Positive Parents and Negative Peers: Assessing the Nature and Order of Caregiver and Friend Effects in Predicting Early Delinquency

• Date: 01 January 2020
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Author: Glenn D. Walters
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204019831751
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2020, Vol. 18(1) 96-114
Positive Parents and Negative
ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Peers: Assessing the Nature
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1541204019831751
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
and Order of Caregiver and
Friend Effects in Predicting
Early Delinquency
Glenn D. Walters1
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the nature and direction of the relationship between
parenting and peer effects in predicting early delinquency. The parenting–peer relationship was
evaluated in 1,734 (811 male, 923 female) early adolescent members (mean age ¼ 12.10 years) of the
Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) study. A seven-equation path analysis was per-
formed across three waves of data. The statistical significance of 16 indirect effects was evaluated
using the Monte Carlo Method for Assessing Mediation. Two of the three pathways predicted to be
significant were, in fact, significant (i.e., parental support to gang affiliation to participant delinquency;
parental support to peer delinquency to participant delinquency), and all 13 pathways projected to
be nonsignificant were, in fact, nonsignificant. Consistent with the research hypothesis for this study,
prior parental support acted as a buffer against the delinquency-promoting effects of negative peer
associations in early adolescent children.
Keywords
friend prosocial involvement, gang affiliation, parental knowledge, parental support, peer delin-
quency, unsupervised routine activities
Parenting and peers figure prominently in several major theories of crime. Control theories, for
instance, accentuate the role of parenting in providing a child with the skills required to avoid future
delinquent involvement (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969; Reiss, 1951), whereas peers
are of cardinal significance to theorists operating out of a social learning framework (Akers, 1998;
Sutherland, 1947; Warr, 2002). Parenting and peers are also two of the strongest predictors of future
antisocial behavior (Bernard, Snipes, & Gerould, 2016; Day & Wanklyn, 2012; Shader, 2004).
Questions arise, however, when it comes to explaining the parenting–peer relationship. Three of
these questions formed the foundation of current study: (1) Is it parental support or control that is
1 Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Glenn D. Walters, Department of Criminal Justice, Kutztown University, 361 Old Main, Kutztown, PA 19530, USA.
Email: walters@kutztown.edu

---

Walters
97
most effective in shielding a child from early delinquency? (2) Is it positive or negative peer
associations that are most strongly predictive of early delinquency? And (3) Does parenting precede
peer associations in predicting early delinquency? This article begins with a brief review of parental
support and control and positive and negative peer effects as risk and protective factors for delin-
quency, followed by a review of studies on the direction of the parenting–peer relationship as it
pertains to early delinquency.
Parenting
Parenting factors are often divided into categories of parental support and control. Whereas parental
social support means encouraging positive behavior by developing a robust emotional bond with the
child, parental control entails disciplining the child, setting reasonable limits on behavior, and
providing the child with proper guidance, supervision, and monitoring. Although parental monitor-
ing is one of the more commonly cited elements of parental control, there are disagreements between
researchers as to the nature of monitoring and its relationship to delinquency. Kerr and Stattin
(2000), for instance, note that most measures of parental monitoring assess parental knowledge of
a child’s whereabout and friendship networks rather than active parental supervision and surveil-
lance of the child’s behavior; they also report that parental knowledge items correlate more con-
sistently with delinquency than parental supervision/surveillance items. In a review of the literature
on parenting and delinquency, Hoeve et al. (2009) determined that parental support and control
correlated equally well with offspring delinquency, although certain forms of support and control
were more powerful correlates of delinquency than other forms of support and control. Confirming
the results of an earlier review by Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986), Hoeve and colleagues
disclosed that parental rejection and poor supervision were among the strongest correlates and
predictors of child delinquency.
The conclusion reached by Hoeve and colleagues (2009) was that support and control are equally
effective in managing the behavior of children. Research conducted since the Hoeve et al. (2009)
meta-analysis, however, suggests that parental social support may present certain advantages over
parental control when it comes to reducing future delinquent behavior via peer deviance. In a large
sample of Caucasian and African-American youth, Deutsch, Crockett, Wolff, and Russell (2012)
discovered that maternal support predicted lower levels of delinquency whereas parental control did
not and that poor maternal support correlated twice as well with concurrent peer deviance as parental
control. More recently, Melotti, Poti, Gianesini, and Brighi (2018) surmised that while parental
control correlated inversely with violent behavior, its association with delinquency was substantially
weaker than the social support dimensions of trust and willingness to disclose. These findings
suggest that parental support may outperform parental control as a predictor of participant delin-
quency, but only when paired with peer deviance. In a study conducted prior to the Hoeve et al.
(2009) meta-analysis, Wright and Cullen (2001) observed that while control and support were
intertwined in their association with delinquency, parental social support produced an effect inde-
pendent of parental control. Cullen’s (1994) social support paradigm, which holds that social
support, particularly from the parents, protects youth against future offending, served as the guiding
theoretical framework in the current study.
Peers
Whereas parenting effects can be grouped into categories of parental support and control, peer
effects are more often grouped into categories of positive and negative peer influence and associ-
ation. Having positive or prosocial peer and friend relations, it has been argued, could reduce the
likelihood of future criminal involvement. In line with this viewpoint, several studies have shown

---

98
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 18(1)
that prosocial relationships inhibit future offending (Choukas-Bradley, Giletta, Cohen, & Prinstein,
2015; Lonardo, Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2009). The negative peer influence effect, on the
other hand, postulates that associating with antisocial peers increases the likelihood of future crim-
inal involvement. Support for this assertion is strong, regardless of whether the peer influence effect
is measured with peer delinquency (Gifford-Smith, Dodge, Dishion, & McCord, 2005; Hoeben,
Meldrum, Walker, & Young, 2016), unsupervised routine activities with friends (Hoeben & Weer-
man, 2016; McGloin & Shermer, 2009), or affiliation with a youth gang (Dong & Krohn, 2016;
Pyrooz, Turanovic, Decker, & Wu, 2016).
Studies comparing the effects of positive and negative peer associations on subsequent antisocial
attitudes and behavior have shown that negative peer associations are often a better indicator of
antisocial behavior in youth than positive peer associations are of prosocial behavior. Carson (2013),
for instance, determined that while perceived prosocial and antisocial peer behavior correlated with
concurrent and prospective measures of neutralization beliefs, an increase in perceived antisocial
peer behavior was twice as likely to produce a change in neutralization beliefs as perceived prosocial
peer behavior. Comparing self-report and teacher ratings of problem and prosocial behavior in a
large sample of early adolescents, Farrell, Thompson, and Mehari (2017) discovered that friend
prosocial behavior correlated with participant prosocial behavior, but that friend antisocial behavior
was more closely linked to participant antisocial behavior than lack of friend prosocial behavior. For
those who would argue that prosocial peer associations are simply the flip side of antisocial peer
associations, a study by Goodearl, Salzinger, and Rosario (2014) presents a challenge. Surveying a
group of several hundred middle school students, Goodearl et al. discerned that friend antisocial
behavior mediated the relationship between violence exposure and later aggressive behavior. Friend
prosocial behavior, on the other hand, failed to moderate the nexus between exposure and later
aggressive behavior, though it did moderate the association between exposure and later anxiety.
Direction of the Parenting–Peer Relationship
Scholars in both the child development (Brown & Bakken, 2010; Galambos, Barker, & Almedia,
2003) and criminology (Goldstein, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2005; Warr, 1993) fields have proposed
that parenting factors precede peer factors in the formation of youth antisocial behavior. Several life-
course and developmental theories of crime, in fact, propose distinct roles for parents and peers in
the evolution of a delinquent lifestyle. In his interactional theory of crime, Thornberry (1987)
highlights parental attachment as a cause of delinquency during early adolescence but places greater...