WHY IS INVOLVEMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED SOCIALIZING RELATED TO ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY?*

• Date: 01 May 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12105
• Author: FRANK M. WEERMAN,EVELIEN M. HOEBEN
• Published date: 01 May 2016

WHY IS INVOLVEMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED

SOCIALIZING RELATED TO ADOLESCENT

DELINQUENCY?∗

EVELIEN M. HOEBEN1,2 and FRANK M. WEERMAN1

1Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR)

2Institutions, Inequalities, and Life Courses Program, Amsterdam Institute for

Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam

KEYWORDS: unstructured socializing, routine activities, peer influence, adolescent

delinquency

The relationship between unstructured socializing (peer-oriented activity without su-

pervision) and adolescent delinquency is widely established and recognized, but less is

known about why this relationship exists. The present study integrates the unstructured

socializing perspective with insights from social learning theory and other theoretical

perspectives on peer influence and empirically investigates four possible explanatory

processes. The study applies time diary data to operationalize accurately the concept

of unstructured socializing and survey data to capture mediating variables and self-

reported delinquency (a general frequency measure of various offenses, as well as spec-

ified measures for violence, theft, and vandalism). Data were collected longitudinally

with two waves of surveys and space–time budget interviews among 610 adolescents (11

to 20 years of age). A multilevel-path model was estimated to analyze within-individual

changes over time. The findings indicate that three of the four proposed explanatory

processes contribute to the explanation of the relationship between unstructured social-

izing and delinquency.

Research on lifestyles, leisure, and routine activity patterns repeatedly has shown that

adolescents’ involvement in certain activities leads to higher risks of involvement in delin-

quency (Anderson, 2013; Felson and Boba, 2010; Wikstr ¨

om et al., 2012). Not many stud-

ies, however, have investigated the underlying processes in this relationship. The present

study aims to compare potential explanatory processes empirically by focusing on one

∗Additional supporting information can be found in the listing for this article in the Wiley Online

Library at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/crim.2016.54.issue-2/issuetoc.

The authors would like to thank Wayne Osgood, Gerben Bruinsma, Lieven Pauwels, the editors,

and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions; Per-Olof Wikstr¨

om

for sharing the questionnaire and the space–time budget interview developed for the Peterbor-

ough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study (PADS+); Beth Hardie, Caroline Moul,

and Neema Trivedi for helping to train our interviewing staff; and Kirsten Grandia and Lieneke

Spel for their role in coordinating the data collection and managing the SPAN fieldwork. This re-

search was funded out of independent resources and has no actual or potential conflict of interest,

including any financial, personal, or other relationships with other people or organizations. Direct

correspondence to Evelien Hoeben, Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law En-

forcement (NSCR) and University of Amsterdam, AISSR, IIL, P.O. Box 15508, Valckenierstraat

59, 1018 XE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (e-mail: e.m.hoeben@uva.nl).

C2016 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12105

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 54 Number 2 242–281 2016 242

UNSTRUCTURED SOCIALIZING AND DELINQUENCY 243

particular leisure pattern that has often been associated with adolescent delinquency: in-

volvement in unstructured socializing.

The term unstructured socializing was coined by Osgood et al. (1996). They proposed

that activities with three key features are particularly associated with higher levels of

deviancy: a lack of structure, in the presence of peers, and in the absence of authority

figures. Unstructured socializing describes a situation characterized by these three condi-

tions. Osgood et al. (1996) found, with fixed-effects panel models over five waves of data,

that the routine activities they classified as unstructured socializing (riding around in a car

for fun, getting together with friends informally, going to parties, and spending evenings

out for fun and recreation) were each positively related to within-individual changes in

at least three out of five types of deviant behavior (criminal behavior, heavy alcohol use,

marijuana use, other drugs use, and dangerous driving). Later empirical studies, cross-

sectional as well as longitudinal, confirmed the findings of Osgood et al. (1996) that in-

dividuals who spend more time in unstructured socializing have higher delinquency rates

(Bernburg and Thorlindsson, 2001; Haynie and Osgood, 2005; Maimon and Browning,

2010).

The establishment of a robust relationship between involvement in unstructured so-

cializing and delinquency calls for theoretical and empirical elaboration of the underlying

processes for this relationship. Why do adolescents who spend a lot of their time in un-

structured socializing have an increased risk of becoming involved in delinquency? A few

scholars have investigated processes that might be at play (Agnew and Petersen, 1989;

Bernburg and Thorlindsson, 2001; Boman, 2013; Hawdon, 1996; Hughes and Short, 2014;

Wong, 2005), but we are unaware of studies in which the relative contribution of different

processes has been empirically investigated.

The present study distinguishes and empirically investigates four possible processes

to explain the relationship between involvement in unstructured socializing and delin-

quency: exposure to opportunities for delinquency, exposure to group pressure, increased

tolerance for delinquency, and exposure to delinquent peers. The study thereby inte-

grates the unstructured socializing perspective with insights from social learning theory

and other perspectives on peer influence. The study further examines sequential paths

that specify chains of the proposed processes. Data were collected among 610 adoles-

cents (11 to 20 years of age) in The Hague, the third largest city in the Netherlands,

by using a space–time budget interview and a questionnaire. The space–time budget

interview was developed to map the hourly activities and whereabouts of adolescents

(Wikstr ¨

om and Butterworth, 2006; Wikstr ¨

om et al., 2012). The method enabled us to get

a detailed account of the people present (peers and authority figures) during specific ac-

tivities, thus, providing an accurate operationalization of unstructured socializing. The

questionnaire obtained information about self-reported delinquency, perceived temp-

tations and provocations, perceived peer pressure, moral attitudes, and delinquency of

peers. The research question we address is as follows: Which processes contribute to ex-

plaining the relationship between involvement in unstructured socializing and adolescent

delinquency?

A particular problem in answering this question is the possibility of selection effects.

If adolescents with a propensity to offend prefer unstructured socializing over other ac-

tivities in the first place, we cannot distinguish self-selection into unstructured socializing

from the influence of unstructured socializing on delinquency. To account for this pos-

sibility, we conducted multilevel-path models that not only address differences between

244 HOEBEN & WEERMAN

individuals but also within-individual changes over time, which control for stable individ-

ual characteristics. The latter analysis provides a more stringent test.

EXPLANATORY PROCESSES

The concept of unstructured socializing has its roots in lifestyle theory (Hindelang,

Gottfredson, and Garofalo, 1978) and routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979),

which were developed to explain patterns in victimization and aggregate crime rates. Os-

good et al. (1996) applied concepts from these theories to an individual-level model of

offending. According to Osgood et al. (1996), the presence of peers stimulates deviance

because peers make deviancy rewarding by forming an approving audience and because

peers make deviancy easier by serving as resources (for example, by offering practical as-

sistance as “look-outs”). The absence of authority figures stimulates deviance because it

implies a lack of social control. Unstructured activities are more conducive to deviance

than structured activities because unstructured activities are not likely “to place . .. indi-

viduals in roles that make them responsible for social control” and because unstructured

activities offer more opportunities for deviance since less time is spent in “designated

ways” (Osgood et al., 1996: 640–1).

The original formulation of the unstructured socializing–deviance relationship by Os-

good et al. (1996) implicitly suggests two explanatory processes. First, Osgood et al. (1996)

noted that unstructured activities, more than structured activities, leave time for involve-

ment in deviant behavior and that the absence of authority figures reduces the risk of

getting caught. We interpret both consequences of unstructured socializing as opportu-

nity processes. Second, Osgood et al. (1996) signaled that the presence of peers makes

deviancy rewarding in terms of status and reputation, thereby offering situational induce-

ments. We interpret this as reinforcement or group pressure. Apart from these two main

processes that were implicitly assumed by Osgood et al. (1996), other explanatory pro-

cesses are also possible. From the literature, we derive two other processes that may ex-

plain the association between exposure to unstructured socializing and adolescent delin-

quency: increased tolerance toward delinquency and exposure to delinquent peers. All

four processes will be addressed and elaborated on theoretically in the remainder of this

section.

EXPOSURE TO OPPORTUNITIES FOR DELINQUENCY

As mentioned, the first process to explain the unstructured socializing–delinquency re-

lationship is that involvement in unstructured socializing exposes adolescents to opportu-

nities for delinquency. Several empirical studies have associated opportunities with delin-

quency; overviews were given by Miethe and Meier (1994), Pratt and Cullen (2005), and

Spano and Freilich (2009). Osgood et al. (1996) argued, based on routine activity theory

(Cohen and Felson, 1979; Felson and Boba, 2010) and the conception of subterranean

values (Matza and Sykes, 1961), that most adolescents are open to the idea of deviance

and are thereby motivated offenders. In a situation of unstructured socializing, there are

no adults present to supervise their behavior, so there are no capable authority figures.1

1. We follow the terminology of Osgood et al. (1996) by referring to authority figures. They dis-

tantiate from the distinction among handlers, guardians, and place managers (Felson, 1995) by