Background Parents’ stress resulting from hospitalization of their infant in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) produces emotional and behavioral responses. The National Institutes of Health–sponsored Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) offers a valid and efficient means of assessing parents’ responses. Objective To examine the relationship of stress to anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep disruption among parents of infants hospitalized in the NICU. Methods Thirty parents completed the Parental Stressor Scale (PSS:NICU) containing subscales for NICU Sights and Sounds, Infant Behavior and Appearance, and Parental Role Alteration, and the PROMIS anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep disturbance short-form instruments. Results PSS total score was significantly correlated with anxiety (r = 0.61), depression (r = 0.36), and sleep disturbance (r = 0.60). Scores for NICU Sights and Sounds were not significantly correlated with parents’ outcomes; however, scores for Alteration in Parenting Role were correlated with all 4 outcomes, and scores for Infant Appearance were correlated with all except fatigue. Conclusion Stress experienced by parents of NICU infants is associated with a concerning constellation of physical and emotional outcomes comprising anxiety, depression, fatigue, and sleep disruption.

The distinct peer‐based perspectives of deviant normative influence and unstructured/unsupervised socializing with friends contend that adolescents rely on different information when deciding to offend, with the former positing that individuals offend after considering the longer term consequences of behavior, and the latter positing that decisions to offend derive from situational stimuli. We argue that these processes can be organized under a dual‐systems framework of decision making, which leads to the hypothesis that individuals at the edges of impulsivity should be differentially vulnerable to these peer influence processes because of their tendency to rely on only one system of decision making. We use two large data sets to test this hypothesis: a nationally representative sample of adolescents from the AddHealth study (N = ∼9,000) and a pooled panel data set of adolescents from the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) evaluation (N = 1,172). The results of longitudinal negative binomial analyses indicate that normative influence by deviant peers has a stronger effect on delinquency for adolescents with low impulsivity than it does for individuals with high impulsivity. Differences in the informal socializing with peers coefficients are less clear and offer minimal support for our predictions.

Research has demonstrated that the presence of others shifts decision‐making about risky/deviant behavior. One reason for this shift could be changes in the anticipated experience of formal sanctions, informal costs, and rewards. To investigate this possibility, this study conducted two randomized controlled trials with hypothetical vignettes, in which a range of how many other people were also involved in the criminal act defined the treatment conditions. Across two samples of university students (Ns = 396 and 263), the results revealed that as the size of the involved group increased, the anticipated experience of sanction risk and several informal social costs associated with engaging in the act decreased, and the anticipated experience of two rewards increased. Additional analyses suggest that, with one exception in each data set, these changes are not only tied to the solo/group distinction.

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

Some concern has arisen over the overly “routine” use of conducted energy devices (CEDs) and their effectiveness in achieving important policy goals such as reducing the incidence of lethal force. These concerns directly call into question the departmental policy surrounding these devices. Using a large, national sample of chief executive officers of municipal law enforcement agencies (N = 210), the analyses reported here (a) describe the current state of CED policy, including placement on the use of force continuum; (b) assess departmental perceptions of the effectiveness of CEDs in reducing the incidence of lethal force; and (c) examine how variations in CED policy is related to a number of use of force outcomes. Findings suggest that 56% of departments surveyed reported that CEDs reduced the need to use lethal force. Moreover, regression analyses indicate that higher placement of CEDs on the use of force continuum is related to both fewer CED deployments and, although not significantly, also to reported reductions in the use of lethal force. Implications for policy and research are discussed.