The Causal Impact of Exposure to Deviant Peers

Abstract

Objectives: This study addresses the enduring question about whether exposure to deviant peers causes individuals to engage in deviance. Ample literature comments on this point, but methodological limitations prevent strong conclusions about causality. Method: The authors conducted a laboratory-based experiment under the guise of a memory/recall study for which participants could earn up to $20. All 91 participants had the opportunity to cheat on a computer-based word recall task by clicking on up to four links that provided access to the words in order to illegitimately earn more money for their performance. In the treatment condition (n = 47), subjects were exposed to a confederate who indicated an intention to cheat, justified this behavior, and cheated on the task. Results: Whereas none of the participants in the control condition cheated on this task, 38 percent of the participants in the treatment condition did. This effect endures when controlling for various attributes of participants in regression models. Supplemental analyses underscore the notion that clicking on the links reflected cheating rather than curiosity. Conclusions: This experiment provides evidence that exposure to a deviant peer can cause individuals to engage in deviance. Future experimental work should focus on determining the precise mechanism/mechanisms responsible.

An experimental investigation of the influence of deviant peers on own deviancy: A replication study

“…These results were consistent after controlling for different demographic and theoretical control variables that predict deviancy. Conclusions Although not identical in magnitude, our results echo those found by Paternoster et al (2013): Even a brief exposure to a previously unknown deviant peer increases the amount of deviant behavior in young adults. Future research should J Exp Criminol DOI 10.1007/s11292-017-9305-3…”

“…Overall, 28% of participants engaged in deviancy by clicking on one or more links in the online experiment. However, unlike in the experiment of Paternoster et al (2013), deviancy was not limited to those who were exposed to a deviant peer. In the control condition, 7 out of 36 participants (19%) clicked on one or more links.…”

“…But much of research in support of these prominent criminological theories is correlational, based on self-reported own deviancy and perceived peer deviancy, and is consequently confounded by the possibility of selection effects and projection bias. Therefore, this study aimed to contribute to the small body of experimental research on the influence of deviant peers by replicating previous work that examined the causal effect of a brief exposure to a deviant peer on own deviancy (i.e., Paternoster et al 2013). …”

“…The aim of this study was to replicate the effect of a brief exposure to a deviant peer found in Paternoster et al (2013), using the same design in a different sample. Further, in our study, there were small methodological differences: a different monetary award for deviancy, a female experimenter, and a female deviant peer.…”

“…Additionally, following Paternoster et al (2013), we also asked participants how important friends and school were to them, which may be related to both cheating and vulnerability to deviant peer exposure (Hirschi 1969;Moffitt 1993). BHow important is it to you that you have lots of friends?^(1 = not at all important and 5 =very important) and Bhow important is it to you that you do well in school?R esults Table 1 shows that, overall, the experimental and control conditions were very similar in regards to theoretical and demographic variables; the only significant difference was that there were only native Dutch participants in the experimental condition, whereas the control condition was comprised of both native Dutch and non-native Dutch participants (n = 6).…”