1932

Abstract

Peer influence occupies an intriguing place in criminology. On the one hand, there is a long line of theorizing and empirical work highlighting it as a key causal process for delinquency. On the other, there is a group of theoretical skeptics who view it as one of the most notorious examples of a spurious link. After discussing these perspectives, this review takes stock of our intellectual advancements in understanding peer influence over decades' worth of research toward this endeavor. We conclude that although there have been important gains, essential questions and gaps remain. Toward this aim, we offer some lines of future work that we believe offer pathways to yielding the greatest added value to the discipline.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024551
2019-01-13
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/2/1/annurev-criminol-011518-024551.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024551&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Achen CH 2001. Why Lagged Dependent Variables Can Suppress the Explanatory Power of Other Variables Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich.
  2. Agnew R 1991. The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology 29:147–72
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Akers RL 1973. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
  4. Akers RL 1998. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance Boston: Northeastern Univ. Press
  5. Akers RL, Krohn MD, Lanza-Kaduce L, Radosevich M 1979. Social learning and deviant behavior: a specific test of a general theory. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:4636–55
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Akers RL, Lee G 1996. A longitudinal test of social learning theory: adolescent smoking. J. Drug Issues 26:2317–43
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Alberts JK, Hecth ML, Miller-Rassulo M, Krizel RL 1999. The communicative process of drug resistance among high school students. Adolescence 27:203–26
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Anwar S, Loughran TA 2011. Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49:3667–98
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Augustyn MB, McGloin JM 2013. The risk of informal socializing with peers: considering gender differences across predatory delinquency and substance use. Justice Q 30:1117–43
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baerveldt C, Völker B, Van Rossem R 2008. Revisiting selection and influence: An inquiry into the friendship networks of high school students and their association with delinquency. Can. J. Criminol. Crim. Justice 50:5559–87
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berndt TJ 1979. Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Dev. Psychol. 15:6608–16
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Blumer H 1969. The methodological position of symbolic interactionism. Sociol. Thought Action 2:2147–56
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Boeringer SB, Shehan CL, Akers RL 1991. Social contexts and social learning in sexual coercion and aggression: assessing the contribution of fraternity membership. Fam. Relat. 40:158–64
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Boman JH IV. 2017. The peer group. The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice CJ Schreck, M Leiber, HV Miller, K Welch 1–6 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Boman JH IV, Stogner JM, Miller BL, Griffin OH III, Krohn MD 2012.a On the operational validity of perceptual peer delinquency: exploring projection and elements contained in perceptions. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 49:4601–2
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Boman JH IV, Ward JT 2014. Beyond projection: specifying the types of peer delinquency misperception at the item and scale levels. Deviant Behav 35:7555–80
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Boman JH IV, Ward JT, Gibson CL, Leite WL 2012.b Can a perceptual peer deviance measure accurately measure a peer's self-reported deviance. ? J. Crim. Justice 40:6463–71
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brechwald WA, Prinstein MJ 2011. Beyond homophily: a decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. J. Res. Adolesc. 21:1166–79
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Breckinridge SP, Abbott E 1912. The Delinquent Child and the Home New York: Russell Sage
  20. Brown BB 1990. Peer groups and peer cultures. At The Threshold: The Developing Adolescent SS Feldman, GR Elliott 171–96 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Burgess RL, Akers RL 1966. A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Soc. Probl. 14:2128–47
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Bursztyn L, Jensen R 2017. Social image and economic behavior in the field: identifying, understanding, and shaping social pressure. Annu. Rev. Econ. 9:131–53
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Carrington PJ 2009. Co‐offending and the development of the delinquent career. Criminology 47:41295–329
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Checton MG, Greene K 2011. College students’ use of compliance-gaining strategies to obtain prescription stimulant medication for illicit use. Health Educ. J. 70:260–73
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chein J, Albert D, O'Brien L, Uckert K, Steinberg L 2011. Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain's reward circuitry. Dev. Sci. 14:2F1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chen MK, Shapiro JM 2007. Do harsher prison conditions reduce recidivism? A discontinuity-based approach. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 9:1–29
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Cobbina JE, Like TZ, Miller J 2016. Gender-specific conflicts among urban African-American youth: the roles of situational context and issues of contention. Deviant Behav 37:91032–51
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Cressey DR 1955. Changing criminals: the application of the theory of differential association. Am. J. Sociol. 61:2116–20
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Davies M, Kandel DB 1981. Parental and peer influences on adolescents' educational plans: some further evidence. Am. J. Sociol. 87:2363–87
    [Google Scholar]
  30. DiPietro SM, McGloin JM 2012. Differential susceptibility? Immigrant youth and peer influence. Criminology 50:3711–42
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Dishion TJ, Owen LD 2002. A longitudinal analysis of friendships and substance use: bidirectional influence from adolescence to adulthood. Dev. Psychol. 38:480–91
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dishion TJ, Spracklen KM, Andrews DW, Patterson GR 1996. Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behav. Ther. 27:373–90
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Duncan GJ, Boisjoly J, Kreme M, Levy DM, Eccles J 2005. Peer effects in drug use and sex among college students. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 33:3375–85
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Elliott D, Menard S 1996. Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior. Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories JD Hawkins 28–67 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fagan AA, Najman JM 2003. Sibling influences on adolescent delinquent behaviour: an Australian longitudinal study. J. Adolesc. 26:5546–58
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fergusson DM, Swain-Campbell NR, Horwood LJ 2002. Deviant peer affiliations, crime and substance use: a fixed effects regression analysis. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 30:419–30
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gallupe O, Nguyen H, Bouchard M, Schulenberg JL, Chenier A, Cook KD 2016. An experimental test of deviant modeling. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 53:4482–505
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gardner M, Steinberg L 2005. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Dev. Psychol. 41:4625–35
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Pugh MD 1986. Friendships and delinquency. Am. J. Sociol. 91:51170–202
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL 2002. Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am. J. Sociol. 107:4990–1064
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Glaser D 1960. Differential association and criminological prediction. Soc. Probl. 8:16–14
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Glueck S, Glueck ET 1950. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency New York: Harvard Univ. Press
  43. Goffman E 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life New York: Random House
  44. Gold M 1970. Delinquent Behavior in an American City Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole
  45. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T 1990. A General Theory of Crime Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press
  46. Gould ED, Kaplan TR 2011. Learning unethical practices from a co-worker: the peer effect of Jose Canseco. Labour Econ 18:3338–48
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hay C, Forrest W 2008. Self‐control theory and the concept of opportunity: the case for a more systematic union. Criminology 46:41039–72
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Haynie DL 2001. Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter. ? Am. J. Sociol. 106:41013–57
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Haynie DL 2002. Friendship networks and delinquency: the relative nature of peer delinquency. J. Quant. Criminol. 18:299–134
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Haynie DL, Giordano PC, Manning WD, Longmore MA 2005. Adolescent romantic relationships and delinquency involvement. Criminology 43:1177–210
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Haynie DL, Osgood DW 2005. Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter. ? Soc. Forces 84:21109–30
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hirschi T 1969. Causes of Delinquency Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  53. Hirschi T, Selvin HC 1966. False criteria of causality in delinquency research. Soc. Probl. 13:3254–68
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hochstetler A 2001. Opportunities and decisions: interactional dynamics in robbery and burglary groups. Criminology 39:3737–64
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hoeben E, Weerman F 2014. Situational conditions and adolescent offending: Does the impact of unstructured socializing depend on its location. ? Eur. J. Criminol. 11:4481–99
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hoeben EM, Bernasco W, Weerman FM, Pauwels L, van Halem S 2014. The space-time budget method in criminological research. Crime Sci 3:11–15
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hoeben EM, Weerman FM 2016. Why is involvement in unstructured socializing related to adolescent delinquency. ? Criminology 54:242–81
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hughes LA, Short JF 2005. Disputes involving youth street gang members: micro‐social contexts. Criminology 43:143–76
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Jeffery CR 1965. Criminal behavior and learning theory. J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 56:294–300
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Jussim L, Osgood DW 1989. Influence and similarity among friends: an integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Soc. Psychol. Q. 52:298–112
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Kandel DB 1996. The parental and peer contexts of adolescent deviance: an algebra of interpersonal influences. J. Drug Issues 26:2289–315
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Keenan K, Loeber R, Zhang Q, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Van Kammen WB 1995. The influence of deviant peers on the development of boys' disruptive and delinquent behavior: a temporal analysis. Dev. Psychopathol. 7:4715–26
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kleck G, Sever B, Li S, Gertz M 2005. The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology 43:3623–60
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Knecht A, Snijders TA, Baerveldt C, Steglich CE, Raub W 2010. Friendship and delinquency: selection and influence processes in early adolescence. Soc. Dev. 19:3494–514
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kreager DA, Haynie DL 2011. Dangerous liaisons? Dating and drinking diffusion in adolescent peer networks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76:5737–63
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Laub JH, Sampson RJ 2003. Shared Beginnings. Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  67. Maimon D, Browning CR 2010. Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology 48:2443–74
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Matsueda RL 1982. Testing control theory and differential association: a causal modeling approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:4489–504
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Matsueda RL 1988. The current state of differential association theory. Crime Delinquency 34:3277–306
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Matsueda RL 1992. Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. Am. J. Sociol. 97:61577–611
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Matsueda RL, Anderson K 1998. The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. Criminology 36:2269–308
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Matsueda RL, Heimer K 1987. Race, family structure, and delinquency: a test of differential association and social control theories. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52:6826–40
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Matsueda RL, Kreager DA, Huizinga D 2006. Deterring delinquents: a rational choice model of theft and violence. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:195–122
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Matza D 1964. Delinquency and Drift New York: Wiley and Sons
  75. Matza D 1969. Becoming Deviant Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
  76. McCuddy T, Vogel M 2015. More than just friends: online social networks and offending. Crim. Justice Rev. 40:2169–89
    [Google Scholar]
  77. McGloin JM 2009. Delinquency balance: revisiting peer influence. Criminology 47:2439–77
    [Google Scholar]
  78. McGloin JM, Nguyen H 2012. It was my idea: considering the instigation of co‐offending. Criminology 50:2463–94
    [Google Scholar]
  79. McGloin JM, Rowan ZR 2015. A threshold model of collective crime. Criminology 53:3484–512
    [Google Scholar]
  80. McGloin JM, Shermer LO 2009. Self-control and deviant peer network structure. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 46:135–72
    [Google Scholar]
  81. McGloin JM, Stickle WP 2011. Influence or convenience? Disentangling peer influence and co-offending for chronic offenders. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 48:3419–47
    [Google Scholar]
  82. McGloin JM, Sullivan CJ, Piquero AR, Bacon S 2008. Investigating the stability of co‐offending and co‐offenders among a sample of youthful offenders. Criminology 46:1155–88
    [Google Scholar]
  83. McGloin JM, Sullivan CJ, Thomas KJ 2014. Peer influence and context: the interdependence of friendship groups, schoolmates and network density in predicting substance use. J. Youth Adolesc. 43:91436–52
    [Google Scholar]
  84. McGloin JM, Thomas KJ 2013. Experimental tests of criminological theory. Experimental Criminology: Prospects for Advancing Science and Public Policy BC Welsh, AA Braga, GJN Bruinsma 15–42 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  85. McGloin JM, Thomas KJ 2016.a Considering the elements that inform perceived peer deviance. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 53:5597–627
    [Google Scholar]
  86. McGloin JM, Thomas KJ 2016.b Incentives for collective deviance: group size and changes in perceived risk, cost, and reward. Criminology 54:3459–86
    [Google Scholar]
  87. McGloin JM, Thomas KJ 2017. Revisiting Matza's concepts of affinity and affiliation: lessons for the study of peer influences in criminology. Advances in Criminological Theories: Delinquency and Drift Revisited T Blomberg, C Carlsson, CL Johnson, F Cullen 179–97 Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Mead GH 1934. Mind, Self and Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Mears DP, Ploeger M, Warr M 1998. Explaining the gender gap in delinquency: peer influence and moral evaluations of behavior. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 35:3251–66
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Monahan KC, Steinberg L, Cauffman E, Mulvey EP 2009. Trajectories of antisocial behavior and psychosocial maturity from adolescence to young adulthood. Dev. Psychol. 45:61654–68
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Nagin DS 2013. Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime Justice 42:1199–263
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Neighbors C, Oster-Aaland L, Bergstrom RL, Lewis MA 2006. Event- and context-specific normative misperceptions and high-risk drinking: 21st birthday celebrations and football tailgating. J. Stud. Alcohol 67:282–89
    [Google Scholar]
  93. O'Brien L, Albert D, Chein J, Steinberg L 2011. Adolescents prefer more immediate rewards when in the presence of their peers. J. Res. Adolesc. 21:4747–53
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Osgood DW 1998. Interdisciplinary integration: building criminology by stealing from our friends. Criminologist 23:41–10
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Osgood DW, Anderson AL 2004. Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquency. Criminology 42:3519–50
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Osgood DW, O'Neill Briddell L 2006. Peer effects in juvenile justice. Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for Youth KA Dodge, TJ Dishion, JE Lansford 141–61 New York: Guilford Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Osgood DW, Ragan DT, Wallace L, Gest SD, Feinberg ME, Moody J 2013. Peers and the emergence of alcohol use: influence and selection processes in adolescent friendship networks. J. Res. Adolesc. 23:3500–12
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Osgood DW, Wilson JK, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnston LD 1996. Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. Am. Sociol. Rev. 61:4635–55
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Paternoster R 2017. Happenings, acts, and actions: articulating the meaning and implications of human agency for criminology. J. Dev. Life-Course Criminol. 3:4350–72
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Paternoster R, McGloin JM, Nguyen H, Thomas KJ 2013. The causal impact of exposure to deviant peers: an experimental investigation. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 50:4476–503
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Payne DC, Cornwell B 2007. Reconsidering peer influences on delinquency: Do less proximate contacts matter. ? J. Quant. Criminol. 23:2127–49
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Piquero NL, Tibbetts SG, Blankenship MB 2005. Examining the role of differential association and techniques of neutralization in explaining corporate crime. Deviant Behav 26:2159–88
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Sellers CS, Winfree LT Jr., Madensen TD et al. 2010. The empirical status of social learning theory: a meta‐analysis. Justice Q 27:6765–802
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Ragan DT 2014. Revisiting “what they think”: adolescent drinking and the importance of peer beliefs. Criminology 52:3488–513
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Rebellon CJ, Modecki KL 2014. Accounting for projection bias in models of delinquent peer influence: the utility and limits of latent variable approaches. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:2163–86
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Reiss AJ Jr., Rhodes AL 1964. An empirical test of differential association theory. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 1:15–18
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Rowan ZR 2016. Social risk factors of black and white adolescents’ substance use: the differential role of siblings and best friends. J. Youth Adolesc. 45:71482–96
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Rubin DB 2008. For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2:3808–40
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Sacerdote B 2001. Peer effects with random assignment: results for Dartmouth roommates. Q. J. Econ. 116:2681–704
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Sampson RJ 2010. Gold standard myths: observations on the experimental turn in quantitative criminology. J. Quant. Criminol. 26:4489–500
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Sampson RJ 2013. The place of context: a theory and strategy for criminology's hard problems. Criminology 51:11–31
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Sarnecki J 2001. Delinquent Networks: Youth Co-Offending in Stockholm Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  113. Schaefer DR 2012. Youth co-offending networks: an investigation of social and spatial effects. Soc. Netw. 34:1141–49
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference Boston: Houghton-Mifflin
  115. Shaw CR 1931. The Natural History of a Delinquent Career Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  116. Shaw CR 1966. The Jack-Roller: A Delinquent Boy's Own Story Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Short JF 1957. Differential association and delinquency. Soc. Probl. 4:3233–39
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Short JF, Strodtbeck FL 1965. Group Process and Gang Delinquency Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  119. Stinebrickner R, Stinebrickner TR 2006. What can be learned about peer effects using college roommates? Evidence from new survey data and students from disadvantaged backgrounds. J. Public Econ. 90:8–91435–54
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Sutherland EH 1947. Principles of Criminology Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. , 4th ed..
  121. Sutherland EH 1973. Critique of the theory. Edwin H. Sutherland on Analyzing Crime K Schuessler 30–41 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Sykes GM, Matza D 1957. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22:6664–70
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Thomas KJ 2015. Delinquent peer influence on offending versatility: Can peers promote specialized delinquency. ? Criminology 53:2280–308
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Thomas KJ 2018. Revisiting delinquent attitudes: measurement, dimensionality and behavioral effects. J. Quant. Criminol. 34:313–41
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Thomas KJ, McGloin JM 2013. A dual‐systems approach for understanding differential susceptibility to processes of peer influence. Criminology 51:2435–74
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Thomas KJ, McGloin JM, Sullivan CJ 2018. Quantifying the likelihood of false positives: using sensitivity analysis to bound statistical inference. J. Quant. Criminol. In press. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-018-9385-x
    [Crossref]
  127. Thomas WI, Thomas DS 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs New York: Knopf
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Thornberry TP 1987. Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology 25:4863–92
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth M, Jang SJ 1994. Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: a longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology 32:147–83
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Tittle CR, Burke MJ, Jackson EF 1986. Modeling Sutherland's theory of differential association: toward an empirical clarification. Soc. Forces 65:2405–32
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Voss HL 1964. Differential association and reported delinquent behavior: a replication. Soc. Probl. 12:178–85
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Warr M 1993. Age, peers, and delinquency. Criminology 31:117–40
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Warr M 1998. Life‐course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology 36:2183–216
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Warr M 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  135. Warr M, Stafford M 1991. The influence of delinquent peers: what they think or what they do. ? Criminology 29:4851–66
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Weerman FM 2011. Delinquent peers in context: a longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology 49:1253–86
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Weerman FM, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJ, Pauwels LJ 2015. When is spending time with peers related to delinquency? The importance of where, what, and with whom. Crime Delinquency 61:101386–413
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Weerman FM, Smeenk WH 2005. Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: a comparison using two measurement methods. Criminology 43:2499–524
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Wheeless LR, Barraclough R, Stewart R 1983. Compliance-gaining and power in persuasion. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 7:105–45
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Whyte WF 1943. Street Corner Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  141. Wikström P-OH 2006. Individuals, settings, and acts of crime: situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. The Explanation of Crime: Context, Mechanisms and Development P-OH Wikström, RJ Sampson 61–107 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Wikström P-OH, Ceccato V, Hardie B, Treiber K 2010. Activity fields and the dynamics of crime: advancing knowledge about the role of the environment in crime causation. J. Quant. Criminol. 26:155–87
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Wilcox S, Udry JR 1986. Autism and accuracy in adolescent perceptions of friends' sexual attitudes and behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16:4361–74
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Wood MD, Read JP, Mitchell RE, Brand NH 2004. Do parents still matter? Parent and peer influences on alcohol involvement among recent high school graduates. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 18:119–30
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Wright BRE, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Silva PA 2001. The effects of social ties on crime vary by criminal propensity: a life‐course model of interdependence. Criminology 39:2321–48
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Young JTN 2011. How do they ‘end up together’? A social network analysis of self-control, homophily, and adolescent relationships. J. Quant. Criminol. 27:3251–73
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Young JTN 2014. A sensitivity analysis of egocentric measures of peer delinquency to latent homophily: a research note. J. Quant Criminol. 30:3373–87
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Young JTN, Rebellon CJ, Barnes JC, Weerman FM 2014. Unpacking the black box of peer similarity in deviance: understanding the mechanisms linking personal behavior, peer behavior, and perceptions. Criminology 52:160–86
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Young JTN, Rebellon CJ, Barnes JC, Weerman FM 2015. What do alternative measures of peer behavior tell us? Examining the discriminant validity of multiple methods of measuring peer deviance and the implications for etiological models. Justice Q 32:4626–52
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Zhang L, Messner SF 2000. The effects of alternative measures of delinquent peers on self-reported delinquency. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 37:3323–37
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Zimmerman GM, Messner SF 2011. Neighborhood context and nonlinear peer effects on adolescent violent crime. Criminology 49:3873–903
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024551
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error