Is Peer Delinquency in the Eye of the Beholder?
| Author | Ryan C. Meldrum,Jamie L. Flexon |
| DOI | 10.1177/0093854815569729 |
| Published date | 01 September 2015 |
| Date | 01 September 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2015
Is Peer DelInquency In the eye of the
BeholDer?
Assessing Alternative operationalizations of
Perceptual Peer Delinquency
RyAN C. MELDRUM
JAMIE L. FLExON
Florida International University
Researchers have devoted significant attention to the measurement of peer delinquency, with recent work indicating that
perceptual measures are plagued by various biases. Absent from this research is an inquiry into whether the manner in which
perceptions are typically operationalized potentially contributes to these limitations. In this study, we report on a method-
ological quasi-experiment where the operationalization of perceptual peer delinquency was manipulated across two different
versions of a survey questionnaire completed by a sample of young adults. Results indicated no significant difference in the
strength of the association between perceptual peer delinquency items and self-reported delinquency items across the two
survey conditions. As such, this study provides preliminary evidence that existing limitations of perceptual measures of
peer delinquency cannot be overcome by altering the manner in which such items are operationalized within survey
questionnaires.
Keywords: peer delinquency; measurement; perceptions; quasi-experiment; peer influence
Measures of peer delinquency occupy a central role within contemporary criminologi-
cal research (e.g., Boman, Stogner, Miller, Griffin, & Krohn, 2012; Boman, young,
Baldwin, & Meldrum, 2014; Meldrum & Boman, 2013; Rebellon & Modecki, 2014; young,
Rebellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2014), prompted in large part by Sutherland’s (1947) dif-
ferential association theory and Akers’s (2009) social learning theory. For several decades,
the empirical importance attributed to peer delinquency has rested upon the finding that
perceptual measures of peer delinquency are one of the strongest known correlates of one’s
own delinquency (Agnew, 1991; Pratt et al., 2010; Warr, 2002). yet, the validity of these
measures has been questioned by several researchers (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990;
Haynie & Osgood, 2005; Rebellon, 2012). For example, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990)
Authors’ note: The authors would like to thank Jean McGloin and the anonymous reviewers for helpful
comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Dr. Ryan Charles Meldrum, Department of Criminal Justice, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th
St., PCA-364B, Miami, FL 33199; e-mail: rmeldrum@fiu.edu.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2015, Vol. 42, No. 9, September 2015, 938 –951.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854815569729
© 2015 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
938
Meldrum, Flexon/ ASSESSING ALTERNATIVE OPERATIONALIZATIONS OF PERCEPTUAL PEER DELINQUENCy 939
contended that perceptions of peer delinquency are biased to the extent that respondents
reference their own behavior or impute friendship to individuals who engage in behavior
similar to their own. Informatively, a growing number of studies provide evidence that per-
ceptual measures are contaminated by more than random measurement error, resulting in
inflated estimates of the concordance between peer delinquency and respondent delin-
quency (e.g., Boman et al., 2012; Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Rebellon & Modecki, 2014;
young, Rebellon, Barnes, & Weerman, 2013).
To the extent that perceptual measures reflect more than a respondent’s actual knowledge
of the delinquency of his or her peers and random measurement error, studies based on the
use of such measures may produce upwardly biased estimates of peer influence. Given the
importance attributed to perceptions of peer delinquency by social learning theorists (Akers,
2009), finding ways to purge such indicators of bias warrants attention. In this regard, some
researchers have attempted to achieve this by using methods to statistically account for
errors in perceptual measures of peer delinquency (e.g., Matsueda & Anderson, 1998). For
example, Rebellon and Modecki (2014) recently found that correlating error terms between
indicators of perceived peer violence and respondent violence reduced the association
between latent factors of perceived peer violence and respondent violence by 15%.
Beyond attempting to statistically rid perceptual measures of bias, a more fundamental
question concerns the manner in which such indicators have been measured. As young et al.
(2013) recently observed, “Operationalization of key theoretical constructs is a crucial step
in any empirical examination” (p. 22). Traditionally, perceptual peer delinquency is mea-
sured by having survey respondents report on the delinquent behavior of their generalized
peer group, oftentimes with ambiguous response categories (e.g., Elliott, Huizinga, &
Ageton, 1985). It is possible that such operationalizations could contribute to the biases
contained within perceptual measures of peer delinquency identified through prior research.
yet, no studies have sought to systematically investigate alternative operationalizations of
peer delinquency and compare them against traditional operationalizations. Therefore, the
purpose of this study is to provide a methodological quasi-experiment in which the opera-
tionalization of perceptions of peer delinquency is manipulated across two different ver-
sions of a survey questionnaire. Prior to describing the design of the study and measures, we
first discuss in greater detail prior research focused on perceptions of peer delinquency,
with particular attention given to studies identifying limitations surrounding the use of such
measures and reasons why traditional operationalizations of perceptual measures might
contribute to these issues.
MeAsurIng PercePtIons of Peer DelInquency
Central to tests of social learning theory (Akers, 2009) and differential association theory
(Sutherland, 1947), traditional measures of peer delinquency are based on having survey
respondents report on the behaviors of their friends. Put differently, rather than being objec-
tive, such indicators are subjective, perceptual assessments of the delinquency of peers. The
prototypical example of a perceptual measure of peer delinquency is that which has been
used in the National youth Survey (NyS; Elliott et al., 1985) and utilized in a number of
studies (e.g., Agnew, 1991; Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Warr, 1993; Warr & Stafford,
1991). In the NyS, respondents are first asked to name friends they “run around with.”
Then, they are asked, “Think of the people you listed as close friends. During the past year,
940 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
how many of them [insert act here]?” Response options include “none of them,” “very few
of them,” “some of them,” “most of them,” and “all of them” (coded 1-5, respectively).
Thus, a proportional measure of perceptual peer delinquency is generated in the NyS by
having respondents report on their generalized peer group within single items.
Other data sets have included similar operationalizations. For example, the Rochester
youth Development Study asks respondents to indicate how many of their friends have
committed delinquent acts within the past 6 months, ranging from “none of them” (coded
1) to “most of them” (coded 4; see Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, Farnsworth, & Jang, 1994).
Likewise, The Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)
School Project (Weerman & Smeenk, 2005) asks respondents how many of their friends
have engaged in behaviors such as robbery and theft, with response options of “no one,”
“some,” and “most or all” (coded 0-2, respectively). In a slightly different manner, the Add
Health Survey (see Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004) asks respondents to indi-
cate, “Of your three best friends, how many use [drug] at least once a month?” with “0
friends,” “1 friend,” “2 friends,” and “3 friends” (coded 0-3, respectively) offered as options.
Thus, while there are slight differences in the wording of various operationalizations of
perceptual measures of peer delinquency across different studies, what remains constant is
that respondents are asked to provide their perceptions of the delinquency of multiple
friends within single items on survey questionnaires.1
Issues In the MeAsureMent of PercePtuAl Peer DelInquency
Although perceptual measures of peer delinquency like those described are found to be
strongly associated with respondent delinquency (Meldrum & Boman, 2013; Pratt et al.,
2010; Warr, 2002), significant criticism of these measures has been levied by various
researchers. For example, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) contended that when being asked
to provide information on the behavior of peers, individuals may reference their own behav-
ior, what is referred to as projection (Newcomb, 1961). Concordantly, Hymel (1986) argued
that “individuals may selectively attend to, utilize, and interpret information to which they
are exposed” (p. 432), resulting in disproportionate attention to behaviors and attitudes that
match their own. This, too, may lead to upwardly biased estimates of perceptual peer delin-
quency stemming from “assumed similarity” or “false consensus” mechanisms (Marks &
Miller, 1987), where individuals overestimate similarity between the attitudes and behavior
of others and their own...
To continue reading
Request your trial