Are Impulsive Adolescents Differentially Vulnerable to Normative or Situational Peer Influences? A Partial Replication Study

• Date: 01 November 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986219873185
• Published date: 01 November 2019
• Author: Ann De Buck,Lieven J. R. Pauwels
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219873185

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2019, Vol. 35(4) 461 –483

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1043986219873185

journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj

Article

Are Impulsive Adolescents

Differentially Vulnerable to

Normative or Situational

Peer Influences? A Partial

Replication Study

Ann De Buck1 and Lieven J. R. Pauwels1

Abstract

Ample research in criminology investigates the role of deviant peers in the

development of adolescent offending. Different theoretical explanations account

for distinct peer influences. The socialization perspective argues that deviant peers

influence behavior through the provision of norms and values, whereas the situational

perspective argues that deviant peers provide situational opportunities for deviant

behavior. This study partially retests the propositions put forward by Thomas and

McGloin’s study of dual systems, differential peer effects, and adolescent offending.

We address the question to what extent trait impulsivity affects social and situational

peer processes controlling for parental supervision, family bond, school bond, and

deviant norms. Analysis of the cross-national International Self-Report Delinquency

Study (ISRD3) data suggests that adolescents at the edges of trait impulsivity are

differentially vulnerable to the effects of deviant peer processes. However, the

findings need to be nuanced. We discuss the contribution of the current study to a

better understanding of the interplay between individual characteristics and exposure

to deviant peers.

Keywords

normative peer influence, situational peer influence, impulsivity, adolescent offending,

ISRD3

1Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Belgium

Corresponding Author:

Ann De Buck, Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000 Ghent,

Belgium.

Email: ann.debuck@ugent.be

873185CCJXXX10.1177/1043986219873185Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeDe Buck and Pauwels

research-article2019

462 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 35(4)

Introduction and Research Problem

There is an impressive amount of theoretical and empirical work arguing that peer

processes are related to adolescent offending. One could say that there are two broad

interpretations. A socialization perspective underscores the importance of normative

influences of associations with deviant peers. A situational perspective stresses the

importance of unstructured and unsupervised socializing with peers who need not nec-

essarily be deviant themselves. The latter asserts that merely unstructured and unsu-

pervised socializing with peers can create situational temptations and opportunities

that facilitate offending. The former emphasizes criminogenic processes operating at

the individual level with deviant peers teaching norms favorable to crime, providing

reinforcement and models of criminal behavior. These two viewpoints have been dom-

inant in the research on explaining adolescent offending. Yet, they seem to imply that

peer-based processes affect all adolescents in the same way. However, individuals

differ in their responses to given events or conditions (Matsueda, 1992) lending sup-

port to a differential peer influence hypothesis (Thomas & McGloin, 2013).

In their original study, Thomas and McGloin (2013) comment on the universality

of these two distinct peer perspectives from the framework of dual systems of cogni-

tive decision-making: that is, the theoretical distinction between System 1 and System

2 cognitions. Individual reactions to given criminogenic conditions may involve both

System 1 (i.e., “fast, automatic, intuitive”) and System 2 (i.e., “slower, effortful,

deliberate”) information processing. Also, certain individual traits such as impulsiv-

ity are said to influence the likelihood of “fast” or “slower” information processing.

The basic argument of Thomas and McGloin (2013) is that high- or low-impulsive

individuals should be differentially vulnerable to these peer influences because of

their tendency to rely on only one system of decision-making. Using two longitudinal

datasets, the authors found support for their proposition that deviant normative peer

influence increases the likelihood of offending especially in low-impulsive adoles-

cents. Besides, only minimal support was found for a differential influence of unstruc-

tured and unsupervised socializing with peers.

The present study restricts itself to one main goal, that is, to retest the propositions

of Thomas and McGloin (2013) using the same unifying theoretical framework. By

replicating a theoretical framework that questions the generality of two peer-based

processes for adolescent offending, we aim to contribute to the criminological litera-

ture in two ways. First, it has been argued that replication studies in criminology,

although rare and infrequently published (McNeeley & Warner, 2015), are necessary

to determine if a theory can survive critical tests and as such to ensure its robust

empirical success (Pridemore, Makel, & Plucker, 2018). Second, and more generally,

the original study of Thomas and McGloin (2013) addresses a topic that is at the heart

of the criminological discipline. It attempts to move forward our understanding of how

adolescents make their decisions to offend by appealing to a dual-systems model of

decision-making. In doing so, the authors aim to provide new insights that may help to

answer the question if adolescent offending is the result of impulsive or deliberate

decisions (for a state of the art review of the main paradigms in offender