Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2017, Vol. 15(3) 299-313
ª The Author(s) 2016
Social Isolation, Strain, Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
and Youth Violence DOI: 10.1177/1541204016636435
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Michael Niño1, Gabe Ignatow2, and Tianji Cai3

Abstract
This article examines the relationship between types of social isolation and violent delinquency.
Deriving hypotheses from elements of general strain theory, we test whether the isolation–violence
relationship varies across different types of isolated youth when compared to sociable youth. We
also test whether other negative experiences and circumstances (types of social strain) associated
with adolescence moderate the relationship between isolation types and violent delinquency. Using
the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we find that different types of social isolation
had varying effects on violent delinquency. Socially disinterested youth show a greater capacity for
violent behavior, but other types of marginalized youth showed no difference in violence when
compared to sociable youth. Results also demonstrate that some types of strain moderate the
isolation–violence relationship. The implications of these findings for research on peer relations,
adolescent strain, and violence are discussed.

Keywords
social isolation, peer networks, violence, general strain theory

Most youth are able to develop and maintain peer relationships during adolescence, but a small
portion either are unable to establish friendships or prefer solitude. Recent estimates indicate
roughly 10% of adolescent youth are socially isolated from their peers (Vaquera & Kao, 2008).
Studies have linked youth social isolation to a number of poor social and academic outcomes, such
as unstable careers (Rubin, Chen, McDougall, Bowker, & McKinnon, 1995), delayed life transitions
(Gest, 1997; Kerr, Lambert, & Bem, 1996), peer rejection and victimization (Nelson, Rubin, & Fox,
2005; Stewart & Rubin, 1995), and school refusal (Coplan & Prakash, 2003). Social isolation also
places youth at increased risk for a myriad of negative health and mental health outcomes such as
low self-worth (Rubin et al., 1995), depression (Ueno, 2005), anxiety (Coplan, Prakash, O’Neil, &
Armer, 2004; Vasa & Pine, 2006), loneliness (Prior, Smart, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 2000), physical
abuse (Elliott, Cunningham, Linder, Colangelo, & Gross, 2005), and suicide (Bearman & Moody,
2004).

1
Willamette University, Salem, OR, USA
2
University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
3
University of Macau, Macau, China

Corresponding Author:
Michael Niño, Willamette University, 900 State Street, Salem, OR 97301, USA.
Email: mdnino@willamette.edu
300 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3)

Although social isolation has immediate and significant social and health consequences, scholar-
ship that focuses on social isolation and delinquency generally finds that isolated youth are less at
risk for engaging in delinquent behavior (Demuth, 2004). These findings, along with peer network
studies that find peer delinquency consistently predicts youth violence (Haynie, 2001; Haynie &
Osgood, 2005; Henry, Tolan, & Gorman-Smith, 2001; Reingle, Jennings, & Maldonado-Molina,
2012), have led researchers to suggest that delinquency is primarily driven by social interaction,
exposure, and imitation. Although these studies have yielded important insights into the effects of
peers and social position on delinquency and violence, most do not consider that social isolation may
take different forms, which may be differentially associated with violent behavior.
In the present study, we draw on elements of general strain theory (Agnew, 1992) to hypothesize
effects of different types of social isolation on violent behavior. General strain theory argues that the
strain experienced, as a result of negative relationships and/or other conditions, leads to anger and
frustration, which increases the risk of engaging in delinquent or criminal behavior. Although
general strain theory has not addressed subtypes of social isolation in previous literature, the core
tenets of the framework can be useful in understanding the impact various marginalized social
positions have on violent behavior among adolescents. To that end, we posit that the motivations
and circumstances tied to subtypes of isolation produce varying levels of anger and frustration,
which influence the risk of engaging in violent behavior differently. Marginal social positions, and
the motivations and circumstances tied to these positions, are not the only strain producers. Other
negative events and relationships associated with adolescence can influence the strain experienced
by the subtypes of socially isolated youth. Therefore, we also hypothesize that other forms of strain
moderate the relationship between types of isolation and violent behavior.
To test our hypotheses, we use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health
(Add Health). The Add Health is the only large nationally representative sample of school-aged
youth in the United States that includes peer network data. The rich peer network data included in the
Add Health allowed for the development of a network measure that includes three distinct types of
social isolation (i.e., socially avoidant, actively isolated, and socially disinterested), along with a
fourth group representing sociable (nonisolated) youth. By disaggregating social isolation into
different forms, this study contributes to theoretical and empirical debates concerning social isola-
tion, strain, and violent delinquency.

Theory and Background

Two of the most prominent criminological theories, social learning and general strain theory, have
similar implications concerning marginalized youth and delinquent behavior. At the core of social
learning theory is the notion that violent behavior is learned through social relationships. Sutherland
(1947) argued that the transference of delinquent behaviors occurs within intimate friendship net-
works where attitudes concerning the appropriateness of delinquent behavior are discussed and
modeled. Akers and colleagues (Akers, 1968, 1977; Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich,
1979; Burgess & Akers, 1966) expanded this initial position, outlining various mechanisms by
which the learning process takes place. Their more general model rests on the concept of differential
reinforcement, which is the idea that behavior is influenced by rewards and punishments. Groups
controlling the major sources of rewards and punishments expose others to different behaviors and
define normative behavior. Based on this framework, learning theorists argue that violent delin-
quency is learned through a reciprocal process of exposure, imitation of peers, and the observation of
positive and negative consequences of behavior. In terms of marginalized youth, learning theory
implies that youth isolated from their peers are less prone to delinquent behavior due to a lack of
opportunity, reinforcement, and modeling of behavior.
Niño et al. 301

General strain theory (Agnew, 1992, 2001, 2006), an extension of Merton’s (1938) theory of
structural strain, focuses on a myriad of negative relationships and conditions that produce strain and
must be managed. Such relationships and conditions that produce strain include loss of positive
stimuli, the presentation of negative stimuli, and goal blockage. The strain associated with these
negative events and relationships produces emotions such as anger and frustration (negative affect)
that youth feel compelled to alleviate or reduce, potentially through delinquent behavior (Agnew,
1992). Delinquency is only one of many coping mechanisms that youth can utilize when experien-
cing strain. In an extension of general strain theory, Agnew (2001) theorized that youth are less
prone to use delinquency as a coping mechanism when self-efficacy, social support, positive peer
association, and positive morals and values are present. Certain types of strain are also more likely to
lead to delinquency than others. Events that are higher in magnitude (more severe), perceived to be
unjust, associated with low self-control, and create pressure or incentives to engage in delinquent
behaviors, all produce strain likely leading to delinquent behavior. From a general strain perspective,
the strain associated with youth social isolation is high in magnitude and may be perceived to be
unjust, but because marginalized youth spend little time with peers who model, reinforce, and
provide opportunities to engage in delinquent behaviors, the strain associated with isolation is
weakly related to delinquent behavior (Agnew, 2006).

Social isolation and delinquency. Studies examining the link between social isolation and delinquency
generally find support for both social learning theory and general strain theory. Tolone and Tieman
(1990) found that high school seniors who report low social involvement were less at risk for
delinquent behavior when compared to youth with increased social activity. In a similar study of
adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17, Demuth (2004) shows that self-reported loners were less
delinquent when compared to youth who reported having friends. Peer network studies present
findings similar to those from studies that rely on perceptions of social position. Using a subsample
of Add Health data, Haynie (2002) shows socially isolated youth were no more likely to engage in
delinquent behaviors when compared to nonisolated youth, lending support to previous findings on
peer attachment and delinquent behavior (Demuth, 2004; Tolone & Tieman, 1990). In the only study
to date examining network isolation and violent delinquency directly, Haynie and South (2005)
include network social isolation as a potential mediator for the relationship between residential
mobility and violence. The authors find socially isolated youth exhibit an increase in violence
initially, but the significant relationship diminished when including other potential mediators and
control variables. Although these findings provide support for social learning and strain theories, the
theoretical frameworks and their supporting studies do not adequately address the heterogeneity that
exists among socially isolated youth.
Many studies, mostly from developmental psychology, find youth are isolated for a number of
reasons. Some youth may be in a state of self-imposed isolation. These youth, often referred to as
socially withdrawn youth (Rubin, Coplan, & Bowker, 2009), generally fall into one of the two
categories: socially disinterested or socially avoidant. Socially disinterested youth reject peer inter-
action because of a lack of motivation to engage in social relationships. In other words, these youth
have the ability to engage in meaningful relationships but choose to remain in solitude (Coplan et al.,
2004). Socially avoidant youth exhibit a combination of poor social skills and high avoidance
motivations (Asendorpf, 1993). That is, these youth avoid contact with the broader peer network
and prefer to remain in isolation. Others may be forced into a state of isolation as a result of peer
rejection. These youth are often referred to as active isolators (Asendorpf, 1993; Rubin, 1982).
Currently, studies that lend support to social learning theory and general strain theory assume
isolates are a homogenous group. Social isolation is generally defined as youth lacking all relation-
ships, as compared to youth with social ties (Haynie, 2002; Kreager, 2004). Combining social
isolates into one group discounts important differences in motivations and experiences tied to other
302 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3)

types of marginalized youth. For instance, youth who have been rejected by their peers have been
linked to a number of poor behavioral outcomes.

Peer rejection and aggression. Peer rejected youth, also known as active isolators, have been studied
extensively in development psychology. Within this body of work, some have attempted to establish
personality subtypes associated with peer rejection, such as ‘‘rejected–aggressive,’’ ‘‘aggressive–
nonrejected,’’ and ‘‘rejected–withdrawn’’ (Bierman, Smoot, & Aumiller, 1993; Bierman & Wargo,
1995). Others argue peer rejection is not a personality trait but a characteristic of peer group
dynamics (Olweus, 1989). In the present study, our theoretical framework, data, and methodology
are more consistent with the latter view than with the former, although we do not view the two
perspectives (personality vs. peer group dynamics) as necessarily mutually exclusive.
Across a number of studies, peer rejected youth are shown to be at increased risk for aggressive
behavior (Dodge et al., 2003; London, Downey, Bonica, & Paltin, 2007; Prinstein & La Greca,
2004). Aggression among peer rejected youth can be both hostile and unprovoked, as well used as a
problem-solving mechanism (Coie, Dodge, Terry, & Wright, 1991). Studies find these patterns to be
consistent over time, demonstrating that as peer rejection increases as youth age so does aggressive
behavior (Kupersmidt, Burchinal, & Patterson, 1995). It is also important to note that studies suggest
that the rejection–aggression relationship is bidirectional: Youth who are aggressive also have the
potential to be actively isolated because their aggressive behavior is not appealing to their respective
peers (French, 1988; Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993).
In an effort to bridge peer rejection and general social isolation research, Kreager (2004) inves-
tigated the role of peer conflict on the relationship between network isolation (isolates vs. noniso-
lates) and property crime and gang affiliation. Kreager argued that stress associated with negative
peer relationships increased delinquent behavior among social isolates. The author found support for
this assertion, demonstrating that isolated youth with no peer trouble commit fewer property crimes
and were less likely to join a gang, while isolated youth with peer trouble had a higher probability of
joining a gang and increased property crime when compared with sociable youth. Although these
findings highlight the importance of strained peer relationships when examining the interplay
between isolation and delinquency, Kreager’s study does not address the heterogeneity that exists
among marginalized youth. The binary classification for network isolation assumes isolated youth
have similar motivations and experiences tied to their social position.

General strain theory, types of social isolation, and violent delinquency. Although general strain theory
does not explicitly acknowledge the subtypes of social isolation and the potential effects differences
in types of isolation may have on violent delinquency, the core tenets of the framework can be useful
in understanding the role types of isolation has on violent behavior among adolescents. The core
focus of general strain theory is on negative relationships and conditions that produce strain. Based
on the findings from the extant literature on peer rejection and aggression, we argue that youth who
are actively attempting to integrate into a network but have been unsuccessful (i.e., active isolators)
may engage in violent delinquency in order to alleviate frustration and anger tied to their social
position. Active isolators may also use violence as a mechanism to move out of their marginal
position. This is based on research that suggests aggression can play an important role in moving up
the status hierarchy in schools (Faris, 2012).
The different motivations and circumstances tied to youth in self-imposed isolation (i.e., the
socially withdrawn) may also elicit different levels of anger and frustration that increase the like-
lihood of coping in a violent rather than in a nonviolent way. Studies document distinct differences
in social and behavioral outcomes among socially withdrawn youth. For instance, studies find
socially avoidant youth to have the highest levels of social anxiety and depression when compared
to other marginalized youth (Coplan, Rose-Krasnor, Weeks, Kingsbury, & Bullock, 2013). Other
Niño et al. 303

studies find that among college students, those with the highest level of shyness and lowest levels of
sociability reported the greatest anxiety (Mounts, Valentiner, Anderson, & Boswell, 2006). In
contrast, socially disinterested children tend to spend more time in solitude but do not show signif-
icant differences in social and cognitive abilities when compared to sociable children (Coplan et al.,
2004). Socially disinterested children also do not differ from their sociable counterparts in terms of
school avoidance and loneliness (Coplan & Weeks, 2010).
In studies of adults, the strain associated with various types of loneliness have been found to elicit
different coping responses. Adults considered chronically lonely tend to adopt coping mechanisms
that can have detrimental health effects, including alcohol use (Cacioppo et al., 2000; Hawkley &
Cacioppo, 2010). Adults with temporary episodes of loneliness engage in active coping strategies, such
as talking with family and friends and attending religious services (Heinrich & Gullone, 2006; Wilson
& Moulton, 2010). Differences in motivations and experiences, as well as differences in social and
behavioral outcomes among isolated youth, suggest isolation types may cope and perceive their
marginalized position differently, which may elicit varying behavioral responses to strain associated
with isolation when compared to sociable youth. For these reasons, we test the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Due to differences in motivations, experiences, and perceptions of their mar-

ginalized positions, violent delinquency will vary across different types of isolated youth when
compared with sociable youth.

Social position is not the only circumstance that produces strain among adolescents. During this
developmental stage, youth reach sexual and physical maturity, test the boundaries of self-reliance,
develop more sophisticated social and cognitive skills, and establish educational goals that impact
future earnings and career opportunities (Harris, Duncan, & Boisjoly, 2002). Agnew (2006) posits
that during this turbulent period, youth are exposed to negative circumstances and relationships that
have the potential to produce strain. The loss of positive stimuli may include events such as loss of a
family member or changing residential location, which may result in a change in school. Presenta-
tion of negative stimuli includes events such as violent victimization and delinquent peers. Finally,
goal blockage may include poor academic performance or obtaining and maintaining peer friend-
ships. For instance, strain associated with low social control (e.g., parental abuse), negative school
experiences, peer aggression, and failure to achieve core goals are theoretically linked to delin-
quency (Agnew, 2001). We argue that other negative circumstances and relationships associated
with adolescence can compound the strain experienced by different types of socially isolated youth,
leading to violent behavior. This argument yields the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Strain measures will moderate the effects of types of social isolation on violent
delinquency.

Method
Data and Sample
This study uses Waves I and II of the Add Health, a nationally representative sample of approxi-
mately 20,000 adolescents in Grades 7–12 attending 132 schools in 1994–1995 (Wave I). Add
Health is a multistage cluster sample, with schools as the primary sampling unit. The sampling
frame includes 80 high schools, stratified by region, school size and type, racial/ethnic composition,
grade level, and curriculum. Feeder schools for each high school were included when available,
resulting in 132 schools in the final sample. At Wave I, an in-school survey was administered to
every student present on the day of the interview (N ¼ 90,118), followed by an in-home interview
(N ¼ 20,745) of randomly selected students from the in-school survey. Baseline interviews from the
304 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3)

in-home interviews were followed by in-home interviews in 1996 (Wave II) with the original Wave I
respondents (N ¼ 14,738). For inclusion in the analytic sample, respondents must have had valid
responses for all measures included from Waves I and II and valid sampling weights. The final
analytic sample included 10,665 adolescents from 122 schools.

Measures
Violent delinquency was measured using 6 items from the Wave II in-home survey. Students were
asked how often in the last 12 months they had used or threatened to use a weapon to get something
from someone, injured themselves or others in a serious physical fight, pulled a knife or gun on
someone, and shot or stabbed someone. Response categories for all items ranged from 0 ¼ never to 2
¼ more than once. Violent delinquency was calculated as the sum of the 6 items, with higher scores
representing increased violent behavior (Chronbach’s a ¼ .73).
Social isolation was derived from the friendship section of the in-school survey. Adolescents
were asked to nominate 5 of their closest male and female friends for a total of 10 friends. Students
were instructed to place named friends from their respective school rosters in ascending order,
starting with their best male and female friend. If a student nominated a friend who was not on the
roster, respondents were then asked whether the nominated friend did indeed go to the school,
attended the feeder school, or did not attend either school. In order to construct valid peer network
measures, only students who completed the in-school questionnaire and appeared on the school
roster were able to be considered for nomination. All students who completed a questionnaire were
given an identification number, allowing for all friendship nominations given to a student to be
traced back to this number.
Two basic network measures, in-degree (number of sent nominations) and out-degree (number of
received nominations), were used to construct types of youth isolation. Using these measures, we
constructed a nominal measure that characterizes three types of social isolation. The first two forms
of isolation represent subtypes (social avoidance and social disinterest) of social withdrawal, youth
in a self-imposed isolation. Youth were categorized as socially avoidant if they did not receive
nominations or send any nominations. This is a structural acknowledgment of a lack of motivation to
engage in friendship, coupled with a broad rejection by peers in the nomination process. Socially
disinterested youth received friendship nominations but had no students to nominate as friends. This
form of social withdrawal is a clear indication of an unwillingness to acknowledge friendships; yet,
received nominations make it possible to engage in peer interaction when necessary. Youth considered
to be in active isolation had friends to name; yet, they did not receive nominations. These youth are
considered to be in active isolation in the sense that they perceive themselves to have friends but have
been rejected by the school nomination process. All three forms of social isolation were dummy coded
with sociable youth (students with sent and received nominations) serving as the reference.
We included three measures of strain: educational strain, peer trouble, and violent victimization.
Educational strain includes 3 items asking the respondent whether they had trouble getting along
with teachers, paying attention in school, and getting homework done during the academic year.
Initial responses ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (everyday). Educational strain was operationalized as the
average of the 3 items, with larger values indicating higher educational strain (Chronbach’s a ¼ .67).
Peer trouble measured having weekly or greater problems with peers or not at the time of interview
(1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ otherwise). Violent victimization measured how often respondents had a knife or gun
pulled on them, been shot, cut or stabbed, or jumped in the last 12 months. Response categories for
all items ranged from 0 (never) to 2 (more than once). Violent victimization represents the average
of the 5 items, with higher values representing increased victimization (Chronbach’s a ¼ .73). We
include a measure for depressive symptoms to capture negative affect. Depressive symptoms was
operationalized the abbreviated 9-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D)
Niño et al. 305

Scale. Original responses ranged from 1 (never) to 4(every day). Depressive symptoms scores were
calculated as the mean of 9 items, with greater scores representing higher depressive symptoms
(Chronbach’s a ¼ .77). Studies using the abbreviated 9-item CES-D Scale have demonstrated that
the subscale is invariant across subgroups and contains the four factors (depressed affect, positive
affect, interpersonal relations, and somatic retarded activity) included in the original 20-item scale
(Meadows, McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2008).
In addition to the general strain theory measures, we also control for other variables that have
been associated with youth violence, such as peer violence, family relations, and school attachment.
Peer violence, a core factor of social learning theory, was measured using the peer network data
from the in-school survey. Peer violence was calculated as the average response of all friends in each
peer network to the question ‘‘in the past year, how often have you gotten into a physical fight?’’
Responses categories ranged from 0 (never) to 4 (more than seven times). Unfortunately, our
measure for peer violence does not include all of the same items included in the dependent variable.
The in-school survey, where peer network measures are derived from, did not include questions
assessing peer violent behaviors. Although peer violence does not include all of the same items
included in our violence measure, physical fighting is considered a serious act of violence and has
been used in previous Add Health studies (Haynie & Payne, 2006; Haynie, Silver, & Teasdale,
2006). Respondents with no friendships were assigned the sample-wide mean, so that the coeffi-
cients would compare to respondents with peers whose number of physical fights were average. In
preliminary analyses, we experimented with a number of other approaches, such as replacing the
missing value with zero, and the results were consistent. This approach has also been recently used
in similar research examining peer network positions and substance abuse (Osgood, Feinberg,
Wallace, & Moody, 2014).
Family relations, a common measure of family bonds, included 6 items from the following
statements: (1) ‘‘your parent cares about you,’’ (2) ‘‘people in your family understand you,’’ (3)
‘‘you and your family have fun together,’’ (4) ‘‘your family pays attention to you,’’ (5) ‘‘how close
do you feel to your father,’’ and (6) how close do you feel to your mother. Scores were calculated as
the mean of the 6 scores, with higher scores representing increased family relations (Chronbach’s a
¼ .77). School attachment includes three questions asking whether the respondent felt close to
people at school, felt like being part of the school, and felt happy at school. Initial responses ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). School attachment was measured as the average of
the 3 items (Chronbach’s a ¼ .71), with larger values representing higher levels of attachment.
Finally, we included a number of general demographic and familial factors, which include age,
gender, race/ethnicity, parent’s education, public assistance, and family structure. We control for
age by calculating the difference between interview month and year and year and month of birth.
Gender was measured as dummy variable (1 ¼ female). Race and ethnicity was measured using
respondents self-reported racial and ethnic background: Latino, African American, Asian, and non-
Hispanic White (reference). Parent’s education was measured using three dummy variables: less
than high school, high school graduate, and more than a high school diploma (reference). Public
assistance measured whether a respondent’s parents received public assistance such as welfare (1 ¼
yes, 0 ¼ otherwise). Family structure indicates that respondent was living in a two-parent household
or not at the time of interview (1 ¼ yes, 0 ¼ otherwise).

Analytic Strategy
We begin by presenting detailed statistics for each variable used in the analysis. Following these
descriptive analyses, we present a series of multivariate models. An initial baseline model examines
the effect of youth isolation on violent delinquency at Wave II, net control measures. Subsequent models
add, seriatim, strain measures, followed by interaction terms for types of isolation and strain measures.
306 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3)

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics by Isolation Type and Overall.

Overall, % Socially Avoidant, Actively Isolated, Socially Disinterested, Sociable, %

(N ¼ 10,665) % (n ¼ 257) % (n ¼ 726) % (n ¼ 2,342) (n ¼ 7,340)

Entire sample — 2.03 6.60 24.55 66.83

Gender
Female 50.35 36.87 48.03 42.46 53.88
Male 49.65 63.13 51.97 57.54 46.12
Race/ethnicity
Hispanic 10.98 17.97 14.68 15.44 8.76
Black 15.90 24.65 16.90 18.98 14.40
Asian 4.08 3.78 5.39 5.08 3.59
White 69.05 53.60 63.02 60.50 73.25
Family structure
Two biological 47.91 48.02 48.13 46.54 54.65
parents
Other family 52.09 51.98 51.87 53.47 45.35
structures
Public assistance
Yes 33.83 36.46 41.96 38.80 31.12
No 66.17 63.54 58.04 61.20 68.88
Parents education
<High school 11.52 16.88 17.57 14.42 9.70
High school 32.83 29.26 31.30 36.18 31.86
>High school 55.65 53.87 51.13 49.41 58.44

For the dependent variable (violent delinquency), a large proportion of respondents did not report
any acts of violence. In order to account for the skewed nature of the dependent variable, we estimate
a series of survey-corrected negative binomial regressions to predict violent delinquency at Wave II.
All covariates were from Wave I, whereas the dependent variable was from Wave II. All analyses
adjust for the clustered nature of the Add Health sampling design. In order to account for unequal
probability of selection due to oversampling based on race, disability, and siblings, all analyses were
weighted using poststratification weights. The inclusion of multiple crime, victimization, and delin-
quency measures poses the potential problem of multicollinearity. Preliminary analyses tested for
potential multicollinearity and found all scores to be within the acceptable range, which increased
confidence in our results.

Results
Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics for the overall sample, isolation subtypes, and
sociable youth. Findings demonstrate that approximately one third of adolescents were in marginalized
social positions at Wave I (33.18%). Of the social isolation subtypes, socially disinterested youth made
up the largest group (24.55%), followed by actively isolated youth (6.6%), and socially avoidant youth
(2.03%). Results from Table 1 also reveal that the average adolescent is sociable, White, lives in a two-
parent household, and has parents with more than a high school diploma. Findings also show notable
differences between isolation types and sociable youth. In terms of gender, more than three fifths of
socially avoidant youth are male. Patterns are similar for socially disinterested youth, with almost 60%
self-identifying as male. Among actively isolated and sociable youth, however, both groups are
roughly split between males and females. Although the majority of youth have parents with more
than a high school diploma, roughly 17% of socially avoidant and actively isolated youth have parents
with less than a high school diploma. These are the highest proportions across all groups.
Niño et al. 307

Table 2. Means for Violent Delinquency, Strains, and Negative Affect by Isolation Type and Sociable Youth.

Socially Actively Socially F

Overall Avoidant Isolated Disinterested Sociable Value

Violence
Violent delinquency 0.47 (.02) 0.64 (.12)a 0.54 (.04)b 0.59 (.04)a 0.41 (.02) 17.54*
Strains
Educational strain 1.09 (.02) 1.12 (.06) 1.05 (.04) 1.18 (.03)a 1.06 (.02) 14.36*
Peer trouble .16 (.57) .004 (.09) .012 (.15) .04 (.30) .11 (.50) 0.68
Violent victimization .16 (.68) .004 (.09) .011 (.17) .05 (.37) .10 (.50) 9.57*
Negative affect
Depressive symptoms 0.56 (.01) 0.57 (.03) 0.53 (.02)b 0.59 (.01)a 0.55 (.01) 8.28*

Note. Superscripts indicate that significant differences exist between groups for a particular measure.
a
Sociable youth. bSocially disinterested.
*Statistical significance at p < .001.

Table 2 presents mean comparisons for violent delinquency, three forms of strain, and depressive
symptoms by isolation subtypes and for sociable youth. Results indicate significant differences
between the various social positions for violent delinquency, educational strain, violent victimiza-
tion, and depressive symptoms. When compared to sociable youth, socially avoidant and socially
disinterested youth were more likely to engage in violent delinquency and report depressive symp-
toms. Actively isolated youth reported a lower probability of violent delinquency and depressive
symptoms when compared to socially disinterested youth. In terms of educational strain, socially
disinterested youth reported higher rates of strain when compared to sociable youth. Findings from
Table 3 also indicate significant differences between social positions and violent victimization, with
actively isolated youth reporting the highest proportion of victimization. Overall, findings from
Table 3 demonstrate substantial variation in violent delinquency, educational strain, violent victi-
mization, and depressive symptoms for isolation subtypes and sociable youth.

Relationships Between Isolation Types, Strain, and Violent Delinquency

Table 3 presents the negative binomial regression estimates that assess whether various types of
social isolation, compared to sociable youth, predict violent delinquency. The baseline model
(Model 1) demonstrates that the number of violent acts increased by 55.27%, (exp[.44] 
1)*100, for actively isolated youth, and by 44.77%, (exp[.37]  1)*100, for socially disinterested
youth when compared to sociable youth. Model 2 accounts for negative affect, social learning and
social control, and demographic characteristics. Results suggest that when accounting for these
variables, the coefficients for socially avoidant and socially disinterested reduced, making the
socially avoidant–violence relationship nonsignificant. When including the three strain measures
(Model 3), the significant difference between socially disinterested youth and sociable youth
remained but attenuated the relationship slightly (.19, SE ¼ .07, p < .01). Consistent with the general
strain theory, all three strain measures (i.e., victimization, educational strain, and peer trouble) were
positively and significantly related to violent delinquency. Adolescents who reported violent victi-
mization were 2 times more likely to experience an increase in violent delinquency. Furthermore, an
increase in educational strain and self-reported trouble with peers were associated with a 34.99% and
44.77% increase in violent delinquency, respectively.
The subsequent models in Table 2 evaluate the potential moderating effect various types of
strain have on the isolation–violence relationship. We find some evidence that the isolation–
violence depends on the types of strain. Model 4 of Table 2 shows that the number of violent
acts increased by over 130%, (exp[1.13 þ .27]  1)*100, for socially disinterested youth who
 Table 3. Estimates for Negative Binomial Regression Models Predicting Violent Delinquency.

308
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)

Isolation types
Socially avoidant .44 (.20)* .29 (.14)y .33 (.19)y .45 (.22)* .71 (.28)** .13 (.13)
Actively isolated .26 (.16)y .22 (.17) .17 (.16) .26 (.19) .20 (.25) .04 (.20)
Socially disinterested .37 (.07)*** .21 (.07)** .19 (.08)* .26 (.09)** .31 (.13)* .25 (.08)**
Strains
Victimization 1.13 (.09)*** 1.13 (.09)*** 1.01 (.07)*** 1.01 (.07)***
Educational stain .30 (.04)*** .30 (.04)*** .34 (.05)*** .30 (.04)***
Peer trouble .37 (.09)*** .37 (.09)*** .37 (.09)*** .26 (.08)**
Negative affect
Depressive symptoms .60 (.11)*** .22 (.11)* .22 (.10)* .21 (.11)y .20 (.10)y
Social learning and social control
Peer violence .36 (.07)*** .29 (.06)*** .28 (.06)*** .28 (.06)*** .29 (.06)***
Family relations .28 (.07)*** .19 (.06)*** .19 (.05)*** .19 (.06)*** .20 (.05)***
School attachment .04 (.04) .09 (.04)* .09 (.04)* .09 (.04)* .09 (.04)*
Demographics and other controls
Female .83 (.08)*** .58 (.08)*** .58 (.08)*** .58 (.08)*** .58 (.08)***
Age .09 (.02)*** .08 (.02)*** .08 (.02)*** .08 (.02)*** .08 (.02)***
Hispanic .53 (.10)*** .47 (.10)*** .48 (.10)*** .46 (.10)*** .47 (.10)***
Black .40 (.09)*** .43 (.09)*** .43 (.09)*** .43 (.09)*** .43 (.09)***
Asian .12 (.19) .13 (.22) .12 (.21) .13 (.22) .16 (.23)
Two biological parents .15 (.09) .13 (.08) .13 (.08) .13 (.08) .12 (.08)y
Public assistance .01 (.10) .03 (.09) .02 (.09) .03 (.09) .02 (.09)
<High school .13 (.12) .18 (.13) .18 (.12) .18 (.12) .18 (.12)
High school .20 (.09)* .22 (.08)** .22 (.08)** .22 (.08)** .22 (.08)**
Types of isolation and strain
Socially Avoidant  Victimization .46 (.34)
Actively Isolated  Victimization .37 (.33)
Socially Disinterested  Victimization .27 (.13)*
Socially Avoidant  Educational Strain .33 (.18)y
Actively Isolated  Educational Strain .03 (.12)
Socially Disinterested  Educational Strain .09 (.08)
Socially Avoidant  Peer Trouble .74 (.54)
Actively Isolated  Peer Trouble .43 (.31)
Socially disinterested  Peer Trouble .34 (.18)y

Note. N ¼ 10,665. b ¼ Unstandardized coefficient; SE ¼ standard error.

Statistical significance: yp < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).
Niño et al. 309

had been violently victimized. Socially disinterested youth who did not report violent victimiza-
tion were also at an increased risk, but the increased risk was substantially lower than those who
reported victimization (.19, SE ¼ .08, p < .01). Parameter estimates also indicate that sociable
youth who were violently victimized were positively and significantly related to violent delin-
quency (1.13, SE ¼ .09, p < .001).
Results from Model 5 show that educational strain does not moderate the relationship between
isolation types and violent delinquency, but an increase in educational strain for sociable youth
increased the number of violent acts by 41%, (exp[.34]  1)*100. Interestingly, estimates from
Model 5 also reveal an increase in the number of violent acts for socially avoidant (.71, SE ¼ .28,
p < .01) and socially disinterested youth (.31, SE ¼ .13, p < .05) who did not report educational
strain. The final model of Table 2 also produced similar findings for socially disinterested youth.
Socially disinterested youth who did not report peer trouble were significantly and positively related
to violent delinquency (.25, SE ¼ .08, p < .01). Self-reported peer trouble did have a significant
impact on sociable youth, increasing the number of violent acts by 29%, (exp[.26]  1)*100.
General strain theorists also argue that men and women experience and respond to strain differ-
ently (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). For instance, women are more likely to experience gender-based
discrimination, behavioral restrictions, extensive familial demands, and various types of victimiza-
tion, while men are more vulnerable to financial and employment-based strain, and they experience
more peer relationship problems (De Coster & Zito, 2010). Studies also find that men are more likely
to react to strain with anger, whereas women respond to strain with co-occurring emotions such as
guilt and anxiety (Mirowsky & Ross, 1995). Although women are vulnerable to anxiety and guilt,
they also tend to have more access to emotional social support that encourages positive coping
strategies. Broidy and Agnew (1997) argue that differences in types of strain experienced, emotional
responses to strain, and conditioning factors such as emotional support networks explain the gender–
crime gap. In our preliminary analyses, we tested these arguments by examining whether the
isolation–violence relationship varies by gender. Results indicate that gender did not moderate the
relationship between isolation subtypes and violent delinquency. Results for these preliminary
analyses are available upon request.

Discussion
Results from this project provide several important findings regarding marginalized youth, general
strain theory, and violent delinquency. First, when accounting for various marginalized positions,
socially isolated youth comprise a much larger proportion of the school population than previously
documented. Studies generally find that isolated youth comprise less than 10% of the population
(Demuth, 2004; Haynie, 2002; Kramer & Vaquera, 2011; Kreager, 2004), but our findings reveal
one third of adolescents were in marginalized positions in Wave I. Socially disinterested youth
constituted the largest proportion among socially isolated youth.
Guided by elements of general strain theory, we theorized that different types of isolation will
have varying effects on violent delinquency due to different motivations, experiences, and percep-
tions associated with particular marginalized positions. Furthermore, we argue that various negative
circumstances and relationships associated with adolescence will compound the strain experienced
by types of isolated youth, moderating the isolation–violent delinquency relationship.
Consistent with our first hypothesis, baseline results show that socially avoidant and socially
disinterested youth were more prone to violent delinquency when compared to sociable youth, but
the socially avoidant–violence relationship reduced to nonsignificance after controlling for relevant
factors. The increase in violent delinquency remained relatively consistent for socially disinterested
youth, which diverges from previous studies, where scholars find social isolates to have lower levels
of delinquency or show no significant differences in delinquency when compared to sociable youth
310 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3)

(Demuth, 2004; Haynie, 2002; Tolone & Tieman, 1990). We also find no evidence of a significant
difference in violence delinquency for actively isolated and sociable youth. Our subsequent findings
revealed that some types of strain conditioned the relationship between isolation types and violent
delinquency. For instance, socially disinterested and sociable youth who experienced violent victi-
mization were at increased risk for violence.
These findings run counter to positions put forth in the general strain theory. Agnew (2001)
argued that violent victimization is a type of strain that meets all criteria (i.e., severe, unjust, low
self-control, and incentive/pressure) for delinquent behavior. However, the strain produced by violent
victimization for socially disinterested youth may force these marginalized youth into a deeper state of
isolation. We also found that socially disinterested youth who did not report peer trouble were at
increased risk for violence. These findings suggest that strains associated with violent victimization,
education, and peers do not play a substantial role in amplifying the risk for violent delinquency for
some isolation types and in some cases decrease the likelihood of engaging in violence.
Future research can build on this study’s findings by addressing some of its limitations. First,
violent behavior only represents one type of delinquency. Future studies should investigate a greater
range of delinquent behaviors, such as property crime, and alcohol and drug use. Second, complete
friendship data were only collected in Wave I of in-school survey, which does not allow for the
observation of how isolation types evolve and adapt over time. Future research would benefit from
longitudinal peer network data that can capture the evolution of peer status and violent behavior as
youth age. Another area for future research involves the incorporation of other types of strain
associated with adolescence. For instance, Add Health has few measures that capture chronic stress
or personal discrimination (Eitle & Eitle, 2013). A more comprehensive array of strain types may
provide more insight into the role of strain on the isolation–violence relationship. Finally, given the
simple operationalization of a complex concept, such as youth social isolation, the results from this
study should be considered preliminary until future research can replicate these findings.
Despite its limitations, this study’s consideration of multiple types of social isolation, application of
general strain theory, and the use of nationally representative panel data provide new insight into the
relationship between youth isolation and violent behavior. Our findings call into question traditional
assumptions concerning the homogeneity of socially isolated youth, along with the argument that
youth isolation is inversely related to delinquent behavior. Findings from this study illustrate that some
types of marginalized youth are more at risk for violence, when compared to sociable youth, and other
negative experiences and circumstances associated with adolescence condition the isolation–violence
relationship. In a time when violent behavior among youth is of great concern, results of the present
study point to critical nuances in the isolation–violence relationship.

Acknowledgments
This research uses data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a program project directed
by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and funded by Grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other
federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle
for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data is available on the Add
health website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). No direct support was received from the Grant P01-
HD31921. Preliminary results from this article were presented in paper sessions at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association in San Francisco in August 2014.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Niño et al. 311

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30,
47–88.
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most
likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 319–361.
Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Akers, R. L. (1968). Problems in the sociology of deviance: Social definitions and behavior. Social Forces, 46,
455–465.
Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior:
A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44, 636–655.
Asendorpf, J. B. (1993). Abnormal shyness in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34,
1069–1083.
Bearman, P. S., & Moody, J. (2004). Suicide and friendships among American adolescents. American Journal
of Public Health, 94, 89–95.
Bierman, K. L., Smoot, D. L., & Aumiller, K. (1993). Characteristics of aggressive-rejected, aggressive (non-
rejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) boys. Child Development, 64, 139–151.
Bierman, K. L., & Wargo, J. B. (1995). Predicting the longitudinal course associated with aggressive-rejected,
aggressive (nonrejected), and rejected (nonaggressive) status. Development and Psychopathology, 7,
669–682.
Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 34, 275–306.
Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior.
Social Problems, 14, 128–147.
Cacioppo, J. T., Ernst, J. M., Burleson, M. H., McClintock, M. K., Malarkey, W. B., Hawkley, L. C., . . .
Berntson, G. G. (2000). Lonely traits and concomitant physiological processes: The MacArthur social
neuroscience studies. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 35, 143–154.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis
of aggression episodes in boys’ play groups. Child Development, 62, 812–826.
Coplan, R. J., & Prakash, K. (2003). Spending time with teacher: Characteristics of preschoolers who frequently
elicit versus initiate interactions with teachers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 143–158.
Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O’Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you ‘‘want’’ to play? Distinguishing between
conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 40, 244–258.
Coplan, R. J., Rose-Krasnor, L., Weeks, M., Kingsbury, A., Kingsbury, M., & Bullock, A. (2013). Alone is a
crowd: Social motivations, social withdrawal, and socioemotional functioning in later childhood. Develop-
mental Psychology, 49, 861.
Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Unsociability in middle childhood: Conceptualization, assessment, and
associations with socioemotional functioning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 56, 105–130.
De Coster, S., & Zito, R. C. (2010). Gender and general strain theory: The gendering of emotional experiences
and expressions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 224–245.
Demuth, S. (2004). Understanding the delinquency and social relationships of loners. Youth & Society, 35,
366–392.
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., Burks, V. S., Bates, J. E., Pettit, G. S., Fontaine, R., & Price, J. M. (2003). Peer
rejection and social information-processing factors in the development of aggressive behavior problems in
children. Child Development, 74, 374–393.
312 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3)

Eitle, D., & Eitle, T. M. (2013). General strain theory and delinquency: Extending a popular explanation to
American Indian youth. Youth & Society, 3, 3–30.
Elliott, G. C., Cunningham, S. M., Linder, M., Colangelo, M., & Gross, M. (2005). Child physical abuse and
self-perceived social isolation among adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1663–1684.
Faris, R. (2012). Aggression, exclusivity, and status attainment in interpersonal networks. Social Forces, 90,
1207–1235.
French, D. C. (1988). Heterogeneity of peer-rejected boys: Aggressive and nonaggressive subtypes. Child
Development, 59, 976–985.
Gest, S. D. (1997). Behavioral inhibition: Stability and associations with adaptation from childhood to early
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 467–475.
Harris, K. M., Duncan, G. J., & Boisjoly, J. (2002). Evaluating the role of ‘‘nothing to lose’’ attitudes on risky
behavior in adolescence. Social Forces, 80, 1005–1039.
Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of conse-
quences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 218–227.
Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 106, 1013–1057.
Haynie, D. L. (2002). Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 18, 99–134.
Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter? Social
Forces, 84, 1109–1130.
Haynie, D. L., & Payne, D. C. (2006). Race, friendship networks, and violent delinquency. Criminology, 44,
775–805.
Haynie, D. L., Silver, E., & Teasdale, B. (2006). Neighborhood characteristics, peer networks, and adolescent
violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 147–169.
Haynie, D. L., & South, S. J. (2005). Residential mobility and adolescent violence. Social Forces, 84, 361–374.
Heinrich, L. M., & Gullone, E. (2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical
Psychology Review, 26, 695–718.
Henry, D. B., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (2001). Longitudinal family and peer group effects on violence
and nonviolent delinquency. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 172–186.
Hymel, S., Bowker, A., & Woody, E. (1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children: Variations in
peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development, 64, 879–896.
Kerr, M., Lambert, W. W., & Bem, D. J. (1996). Life course sequelae of childhood shyness in Sweden:
Comparison with the United States. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1100.
Kramer, R. A., & Vaquera, E. (2011). Who is really doing it? Peer embeddedness and substance use during
adolescence. Sociological Perspectives, 54, 37–58.
Kreager, D. A. (2004). Strangers in the halls: Isolation and delinquency in school networks. Social Forces, 83,
351–390.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Burchinal, M., & Patterson, C. J. (1995). Developmental patterns of childhood peer relations
as predictors of externalizing behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 825–843.
London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection sensi-
tivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 481–506.
Meadows, S. O., McLanahan, S. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Stability and change in family structure and
maternal health trajectories. American Sociological Review, 73, 314–334.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1995). Sex differences in distress: Real or artifact? American Sociological Review,
60, 449–468.
Mounts, N. S., Valentiner, D. P., Anderson, K. L., & Boswell, M. K. (2006). Shyness, sociability, and parental
support for the college transition: Relation to adolescents’ adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
35, 68–77.
Niño et al. 313

Nelson, L. J., Rubin, K. H., & Fox, N. A. (2005). Social withdrawal, observed peer acceptance, and the devel-
opment of self-perceptions in children ages 4 to 7 years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 185–200.
Olweus, D. (1989). Prevalence and incidence in the study of antisocial behavior: Definitions and measurements.
In K. W. Malcom (Ed.), Cross-National research in self-reported crime and delinquency (pp. 187–201).
Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Osgood, D. W., Feinberg, M. E., Wallace, L. N., & Moody, J. (2014). Friendship group position and substance
use. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 923–933.
Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as predictors of adolescent
girls’ externalizing and health risk behaviors: A 6-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 72, 103–112.
Prior, M., Smart, D., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Does shy-inhibited temperament in childhood lead to
anxiety problems in adolescence? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39,
461–468.
Reingle, J. M., Jennings, W. G., & Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2012). Risk and protective factors for trajec-
tories of violent delinquency among a nationally representative sample of early adolescents. Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice, 10, 261–277.
Rubin, K. H. (1982). Non-social play in preschoolers: Necessary evil? Child Development, 53, 651–657.
Rubin, K. H., Chen, X., McDougall, P., Bowker, A., & McKinnon, J. (1995). The Waterloo longitudinal project:
Predicting internalizing and externalizing problems in adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 7,
751–764.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of
Psychology, 60, 141–171.
Stewart, S. L., & Rubin, K. H. (1995). The social problem-solving skills of anxious-withdrawn children.
Development and Psychopathology, 7, 323–336.
Sutherland, R. (1947). Principles in criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Tolone, W. L., & Tieman, C. R. (1990). Drugs, delinquency and ‘‘nerds’’: Are loners deviant? Journal of Drug
Education, 20, 153–162.
Ueno, K. (2005). The effects of friendship networks on adolescent depressive symptoms. Social Science
Research, 34, 484–510.
Vaquera, E., & Kao, G. (2008). Do you like me as much as I like you? Friendship reciprocity and its effects on
school outcomes among adolescents. Social Science Research, 37, 55–72.
Vasa, R. A., & Pine, D. S. (2006). Anxiety disorders. In C. Essau (Ed.), Child and adolescent psychopathology:
Theoretical and clinical implications (pp. 78–112). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Wilson, C., & Moulton, B. (2010). Loneliness among older adults: A national survey of adults 45þ. Washing-
ton, DC: Knowledge Networks and Insight Policy Research, AARP.

Author Biographies
Michael Niño is an assistant professor of sociology at Willamette University. His research interests
include drugs and alcohol, violent delinquency, international migration, Latina/Latino sociology,
and quantitative methods.

Gabe Ignatow is an associate professor of sociology at the University of North Texas. His research
interests include sociological theory, text mining, cognitive sociology, new media, information
policy, and globalization.

Tianji Cai is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Macau. His research interests
include health behaviors, gene–environment interactions, quantitative methods, and social networks.