preview

Peer Pressure and Adolescent Delinquency

analytical Essay
1523 words
1523 words
bookmark

Magnusson (1988) and Brofenbrenner (1979) state that social environment in which a person is embedded is essential in the study of their behavior. The theoretical framework of developmental and life course theories of crime allow for the addition of the dynamic element of time and places an emphasis on the longitudinal processes of how the interaction between the individual and his or her social environments constrain and influence behavior.

This longitudinal perspective opens up the possibility that the peer social environment is one that is dynamic. Friendships can be added and terminated resulting in the number of friends reported changes from childhood into and through adolescence. Children moving from intimate elementary classroom settings into a broader age range of adolescents in junior high and high school increases the potential for developing friendships with older adolescents. At the same time, the quality of the relationships with these friends may also be changing. Adolescent relationships are becoming more intimate than those of childhood with the sharing of intimate feelings and being aware of the needs of others becoming a prominent feature of friendship during adolescence.

However, even though several aspects of the peer social environment may be undergoing transition and change during adolescence it is also during this time that friendships are hypothesized as becoming the most important social context in which an adolescent functions. Accordingly, time spent in the peer social environment occupies the greatest part of an adolescent’s day (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1984). If this is the case, a natural question to ask is what happens to the pattern of influence peers have on delinquent outcomes during adolescence?

According to life course theory, peers will have a significant influence on delinquent behavior in early adolescence and this influence grows as the primary social environment in which an adolescent functions shifts from parents to peer networks but then diminishes in late adolescence as it shifts to an increased commitment to conventional activities. This explicitly points to a changing pattern of influence within the social institution of peers.

Peer Influence on Delinquency During Adolescence

Much of the prior research on the age varying influence of peers on delinquency during adolescence is based on cross-sectional studies which do not explore influence variation across the entire adolescent time frame. It is thus difficult to identify a discernable pattern of influence.

In this essay, the author

  • Explains that magnusson (1988) and brofenbrenner (1979) state that the social environment in which a person is embedded is essential in the study of their behavior.
  • Analyzes how the longitudinal perspective opens up the possibility that the peer social environment is dynamic. friendships can be added and terminated resulting in the number of friends reported changes from childhood into and through adolescence.
  • Argues that friendships are the most important social context in which an adolescent functions, and that time spent in the peer social environment occupies the greatest part of their day.
  • Explains life course theory that peers influence delinquent behavior in early adolescence. this influence grows as the primary social environment shifts from parents to peer networks.
  • Explains that previous research on the age-varying influence of peers on delinquency during adolescence is based on cross-sectional studies.
  • Opines that cross-sectional studies do not present a consistent pattern to the varying influence of peers on delinquency.
  • Opines that while longitudinal data resolves some of the methodological issues inherent in cross sectional studies, it does not mean that previous longitudinal studies of delinquent peer effects present a clear pattern of peer influence.
  • Explains that longitudinal studies indicate that peer influence on delinquency fluctuates but the pattern across early, mid, and late adolescence is not unambiguous.
  • Explains that jang (1999) states that the mixed evidence from prior longitudinal studies on peer influence is due in part to a limited number of waves, the age of the respondents varying within each wave, and the focus on between individual differences.
  • Argues that methodological issues could be contributing to the mixed pattern of results found in the studies reviewed here. thornberry and krohn (2003) point out that longitudinal studies do not necessarily incorporate detailed measures of key explanatory variables.
  • Explains that the respondent could project or impute their own behavior onto that of his or her peers making the correlation between the two variables artificially high or even significant. jussim and osgood provide partial validation for this critique.
  • Explains the use of detailed social network data to overcome projection issues in peer delinquency research and gain an accurate assessment of peer influence during the adolescent time frame.
Get Access