Book Review: Peer pressure, peer prevention: The role of friends in crime and conformity

• Author: Samantha S. Clinkinbeard
• Published date: 01 December 2017
• Date: 01 December 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016817694939
• Subject Matter: Book Reviews

Costello, B. J., & Hope, T. L. (2016).

Peer pressure, peer prevention: The role of friends in crime and conformity. New York, NY: Routledge.

ix, 121 pp. $44.95, ISBN 978-1-138-95169-3.

Reviewed by: Samantha S. Clinkinbeard, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA

DOI: 10.1177/0734016817694939

Barbara Costello and Trina Hope contribute to the literature on peer influence in the areas of crime

and conformity by exploring questions and using simple methodologies that have been long over-

looked by criminologists. The authors argue that despite decades of work confirming that delinquent

youth often have delinquent friends and a lot of deviant behavior happens in groups, we still know

little about the mechanisms of peer influence. The authors note that because criminologists have

long operated based on the assumption that peer influence is negative, the field has ignored the

potentially positive effects that peers can have on one another. Costello and Hope investigate three

questions: (1) Do friends have a causal influence on deviant behavior and what are the mechanisms

through which this might happen? (2) Are positive influence attempts by friends commonplace and

what are the mechanisms of positive influence? and (3) What is the relationship between social and

self-control and the frequency and success of influence attempts?

Costello and Hope argue that the failure to fully understand the inner workings of peer influence

exists, in part, because ‘‘...the most sophisticated statistical methods cannot overcome the problem

of not asking our respondents the right questions’’ (p. 9). The authors approach the subject of peer

influence simply, yet effectively, by directly asking participants to describe how peers influence one

another. Utilizing class essays and open-ended survey questions, they asked students at two uni-

versities to describe instances in which they witnessed individuals or groups influence, or attempt to

influence, the behavior of others in either negative or positive directions.

The authors begin by reviewing the state of theory and literature on peer influence and identifying

the unanswered questions explored in later chapters. In Chapter 3, they explore the qualitati ve

accounts of negative peer influence and find evidence that peers do directly influence each other

toward deviant behavior, ruling out self-selection as the sole explanation for peer influence. They

find that peers influence each other in a number of ways, supporting aspects of multiple theoretical

frames. Consistent with self-selection, self-control, and routine activities, participants frequently

reported simple offers or invitations as being enough to encourage deviance. They also found that

deviance happened as a result of desires to emulate others or fit into a desired crowd, even without

specific prompting. Finally, general peer pressure and coercive attempts, which are more in line with

aspects of subcultural explanations and learning theories, were fairly common.

In Chapter 4, the authors presented the findings on positive peer influence, noting that respon-

dents reported more instances of positive influence than negative, contradicting the assumption

that peer influence is relegated to the adverse. General pressure was common, as was the use of

coercive tactics and emphasizing the consequences, either positive or negative, of the behavior in

question. The authors also reported a simple opportunity effect and evidence supportive of direct

influence on behavior by peers. Costello and Hope suggest that there is still much to learn about

positive influence, including the questions of who does it, when does it happen, and under

what circumstances.

In Chapter 5, the authors use survey data to test various hypotheses about peer informal social

control. The authors predicted that individuals with higher self-control, peer attachment, and general

social bonds would be more likely to attempt to intervene on behalf of their friends. Participants with

strong peer attachment were not necessarily more likely to intervene but were more likely to be

successful when they did. They were also more likely to be targets of social control attempts. Social

416 Criminal Justice Review 42(4)