalesce to produce the delinquent or delinquent group are also functions of larger societal processes.
The authors thank Robert Moore and Mary Hampton for their advice and commentary during the development of this research at the University of Regina. Special thanks are extended to David Rosenbluth, Saskatchewan Social Services, for his support.
Joseph G. Schner, Campion College, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Reprint requests to Anne Pleydon, Department of Psychology, York University, North York, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3. Electronic mail may be sent to email@example.com.
Agnew, R. (1993). Why do they do it? An examination of the intervening mechanisms between "social control" variables and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 245-266.
Angenent, H., & de Man, A. (1996). Background factors of juvenile delinquency. New York: Peter Lang.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454.
Aseltine, R. H. (1995). A reconsideration of parental and peer influences on adolescent deviance. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 103-121.
Berger, R. J. (1989). Female delinquency in the emancipation era: A review of the literature. Sex Roles, 21, 375-399.
Berndt, T. J. (1982). Benefits of friendship interviews. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.
Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., & Manly, C. M. (1995). Conduct and oppositional disorders. In V. B. Hasselt & M. Herson (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychopathology: A guide to diagnosis and treatment (pp. 349-383). New York: Lexington Books.
Bowker, L. H., & Klein, M. W. (1983). The etiology of female juvenile delinquency and gang membership: A test of psychological and social structural explanations. Adolescence, 18, 739-751.
Brownfield, D., & Thompson, K. (1991, January). Attachment to peers and delinquent behaviour. Canadian Journal of Criminology, pp. 45-60.
Bukowski, W. M., Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 471-484.
Campbell, A. (1988). Intrapersonal and interpersonal discrepancy among delinquent and nondelinquent girls. A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 29, 73-78.
Campbell, A. (1995). A few good men: Evolutionary psychology and female adolescent aggression. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 99-123.
Canter, R. J. (1982). Sex differences in self-report delinquency. Criminology, 20, 373-393.
Cashwell, C. S., & Vacc, N. A. (1996). Family functioning and risk behavior influences on adolescent delinquency. School Counselor, 44, 105-113.
Caspi, A., Lyman, D., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1993). Unraveling girls' delinquency: Biological, dispositional, and contextual contributions to adolescent misbehavior. Developmental Psychology, 29, 19-30.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1986). Women and crime: The female offender. Signs, 12, 78-96.
Claes, M., & Simard, R. (1992). Friendship characteristics of delinquent adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 3, 287-301.
Cotterell, J. (1996). Social networks and social influences in adolescence. London: Routledge.
Dishion, T. J., Spracklen, K. M., Andrews, D. W., & Patterson, G. R. (1997). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373-390.
Elliot, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Elliot, D. S., & Voss, H. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Erickson, M. I., & Jensen, G. F. (1977). Delinquency is still group behavior: Toward revitalizing the group premise in the sociology of deviance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68, 262-273.
Fletcher, A. C., Darling, N. E., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (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, 300-310.
Gardner, L., & Shoemaker, D. J. (1989). Social bonding and delinquency: A comparative analysis. Sociological Quarterly, 30, 481-500.
Ge, X., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. (1996). Coming to age too early: Pubertal influences on girls' vulnerability to psychological distress. Child Development, 67, 3386-3400.
Giordano, P. C. (1978). Girls, guys and gangs: The changing social context of female delinquency. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69, 126-132.
Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & DeMaris, A. (1993). The family and peer relations of black adolescents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 277-287.
Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Pugh, M. D. (1986). Friendship and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1170-1202.
Gomme, I. M. (1985). Predictors of status and criminal offences among male and female adolescents in an Ontario community. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 27, 147-159.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1992). Personality predictors of self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 67-76.
Henggeler, S. W. (1989). Delinquency in adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hindelang, M. J., Hirscbi, T., & Weiss, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Horwitz, A. V., & White, H. R. (1987). Gender role orientation and styles of pathology among adolescents. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 158-170.
Jaffe, P. G., Lescbied, A. W., Sas, L., Austin, G. W., & Smiley, C. (1985). The utility of the Basic Personality Inventory in the assessment of young offenders. Ontario Psychologist, 17, 4-11.
Marcus, R. F. (1996). The friendships of delinquents. Adolescence, 31, 145-158.
McAuliffe, T. M., & Handal, P. J. (1984). PIC Delinquency Scale: Validity in relation to self-reported delinquent acts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 35-46.
McClelland, A. M. (1982). Changing rates or changing roles-Adolescent female delinquency re-assessed. Journal of Adolescence, 5, 85-98.
Phelps, L., & McClintock, K. (1994). Papa and peers: A biological approach to conduct disorder. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 53-67.
Serafica, F. C., & Blyth, D. A. (1985). Continuities and changes in the study of friendship and peer groups during early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 5, 267-283.
Sharabany, R., Gershoni, R., & Hoffman, J. E. (1981). Girlfriend, boyfriend: Age and sex differences in intimate friendship. Developmental Psychology, 17, 800-808.
Shoemaker, D. J. (1996). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of delinquent behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (1991). Parenting factors, social skills, and value commitments as precursors to school failure, involvement with deviant peers, and delinquent behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 645-664.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1978). Criminology. New York: Lippincott.
Viale-Val, G., & Sylvester, C. (1993). Female delinquency. In M. Sugar (Ed.), Female adolescent development (pp. 169-191). New York: Brunner/ Mazel.
Windle, M. (1994). A study of friendship characteristics and problem behaviors among middle adolescents. Child Development, 65, 1764-1777.
Yates, B. T., Hecht-Lewis, R., Fritsch, R. C., & Goodrich, W. (1993). Locus of control in severely disturbed adolescents: Loci for peers, parents, achievement, relationships and problems. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 289-315.
Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers and friends. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Table 1 Differences Between Best Friend and Peer Group Variables by Group Variable Group M SD t (1, 74) Alienation Nondelinquent 2.3040 .6210 -2.290 [*] Delinquent 2.7438 1.0563 Communication Nondelinquent 3.9415 .6233 2.664 [**] Delinquent 3.4138 1.1050 Perceived Nondelinquent 2.1117 .7764 -3.3093 [**] Peer Pressure Delinquent 2.7802 1.1063 (*)p[less than] .05, (**)p[less than] .01. Table 2 Stepwise Discriminant Analysis of Best Friend Variables Variable F(1,74) Sig. Companionship .256 .614 Conflict .913 .342 Help 3.255 .075 Security .008 .928 Closeness .150 .699 Note. No variables qualified for the analysis. Table 3 Canonical Discriminant Function for Peer Group Variables Function Eigenvalue Canonical Correlation Wilks's Lambda 1 .197 .406 .835 Function Chi-square df Sig. 1 13.134 2 .001 Table 4 Stepwise Discriminant Analysis of Peer Group Variables Variable F(1,74) Sig. Trust 3.923 .051 Alienation 5.243 .025 Communication 7.099 .009 Perceived Intimacy 1.145 .288 Perceived Peer Pressure 9.566 .003 Note. Communication and perceived peer pressure entered into the analysis. Table 5 ANOVA for Perceived Peer Pressure and Communication Model R R Square Adjusted F (2, 64) R Square 1 .437 .191 .166 7.546 [**] Note. Predictors: perceived peer pressure, communication; dependent variable: delinquency. (**)p[less than].01. Table 6 Stepwise Multiple Regression for Peer Group Model R R Square Adjusted F (1,65) R Square 1 .425 .180 .168 14.307 [***] Note. Predictor: perceived peer pressure; dependent variable: delinquency. (***)p[less than].001.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Pleydon, Anne P.; Schner, Joseph G.|
|Article Type:||Statistical Data Included|
|Date:||Jun 22, 2001|
|Previous Article:||Social Work with Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals: A Strengths Perspective.|
|Next Article:||PREDICTORS OF DEPRESSION IN FEMALE ADOLESCENTS.|