Affinity, Affiliation, and Guilt: Examining Between- and Within-Person Variability in Delinquent Peer Influence

Thomas, Karen A.; McCuddy, Timothy

doi:10.1080/07418825.2019.1634752

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It may be easy to deny responsibility or avoid guilt when fighting someone who was an initial aggressor by oneself or with another person, but these anticipated social costs may be notably more salient if this aggressor becomes a target of seven or eight people fighting him. This view aligns with Thomas and McCuddy's (2020) recent finding that when perceived guilt is high, deviant peers are less likely to promote conformity.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…As such, researchers were motivated to demonstrate that the presence of others (invariably) increases the probability of engaging in crime. Although some work has shown variation in the importance of peers as the proportion of criminogenic peers rises (e.g., Rees & Zimmerman, 2016;Thomas & McCuddy, 2020), the current study shifts the focus toward a more nuanced consideration of the impact of the deviant behavior of others. The inclusion of opt-out thresholds in the current study acknowledges the dynamic, interdependent nature of decision-making and bookends the group context as both an incentive and a disincentive for criminal behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can the group disincentivize offending? Considering opt‐out thresholds and decision reversals*

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars generally agree that offending decisions occur in social context, with some suggesting that choice models should explicitly integrate the notion that the deviant actions of others can incentivize offending. In this study, we investigate whether group settings can also disincentivize deviant action via reverse bandwagon effects, where individuals reverse their offending decision and express an intention to opt out of the criminal act. Based on survey data from three universities using hypothetical scenarios about theft and fighting, we find evidence of opt-out thresholds. Our findings indicate that deviant groups can serve as both an incentive and a disincentive, and that the relationship between group size and the perceived utility of crime is more complicated than prior work has suggested. Moreover, we find that these self-reported opt-out thresholds vary across scenarios, indicating that socially interdependent decision-making processes may be situation specific. In the end, the study underscores the importance of acknowledging the social context in offending decisions and highlights that group effects may be more complex and nuanced than previously discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Can the group disincentivize offending? Considering opt‐out thresholds and decision reversals*

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With regard to crime type, although individuals may follow the peer group when committing some crimes, they are unlikely to engage in crimes for which they anticipate high levels of guilt, and may therefore resist the peer group (Matza, ). Thomas and McCuddy () indeed found evidence that anticipated guilt moderated the influence of peers in a given time period within individuals across crime types. With regard to internal states, researchers have triggered “hot” affective decision‐making processes (i.e., affecting time preference) by manipulating emotional arousal (Figner, Mackinlay, Wilkening, & Weber, ).…”

Section: Integrative Perspectives On Peers and Decision‐makingmentioning

confidence: 94%

Peers and offender decision‐making

Hoeben

Thomas

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Offender decision‐making generally occurs in social context. In this article, we discuss the potential for integrating insights on peer processes and decision‐making processes to advance our understanding on the decision to engage in crime. In particular, we address the developmental and situational influence of peers on perceptions, preferences, and dual‐systems processing. We contribute to this literature by elaborating on situational peer processes and discuss the ways in which peers can affect decision‐making through their mere presence as well as through their active involvement as instigators, conversational partners, and co‐offenders. Policy Implications Programs to effectively reduce crime and delinquency require a holistic approach that takes into account the interdependency between internal and external factors that impact behavior. The purpose of this article was to detail how our understanding of two prominent explanations of crime —peer influence and rational choice—can mutually benefit from such integration.

show abstract

“…In fact, empirical studies begin by examining the three concepts of social learning theory—delinquent peers, delinquent values, and delinquent behavior. This theory proposes that youth who associate with delinquent peers are more likely to hold and reinforce delinquent values and, in turn, demonstrate a higher likelihood of delinquent behavior (Mowen & Boman, 2018; Thomas & Mccuddy, 2020). The theoretical perspective and previous empirical studies suggest that causal influences are unidirectional/recursive and that delinquency is merely a dependent variable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the Reciprocal Relationships Between Group-Based Developmental Trajectories of Peer Delinquency and Self-Reported Delinquency During Adolescence: An Application of Interactional Theory

Cho

2020

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines whether one’s own delinquency and peer delinquency are reciprocally related and how prior delinquency and bonding variables influence peer delinquency trajectories. Using data from a 6-year follow-up study of 2,351 Korean adolescents, the study incorporates a group-based model to identify subgroups, each having a unique pattern of peer delinquency trajectories. The models yielded three subgroups: the early-onset and declining, the late-onset, and the nonoffending groups. The results reveal that compared with the nonoffending group, prior delinquency was significant for both the early-onset and decreasing and late-onset groups. Membership in the early-onset and decreasing group was associated with a greater likelihood of prior delinquency compared with the late-onset group. Commitment to school rule differentiated the early-onset and decreasing group from the nonoffending group, and partially mediated the effect of prior delinquency. The late-onset group members reported the highest probability of later delinquent behavior among the three groups.

show abstract

Affinity, Affiliation, and Guilt: Examining Between- and Within-Person Variability in Delinquent Peer Influence

Cited by 12 publications

References 44 publications

Can the group disincentivize offending? Considering opt‐out thresholds and decision reversals*

Can the group disincentivize offending? Considering opt‐out thresholds and decision reversals*

Peers and offender decision‐making

Modeling the Reciprocal Relationships Between Group-Based Developmental Trajectories of Peer Delinquency and Self-Reported Delinquency During Adolescence: An Application of Interactional Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About