Is Unstructured Socializing a Dynamic Process? An Exploratory Analysis Using a Semiparametric Group-Based Modeling Approach

• Author: Wesley G. Jennings,George E. Higgins
• Published date: 01 December 2010
• Date: 01 December 2010
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016810377351
• Subject Matter: Articles

Is Unstructured Socializing a

Dynamic Process? An

Exploratory Analysis Using a

Semiparametric Group-Based

Modeling Approach

George E. Higgins

1

, and Wesley G. Jennings

2

Abstract

Relying on the theory of Osgood et al. of unstructured socializing (US) and using longitudinal data

from the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program, this study examines

whether US is a dynamic process and how the changes in US may relate to changes in

delinquency during adolescence for groups, who demonstrate different levels of involvement and

frequency of offending over time. Results from semiparametric group-based models indicate that

individuals tend to follow three distinct trajectories of US and four trajectories of delinquency.

Furthermore, additional results from multinomial regressions suggest that key covariates can signif-

icantly distinguish group membership and that the covariates that distinguish US trajectories distin-

guish the delinquency trajectories. Finally, the results demonstrate that there is a considerable

degree of overlap across trajectory groups. That is, those that follow the high-rate US trajectory

also tend to follow the high-rate delinquency trajectory. Study limitations and possible theoretical

implications are also discussed.

Keywords

unstructured socializing, opportunity, delinquency, crime, trajectories

Introduction

Few in criminology would argue that delinquent peer associations are not an important correlate

of delinquency (Akers, 1985; 1998; Haynie, 2001; Warr, 2002). Considering this relatively robust

association, a number of theoretical perspectives have commented on why peers play such an impor-

tant role in delinquency (e.g., see Agnew, 1992, 2006; Akers, 1998; Hirschi, 1969). Although these

1

Department of Justice Administration, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

2

University of South Florida, Tampa FL

Corresponding Author:

George E. Higgins, Department of Justice Administration, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Louisville, 2301 South

3rd Street, 208 Brigman Hall, Louisville, KY 40292, USA

Email: gehigg01@gwise.louisville.edu

Criminal Justice Review

35(4) 514-532

ª2010 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016810377351

http://cjr.sagepub.com

514

classic general theories of crime differ in their assumptions and explanations on how and why peers

matter and at what stages peers may matter more for contributing to delinquency, they nevertheless

agree that peers are significant.

Expanding beyond these classic general theories of crime, Osgood, Wilson, Bachman, O’Malley,

and Johnson (1996) have since added to the theoretical discussion regarding the role of peers in

delinquency. More specifically, the theory of Osgood et al. is conceptually a modification of

the basic tenets of routine activities theory recognizing the importance of its three key elements:

(a) a motivated offender (with the motivation coming from the situation itself and not internal to the

individual); (b) a suitable target (which is part of the situation and is a person or object; the suitabil-

ity of the situation is determined by the possibility of the reward); and (c) a lack of capable guardian-

ship (peers or capable adults that may not be bonded with the individual and, thus, performing social

control to stop delinquent acts). Furthermore, central to the theory of Osgood et al. is unstructured

time spent with peers. For Osgood et al., delinquency is possible when the individual spends a sub-

stantial amount of time with peers outside of the purview of capable guardians. It is the expectation

that when an individual engages in delinquency, peers provide the rewards and status for the act.

Following from this initial reinforcement process, the rewards and the increase in status are believed

to supply the qualities necessary for the continuation of delinquency. Thus, the theory of Osgood

et al. is one that accounts for the initiation and continuation of delinquent behavior.

Although this theory has been in existence for some time now in the criminological literature, the

theory has not been extensively explored, but those that have explored the theory have demonstrated

support for the relationship between unstructured socializing (US) and delinquency (Haynie &

Osgood, 2005; Osgood & Anderson, 2004; Osgood et al., 1996). However, acknowledging that these

tests revealed support for the theory of Osgood et al., they did not provide an examination of (a) the

changes that may take place with US over time; (b) the predictors of the changes that may take place;

and (c) the relationship between the changes that may take place in US and delinquency.

Attending to the gap in this line of literature as outlined above, the purpose of the current study is

threefold. First, we investigate if and to what extent US is in fact a dynamic process that may follow

trajectories. Second, guided by prior literature (Osgood & Anderson, 2004) and operating under the

assumption that there are distinct trajectories of US, we examine whether key covariates are able to

distinguish trajectories of US and delinquency. Third, we assess the possible link/overlap between

the trajectories of US and the trajectories of delinquency.

US

As mentioned previously, Osgood et al. (1996) derived their version of US from the basic tenets

of routine activities theory (see Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1998). They suggest that delinquency

is possible when an individual is away from his or her home or family when a situation provides

ample motivation. Consequently, when adolescents are in the company of their peers without super-

vision from authority figures (i.e., adults) the opportunity for delinquency increases. This is not to

argue that US is a necessary condition for delinquent behavior, but rather that it makes delinquency

more likely because no authority figure is present to help the adolescent avoid the temptation. Thus,

it is in this particular situation where there is the lack of an authority figure, when an individual is

more likely to succumb to an opportunity of delinquency. This does not mean that the lack of an

authority figure and US generate the motivation for delinquency. However, Osgood et al. argue that

the motivation for delinquency comes from the act being possible and rewarding.

Peers make delinquency appealing because they provide an opportunity to reward delinquency as

well as the means to make delinquency easier to perform, thereby making the behavior possible and

rewarding. Peers are consistently known for making delinquency easier to engage in because they

may assist in the performance of delinquency. That is, peers do not have to provide tangible rewards

Higgins and Jennings 515

515