Summary - California State University, Northridgebmp49869/Web Site/625sc/Article 4.doc  · Web viewAccording to interpersonal strain theory, delinquency is a response to unmet social

Brandi Turnbow11/28/06SED625sc

Summary

This article looks at the relationships of segregated at risk students

(separated from non-at-risk students). It looks at two different relationships.

The first being, do students commit more delinquent acts when they are

isolated and put down by peers, or when they are friends with other

delinquents. The study took place at a charter high school for at risk youth,

so the students were there because they already were committing delinquent

acts. Although research has shown that students who were already

committing delinquent acts who were segregated neither improved in

behavior or academics. These students were really separated to protect

“good” students. They tested both male (53) and female (82) students relate

it to behavior if applicable. They did this because previous research had not

addressed or defined gender differences in their studies and the researchers

wanted to address this important distinction. They found that male students

committed more delinquent behaviors than females, and that more

delinquent acts occurred when male students were friends with female

students. The study measured 20 different delinquent behaviors.

Positive Points of the Research

The study attempted to show correlations between peer relationships and

delinquency. The research was very thorough. The researchers looked at

many aspects of delinquent behavior, individually and as a group. They

looked at two possible reasons for delinquent behaviors (isolation and

companionship) and gender. Then they measured delinquent acts over a

period of time, coupled with student interviews. All the raw data was

organized and available to review so that the reader could not only see the

researchers opinions, but could analyze the data themselves and form there

own opinion. After reading the article and the data my conclusion was the

same as the researchers.

Negative Points of the Research

Honestly, I have read the article four times, and I can’t find anything that I

would call negative or lacking. If anything there is too much information.

Meaning some people would not read through all the research data, and

would just move to another article or skim it, not getting the full effect of the

research that was conducted.

Reflection

I really enjoyed this article. Not for its content, but for its completeness and

thoroughness. I liked the fact that I could read the researchers opinions and

then see how they formed those opinions. Now we all no that you can pretty

much make data say what ever you want it to depending on how you spin it.

I walked away feeling this data had not been spun, and that it was just as it

appeared. I also liked the subject matter of the study and felt once read, I

could relate it to work I had done in Pasadena. Overall good article and

research.

Segregating Students on the Margin: Peer Relationships in Alternative Charter High SchoolsCynthia MatternArizona State University

Kathryn NakagawaArizona State University

Abstract

This study examined peer relationships among "at-risk" students segregated in alternative education programs at charter schools. We studied how peer relationships among groups of segregated at-risk students were related to the amount and kind of delinquent acts students committed, and we explored how peer relationships for the students differed by gender. Two theories were tested in this study: interpersonal strain theory, which suggests that individuals commit delinquent acts due to negative peer relationships (e.g., difficulty making friends, being put down by others), and differential association theory, which argues that individuals are delinquent due to association with delinquent peers. A survey was administered to 135 students (82 girls and 53 boys) enrolled in charter schools offering alternative education programs for at-risk adolescents. Overall, gender was found to be the strongest predictor of delinquent behavior, with boys reporting more delinquency than girls. Correlation and regression analyses indicated that, in these segregated settings, students who reported getting along better with their peers were also more likely to report increased delinquent behavior. For example, getting along well with members of the opposite sex was related to increased property offenses for girls and increased offenses involving force for boys. Implications for alternative education settings are discussed.

Table of Contents

Introduction o Peer Relationships and Delinquency

Method o Participants o Measures o Delinquency measure o Peer relations measure o Data analysis

Results Discussion References Appendix

Introduction

Alternative education programs are one way of providing more specialized educational opportunities for adolescents who are deemed to be "at risk" of dropping out of school or who have exhibited delinquent behaviors (e.g., Kammoun, 1991; Pisano, 1994). The belief is that such programs are a better match to the needs of these students (Hergert, 1991; Peebles, 2000); furthermore, it is thought that segregating these students protects others from being subject to their negative attitudes or delinquent acts (Vann, Schubert, & Rogers, 2000).

Although such programs started in the 1960s (Gloria & Karr-Kidwell, 1993), their popularity is growing, particularly through the creation of charter schools. For instance, the largest segment of charter school providers in Arizona is for at-risk high school students (Toch, 1998). Generally, the main goal of these programs is to increase graduation rates and proponents of these programs have termed them a success in this respect (Pisano, 1994). However, the influence of alternative education programs on students' development hadbeen little studied (Tobin & Sprague, 1999).

Some of the work that has been done shows few positive effects in areas such as academic achievement, self-esteem, or decreasing delinquency. For instance, in a meta-analysis of studies examining alternative education programs, Cox, Davidson, and Bynum (1995) found that there were some minimal improvements in academic achievement, how students felt toward school, and self-esteem. Such effects were seen more at alternative programs that were specifically geared toward particular groups of students (e.g., drop-outs), as opposed to those that were open to any students. Delinquency rates were not significantly affected. Another study, by Nichols and Steffy (1997), found that students' motivation and self-esteem improved due to an alternative education program, but those effects were observed only for the students who completed the program.

Very little of the research in this area has examined how peer relationships function in alternative education programs. For instance, research on delinquency among adolescents in regular high school settings has found that negative peer relations are related to increased acts of delinquency (Agnew & Brezina, 1997; Giordano, Cernkovich, & Pugh, 1986; Hurrelmann & Engel, 1992; Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990; Roff, 1992). That is, those students who do not interact well with their peers are more prone to delinquency. But do these same patterns hold true in settings where all students have had difficulty in a traditional school environment or have already been involved in delinquent acts?

Given the increase in alternative education programs, the effects of segregating "at-risk" students in such programs should be more carefully considered. In particular, how do peer relationships, an important component in adolescent development, function in such settings? The main objective of this study was to examine how peer relationships among groups of segregated at-risk students influence such students' propensity for delinquent acts. In addition, few studies have looked at a) how boys and girls may be differently affected by an alternative education setting (Kelly, 1993), or b) how peer relationships might influence girls' delinquency rates differently than boys' (Agnew & Brezina, 1997). Thus, we also looked for gender differences in peer relationships and delinquency.

Peer Relationships and Delinquency

One of the first studies to examine how peer relationships influence delinquency was conducted by Giordano and colleagues

(1986). In that study, they found conflict with peers and lack of reciprocity in peer relationships to be related to adolescent delinquent behavior. However, their study did not report whether there were gender differences in how peer problems related to delinquency.

A later study by Agnew and Brezina (1997) examined gender differences in the relationship between problems with peers and delinquency. They expected that girls' delinquency would be more related to peer relationship problems than would boys'. Contrary to their expectations, Agnew and Brezina found that positive peer relationships were related to higher rates of delinquency for both girls and boys. For instance, those girls who had more positive relations with boys were found to be more delinquent. For boys, those who had more positive relations with girls and who made friends easily with boys were more delinquent. However, higher scores on the poor peer relations scale--as measured by self-report to questions about making friends, getting along with others and popularity--were also significantly and positively associated with more delinquency, especially for boys.

Finally, a more recent study by Henry, Tolan, and Gorman-Smith (2001) examined whether relationships with non-violent/delinquent peers versus violent/delinquent peers influenced an individual's incidence of violence and delinquency. They found that relationships with violent peers increased the rate of violence and delinquency but that association with delinquent but non-violent peers did not influence either violence or delinquency. Whether these relationships differed by gender was not discussed.

Other research has found that status deprivation-that is, a feeling of being denied respect in society-was associated with higher levels of delinquency for boys and girls (Hurrelmann & Engel, 1992). Based on Cohen's (1955) work, status deprivation suggests that individuals who are disenfranchised from society will form groups with their own subculture and values that lead to acts of delinquency. Peer rejection has also been implicated as a factor in delinquency (Kupersmidt & Coie, 1990), and boys with low peer status are at higher risk for delinquency (Roff, 1992).

Some of the studies examining peer relations and delinquency draw on two opposing theories in examining the relation between peer interactions and juvenile delinquency: the theory of interpersonal "strain" and the theory of differential association. Strain theory contends that "delinquency is the result of frustrated needs or wants" (Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985, p. 13). According to interpersonal strain theory, delinquency is a response to unmet social and emotional needs (Smith & Stern, 1997), for instance, when individuals do not have close ties to others or do not receive emotional support they need, they turn to deliqnuency. However, such work has not considered how the context of an alternative high school setting, with limited types of peers, will influence this finding.

Differential association is the theory that drives most research involving peers and delinquency. The theory of differential association contends that adolescents learn delinquency through their interactions with delinquent companions (Mears, Ploeger, & Warr, 1998). Accordingly, individuals who have delinquent peers and are more exposed to delinquent subculture will engage in more delinquent behavior. However, this work has considered association with delinquent peers as a precursor to delinquency (e.g., Mears et al.; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Conger, 1991; Warr, 1993). The research has not examined how peer relationships among already delinquent peers, as at an alternative high school, influences rates of delinquency.

For the present study, we examined both interpersonal strain and differential association theory. If interpersonal strain theory holds true, then even in an alternative education setting we expected that students who reported more difficulty in peer relationships would engage in more delinquent acts. In contrast, using a theory of differential association, we expected the opposite: better peer relationships with delinquent peers would be associated with increased delinquency.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 135 adolescents (82 girls and 53 boys) who attended charter schools offering alternative education programs for at-risk high school students. Students in Grades 9 through 12 at three such schools, located in the inner city of a large Southwestern United States metropolis, were recruited for participation via distribution of a letter requesting parental consent. Students who returned the parental consent form to their classroom teacher were allowed to participate.

The sample was 59% Hispanic, 16.4% Caucasian, 11.9% African American, and 3% Native American. Thirteen participants (9.7% of the sample) reported being of mixed ethnicity. Although the participants ranged in age from 14 to 20, the majority (72.4%) were between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years (M age = 16.95 years, SD = 1.33). Ninth graders made up 9.7% of the participants, 26.1% were in Grade 10, 32.1% were in Grade 11, and 32.1% were graduating seniors. A large number --76.1%--of the students reported that they maintained a GPA of 3.0 or above, and 64.5% indicated that they planned to pursue at least a four-year college degree.

The three schools from which the sample was obtained were located in low-income, inner-city areas, and administrators from all three schools indicated that the majority of their students lived below the poverty line. For purposes of analysis, socioeconomic status (SES) of participants was operationalized in terms of their parents' educational and occupational status. Sixty-eight percent of the participants reported that the highest level of education that their fathers had completed was high school or less than high school. The corresponding figure for the participants' mothers was 62.1%. The majority of respondents indicated that their fathers worked in either production/construction occupations (48.2%) or service occupations (21.7%). In the sample, 27.3% of respondents reported that their mothers worked in professional or technical occupations, while 28.4% reported service occupations for their mothers. Among the students, 77.3% indicated that they planned to pursue either professional/technical or administrative/managerial careers.

Although more girls participated in the study than boys, administrators at all three of the schools reported that their student bodies consisted of an approximately equal number of boys and girls. Still, the female participants consistently outnumbered the male participants at each site. The first site yielded 20% of the sample, including 16 girls and 11 boys. The second school provided the largest number of participants, accounting for 45.2% of the sample (38 girls and 23 boys). The third school yielded 34.8% of the participants, and this subsample consisted of 28 girls and 19 boys. All of the schools had relatively small student bodies of between 100 and 200 students, which permitted small classes of 7 to 15 students each. Two of the schools offered behavioral and/or social-emotional interventions to students, whereas the third school did not offer any type of counseling, treatment, or intervention.

Measures

The participants were administered a survey that took 15 to 30 minutes to complete. It included questions pertaining to their delinquent involvement, peer relations, and general demographics.

Delinquency measure

The delinquency measure contained 20 items adapted from several existing self-report instruments (Blakely, Kushler, Parisian, & Davidson, 1980; Elliott & Ageton, 1980; Elliott & Voss, 1974; Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weiss, 1981; Huizinga, Esbensen, & Weiher, 1991; Moffitt & Silva, 1988). Each of the 20 items represented a specific delinquent behavior (e.g., used marijuana, stole small items, hit someone), and participants were asked to indicate how often in the past year they had engaged in the behavior. Response categories were never, once or twice, several times, and very often. In accordance with the majority of the delinquency measures from which the present measure was adapted, each response was assigned a code of 1 (never) through 4 (very often), and an overall delinquency score was computed for each participant by averaging their responses to all completed items. The items were then combined to form four delinquency subscales--the substance abuse, property, school, and force subscales. A participant's score on a particular subscale was calculated by averaging their responses to the items that comprised the subscale.

The substance abuse scale consisted of five items, the property scale seven, the school scale two, and the force scale five. Each item was included on only one subscale, except the item pertaining to running away. This item did not appear on any of the delinquency subscales and was examined separately in all analyses.

The delinquency measure was primarily adapted from the Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRD) by Elliott & Voss (1974). However, it also contained additional items adapted from several other instruments (Blakely et al., 1980; Elliott & Ageton, 1980; Hindelang et al., 1981; Huizinga et al., 1991; Moffitt & Silva, 1988). Several of the items that were included were quite dated, and the language was modified to ensure relevance to today's youth. Other items were adapted by simplifying the language to facilitate comprehension, and one item was slightly modified due to regional considerations. Although the delinquency instruments that were used to create the present measure had been originally validated, because we adapted questions from a variety of different measures, we cannot verify the validity and reliability of our delinquency scale.

Social desirability of respondents is a concern of all self-report data collection methods, and self-report delinquency instruments have been the subject of numerous validity and reliability studies due to this concern (Blakely et al., 1980). The alternative method of collecting data on delinquency is to examine official arrest and court records. However, this method has been the source of much criticism because official outcome data account only for the delinquency that juveniles have been caught committing (Blakely et al.). Experts concur that self-report measures of delinquency are not only the most frequently used methods of data collection, but also provide the most valid and reliable available evidence of undetected delinquent involvement (McAuliffe & Handal, 1984).

Peer relations measure

An existing peer relations instrument (Agnew & Brezina, 1997) was used to measure the extent and quality of participants' relationships with their same- and opposite-sex peers. Agnew and Brezina's (1997) study used data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88). The peer relations measures were ones specifically created for the NELS:88 follow-up questionnaire, and the NELS:88 manual does not provide any reliability or validity data for these items. It simply states that "instrument development was guided by the research objectives of NELS:88 (Ingels et al., 1994, p. 22).

Respondents were asked to indicate on a 6 point Likert-type continuum how true or false each of nine statements was about them and how strongly they agreed or disagreed with one statement. The 10 peer items were coded such that high scores indicated positive peer relations. A global peer relations score was calculated by summing a participant's responses to all 10 items after the appropriate items had been reverse-scored. This summary scores from Agnew and Brezina's study ranged from 10 to 58, with higher scores indicating more positive peer relations.

Agnew and Brezina conducted factor analyses on the 10 peer items and created 3 factors from these items: "Poor peer relations," "Positive relations with the opposite sex," and "Peer problems entering high school." These factor analyses were done separately for the sample of boys and girls to allow for the fact that items such as "I do not get along very well with girls" would have "different meanings" for boys and girls (p. 95).

Using Agnew and Brezina's model, for this study a global peer relations score was first calculated by summing a participant's respones to all ten items after the appropriate items had been reverse scored. Summary scores ranged from 29 to 58 (44.35, SD = 6.75). We then calculated separate scores using Agnew and Brezina's three peer factors (Poor Peer Relations, Positive Relations with the Opposite Sex, and Peer Problems when Entering High School). A score for each factor was calculated by summing the responses to the items that Agnew and Brezina included in each factor. The factors consisted of different combinations of items for girls and boys, and each item was included in only one factor. In order to be consistent with Agnew and Brezina's analysis, the item contained in question three of the survey ("In school I often feel put down by other students") was not included in any of the factors for the female sample, and the item "I make friends easily with boys" was not included in any of the factors for the male sample.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were generated on all variables to compare the delinquent involvement and peer relationships of at-risk boys and girls. Correlation and regression analyses also were performed to examine the relation between peer relationships and delinquency. These analyses were performed on the entire data set, and separate analyses were performed on the data obtained from the male and female subsamples to facilitate gender comparisons.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the percentage of girls and boys in each of the response categories for all 20 delinquency items on the

survey. Although there are no clear patterns to the reports of delinquency, a greater percentage of boys report involvement in delinquent acts than do girls. For instance, there were just two items (cruelty to animals and running away from home) in which fewer than 30% of the boys reported being involved. In contrast, there were nine items (using dangerous drugs, vandalism, joyriding, stealing large items, painting graffitti, using weapon to steal, throwing objects at people, cruelty to animals, and running away from home) in which fewer than 30% of the girls reported being involved.

Table 1: Percentage of Girls and Boys Indicating Response to the Frequency of Committing Delinquent Acts

  Girls Boys

Never Once or twice

Several times

Very often

Never Once or twice

Several times

Substance Abuse Subscale

Bought or Used Cigarettes 41.5 22 19.5 17 32.1 18.9 13.2

Bought Alcoholic Beverages***

51.2 17 22 9.8 18.9 18.9 20.8

Drunk Alcoholic Beverages*

13.4 26.8 34.2 25.6 13.2 13.2 18.9

Used 25.9 23.5 23.5 27.1 22.6 18.9 13.2

Used Dangerous Drugs* 74.4 11 9.7 4.9 52.8 18.9 11.3

Property Subscale

Stole Small Items* 37.8 37.8 22 2.4 32.1 32.1 13.2

Vandalism** 73.2 20.7 6.1 0 50.9 18.9 15.1

Stole Medium Items** 69.5 17.1 11 2.4 47.1 18.9 15.1

Joyriding 70.7 13.4 11 4.9 52.8 24.6 11.3

Stole Large Items*** 87.8 8.5 2.5 1.2 56.6 11.3 15.1

Avoided Paying for Things***

68.2 22 6.1 3.7 32.1 45.3 9.4

Painted or Written Graffiti**

81.7 12.2 6.1 0 63.5 9.6 15.4

School Subscale

Skipped School 23.2 28 32.9 15.9 18.9 45.3 15.1

Cheated on School Test 42.7 36.6 17 3.7 40.4 38.5 15.3

Force Subscale

Physical Fighting** 42 37 19.8 1.2 30.2 22.6 22.6

Used Weapon/Force to Steal***

95.1 4.9 0 0 66 13.2 5.7

Hit Someone to Injure Them**

57.3 18.3 19.5 4.9 32.1 20.8 28.2

Thrown Objects at People** 74.4 18.3 7.3 0 50.9 24.5 11.4

Cruelty to Animals* 93.9 3.7 1.2 1.2 75.5 15.1 7.5

Other

Run Away from Home 70.7 22 7.3 0 83 11.3 3.8

Note: Asterisks indicate that differences between means for the male and female samples are significant. For all items with significant gender differences, the means for boys are greater than the means for girls.* p < .05 (two-tailed)     *** p < .0005 (two-tailed)     ** p < .005 (two-tailed)

Table 2 displays the means and standard deviations for the total sample, as well as for boys and girls separately, on the delinquency subscales and the peer relations items. In accordance with the majority of the delinquency measures from which the present measure was adapted (e.g., Blakely et al., 1980; Elliott & Ageton, 1980; Elliott & Voss, 1974; Hindelang et al., 1981; Huizinga et al., 1991; Moffitt & Silva, 1988), the overall delinquency score, as well as the scores on each of the delinquency subscales, represent averages of certain items. Other delinquency summary scores were constructed, including a sum of the responses to the 20 items, but the form of the variable representing overall delinquency did not affect the results of any analyses. Therefore, averages are used, and scores on the delinquency scale and subscales range from 1.0 to 4.0, with higher scores indicating more frequent involvement in delinquent behaviors.

Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for Major Variables

  Total Sample Girls Boys

Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Delinquency

Average Delinquency Score 1.84 54 1.67 42 2.11*** 0.59

Substance Abuse Subscale 2.34 0.84 2.14 0.75 2.65*** 0.89

Property Subscale 1.65 0.67 1.44 0.44 1.97*** 0.83

School Subscale 2.12 0.74 2.12 0.75 2.12 0.74

Force Subscale 1.61 0.63 1.4 0.42 1.94*** 0.77

Running Away 1.32 0.62 1.37 0.62 1.25 0.62

Peer Relations

Total Peer Relations Score 44.35 6.75 43.25 6.6 46.10* 6.68

Do Not Get Along Well w/ Girls 2.73 1.88 3.56 1.85 1.43*** 0.99

Do Not Get Along Well w/ Boys 1.93 1.26 1.65 1.05 2.36*** 1.43

Difficulty Making Friend w/ Own Sex 2.47 1.79 2.88 1.93 1.85*** 1.32

Make Friends Easily w/ Girls 3.79 1.87 3.11 1.7 4.79*** 1.65

Get A Lot of Attention fm. Opposite Sex 4.47 1.44 4.54 1.36 4.38 1.57

Not Very Popular w/ Opposite Sex 1.15 1.42 1.09 1.41 1.25 1.45

Make Friends Easily w/ Boys 4.37 1.76 5.05 1.3 3.32*** 1.89

More Difficult to Make Friends in H.S. 2.2 1.56 2.46 1.64 1.79** 1.34

Have Felt More Alone in H.S. 2.03 1.58 2.15 1.64 1.85 1.49

Often Feel Put Down by Other Students 1.55 0.7 1.61 0.7 1.46 0.7

Note: Asterisks indicate that differences between means for the male and female samples are significant.* p < .05 (two-tailed)     ** p < .01 (two-tailed)     *** p < .0005 (two-tailed)

Consistent with the findings of previous delinquency studies (e.g., Agnew & Brezina, 1997; Mears et al., 1998, Sagi & Eisikovits, 1981; Simons et al., 1991), the boys in the present sample generally report greater involvement in delinquency than do girls. Independent samples t tests indicate that boys are significantly more delinquent than girls overall, as indicated by their average scores on the 20 item delinquency scale. In particular, boys are significantly more involved in substance abuse (e.g., 41% of boys reported doing this very often vs. 9.8% of girls), property offenses (e.g., 17% of boys reported stealing large items very often vs. 1.2% of girls), and forceful behaviors (e.g., 15% of boys reported using a weapon or force to steal very often vs. 0% of girls).

T tests were also performed on the summary variable for peer relationships (which was calculated after several of the items were reverse-coded) and on the ten individual peer relations items (prior to recoding) to determine differences between boys and girls. Coding all of the peer relations items so that higher scores indicate better peer relations results in a possible range for the total peer relations score of between 10.0 and 58.0. However, the scores for the present sample are between 29.0 and 58.0, indicating that none of the participants reported extremely poor peer relations. Overall, boys reported that they have more positive peer relations as indicated by the mean of their total peer relations scores (M = 46.10, SD = 6.68) than do girls (M = 44.35, SD = 6.75).

The scoring of the 10 individual peer items displayed in Table 2 is the original scoring (prior to recoding); higher scores indicate greater agreement with the statement in question. Scores on the first nine peer items range from 1.0 to 6.0, and scores on the last item are between 1.0 and 4.0. As indicated by the means of several of the peer items, both boys and girls report having more positive peer relations with their opposite-sex peers than with their same-sex peers. There are no significant differences between boys' and girls' perceptions of their popularity with the opposite sex: Both boys and girls score relatively high on these items. Although it appears that neither boys nor girls lack confidence in their ability to make friends, the girls' scores indicate that they perceive greater difficulty than boys in making friends during the transition into high school.

Table 3 displays a matrix of the correlations between major variables. The significant correlations between gender and the other major variables corroborate the aforementioned gender differences: Boys are generally more delinquent than girls and report better peer relations. For this sample of at-risk youth, there is a moderate relationship between having good peer

relationships and increased involvement in most forms of delinquency. For instance, a higher score on good peer relationships with the opposite sex was related to increased delinquency involving force, r(n = 133) = .21, p < .05. Similarly, students who reported having good relations with their same-sex peers had higher scores on the delinquency measures overall, r(n = 132) = .21, p < .05, and, in particular, they committed more substance abuse and property offenses, = .20, p < .05 and r(n = 132) = .17, p < .05, respectively. Furthermore, higher scores on poor peer relations are also significantly and negatively correlated with overall delinquency, r(n = 132) = -.21, p < .05, and the substance abuse and property abuse subscales, r(n = 132) = -.20, p < .05 and r(n = 132) = -.17, p < .05, respectively. This indicates that students who report more poor relationships with peers are less involved in delinquent acts.

Table 3: Correlations Between Major Variables Within the Entire Sample

According to Table 3, gender is significantly correlated with both delinquency and peer relations. However, overall peer relations and overall delinquency are not significantly correlated with one another. Table 4 permits an examination of the correlations between the delinquency and peer variables separately for each gender. There are no significant correlations between any of the peer factors and the delinquency subscales for girls. For boys, however, the peer factor "positive relations with the opposite sex" has a significant negative correlation with running away and a significant positive correlation with the force subscale. The item "positive relations with the opposite sex" also has a positive correlation that approaches significance with the overall delinquency score for boys.

Table 4: Correlations Between Delinquency and Peer Variables by Gender

In Tables 5 and 6, correlational analyses of the ten individual peer items and the delinquency subscales further elaborate on the associations between different aspects of peer relations and delinquency. These analyses, conducted on the separate subsamples of boys and girls, revealed some gender differences in the effect of peer relationships.

Table 5: Correlations Between Delinquency and Peer Variables for the Female Sample

For girls, not getting along well with other girls was related to fewer delinquent acts involving force, r(n = 82) = -.26, (see Table 5). Also for girls making friends easily with boys was related to more property offenses, r(n = 82) = .25, For boys, the results in Table 6 suggest that the relationship boys had with girls appeared to be more important than the relationship that they had with other boys. A lot of attention from girls was related to more property and force delinquency, r(n = 52) = .29, p < .05 and r(n = 52) = .38, p < .01, respectively. Boys who reported that they had positive relations with the opposite sex also had higher scores on the force subscale r(n = 82) = .38, p < .01. Thus, it appears that having positive relationships with opposite-sex peers is correlated with delinquency for both boys and girls, and this relationship is stronger among boys engaging in forceful delinquent acts.

Table 6: Correlations Between Delinquency and Peer Variables for the Male Sample

In regression analyses, the importance of positive relations with opposite-sex peers continued; for both sexes, it was the only peer factor that was a significant predictor of delinquency when controlling for background variables. The results of regression analyses performed separately on the data for boys and girls and on the entire data set are reported in Table 7. Although the separate analyses for boys and girls do not reveal significant findings, performing regression analyses on the sample as a whole produces some noteworthy results. In Model 3, the delinquency measure is regressed on the three peer factors. This model results in significant standardized effects for "poor peer relations" and "positive relations with the opposite sex." When gender is entered into the regression in Model 4, the effect of "poor peer relations" becomes insignificant, and the effect of "positive relations with the opposite sex" is slightly reduced.1

Table 7: Regression Analyses Indicating the Effects of Peer Relations Variables on Delinquency While Controlling for Other Variables

  Beta

Girls Boys Total Sample

Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5

Poor Peer Relations 0 0.06 -.24** 0.01  

Positive Relations With Opposite Sex 0.13 0.29 .22* .19*  

Peer Problems Entering High School -0.1 0.01 0.04 -0.04  

Feel Put Down By Other Students 0.06        

Make Friends Easily With Boys   0.06      

Overall Peer Relations         .19*

Control Variables          

Gender       -0.4**  

Ethnicity          

SES          

Age          

R2 0.1 0.14 .12** .21** .05*

N 77 48 126 126 125

Note: The dependent variable in all models is overall delinquency. These analyses were repeated using the four subscales of delinquency and running away as dependent variables, but the results were not significantly different from these.SES = socioeconomic status.* p < .05     ** p < .01

In Models 5 and 6, the three peer factors are collapsed into an overall peer relation variable, and the standardized effect again is only significant when gender is not taken into account. The regression models that include gender (Models 4 and 6) result in a reduced effect of peer relations on delinquency, yet these are the models that explain the greatest amount of variance in delinquency. Thus, regardless of how peer relations are conceptualized in the analysis, gender is the variable that exerts the most influence on delinquency.

In other analyses not reported here, other demographic variables, such as ethnicity and SES (as indicated by parents' educational and occupational status) were entered into the regression models. However, these variables did not have significant effects on delinquency, nor did they weaken the effect of gender in predicting delinquency. Correlational analysis further indicated that neither ethnicity nor SES were significantly associated with any type of delinquency in this sample.

In sum, positive peer relations were more significantly related to delinquency than were negative peer relations. In particular, the correlational analyses indicated that getting along with members of the opposite sex was significantly related to higher rates of delinquency, especially for boys. However, the regression analyses demonstrated that gender was the strongest predictor of delinquency, over and above the predictive value of peer relations, with boys having higher rates of delinquency than girls.

Discussion

In general, the present findings raise questions about the effects of segregating of at-risk students from their mainstream peers, as is currently the practice in many school districts. In particular, charter schools like those in this study may serve to perpetuate this segregation as many charters cater to "kids on the margin" of traditional public schools (Toch, 1998, p. 37). In looking beyond the goal of completing high school, it appears that alternative educational settings may not be ideal for other aspects of adolescent development. This study suggests that we should carefully explore the kinds of peer relationships that are developed in these alternative high schools and how peer relations can serve to perpetuate delinquent behavior. Although the relationships between delinquency and peer relations in this study were modest, overall our findings suggest that when positive peer relations are developed with other individuals engaged in delinquent behavior, such relationships might reinforce certain kinds of delinquency.

In contrast to the literature about peer relationships and delinquency, it does not appear that interpersonal strain theory explains increased delinquency among groups of more delinquent students. Although others have found that negative peer relationships at traditional high schools are related to increased delinquency (Agnew & Brezina, 1997), we found that students at these alternative high schools who reported "strain" in peer relationships were less delinquent. Poor peer relations were significantly correlated to lower rates of substance use and property offenses, two areas of delinquency that are often done in the company of peers. Perhaps individuals who exhibited problems with their peers were the least delinquent because they were less exposed to the delinquency of the peer group.

For this segregated group of students, the theory of differential association provides a better explanation of the influence of peer relationships. Because the participants were all considered to be at-risk students, and because they attended schools exclusively for such students, all of their immediate peers were also at risk. Again, in contrast to how peer relationships may function at traditional high schools, we found that students who reported better peer relations also reported a greater number of delinquent acts. For example, male students who perceived themselves to have positive relations with the opposite sex tended to report engaging in more delinquent acts, especially related to property offenses and use of force. Although the relation between overall peer relations and delinquency was not significant, these findings raise a question about whether positive peer relations in alternative education settings may expose the student to more delinquency, rather than act as a protective factor against delinquency.

Of particular concern is that better peer relationships with the opposite sex were significantly related to increased delinquency. This is troubling in that the relationship was stronger for boys than for girls, especially with respect to engaging in more violent and forceful behaviors. Although the reason for this is not clear, we speculate that boys may engage in forceful acts to assert masculinity when with girls. For instance, Kelly (1993) found that interethnic dating sometimes forced boys to defend themselves against those who did not approve. For girls, research has found that they are more likely to cut class to be with a boyfriend (Kelly, 1993) and that when cutting class, they are likely to engage in delinquent behavior.

Several limitations of this study serve as implications for future research. First, the homogeneity of the sample limits the generalizability of the findings. The majority of the participants came from low-income, urban, ethnic-minority families. Although all the students came from at-risk schools, the students who participated in the study may not have been representative of other at-risk students. Whether peer relationships function in similar ways in different alternative education populations needs further study. The results are also limited by the sample size. When the sample was subdivided by gender,

the male and female sub-samples often were not large enough to maintain significant effects. Future research examining gender differences would benefit from a larger sample size. In addition, we lacked information on validity and reliability for both the delinquency measure and the peer relations measure, thus the findings should be interpreted with caution. Finally, future research investigating the effect of interpersonal strain in peer relationships on delinquency should control for the characteristics of the reference peer group. For example, if the peer relations measure is intended to investigate the participants' relationships with whomever they consider to be their peers, then it would be advantageous to include a measure of the delinquent involvement of the peer group, or a measure of peer group values.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to our understanding of the effects of alternative education programs and how segregating students in these programs might exacerbate negative effects of peer relationships. The findings suggest that educators should strive to expand rather than restrict the peer group to which at-risk students are exposed. Segregating students on the margin may be expedient and efficient for schools, but it may not be the ideal environment for development of adolescents, particularly those most in need of a wide variety of peer relationships.

Foot Note

1The data from the 10 peer relations items were subjected to factor analysis, which resulted in separate factors for boys and girls that differed from those obtained by Agnew and Brezina (1997). The regression analyses were repeated using the obtained factor scores in place of the scores that were created to represent Agnew and Brezina's factors. However, these analyses did not produce any significant results.

Authors

Cynthia Mattern received her M.A. in Educational Psychology from Arizona State University and is continuing her graduate studies in the area of School Psychology. Her research interests include child and adolescent peer relationships, behaviorally at-risk students, and juvenile delinquency.

Kathryn Nakagawa is an associate professor in the College of Education, Arizona State University. Her research interests include family-school relationships, student mobility, and school reform. She can be reached by email at [email protected].

References

Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (1997). Relational problems with peers, gender, and delinquency. Youth and Society, 29,

Blakely, C. H., Kushler, M. G., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson, W. S., II. (1980). Self-reported delinquency as an evaluation

measure: Comparative reliability and validity of alternative weighting schemes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 7

Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys. New York: Free Press.

Cox, S. M., Davidson, W. S., & Bynum, T. S. (1995). A meta-analytic assessment of delinquency-related outcomes of alternative education programs. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 219-234.

Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Pugh, M. D. (1986). Friendships and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 911170-1202.

Gloria, C., & Karr-Kidwell, P. J. (1993). A study of the effect of alternative programs on the potential dropout. master's thesis, Texas Women's University. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 374 499)

Henry, D. B., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (2001). Longitudinal family and peer group effects on violence and nonviolent delinquency. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30(1), 172-186.

Hergert, L. (1991). School resources for at-risk youth. Equity & Excellence, 25, 10-14.

Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weiss, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Huizinga, D., Esbensen, F.-A., & Weiher, A. W. (1991). Are there multiple paths to delinquency? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 83-118.

Hurrelmann, K., & Engel, U. (1992). Delinquency as a symptom of adolescents' orientation toward status and success. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 119-138.

Ingels, S. J., Dowd, K. L., Baldridge, J. D., Stipe, J. L., Bartot, V. H., Frankel, M. R., Owings, J., & Quinn, P. (1994). National education longitudinal study of 1988: Second followup-Student component data file user's manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.

Kammoun, B. B. (1991, November). Programming for at-risk students. NAASP Bulletin, 9-14.

Kelly, D. M. (1993). Last chance high: How boys and girls drop in and out of alternative schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Preadolescent peer status, aggression, and school adjustment as predictors of externalizing problems in adolescence. Child Development, 61, 1350-1362.

McAuliffe, T. M., & Handal, P. J. (1984). PIC delinquency scale: Validity in relation to self-reported delinquent acts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 35-46.

Mears, D. P., Ploeger, M., & Warr, M. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in delinquency: Peer influence and moral evaluations of behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 251-266.

Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Self-reported delinquency: Results from an instrument for New Zealand. and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 21, 227-240.

Nichols, J. D., & Steffy, B. E. (1997). An evaluation of success in an alternative learning program: Motivational impact vs. completion rate. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 410 646)

Peebles, L. (2000). Charter school equity issues: Focus on minority and at-risk students. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 451 267)

Pisano, L. (1994). EDUTRAIN: A charter school for at-risk kids. Education Digest, 59(5), 64-66.

Roff, J. D. (1992). Childhood aggression, peer status, and social class as predictors of delinquency. Psychological Reports, 70, 31-34.

Sagi, A., & Eisikovits, Z. (1981). Juvenile delinquency and moral development. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (1991). Parenting factors, social skills, and value commitments as precursors to school failure, involvement with deviant peers, and delinquent behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 645-664.

Smith, C. A., & Stern, S. B. (1997). Delinquency and antisocial behavior: A review of family processes and intervention research. Social Service Review, 71, 382-420.

Tobin, T., & Sprague, J. (1999). Alternative education programs for at-risk youth: Issues, best practice, and recommendations. Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 42(4). (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 432 805)

Toch, T. (1998, April 27). The new education bazaar: Charter schools represent the free market in action--with all its problems. U.S. News and World Report, pp. 34-46.

Vann, M., Schubert, S. R., & Rogers, D. (2000). The Big Bayou Association: An alternative education program for middle-school, at-risk juveniles. Preventing school failure, 45, 31-36.

Warr, M. (1993). Parents, peers, and delinquency. Social Forces, 72, 247-264.

Apendix

Survey of Adolescent Behavior, Peer and Other Relationships, and Personal Decision-Making

Dear Student:

I am a graduate student under the direction of Professor Kathy Nakagawa in the Division of Psychology in Education at Arizona State University. I am conducting a study to examine the behavior of adolescents within and outside of school, and how it is affected by peer and other relationships, as well as by personal decision-making in difficult situations.

I am requesting your participation, which will involve completing a survey that includes questions about various kinds of behaviors, relationships with peers and others, and thoughtfulness in decision-making. The questionnaire will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty. Neither nonparticipation nor withdrawal will affect you in any way whatsoever. The questionnaire is completely anonymous. You will not write your name on the survey, and you will not be asked to provide any other identifying information anywhere on the questionnaire. All completed questionnaires will be destroyed after they are analyzed. The results of the study may be published, but your name will not be known.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at (602) 705-4320 or Dr. Nakagawa at (602) 965-0582.

Return of the questionnaire will be considered your consent to participate.

Sincerely,

Cynthia R. Mattern

Directions: Questions are in bold, and they will be followed by several items to which you are asked to respond. In most cases, you are asked to circle the most appropriate response, usually a number or word shown in italics. Please circle one choice for each of these items.

Q-1 How many times in the past year have you . . .

  Never Once or twice

Several times

Very often

a) bought or used cigarettes? 0 1 2 3

b) taken little things (worth less than $10) that did not belong to you?

0 1 2 3

c) bought or tried to buy beer, wine, or liquor? 0 1 2 3

d) purposely damaged or destroyed public or private property that did not belong to you?

0 1 2 3

e) skipped school without a good excuse? 0 1 2 3

f) run away from home? 0 1 2 3

g) drunk beer, wine, or liquor? 0 1 2 3

h) taken part in a physical fight? 0 1 2 3

i) taken things of medium value (worth between $10 and $100)?

0 1 2 3

j) driven a car without the owner's permission? 0 1 2 3

k) used marijuana? 0 1 2 3

m) used a weapon or force to get money or things from people?

0 1 2 3

n) used cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, or any other dangerous drug (besides marijuana)?

0 1 2 3

o) hit someone with the idea of hurting them? 0 1 2 3

p) thrown objects (such as rocks or bottles) at cars or people?

0 1 2 3

q) avoided paying for things such as movies or food?

0 1 2 3

r) cheated on a school test or exam? 0 1 2 3

s) painted or written graffiti on public property? 0 1 2 3

t) been cruel to an animal so as to injure it? 0 1 2 3

Q-2 How true or false is each statement below about you?

  False Mostly false

More false than true

More true than false

Mostly true

True

a) I do not get along very well with girls.

0 1 2 3 4 5

b) I do not get along very well with boys.

0 1 2 3 4 5

c) It is difficult to make friends with members of my own sex.

0 1 2 3 4 5

d) I make friends easily with girls.

0 1 2 3 4 5

e) I get a lot of attention from members of the opposite sex.

0 1 2 3 4 5

f) I'm not very popular with members of the opposite sex.

0 1 2 3 4 5

g) I make friends easily with boys.

0 1 2 3 4 5

h) It has been more difficult to make friends in high school.

0 1 2 3 4 5

i) I have felt more alone in high school.

0 1 2 3 4 5

Q-3 How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement as it applies to you?

  Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

In school, I often feel put down by other students.

1 2 3 4

Q-4 How important to you is it that . . .

  Not at all Important

Somewhat Important

Very Important

  <------------------------------------------->

a) you get along with your parents?

1 2 3 4 5

b) your parents think you do 1 2 3 4 5

well?

c) you do things with your family?

1 2 3 4 5

d) you have parents who comfort you

1 2 3 4 5

e) you have parents you can talk to?

1 2 3 4 5

Q-5 How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements as they apply to you?

  Strongly Disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

a) I like my parents. 1 2 3 4

b) I feel that my parents like me.

1 2 3 4

Q-6 In this part of the questionnaire, we want to find out about the things you think are important for people to do, and especially why you think these things (like keeping a promise) are important. Please try to help us understand your thinking by WRITING AS MUCH AS YOU CAN TO EXPLAIN-EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO WRITE OUT YOUR EXPLANATIONS MORE THAN ONCE. Don't just write `same as before.' If you can explain better or use different words to show what you mean, that helps us even more. Please answer all the questions, especially the `why' questions. If you need to, feel free to use the space in the margins to finish writing your answers.

a) Think about when you've made a promise to a friend of yours. How important is it for people to keep promises, if they can, to friends?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

b) What about keeping a promise to anyone? How important is it for people to keep promises, if they can, even to someone they hardly know?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

c) What about keeping a promise to a child? How important is it for parents to keep promises, if they can, to their children?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

d) In general, how important is it for people to tell the truth?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

e) Think about when you've helped your mother or father. How important is it for children to help their parents?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

f) Let's say a friend of yours needs help and may even die, and you're the only person who can save him or her. How important is it for a person (without losing his or her own life) to save the life of a friend?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

g) What about saving the life of anyone? How important is it for a person (without

losing his or her own life) to save the life of a stranger?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

h) How important is it for a person to live even if that person doesn't want to?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

i) How important is it for people not to take things that belong to other people?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

________________________

j) How important is it for people to obey the law?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

k) How important is it for judges to send people who break the law to jail?

Circle one: Very important Important Not important

Why is that very important/important/not important (whichever one you circled)?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Q-7 How old are you? ________________

Q-8 What grade are you in?

7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th

Q-9 Which sex are you?

Male Female

Q-10 Which of the following best describes you racial/ethnic background?

1. African American2. Asian American/Pacific Islander3. Hispanic4. Native American5. White (not Hispanic)6. Other (please describe) ________________________

Q-11 What is your current cumulative GPA?

1. 4.0 or above2. 3.5 - 3.993. 3.0 - 3.494. 2.5 - 2.995. 2.0 - 2.49

Q-12 What is the highest level of education you expect to reach?

1. Less than high school2. High school graduate3. Vocational or technical school4. Some college5. 2-year college degree (A.A.)6. 4-year college degree (B.A., B.S.)7. Some graduate school8. Graduate degree (M.A., M.D., Ph.D., J.D.)

Q-13 What career do you hope to be in for most of your life? ____________________

Q-14 Which of the following best describes your father's educational background?

1. Less than high school2. High school graduate

3. Vocational or technical school4. Some college5. 2-year college degree (A.A.)6. 4-year college degree (B.A., B.S.)7. Some graduate school8. Graduate degree (M.A., M.D., Ph.D., J.D.)

Q-15 What is your father's occupation? _____________________________

Q-16 Which of the following best describes your mother's educational background?

1. Less than high school2. High school graduate3. Vocational or technical school4. Some college5. 2-year college degree (A.A.)6. 4-year college degree (B.A., B.S.)7. Some graduate school8. Graduate degree (M.A., M.D., Ph.D., J.D.)

Q-17 What is your mother's occupation? _____________________________

Thank you very much for helping with this research. Please use the space below to add any comments that you feel are important to understanding your responses to this questionnaire.

Authors hold the copyright to articles published in Current Issues in Education. Requests to reprint CIE articles in other journals should be addressed to the author. Reprints should credit CIE as the original publisher and include the URL of the CIE publication. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article, provided CIE is credited and copies are not sold.

| home | articles | subscribe | submissions | editors | reviewers || email: [email protected] |

Copyright © 2003 Current Issues in Education All rights reserved.