Youth Society 2005 Piquero 251 75

YOUTHet&al.
10.1177/0044118X04265652
Piquero
SOCIETY
/ INFLUENCE
/ MARCH
OF DELINQUENT
2005
PEERS
THE INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT

PEERS ON DELINQUENCY
Does Gender Matter?
NICOLE LEEPER PIQUERO
ANGELA R. GOVER
JOHN M. MACDONALD
ALEX R. PIQUERO
University of Florida
Research indicates that gender is one of the strongest correlates of juvenile delinquency. Additionally, a growing body of literature suggests that the association with
delinquent peers is an important predictor of delinquent behavior. Although a few
studies have examined how delinquent peers condition the gender-delinquency relationship, the authors extend this body of literature by using longitudinal data from a
sample of adolescents to explore the extent to which internal and external constraints
condition the relationship between gender, delinquent peers, and delinquent behavior. Findings indicate that delinquent peer association is an important predictor of delinquency generally, but the effect varies across gender. Specifically, delinquent peer
associations are a better predictor of delinquency among boys compared to girls. In
addition, the effect of delinquent peers on delinquency varies according to the level of
internal and external constraints. Future research directions for unraveling the role
of gender in youthful offending are discussed.
Keywords:
delinquent peers; gender; delinquency
Patterns and trends in crime rates have produced the consistent

finding that crime is a gendered phenomenon (Steffensmeier & Allan,
1996). As one of the strongest correlates of crime, the gender-crime
relationship has received a substantial amount of research attention
(Cernkovich & Giordano, 1979). A great deal of this attention has examined the gender-crime relationship by developing either genderspecific (Chesney-Lind, 1989; Daly, 1994) or general (i.e., genderYOUTH & SOCIETY, Vol. 36 No. 3, March 2005 251-275
DOI: 10.1177/0044118X04265652
2005 Sage Publications
251
Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016
252
YOUTH & SOCIETY / MARCH 2005
neutral) accounts of criminal behavior (Agnew, 1992; Akers, 1998;

Braithwaite, 1989; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Recently, however,
a new middle-ground approach has emerged that argues that the general process of offending is similar for males and females, but the
way(s) in which the key indicator(s) are experienced by the genders
vary in qualitatively distinct ways (Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Heimer &
De Coster, 1999; Morash, 1986; Smith & Paternoster, 1987).
With the development of the general but distinct explanations of
criminal behavior, a few studies have begun to explicitly examine the
role that gender plays in the major general theories of crime (Hartjen
& Priyadarsini, 2003; Heimer, 1996; Jensen, 2003; Liu & Kaplan,
1999; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; N. L. Piquero & Sealock,
2004; Tittle, Ward, & Grasmick, 2003). Although researchers have
primarily focused on control and strain theories, less attention has
been devoted to understanding how social learning theory explains the
relationship between gender and delinquency (Hartjen & Priyadarsini,
2003; Jensen, 2003; Mears, Ploeger, & Warr, 1998). At its core, social
learning theory assumes that the general social process of delinquency
is invariant across gender (Akers, 1998; Warr, 2002, p. 115) and provides an appropriate framework for exploring the gender-crime relationship (Mears et al., 1998).
Originally framed within Sutherlands theory of differential association, social learning theory extends the classic sociological paradigm
of symbolic interactionism and postulates that criminal behavior is
learned through the process of interaction in close peer group networks (Sutherland, 1947). Sutherlands (1947) approach has been incorporated with cognitive behavioral learning theories and recast as a
modern social learning theory (Akers, 1998). Although social learning theory does not limit itself to peer group influences, empirical research suggests that association with delinquent peers is one of the
strongest correlates of juvenile delinquency (Warr, 2002). More recently, research has also emphasized the importance of structural
properties of friendship networks in the social production of delinquency. This research suggests that not only do delinquent peer associations matter, but also that the density and cohesiveness of the peer
network in facilitating delinquent peer associations is particularly
important in explaining delinquency (Haynie, 2001).
Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS
253
In this article, we contribute to the literature on gender and differential association/social learning theory by examining whether delinquent peers relate to delinquency similarly across gender. We move
beyond previous research by examining the extent to which internal
(moral beliefs) and external (certainty) constraints moderate the relationship between delinquent peers and delinquency across gender.
Before the results of the analysis are presented, we briefly review the
empirical literature on gender and differential association/social learning theory.
GENDER AND SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
A few studies suggest that social learning theory may provide a

nexus for explaining the gender-crime relationship by arguing that the
nature of peer networks is gendered. Research by Johnson (1979), for
example, found that the effects of delinquent peer exposure on delinquency were greater for males compared to females. Additionally, research by Simons, Miller, and Aigner (1980) found that much of the
gender gap in self-reported juvenile delinquency was accounted for
by the fact that males were more likely to have friends that support delinquent behavior. This finding suggests that there may be something
unique about male peer groups in facilitating delinquency. Giordanos
(1978) research confirms this idea. She found that girls who spent
time in groups with boys were significantly more likely to engage in
delinquent acts than girls who only associated with other girls.
Giordano suggests that this is evidence that girls learn delinquency
from boys. Similarly, research by Morash (1986) indicates that much
of the gender differences in delinquency could be accounted for by the
fact that boys had more delinquent peers than girls, and that such associations partially explained gender differences in offending. However,
gender remained a significant predictor of delinquency even when
delinquent peers were considered. Smith and Paternoster (1987)
found that the effects of delinquent peer exposure were greater in
explaining marijuana use among males than among females. Using
self-report data from Seattle, Jensen (2003) found that much of the effect of gender on offending (serious and nonserious) was mediated by
delinquent peers, self-image, and negative beliefs. Hartjen and
254
Priyadarsini (2003) collected self-report data from a sample of boys

and girls in rural France and found that although social control measures did not help predictability, measures of learning/differential association were strongly related to delinquency and were about equally
important for boys and girls. In sum, this line of research suggests that
the gender-crime relationship can be accounted for, in part, by the differential exposure of males to delinquent peer networks and their associated attitudes.
More recent work, however, indicates that the overrepresentation
of males in delinquency is not simply a function of increased exposure
to delinquent peer group networks but is instead a function of the differential impact that network ties to delinquent peers has on males
compared to females. According to an analysis of the National Youth
Survey by Mears et al. (1998), males on average were exposed to
higher rates of delinquent friends. However, exposure to delinquent
friends alone did not account for the gender gap in self-reported delinquency. Their analysis indicated that among males and females,
strong moral inhibitions acted as a barrier to peer influence that was
much stronger among females than males. Females with strong moral
values who disapproved of criminality were essentially immune to
peer influence (Mears et al., 1998, p. 263). At the same time, as moral
disapproval of criminality increased, males and females diverged,
with females showing less susceptibility than males to peer influence.
In fact, when moral disapproval was strong, females were immune to
peer delinquency, but the same findings did not hold true for males. In
contrast, males with strong moral values were still inclined to engage
in delinquency if they were exposed to delinquent peers, and it appeared that eventually delinquent peers would overwhelm any inhibitory effect of moral disapproval, which did not appear likely among
females. This work provides a more robust test of social learning theory by suggesting that the moral content of evaluative cognitions
(Akers, 1998, p. 83) are less susceptible to the influence of differential
association among females than males. In sum, because females selfimpose a greater moral barrier on themselves than males, this may
help explain why and how the delinquent peer effect on crime and
delinquency is conditioned by gender.
Other research by Heimer and De Coster (1999) indicates that there
are subtle gender differences in the cultural processes that lead to vio-
255
lent delinquent acts. Their analysis of the first three waves of the National Youth Survey indicated that learning violent definitions was a
significant predictor of male and female violent delinquency, but there
were differences in the processes through which these definitions
were learned. Boys were more influenced than girls by aggressive
peer associations. Boys were also more likely than girls to commit violent acts because of previous experiences and because they have
weaker social bonds to their families. Heimer and De Coster also
found that the acceptance of definitions supportive of traditional gender roles reduced violent delinquency for girls but not for boys. Overall, the findings from this study indicated that girls are less violent
than boys mainly because they are influenced more strongly by bonds
to family, learn few violent definitions, and are taught that violence is
inconsistent with the meaning of being female (p. 303).
Research by Alarid, Burton, and Cullen (2000) also supports general theories of crime by accounting for gender differences in selfreported criminal offending with first-time convicted felons. Their
research found that social learning/differential association theory
variables had stronger effects for men compared to women in predicting participation in crime as well as the type of crime. These gender
differences, however, were subtle. For example, the majority of differential association and social control theory variables exerted similar
effects across gender. Like early research (Smith & Paternoster,
1987), this study questions the need for separate theories of delinquency for males and females.
Finally, Svensson (2003) used cross-sectional, self-reported data
that included 859 high school students from Faulkenberg, Sweden, to
investigate gender differences in drug use in terms of parental monitoring and peer deviance. Three key findings emerged from this study.
First, consistent with prior research (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990),
females were found to be more highly monitored by their parents than
males. Second, males were more exposed to deviant peers than females. In fact, in the full sample analysis, the direct effect of gender on
adolescent drug use was eliminated once the effects of peer deviance
were controlled. Third, Svensson found an interaction between parental monitoring and peer deviance that was greater among females.
In particular, this interaction effect suggested that exposure to deviant peers was more important for female drug use in families where
256
parental monitoring was poor. Thus, having unstructured parental

control allowed the deviant peer effect to increase among females.
In general, prior research on social learning theory offers some
promise for understanding the gender-crime relationship. This research indicates that peer group associations are based on propinquity
and homophily (e.g., people associate with other like people in close
proximity) (Warr, 2002). Therefore, it is not surprising to find that
boys and girls tend to associate within their own gender groups. If
boys individually are more likely than girls to be delinquent, then associating with other delinquent boys would only serve to facilitate
more delinquency. This suggestion appears to be supported by research indicating that girls are at increased risk of delinquency when
associating with boys (Giordano, 1978). Yet research also suggests
that the moral inclination of females toward altruism may serve as a
protective factor when faced with the pressure of delinquent peer association (Warr, 2002).
PRESENT STUDY
In light of the limited amount of existing research that uses general

theories to examine gender differences in criminal offending, the current study attempts to test the ability of social learning theory to account for differences in offending between male and female adolescents. Given the limited evidence on how known risk factors for
antisocial behavior vary by sex, firm conclusions continue to elude researchers (Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998). Thus, continued exploration along these fronts remains an important theoretical issue.
We investigate a series of research questions to examine gender differences in the process that links peers and constraints to delinquent
behavior. First, we examine whether the influence of delinquent peers
on crime is mediated by internal and external constraints (e.g., moral
beliefs and legally imposed sanctions). Second, we examine if the effects of delinquent peers and internal and external constraints on delinquency are similar for girls and boys. Finally, we examine whether
varying levels of internal and external constraints moderate the manner in which the delinquent peer effect relates to delinquency across
gender.
257
There are important theoretical and empirical reasons to study

these issues. For example, extant research suggests that although delinquent peers relate to ones own delinquency among males and females, it may also be true that the influence of delinquent peers may be
more salient for females because females learn delinquent modes of
behavior from males (Giordano, 1978, p. 132). In fact, research on
this issue shows that girls model the delinquent behavior of boys instead of modeling the delinquent behavior of each other. For example,
early puberty among females interacts with associations with older
males to increase delinquency (Stattin & Magnusson, 1990). Also,
girls in all-female schools are less likely to engage in delinquency than
girls in mixed-sex schools (Caspi, Lynam, Moffitt, & Silva, 1993) and
are more likely than boys to report that the instigator in their delinquent group was of the opposite sex (Warr, 2002).
At the same time, it is also possible that inhibitors of delinquency,
such as internal and external constraints, moderate the effect of delinquent peers on delinquency in different ways for boys and girls.
Gilligan (1982) has suggested that females are socialized in such a
way that they may be more constrained than males by moral evaluations. In particular, moral development in females is guided by the primacy of human relationships and a concern to avoid harming others.
Males, on the other hand, tend to construe morality in more utilitarian
terms and (compared to females) focus less on responsibility toward
others and more on the pursuit of self-interest. In this regard, because
females report more internal (moral) and external (deterrence-oriented)
constraints against criminal conduct, these inhibitions may act as a
barrier for females and make them less susceptible than males to the
influence of delinquent peers, and in turn less likely to engage in criminal activity.
Our work builds on prior research in several respects. First, we use
a longitudinal design that allows us to establish correct temporal ordering of variables. This longitudinal design improves on previous
work by Hartjen and Priyadarsini (2003), Jensen (2003), Mears et al.
(1998), and Svensson (2003), whose use of cross-sectional data precluded them from making definitive causal statements. Second, we
expand the scope of mediating variables to examine how the threat of
internally (self) and externally (legal) imposed sanctions condition
the delinquent peersdelinquency relationship.
258
SAMPLE
The data in this study come from a questionnaire survey administered to all 10th-grade students who attended nine high schools in and
around a large city in South Carolina. In the fall of 1981, the survey
was administered to students during their English course. Approximately 2,700 students completed a questionnaire, representing 99%
of sophomores attending school on the day the questionnaire was administered. One year later, an identical questionnaire was administered to all junior English classes in each of the same nine high
schools. Of the original group, approximately 1,600 students completed a second questionnaire in their junior year. Sample attrition was
not generally due to students dropping out of school, because the
dropout rate was low (an average of 2% for the schools). Students
were missing from the follow-up survey because they were absent on
the day of the second questionnaire administration, because they took
a nontraditional English class during their junior year (theater, yearbook staff, etc.), or because they moved out of the school district. Attrition rates were highest for two high schools near a major military
base.1
The longitudinal design of our study allows the variables of interest
to be placed in their correct temporal order. In other words, we examine the effect of Time 1 independent variables on Time 2 delinquency.
MEASURES
Delinquency. Consistent with prior research (Heimer, 1996), a twoitem summated index was created to measure frequency responses for
two delinquent activities: vandalism and petty theft.2 The dependent
variable includes these two acts at Time 2, where respondents were
asked: In the past year, how many times have you done [act]? The
response range for Time 2 delinquency is 0 to 200, with a mean of 2.40
delinquent acts. Similarly, each of the two delinquent acts were also
asked at Time 1: How many times in the past year have you done
[act]? The Time 1 delinquency score is used to control for prior offending. The response range for Time 1 delinquency is 0 to 160, with a
mean of 3.22 delinquent acts.3
259
Moral beliefs. At Time 1, respondents were asked to respond to two

questions regarding their own personal beliefs against committing
each of the two delinquent acts assessed in the delinquency scale (vandalism and petty theft). Specifically, respondents were asked: How
wrong do you think it is to [act]? Response options originally ranged
from 0 (always wrong) to 5 (never wrong), but were reverse-coded so
that higher values corresponded with higher moral beliefs. Factor
analysis provided strong evidence of a single underlying factor, with
factor loadings greater than .70. In addition, the internal consistency
of this scale was adequate ( = .70). The scale ranged from 2 to 10,
with a mean of 9.32.
Delinquent peers. At Time 1, respondents were asked to respond to
two questions regarding their knowledge of peer involvement in each
of the two acts referenced in the delinquency scale. Specifically, respondents were asked: Of the people you hang around with, how
many have [act]? Response options ranged from 1 (none) to 4 (all).
Factor analysis provided strong evidence of a single underlying factor,
with all factor loadings above .70. In addition, the internal consistency
of the scale was sufficient ( = .73). The scale ranged from 2 to 8, with
a mean of 3.59.
Perceived sanction certainty. At Time 1, respondents were asked to
report their perception of being caught had they engaged in each of the
two delinquent acts referenced in the delinquency scale. Specifically,
respondents were asked: If you were to [act], how likely do you think
it would be that you would be caught by the police? Originally, response options ranged from 1 (very likely) to 5 (very unlikely), but
were recoded so that higher values corresponded to higher estimates
of perceived sanction certainty. Factor analysis provided strong evidence of a single underlying factor, with all factor loadings above .70.
The internal consistency of the scale was adequate ( = .72). The scale
ranged from 2 to 10, with a mean of 5.78.
Perceived sanction severity. At Time 1, respondents were asked to
report how much of a problem it would create in their life if they were
caught for each of the acts in the delinquency scale. Respondents were
asked: Suppose you did [act], were caught, taken to court, and pun-
260
ished. How much of a problem would this punishment create for your
life? Response options ranged from 1 (no problem at all) to 5 (a very
big problem). Factor analysis provided strong evidence of a single underlying factor with all factor loadings above .70. The internal consistency of the scale was high ( = .85). The scale ranged from 2 to 10,
with a mean of 8.65.
Sex. Sex is coded 1 for males, and 2 for females. Females comprised 51% of the sample.
ANALYSIS PLAN
A series of different analyses are presented that were designed to

provide evidence on the gendered-relationship between delinquent
peers and delinquency. First, baseline data is presented regarding gender differences in delinquency as well as the key predictors of delinquency. Second, the gender-delinquency relationship is examined to
determine if it is mediated by delinquent peers, prior delinquency, and
internal/external constraints. Third, the relationship between delinquent
peers and delinquency is examined across gender. Finally, internal/
external constraints are examined to see if they moderate the delinquent peersdelinquency relationship across gender. Because of zeroclustering and the skewed (positive) nature of the self-reported delinquency responses, the analysis employs the Tobit regression model which
takes these two features into account. In addition, preliminary evidence did not reveal any problems associated with multicollinearity.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics for Time 2 delinquency across gender are presented in Table 1. As can be seen, males have a higher prevalence and
frequency of delinquent acts than females, both with regard to the individual items of shoplifting and vandalism and the combined delinquency scale. The average gender difference in delinquent acts is
greatest for vandalism. Taken together, these results replicate prior re-
261
TABLE 1
Gender Differences in Time 2 Delinquency

Males
Females
Offense
Frequency
Frequency
Ratio
Difference
Shoplifting
Vandalism
Delinquency Scale
22.8
32.1
42.4
1.79
2.22
4.02
8.3
11.9
17.3
0.53
0.34
0.87
2.74
2.69
2.45
14.5**
20.2**
25.1**
NOTE: Frequency is the average number of acts committed.

**p < .05.
search by Jensen (2003) and suggest that there are significant gender
variations in both shoplifting and vandalism.
Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for the key independent variables measured at Time 1 (peer delinquency, certainty and severity of
punishment, and moral beliefs). With regard to peer delinquency, it
can be seen that males report a higher proportion of delinquent peers
than females for shoplifting and vandalism (and the delinquency scale
as a whole). The results for perceived sanction certainty and severity
are consistent with extant deterrence/gender related research and indicate that females are more likely to report higher deterrence-oriented
perceptions. In the South Carolina data, this finding is evident across
delinquent acts and the combined delinquency scale. Finally, compared to males, females reported higher moral beliefs against shoplifting, vandalism, and the combined delinquency scale. The moral belief
differences, however, were the smallest of any observed in Table 2. In
sum, males are more likely than females to report having more delinquent peers and females score higher than males on internal and external constraints. These results are consistent with prior research by
Gilligan (1982) and Mears et al. (1998).
Next, we examine if the gender-delinquency relationship is mediated by delinquent peers, prior delinquency, and internal/external constraints. In a step-wise fashion, the key independent variables are used
to predict Time 2 delinquency (see Table 3). Model 1 shows that males
are more likely than females to engage in a higher number of delinquent acts at Time 2. Consistent with the extant literature, prior acts of
delinquency (Time 1) significantly predict future acts (Time 2) (Nagin
& Paternoster, 1991). In Model 2, the delinquent peer variable is
262
**p < .05.
Shoplifting 1.89
Vandalism
2.22
Delinquency
Scale
4.16
Offense
Male
(M)
Peer Delinquency
1.27
1.39
1.36
1.48
1.59
3.04
1.12**
0.41**
0.63**
Female
(M) Ratio Difference
5.37
2.79
2.57
Male
(M)
6.17
3.18
2.99
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.80**
0.39**
0.42**
Ratio Difference
Certainty
Female
(M)
TABLE 2
8.46
4.31
4.14
Male
(M)
8.82
4.47
4.34
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.36**
0.16**
0.20**
Female
(M) Ratio Difference
Severity
Gender Differences in Time 1 Independent Variables
9.19
4.64
4.55
9.42
4.73
4.69
0.97
0.98
0.97
0.23**
0.09**
0.14**
Ratio Difference
Moral Beliefs
Male Female
(M)
(M)
263
added. The results indicate that delinquent peers exhibit a positive effect on Time 2 delinquency, but it does not alter the previous effects of
gender and prior (Time 1) delinquent involvement. Model 3 adds the
two external constraint measures of perceived certainty and severity.
As before, gender, past delinquency, and delinquent peers all exhibit
their expected significant effects on Time 2 delinquency, but neither of
the deterrence measures significantly predict Time 2 delinquency.4 Finally, Model 4 adds the internal constraint effect of moral beliefs. The
results indicate that moral beliefs exhibit a significant negative effect
on Time 2 delinquency, suggesting that internal moral prohibitions
against delinquency buffer the involvement of delinquent acts a year
later. Importantly, controlling for moral beliefs did not alter the importance of the other predictor variables. Controlling for moral beliefs,
deterrence measures, prior delinquency, and delinquent peers did not
eliminate the gender/crime relationship.
Separate gender models were estimated to examine whether there
were any interaction effects between gender and the other independent variables (see Table 4). The model estimates for males indicate
that, with the exception of the two external deterrent constraint measures, all variables exhibit the expected direction and significance.
Among females, however, the relationship between delinquent peers
and delinquency was negative and insignificant, whereas among
males, the effect was positive and significant. According to these findings, delinquent peers do not appear to be an important ingredient for
females in explaining the commission of petty theft and vandalism
(although delinquent peers may be important for other kinds of delinquent acts). A coefficient comparison test (Paternoster, Brame,
Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998) indicated that the delinquent peer effect
was significantly different across gender (z = 2.16, p < .05). Although
neither measure of external constraints buffered delinquency, moral
beliefs were important deterrents against delinquency for males and
females.
Finally, we examine whether stratifying the samples across gender
and high and low internal and external constraints moderates the relationship between delinquent peer association and delinquency at
Time 2. Following Farrington and Loeber (2000), the splitting decision was made at the 75th percentile, such that individuals scoring in
the top 25th percentile were considered highly constrained, whereas
264
**p < .05.
Sex
Past delinquency (Time 1)
Delinquent peers (Time 1)
Certainty (Time 1)
Severity (Time 1)
Moral beliefs (Time 1)
Constant
Ancillary parameter
Variable
Model 1
0.52**
0.02**
0.84**
0.03
4.47
10.03
SE
1.94
0.25
Coefficient
1.27
8.74
1.37
0.18
0.68
Coefficient
Model 2
1.30
0.18
0.56**
0.02**
0.19**
SE
TABLE 3
0.94
8.80
1.41
0.19
0.73
0.10
0.04
Coefficient
Model 3
Tobit Regression Predicting Time 2 Delinquency Scale
2.25
0.18
0.58**
0.02**
0.21**
0.15
0.18
SE
Model 4
1.50
0.18
0.48
0.18
0.13
1.31
12.22
8.70
Coefficient
0.57**
0.02**
0.21**
0.15
0.18
0.25**
3.14**
0.18
SE
265
TABLE 4
Tobit Regression Predicting Delinquency by Gender

Males
Variable
Coefficient

Certainty
Severity
Moral beliefs
Constant
Ancillary parameter
0.17
0.90
0.37
0.00
1.79
13.63
11.23
Females
SE
0.02**
0.37**
0.28
0.32
0.42**
5.07**
0.35
Coefficient
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.19
0.62
5.06
5.27
SE
0.03**
0.20
0.12
0.16
0.25**
2.87**
0.15
**p < .05.
all others (lower 75th percentile) were considered to be low constrained. These results may be found in Tables 5 and 6.
For males, the pattern of results linking past to future delinquency
is the same, regardless of the level of perceived certainty (see Table 5).
Specifically, prior delinquency is positively related to future delinquency at both low and high levels of certainty. Interestingly, however,
peer delinquency is positively related to Time 2 delinquency among
those with low certainty but is not related to subsequent delinquency
among those with high certainty. Thus, for males, when perceived
sanction threats are highly certain, peer delinquency does not relate to
future delinquency. For females, past delinquency relates positively to
future delinquency, irrespective of the level of certainty. However, for
females there is no relationship between delinquent peers and delinquency at either low or high levels of certainty.
The moral beliefs analysis displayed in Table 6 indicates that, for
males, past delinquency is positively related to future delinquency
among those with low moral beliefs but is not related to delinquency
for those with high moral beliefs. A coefficient comparison test revealed that the effect of prior delinquency on future delinquency was
significantly different across the moral belief conditions (z = 4.64, p <
.05). Interestingly, and unlike the earlier certainty analysis, the effect
of peer delinquency varies according to the level of moral beliefs for
males. At low moral beliefs, peer delinquency does not relate to subsequent delinquency; however, at high moral beliefs, peer delinquency
is positively related to future delinquency. Thus, it appears that delin-
266
*p < .10. **p < .05.

Constant
Ancillary parameter
Variable
0.12
1.27
2.23
11.59
Coefficient
0.03**
0.41**
1.81
0.40
SE
Low Certainty
Males
0.41
0.61
.71
10.04
Coefficient
0.06**
0.66
2.40
0.68
SE
High Certainty
TABLE 5
0.18
0.11
0.45
6.33
Coefficient
0.04**
0.27
0.97
0.24
SE
Low Certainty
Females
0.38
0.08
0.48
3.34
Coefficient
0.23*
0.23
0.63
0.15
SE
High Certainty
Tobit Regression Predicting Delinquency by Gender and Level of Certainty (High Certainty = Top 25th Percentile)
267
**p < .05.

Constant
Ancillary parameter
Variable
TABLE 6
0.25
1.13
0.89
16.12
Coefficient
0.05**
0.82
3.81
0.78
SE
Low Moral Beliefs
Males
0.00
0.84
1.38
5.55
Coefficient
0.02
0.21**
0.86*
0.22
SE
High Moral Beliefs
0.33
0.52
3.07
9.06
Coefficient
0.08**
0.55
2.09*
0.48
SE
Low Moral Beliefs
Females
Tobit Regression Predicting Delinquency by Gender and Level of Moral Beliefs

(High Moral Beliefs = Top 25th Percentile)
0.04
0.19
0.24
1.33
Coefficient
0.01**
0.05**
0.17
0.04
SE
High Moral Beliefs
268
quent peers help males overcome their high internal constraints and
propels them into delinquency. In sum, for males, moral beliefs appears to differentially moderate the effect of prior delinquency and delinquent peers on future delinquency, with the former relating to future delinquency only among those with low moral inhibitions and the
latter relating to future delinquency only among those with high moral
inhibitions.
For females, the pattern of results is similar, with one exception.
Regardless of the level of moral belief, past delinquency is positively
and significantly linked to subsequent delinquency, but the effect is
much smaller among those with high moral beliefs (this effect was insignificant for males). As was the case for males, the effect of delinquent peers on Time 2 delinquency varies for females, depending on
their level of moral beliefs. For females with low moral beliefs, peer
delinquency does not relate to subsequent delinquency, but for females with high moral beliefs, peer delinquency is positively and significantly related to Time 2 delinquency. Thus, as was the case for
males, delinquent peers help highly internally constrained females to
overcome their inhibitions which, in turn, fosters delinquency.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this article was to study the interrelationships between internal and external constraints, delinquent peer association,
gender, and delinquency. Specifically, we examined whether (a) the
effect of delinquent peer association on delinquency was mediated by
internal and external constraints, (b) the effects of delinquent peer association and internal and external constraints related to delinquency
in similar ways across gender, and (c) varying levels of internal and
external constraints moderated the delinquent peer-delinquency association differently across gender.
Three key findings emerged from this study. First, there were important gender differences in the level and amount of delinquency, as
well as the reported levels of delinquent peer associations and internal/external constraints. Males were more likely than females to report engaging in shoplifting and vandalism, while at the same time
more likely than females to report more associations with delinquent
269
peers but less likely to report high internal and external proscriptions
against shoplifting and vandalism.
Second, the gender-delinquency relationship remained even after
controlling for the important effects of prior delinquency and delinquent peers. While internal constraints were related to delinquency,
neither of the two external constraints were significantly associated
with delinquency. Neither internal nor external constraints were significantly associated with delinquency. When split-gender models
were estimated, it was detected that although moral beliefs and prior
delinquency were significantly associated with future delinquency
similarly across gender, the delinquent peer/respondent delinquency
relationship was different. For males, delinquent peers were positively and significantly related to delinquency, whereas delinquent
peers were negatively and insignificantly related to delinquency for
females. Thus, in the South Carolina data, delinquent peers do not
significantly predict shoplifting and vandalism for females in an additive fashion.
Third, an interesting pattern of results was found when examining
how internal and external constraints moderated the effects of prior
delinquency and delinquent peers on delinquency across gender. With
regard to the moderating effects of external constraints (certainty),
past delinquency continued to relate to future delinquency, regardless
of the level of certainty and irrespective of gender. However, delinquent peers failed to relate to delinquency among females, irrespective of the level of external constraint and only related to delinquency
among males with low certainty. With regard to the moderating effects
of internal constraints (moral beliefs), we found that past delinquency
was related to subsequent delinquency among females, irrespective of
the level of moral beliefs, but was related to delinquency only among
males with low moral beliefs. Interestingly, delinquent peers were related to subsequent delinquency across gender, but only among males
and females who were highly internally constrained. Delinquent peers
failed to relate to delinquency among males and females with low
moral beliefs. Therefore, it appears that delinquent peers helps males
and females overcome high internal but not high external constraints
and frees them from the internal grips of moral inhibitions, even if
only temporarily (see Matza, 1964).
270
As a whole, and with some slight but important differences, these

results appear to be consistent with previous research and suggest that
there may be more similarities than differences between males and females and the social learning processes that generate delinquency
(Hartjen & Priyadarsini, 2003; Smith & Paternoster, 1987). A recent
study by Moffitt et al. (2001) examining sex differences in antisocial
behavior reached very similar conclusions. They found that male and
female adolescents had similar antisocial behavior patterns and also
had similar causes, correlates, and consequences of antisocial behavior. The effect of these findings suggests that there may be little need
for gender-specific theories of delinquency. As Moffitt et al. (2001)
conclude: No evidence . . . warrants continued efforts to portray females antisocial behavior as somehow obeying different laws from
those that apply to males (p. 236). The one important exception to
this finding in the South Carolina data is the effect of delinquent peers
on subsequent offending. Recall that this effect was positive and significant for males but negative and insignificant for females. It may be
that delinquent peers are not important among females for shoplifting
and vandalism but may be relevant for other delinquent acts. Still,
when examining how internal and external constraints moderated the
delinquent peersdelinquency relationship across gender, virtually
identical results were found among males and females. Of most
interest in those analyses was the finding that delinquent peers was a
significant predictor of delinquency among males and females with
high moral beliefs.
At the same time, these results depart from those obtained by Mears
et al. (1998) in their study of delinquent peers, moral inhibitions, gender, and crime. Those authors found that among females with strong
moral inhibitions, the delinquent peer effect was irrelevant. Among
males with strong moral inhibitions, however, delinquent peers still
mattered for understanding delinquencyespecially at high levels of
delinquent peers. The present study observed the opposite and found
that among males and females with high moral prohibitions, delinquent peers still mattered. Although the offense type comparison varied in both studies (i.e., this study examined two offenses whereas
Mears et al. used a larger pool of acts), the use of a longitudinal research design may provide one (among several) explanation(s) for the
disparate research findings. In particular, the Mears et al. analysis was
271
based on cross-sectional data and measured delinquency for the previous 12-month period. As a result, it is unclear from the Mears et al.
study whether perceptions of peer delinquency preceded delinquency
or vice versa. This causal order confound could have influenced how
the independent and dependent variables were interrelated in the
Mears et al. study. Because the current study employed a longitudinal
design, we were able to temporally control for the influence of prior
delinquency and isolate the effects of the key independent variables
(peer delinquency, internal/external constraints) on later delinquent
involvement.
There are several limitations to the data used in this study that warrant disclosure. First, we were only able to capture a short snapshot of
the interrelationships between gender, delinquent peers, and internal/
external constraints during adolescence (ages 15 to 16). Whether the
pattern of findings obtained in this study continue into early and middle adulthood remains an empirical question. Second, we only examined two relatively minor delinquent acts. Future efforts should attempt to target a wider variety of delinquent acts, especially more
serious personal crimes such as robbery and assault. This is especially
important because the stronger moral inhibitions of females may be
more relevant when it comes to the commission of more serious offenses, including offenses that directly harm others. Third, we followed prior research in the delinquency tradition for recommendations of measuring the key independent variables of internal/external
constraints and delinquent peers. These are somewhat rudimentary
measures because they are not particularly sensitive to the complexity
associated with measuring constraints (such as shame and guilt) and
delinquent peer association (proximity, intensity, duration, and priority). Future research should carefully consider these and related measurement issues. Fourth, because we attempted to build on recent
work by Mears et al. (1998) and Svensson (2003), we did not examine
how delinquent peer association and internal/external constraints
were related to the onset of delinquency across gender. The manner in
which these measures influence the onset dimension remains an important question, especially because few studies have focused on this
issue (A. R. Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2003). Fifth, our data
did not provide any information on pubertal development. Given that
early puberty has been found to be an important correlate of delin-
272
quencyespecially in concert with the peer social context (Caspi et

al., 1993; Felson & Haynie, 2002; A. Piquero & Brezina, 2001)it
seems relevant to examine how gender, delinquent peers, and constraints interrelate with puberty to lead to delinquency. Sixth, although our data precluded the examination of the gender composition
of delinquent peers, we believe that cross-sex peer influence deserves
serious research attention, especially as peer groups become increasingly mixed-sex in composition as individuals transition from early to
middle to late adolescence (Warr, 2002, p. 80). Finally, prior research
has shown that gender definitions have very different meanings and
consequences for females than for males law violation (Heimer,
1996). Future research projects should consider these differential
meanings and interpretations in an effort to better understand how
delinquent peers and internal/external constraints relate to
delinquency.
Although the debate surrounding the gender-delinquency relationship has often focused on general instead of crime-specific accounts
of offending, this study focused on the emerging middle-ground approach where scholars examine if gender-specific mechanisms are at
work in general theories of crime. Although this approach has been
applied to other general theories, such as strain (Broidy & Agnew,
1997; N. L. Piquero & Sealock, 2004) and self-control (Tittle, 2003),
relatively little is known about gender differences in the social learning processes associated with delinquency. It appears that there is still
much to be gained by a general theory approach, and we have brought
forth evidence from an additional general theory, social learning, to
better understand the gender-crime relationship. Results from this
study provide support for examining the gendered processes at work
in general theories of youthful offending. Still, much more needs to be
learned about the moderating effects of key theoretical variables on
the gender-delinquency relationship.
NOTES
1. To examine the possible effect of sample attrition, a logistic regression model was estimated that included all of the variables used in the subsequent analyses and the students high
school. The outcome variable was coded 0 for those students who completed both questionnaires
and 1 for those who completed only the one during their sophomore year. The only significant
273
predictors in this model were the two high schools near the military base. When the analyses
were conducted on a sample that excluded these two schools, the substantive results were the
same. Moreover, there were no significant differences among the high schools on any of the
measures.
2. Although some readers may believe that these two acts are relatively minor and would exhibit few gender differences, this is not the case. Jensens (2003) analysis with Seattle self-report
data indicated that the ratio of shoplifting and vandalism was higher for males than females, and
as will be seen later, the South Carolina data also reveal significant ratio differences across gender that are in need of explanation.
3. For both delinquency items at Time 1 and Time 2, less than 3 respondents reported committing more than 100 offenses. These scores were recoded to the 100 value.
4. Preliminary analysis showed that the two deterrence measures were negative and significantly correlated with Time 2 delinquency, but their association with delinquency was weak
(never stronger than r = .06).
REFERENCES
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology,
30, 47-87.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Alarid, L. F., Burton, V. S., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). Gender and crime among felony offenders: Assessing the generality of social control and differential association theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 171-199.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 275-306.
Caspi, A., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1993). Unraveling girlsdelinquency: Biological, dispositional, and contextual contributions to adolescent misbehavior. Developmental
Psychology, 29, 19-30.
Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. G. (1979). A comparative analysis of male and female delinquency. Sociological Quarterly, 20, 131-145.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1989). Girls crime and womens place: Toward a feminist model of female
delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 35, 5-29.
Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Some benefits of dichotomization in psychiatric and criminological research. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10, 100-122.
Felson, R., & Haynie, D. (2002). Pubertal development, social factors, and delinquency among
adolescent boys. Criminology, 40, 967-988.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Giordano, P. C. (1978). Girls, guys and gangs: The changing social context of female delinquency. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 69, 26-132.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hartjen, C. A., & Priyadarsini, S. (2003). Gender, peers, and delinquency: A study of boys and
girls in rural France. Youth & Society, 34, 387-414.
274
Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American
Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013-1057.
Heimer, K. (1996). Gender, interaction, and delinquency: Testing a theory of differential social
control. Social Psychological Quarterly, 59, 39-61.
Heimer, K., & De Coster, S. (1999). The gendering of violent delinquency. Criminology, 37, 277318.
Jensen, G. F. (2003). Gender variation in delinquency: Self-image, beliefs and peers as mediating
mechanisms. In R. L. Akers & G. F. Jensen (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory, a
guide for the new century: Social learning theory and the explanation of crime (pp. 151-177).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Johnson, R. (1979). Juvenile delinquency and its origins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, X., & Kaplan, H. B. (1999). Explaining the gender difference in adolescent delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of mediating mechanisms. Criminology, 37, 195-215.
Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mears, D. P., Ploeger, M., & Warr, M. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in delinquency: Peer
group influence and moral evaluations of behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 251-266.
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Morash, M. (1986). Gender, peer group experiences, and seriousness of delinquency. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 46-67.
Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1991). On the relationship of past and future participation in delinquency. Criminology, 29, 163-190.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test
for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.
Piquero, A., & Brezina, T. (2001). Testing Moffits account of adolescence-limited delinquency.
Criminology, 39, 353-370.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. In
M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 359-506). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Piquero, N. L., & Sealock, M. (2004). Gender and general strain theory: A preliminary test of
Broidy and Agnews gender/GST hypotheses. Justice Quarterly, 21, 125-158.
Rutter, M. G., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behaviour by young people. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Simons, R. L., Miller, M. G., & Aigner, S. M. (1980). Contemporary theories of deviance and female delinquency: An empirical test. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 4257.
Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1987). The gender gap in theories of deviance: Issues and evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 140-172.
Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (1990). Pubertal maturation in female development: Volume 2,
paths through life. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459-487.
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Svensson, R. (2003). Gender differences in adolescent drug use. Youth & Society, 34, 300-329.
Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A. & Grasmick, H.B. (2003). Gender, age and crime/deviance. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 426-453.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime. New York: Cambridge University Press.
275
Nicole Leeper Piquero is an assistant professor of criminology in the Center for Studies in Criminology and Law at the University of Florida. Her research interests include
corporate/white-collar crime and criminological theory. Publications have appeared in
Law and Society Review, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Criminal Justice. She is currently working on a National Institute of Justicefunded research project investigating
the causes and prevention of intellectual property crimes.
Angela R. Gover is an assistant professor in the Center for Studies in Criminology and
Law at the University of Florida. Her scholarly research focuses on issues relating to
family violence, victimization, juvenile delinquency, evaluation research, and gender
and crime. Her work has appeared in Criminology and Public Policy, Violence and Victims, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.
John M. MacDonald is an assistant professor of criminology at the University of Florida.
His research focuses on theoretical issues of violence, juvenile justice and delinquency,
and policing. His articles have recently appeared in Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, Crime and Delinquency, and Youth & Society.
Alex R. Piquero is a professor of criminology at the University of Florida, a member of
the National Consortium on Violence Research, and a member of the MacArthur Foundations Research Network on Adolescent Development & Juvenile Justice. His primary areas of research include criminal careers and quantitative research methods. He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed articles, coedited four books, and secured more than
$1 million in external research funding. He has received numerous teaching and research
awards, including the Cavan Young Scholar Award from the American Society of Criminology (2003) and the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Teacher of the Year Award from
the University of Florida (2004). In 2003, he was ranked as the number one criminologist
in the world in article productivity. He is currently cowriting a book with Al Blumstein,
David Farrington, and Rolf Loeber on criminal careers for Cambridge University Press.

Youth Society 2005 Piquero 251 75

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Youth Society 2005 Piquero 251 75

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

YOUTHet&al.

THE INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT

delinquent peers; gender; delinquency

Patterns and trends in crime rates have produced the consistent

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

YOUTH & SOCIETY / MARCH 2005

neutral) accounts of criminal behavior (Agnew, 1992; Akers, 1998;

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS

A few studies suggest that social learning theory may provide a

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

YOUTH & SOCIETY / MARCH 2005

Priyadarsini (2003) collected self-report data from a sample of boys

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

YOUTH & SOCIETY / MARCH 2005

parental monitoring was poor. Thus, having unstructured parental

In light of the limited amount of existing research that uses general

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS

There are important theoretical and empirical reasons to study

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

YOUTH & SOCIETY / MARCH 2005

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS

Moral beliefs. At Time 1, respondents were asked to respond to two

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

YOUTH & SOCIETY / MARCH 2005

A series of different analyses are presented that were designed to

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS

Gender Differences in Time 2 Delinquency

NOTE: Frequency is the average number of acts committed.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

**p < .05.

Gender Differences in Time 1 Independent Variables

Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

**p < .05.

Tobit Regression Predicting Time 2 Delinquency Scale

Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS

Tobit Regression Predicting Delinquency by Gender

Past delinquency (Time 1)

**p < .05.

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

*p < .10. **p < .05.

Past delinquency (Time 1)

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

**p < .05.

Past delinquency (Time 1)

Low Moral Beliefs

High Moral Beliefs

Low Moral Beliefs

Tobit Regression Predicting Delinquency by Gender and Level of Moral Beliefs

High Moral Beliefs

YOUTH & SOCIETY / MARCH 2005

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

Piquero et al. / INFLUENCE OF DELINQUENT PEERS

Downloaded from yas.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on November 11, 2016

YOUTH & SOCIETY / MARCH 2005