University of Dundee, Scotland, U.K. and 'University of Exeter, Devon, U.K.
Abstract—Findings from two studies are presented on degree of group involvement in delinquency amongyoung people. The first study indicates that among boys, although there is wide variation in the degreeto which particular types of offence are committed alone or in the company of others, there is no generalcategory of offence that is predominantly solitary. Moreover we could identify no individuals whoalways offended alone. The second study compared adolescent boys and girls and indicated that girlsare if anything even more likely than boys to commit any offences in the company of others. Thefindings are discussed in terms of their implications for the role ofthe group context in delinquency.
STATISTICS derived from official records have consistently suggested that youthful crimeis a collective rather than a solitary activity (Erikson, 1971). As early as the nineteentwenties criminologists examining court records had remarked on the fact that mostof the young male offenders convicted by the courts appeared to have committedtheir offences in the company of others. Nevertheless this observation has failed toachieve the impact on theory that its consistency would appear to merit.
It is true that many theories of juvenile crime attribute a central role to delinquentassociates, but largely as sources of delinquent values (e.g. Cloward & Ohlin, 1960;Cohen, 1955; Sutherland & Cressey, 1970). In most cases no crucial significanceis attached to the physical presence of associates in the commission of criminal acts.Miller (1958, 1975) has been something of an exception in starting from the assumptionthat youthful crime is committed by gangs rather than individuals. In contrast, behindmuch psychological theorising on deviance lies the assumption that individuals areonly likely to transgress when alone.
Perhaps one reason for the continuing lack of consensus about the collective characterof juvenile crime at the level of theory is to be found in suspicions about conclusionsbased on official statisitics. Hindelang (1971) for example has suggested that becausethe police are more likely to detain and institute official proceedings against culpritsseen to belong to groups and the courts are more inclined to convict them, thisintroduces a systematic over-representation of group-based crime into official records.
Penetration of criminological research by self-report methods has as yet only partlyclarified the picture. Lerman (1967) reported that over half of a working class sampleof adolescents claimed most of their deliquencies were committed alone. Hindelang's(1971) own study of middle class boys revealed few kinds of offence that were morelikely to have been committed in the company of others than alone. On the other
•Reprint requests to: Dr. Nicholas Emler, Department of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee,Scotland, DDl 4HN, U.K.
Accepted manuscript received 16 March 1986
99
100 N, EMLER, S. REICHER AND A, ROSS
hand, findings reported subsequently by Hindelang (1976) were more consistent withthe conclusion indicated by other self-report studies (e.g. Erikson, 1971; Erikson &Jensen, 1977; Kline, 1969; Shapland, 1978) that group involvement in misdemeanoursis commonplace if not universal, at least for male juveniles.
Another approach has been to argue that there are actually at least two kinds ofyoung offender, the solitary delinquent and the group or gang delinquent. Therehave been several attempts to establish the psychological reality of such types bydemonstrating that they correspond to distinct personality patterns (e.g. Hindelang,1973; Randolf, Richardson & Johnson, 1961; Wilcox, 1964). However, the self-reportevidence also points to substantial variations in degree of group involvement fromone kind of delinquent activity to another (Shapland, 1978). The research reportedin this paper was an attempt to clarify some aspects of group involvement indelinquency, and to begin to provide a basis for interpreting the casual role inadolescent crime ofthe group context of offences. We wished in particular to addressthe following questions:
1. Can any ofthe inconsistencies among previous findings based on self-reportsbe attributed to the particular behaviours sampled? Given that there are variationsacross activities in the degree of group involvement reported, the particular activitiessampled will effect the estimate of overall rate of group involvement obtained. Anestimate based on a small sample therefore runs the risk of distorting the true figure.Most studies have sampled less than twenty behaviours. Shapland's (1978) researchis the exception; her mean for group involvement in the region of sixty per cent ofall offences was based on a sample of thirty activities. Erikson (1971) provides a furtherindication ofthe effects that behavioural sample characteristics Ccin have, fmding highergroup involvement for more serious offences. Self-report inventories tend to sampleactivities less serious than those documented in official records, which may in partaccount for the discrepancy between conclusions based on these records and thegenerally lower levels of group involvement indicated by self-report data. One wayat least to limit the risks of bias here is to sample from a larger range of activities,the option chosen in the present research.
2. If there are variations in degree of group involvement across specific activities,are there also more general categories of delinquent activity that are characteristicallysolitary or social? Eor example, are activities which involve violence against others,and are therefore relatively public, more likely to be group-based compared to thosewhich can be more readily concealed such as theft? An advantage of sampling a widerange of activities is that it allows for comparisons across categories.
3. Do solitary and social delinquents exist as distinct and psychologically meaningfultypes? Eysenck (1970) has predicted that crime will be linked to high scores forextraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism; support for these predictions has beenpatchy (see Earrington, Biron & Le Blanc, 1982) and perhaps this is because thedimensions relate differentially to group and solitary of^fending. Thus if there is alink, one might expect extraversion to be more strongly associated with group-basedoffending and neuroticism and psychoticism more strongly with solitary offending.
4. The self-report research into group involvement has to date, with one exception(Hindelang, 1976), dealt only with male delinquency. Given the very different levelsof involvement in delinquency among males and females, respectively, the question
SOCIAL CONTEXT 101
must arise as to whether this is linked to their respective levels of group involvementin such activity.
THE RESEARCH
Two sets of data were collected. The first was provided by a sample of 40 boys, aged fourteen yearsand drawn from the third year of two city high schools in the East of Scotland, The catchment areafor both schools was predominantly working class and lower middle class; one school was Catholic,the other non-denominational.
The measures used included a 74-item self-report inventory and the JEPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1973),The self-report inventory included five buffer items (which came first) describing a variety of commonadolescent pastimes, and six delinquency subscales. These, defined in terms of manifest content oftheactivities described, were: Theft (16 items). Vandalism (9 items). Aggression (13 items). Drugs (8 items).Status (8 items) and Minor/Nuisance (10 items). Three remaining items covered the content of morethan one scale ("Stealing drugs from a shop", "Robbery using or threatening violence") or by definitionentailed group involvement ("Belonged to a group often or more people who go around together, makinga row and sometimes getting into fights"). The status scale was based on activities that are only prescribedby virtue ofthe individual's age (smoking, consuming alcoholic drinks, driving a motor vehicle on thehighway, etc). The minor/nuisance scale consisted of items referring to activities which do not readilyfit into the other categories such as breaches of regulations ("Riding a bicycle without lights after dark"),cheating on tests at school, or nuisance behaviours ("Ringing doorbells and running away"). Each itemwas printed on a separate card. The JEPQ is an 80-item inventory with a True-False response format;it contains sub-scales for Extraversion, Neuroticism and Psychoticism, as well as a Lie scale,
A male researcher saw each boy in an individual interview and produced first the cards describingthe various delinquent activities. The boy was asked to go through the stack of cards, sorting theminto two piles, one for activities in which he had never engaged and the other for activities he had beeninvolved in at least once. The interviewer then went through the "never" pile, checking with the boythat no activities had been missed. Once the boy was satisfied that all relevant activities had been pickedout, the interviewer went through the second pile asking him which ones he had been involved in onthree or more occasions. Finally, he asked of every activity in which the boy had participated whetherit had always been alone, usually alone, usually with others or always with others. Each boy thencompleted the JEPQ. Throughout the interview every boy was assured of the confidential nature ofall his answers. All interviewing took place in school in a small room with no one else present.
The second data set was derived from a separate sample of 149 boys and 141 girls, aged 13-16, Themajority were of working class or lower middle class background, drawn from state high schools inthe East of Scotland, Each boy and girl completed a questionnaire consisting of two sections. The firstlisted 24 different transgressions. The respondent was asked to indicate which activities if any he orshe had been involved in at any time in the previous twelve months. The second section listed the sameactivities but this time asked whether involvement had been always alone, usually alone, usually withothers, or always with others. Most ofthe activities listed were drawn from the larger inventory usedwith the first sample. Our intention here was to represent a range of activities and degrees of seriousnessas well as some variability in group involvement levels.
Administration ofthe inventories was carried out in various locations but primarily in school classrooms,by university researchers. To preserve anonymity, children were asked to record no personal detailson the questionnaires beyond their age and sex and to seal the completed inventories in envelopes forlater processing by research staff. It was made clear to all those involved that their participation inthe research was voluntary; none of those asked refused to participate. However, two sets of questionnairesfrom those originally completed had to be excluded from the analysis because parts were improperlyfilled in,
RESULTS
The mesm commission rates and group involvement rates for each of the delinquencysub-scales are given in Table 1. As regards group involvement, only the
102 N. EMLER, S. REICHER AND A. ROSS
TABLE 1. DEGREE OF GROUP INVOLVEMENT AND ADMISSION RATES FOR DELINQUENCY
Minor/Nuisance scale stood out as significantly lower {P<0.05) than the others.Inspection of individual items revealed substantial variations in group involvement
rate. Given that group involvement is scored from 1 to 4, the theoretical midpointis 2.5. A score of 1 was taken as indicating that an activity had been engaged in withothers on 0% of occasions, a score of 4 that it had occurred with others on 100%of occasions, and a mean of 2.5 on 50% of occasions. Scores ranged from 1.24 (9%)for "Dropping rubbish on the ground" and 1.68 (17%) for "Riding a bicycle afterdark without lights", to 3.93 (97.7%) for "Stealing from deserted houses" and 3.94(98%) for "throwing stones at cars and trains". Only six items, however, produceda mean for group participation below 2.5.
It was not possible to compare group and solitary delinquents as only one boy inthe sample claimed levels of group involvement that averaged at below 50 %. Hismean score across 26 activities admitted was 2.25 or 41.7%.
For the computation of correlations, responses to self-report items were assignedscores on a three-point scale (2 = three or more occasions; 1 = one or two times;0 = never). Table 2 presents the correlations among self-report sub-scales. Table 3the correlations between the self-report scales and the JEPQ scales, and Table 4 thecorrelations between degree of group involvement on the one hand and the JEPQscales on the other.
It will be seen that the correlations among the behavioural subscales are uniformlypositive and in all but one case (Status and Drugs) statistically significant. Theimpression provided by these correlations that delinquency is unidimensional rather
TABLE 2. INTERGORRELATIONS AMONG DELINQUENCY SUB-SCALES
Sub-scale Theft Aggression Vandalism Status Minor/Nuisance
Drugs 0.48***TheftAggressionVandalismStatus
*P<0.05.**F<0.01.
***F<0.001.
00
.41**
.75***000
.43**
.77***
.83***
0.170.76***0.66***0.56***
0.36*0.46***0.47***0.52***0.18*
SOCIAL CONTEXT
TABLE 3. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DELINQUENCY SUB-SCALES AND JEPQ PERSONALITY SCALES
103
DrugsTheftAggressionVandalismStatusMinor/Nuisance
*P<0.05.**P<0.01.
***P< 0.001.
TABLE 4.
Correlationswith groupinvolvement
Extraversion
0.200.26*0.08
-0.070.22
-0.01
JEPO scalesNeuroticism
0.050.190.050.26*
-0.100.42**
Psychoticism
0.38*'0.63*0.73*0.78*0.40*
k *
* *
P! *
0.57***
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN GROUP INVOLVEMENT AND PERSONALITY
Extraversion
0.26**
Neuroticism
-0.16
Psychoticism Lie
-0.01 0.25*
Lie
-0.28*-0.62***-0.62***-0.62***-0.46***-0.55***
SCALES
Totaldelinquency
0.04
'*P<Q.O5.
than multidimensional was confirmed by a principal components analysis of thecorrelation matrix. Only one principal component was extracted, accounting for 62%ofthe total variance. The Theft (0.923), Aggression (0.897) and Vandalism (0.884)scales had the highest loadings on this factor. Drugs (0.472) and Minor/Nuisance(0.514) the lowest.
Turning to the relations between the behaviour and the personality scales, all thecorrelations of delinquency sccdes with Psychoticism were positive and significant,all those between these scales and Lie scores negative and significant. Only threeother correlations reached significance, those of Vandalism and Minor/Nuisance withNeuroticism and that of Theft with Extraversion. A principal components analysisperformed on the correlation matrix for these variables indicated two factors, the firstdefined by all the behaviour scales plus the Psychoticism and Lie scales; the seconddefined by Neuroticism and Extraversion, with Status and Minor/Nuisance alsoloading moderately on this factor.
Ofthe correlations between group involvement and JEPQ dimensions, only thosefor Extraversion and the Lie scale reached significance.
We used the data from the second and larger sample, which included both malesand females, to examine two questions: (1) is there an.overall difference betweenmales and females in degree of group involvement?, (b) are sex differences in degreeof group involvement greater for some activities than for others? To answer the firstquestion, each boy and girl was assigned a score on a scale from 1 to 4 with respectto degree of group involvement; this was based on their means over those activitiesadmitted. Note that, because there were substantial individued differences in
104 N. EMLER, S. REICHER AND A. ROSS
commission rates, these scores were based on varying numbers and combinationsof items, hence the desirability of also comparing males and females on each specificitem. The overairgroup involvement means for males and females were 2.74 and3.11, respectively. The difference was significant on a two-tailed test (P<0.01).
Sex differences on the individual items are given in Table 5. For several activitiesthe commission rate among girls was too low to make a comparison with the boys.Item group involvement means for boys and girls were only computed when therespective commission rates exceeded seven per cent. One item by definition entailedgroup involvement (see No. 24, Table 5). This left 14 out of 23 items on whichcomparisons were possible. In nine of these cases the female group involvement levelsignificantly exceeded the male on a two-tailed /-test. On only one item was the malerate significantly higher. Hence, the overall difference between males and femalescannot be attributed to greater female involvement in activities which have highergroup involvement rates generally and relatively less involvement by females inactivities with generally low group involvement rates. In fact, the activities in whichthe boys substantially more frequently indulged than the girls also typically had higherrates for group involvement.
Boys generally admitted involvement in a greater range ofthe activities than girls;the mean for boys was 35.48% of all items, that for girls 17.78%. A larger proportionofthe boys admitted involvement in each ofthe activities listed. Comparing commissionrates by Chi square, 20 out of 24 were significant at /"< 0.05.
We also compared the group involvement rates of the males with those in the firstsample. Across the 17 items which could be compared the means for the first andsecond samples respectively were 3.14 and 2.95 (P< 0.05 on a two-tailed /-test). Thiswas consistent with the corresponding means for responses to the item asking directlyabout membership of trouble-making groups; these were 0.47 and 0.38, respectively.However, the first group also had a higher commission rate across the items, 0.53versus 0.42. It is possible, therefore, that method of data collection—oral responsein a one-to-one interview versus written response to a group-administeredquestionnaire—has some effect on the group involvement rate elicited. But withouta more direct comparison of the methods it remains possible that this effect reflectssample differences, something indicated by the differences in commission rates.
DISCUSSION
This is the only research of which we are aware that has examined the level ofgroup involvement characterising different categories of delinquent behaviour. Thefindings clearly indicate that although there may be particular forms of misconduct,usually trivial, that are more likely to be committed alone than in the company ofothers, there is no general category of delinquency that is predominandy solitary.Moreover, we found in the first sample no support for the idea that solitary offendersare a distinct type; individual differences in relative degree of group involvement isanother matter and one we shall discuss below. The results also indicate that if groupinvolvement in delinquency is typical for male adolescents it is even more true oftheir female peers. Finally, the findings regarding the unidimensionality and personality
SOCIAL CONTEXT 105
TABLE 5, COMMISSION RATES AND GROUP INVOLVEMENT SCORES BY ITEM AND SEX
ItemCommission rate"
F M PGroup involvement''F M P"*
1, Driven a car or motorbike on thehighway under the legal age
2, Broken windows of empty houses3, Smashed, slashed or damaged
things in public places4, Been involved in a fight using a
weapon5, Been involved in a fight where a
weapon was not used6, Annoyed or insulted strangers in
the street7, Thrown things such as stones at
people8, Stolen things from people's
clothing9, Purposefully annoyed, insulted or
defied a police officer10, Hit a teacher11, Struggled or fought to get away
from a police officer12, Played truant from school13, Found others' property and failed
to try and return it14, Became involved in a group fight15, Stolen a car, motorbike or bicycle16, Stolen things from a shop while it
was open17, Damaged school property on
purpose18, Broken into someone's home or
flat with the intention ofstealing something
19, Been to an X film when under age20, Deliberately littered street or
pavement by smashing bottles,overturning dustbins etc,
22, Purposefully annoyed, taunted,insulted a teacher
23, Done things to people as a joke,like pushing them into water,pulling their chair away as theysat down
24, Belonged to a group of tenor morepeople who go around togethermaking a row and sometimesgetting into fights
0,120.11
0,08
0,06
0,46
0,31
0,16
0,01
0,020,04
0,020,46
0,160,150,00
0,31
0.06
0,030,34
0,14
0,07
0,38
0,320.61
0,38
0,36
0.79
0,55
0,72
0,06
0,200,08
0,140,60
0,450,250,03
0,44
0,32
0,140,37
0,51
0,34
0,46
0,0010,001
0,001
0,001
0,001
0,001
0,001
0,05
0.001NS
0,010.05
0,0010,05
NS
0,05
0,001
0.01NS
0,001
0,001
NS
3,593,75
3,64
—
2,43
3,36
3,00
—
—
2,91
2,093.76
2,49
—
3,76
3,55
—
3,00
2,793,36
3,26
3,14
2,29
3,08
2,94
2,14
3,132,83
3,142,51
1,843,70
2,38
2,28
3,423,49
2,67
2,42
2.64
0,010,05
0,05
—
NS
0,05
NS
—
—
0,01
0,05NS
NS
—
0,05
0,01
—
0,05
0,54
0.00
0,90 0,001
0.38 0,001
2,03 2,60 0,01
Not applicable
Proportion of each sample admitting to this item.Mean scores on a scale from 1 to 4,Chi Square tests.Two-tailed «-tests.
106 N. EMLER, S. REICHER AND A. ROSS
correlates of adolescent delinquency are much in line with those of other recent studies(e.g. Klein, 1984; Farrington, Miron & Le Blanc, 1982). Ofthe Eysenck scales, onlyPsychoticism and the Lie scale are consistently and strongly related to delinquency.Given that the P-scale was devised to discriminate criminals it would be more surprisingif there were no relationship. The Lie-scale results are rather less straightforward.
If the Lie-scale measures what it claims the implication is that those who are disposedto lie are also less likely to admit their misdeeds. So, are these the people who committhe solitary offences, maintaining their fagade of innocence by dishonest denials? Lie-scale items describe very trivial misdemeanours which are also assumed to be verycommon. On these grounds the further assumption is made that a high proportionof denials can only occur if a person is being dishonest. However, given the evidencethat self-reports of misconduct are Vcdid indicators of actual misconduct (Hindelang,Hirschi & Weis, 1981; Singh, 1978) it seems to us more reasonable to suppose thatadolescents are as candid about trivial misdeeds as they are about their more serioustransgressions; the high scorers on the Lie-scale are simply exceptionally good orconforming. The modest positive correlation between these scores and groupinvolvement suggests that those who most frequently misbehave in the company ofothers are also slightly less likely to commit very minor transgressions.
We must now consider what significance should be attached to the collectivecharacter of juvenile crime. It seems to us that broadly there are five possibilities,that group contexts per se encourage offending, that the group has no casual role injuvenile offending, that individuals are swayed by the inclinations of their associates(i.e. delinquency is conformity to the expectations of the group), that a shared fategenerates shared inclinations among associates, and that the group context encouragesthe expression of individual behavioural inclinations. We shall consider each possibilitybriefly.
The idea that company in itself encourages crime is a familiar one in socialpsychology. Results from numerous experiments suggest that a group setting increasesthe probability that individuals will behave in ways which are antisocial, immor^or illegal (Brown & Herrnstein, 1974), and numerous theories predict such effects(e.g. Latane & Darley, 1970; Zimbardo, 1971).
There are several arguments against this thesis as applied to adolescent delinquency.Other research has shown that delinquents are no more likely to belong to gangs orgroups than non-delinquents (Morash, 1983; Robins, 1966). Moreover, if transgressionresults from being in the company of others then it should be correlated withextraversion, since the latter is likely to relate to frequency of interaction (Emler,1984b). The present study, as others, showed no clear relation between extraversionand transgression. On the other hand, there was a modest association betweenextraversion and the group involvement index. The most plausible explanation forthis, as for the relation between sex and group involvement, is simply that extravertsand girls spend more of their time and thus do more ofthe things they do in others'company.
Should we therefore accept the second possibility that the group context plays nocasual role in delinquency? The argument might run as follows: Company isubiquitous. Insofar as young people are more often in one another's company thanalone, whatever they do is more likely to occur in company. However, the presence
SOCIAL CONTEXT 107
of company as such has no impact on what each chooses to do. This will be determinedby the behavioural inclinations each individual brings, ready formed, to the situation.Delinquent acts, therefore, are to be explained purely in terms ofthe characteristicsof individuals. This interpretation also has problems.
One is that group involvement rates would not be expected to vary in the waythat they do across activities; they should cluster around a mean, corresponding tothe proportion of time adolescents are in one another's company, with the least frequentactivities being the most variable. Another problem is that this interpretation treatscompany or lack of it as simply the background against which action occurs whereasit is clear that others are not merely present when delinquencies are committed, theyare accomplices. Why should young people find themselves in the company of otherswith such similar behavioural inclinations?
The third interpretation treats the nature ofthe company as critical; the companyof delinquent associates provides the necessary and sufficient conditions for commissionof offences. One piece of evidence from the current investigation is consistent withthis; the item "Belonged to a group of ten or more people who go around togethermaking a row and sometimes getting into fights" attracted admissions from 38%of the boys questioned in our second sample but from none of the girls. And, as wehave found elsewhere (see Emler, 1984a), positive responses to this item are stronglyassociated with admissions of other kinds of delinquency.
This interpretation treats the individual as motivationally empty; what any youngperson does will depend entirely upon the character of the company in which theyfind themselves at the time; conduct is subject to the whim of the prevailing groupcontext. At first blush it would seem difficult to accommodate the consistency ofindividual behaviour within this interpretation, for the fact is that some young peopleare chronically and seriously delinquent while others are only very occasionally andtrivially so. This problem might be overcome by assuming that patterns ofassociation—the composition of each young person's company—is also relativelyconsistent, and there is ample evidence for such differential association (e.g. Johnson,1978; Riley & Shaw, 1985; Short, 1957; Voss, 1964).
The more serious problem for this thesis is to explain from whence an individual'sassociates derive their own behavioural inclinations. The obvious answer—that thereare older associates, and thus transmission across cohorts—is not supported by anygood evidence either that this kind of transmission is going on or that adolescentcompany typically contains the necessary age mix.
The fourth possibility is that companions, whether in crime or conformity, sharea common fate which generates shared behavioural inclinations. This interpretationwould require that patterns of association are relatively stable or at least that specificcompany on different occasions is drawn from the same stable pool of acquaintances.It would then require that this pool share certain experiences which shape behaviouralattitudes. There are several hypotheses as to how this might occur, perhaps the bestsupported of which concern the shared experience of success or failure in secondaryschool (e.g. Hargreaves, 1967; Johnson, 1978; Kelly, 1975; Menard & Morse, 1984).
We are attracted to this solution, but it too has its problems, among which isconsiderable long-term stability in individual behavioural inclinations (Loeber, 1982;West & Farrington, 1973); these inclinations seem to predate many of the shared
108 N. EMLER, S. REICHER AND A. ROSS
experiences that are conceivably relevant. It must also be acknowledged that theseindividual behavioural inclinations may create the experience to which these individualsare subsequently exposed. For example, it remains unclear whether school careeris the dependent or the independent variable in the relationship with delinquentconduct.
This brings us to the fifth possibility, that like-minded company facilitates theexpression of established behavioural inclinations. According to this view, behaviouralinclinations are not the products of differential association but are among its causes.Behavioural tendencies will have been established much earlier than adolescence butyoung people will remain disinclined to decide on their own whether they should orshould not do particular things on particular occasions. Moreover, this disinclinationwill become stronger the more serious the options considered (hence perhaps thetendency for girls to make these decisions in company more often than boys, delinquentactions having more serious implications for girls) whereas individuals remain willingto decide on their own about more trivial matters. To make the behavioural choicesthey find congenial, young people will need to seek out and establish a pattern ofregular association with like-minded peers. Once such a pattern is established, onecould expect behavioural inclinations to be consistently acted upon. In other words,it takes like-minded company to translate inclination into action. This is the pointof view we most favour but its plausibility will depend crucially on determining exactlyhow particular patterns of associations arise.
This interpretation raises some interesting questions. For example, what are theconsequences when young people are unable to associate regularly with like-mindedpeers? Is law-abiding behaviour the default option, or is a relatively less stable andconsistent pattern of behaviour the result? Must a certain level of population densityexist to support patterns of association that are homogeneous with respect to delinquentinclinations, and is this one reason why delinquency is higher in cities than ruralareas? Does school size similarly affect the probability of delinquent behaviour? Isthere something about the conditions of early to mid-adolescence which favour theemergence ofmore homogeneous patterns of association? For example, do age-linkedchanges in patterns of parental supervision render such association more likely? Riley& Shaw (1985) fmd that parental supervision practices have no direct and independenteffect on delinquency but may well have an impact mediated by their effects onteenagers' social participation patterns.
AcknowledgeTnents—This research was supported by SSRC Grant No. HG 11/24/11 to the first author.We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Michele Gilbert in the analysis of data.
REFERENCES
Brown, R. & Hcrrnstein, R. (1974) Psychology. Boston: Little Brown & Co.Cloward, R. A. & Ohlin, L. E. (1960) Delingumcy and opportunity. New York: Free Press.Cohen, A. K. (1955) Delinquent boys. Glencoe, II: Free Press.Emler, N. (1984a) Differential involvement in delinquency: Toward an interpretation in terms of
reputation management. In B. A. Maher & W. B. Maher (Eds) Progress in experimental personalityresearch. Vol. 13 (pp. 173-239). New York: Academic Press.
SOCIAL CONTEXT 109
Emler, N. (1984b). Participation in personal networks. Paper presented at General Meeting of EuropeanAssociation of Experimental Social Psychology, Tilburg.
Erikson, M. L. (1971) The group context of delinquent behaviour. Social Problems, 19, 114-129.Erikson, M. L. & Jensen, G. F. (1977). Delinquency is still group behaviour. Jbuma/ of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 68, 262-273.Eysenck, H. J. (1970). Crime and personality (2nd Ed). London: Granada Press.Eysenck, S. G. B. & Eysenck, H. J. (1973). Test-retest reliabilities of a new personality questionnaire
for children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 43, 126-130.Farrington, D., Biron, L. & Le Blanc, M. (1982). Personality and Delinquency in London and Montreal.
In J. Gunn & D. P Farrington (Eds) Abnormal offenders, delinquency and the criminal justice system,(pp. 153-201). Ghichester: Wiley.
Hargreaves, D. (1967). Social relations in a secondary school. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Hindelang, M. (1971). The social versus solitary nature of delinquent involvements. British Joumal of
Criminology, 11, 167-175.Hindelang, M. (1973). Variations in personality attributes of social and solitary self-reported delinquents.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 452-454.Hindelang, M. (1976). With a litde help from their friends: Group participation in reported delinquent
behaviour. British Joumal of Criminology, 16, 109-125.Hindelang, M., Hirschi, T. & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, Galifomia: Sage.Johnson, R. E. (1978). Juvenile delinquency and its origins. Gambridge: Gambridge University Press.Kelly, D. H. (1975). Status origins, track position, and delinquent involvement: A self-report analysis.
Sociological Quarterly, 16, 264-271.Klein, M. W. (1969). On the group context of delinquency. Sociology and Sociat Research, 54, 63-71.Klein, M. W. (1984). Offence specialisation and versatility among juveniles. British Joumal of Criminology,
24, 184-194.Latane, B. & Darley, J. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help. New York: Appleton.Lerman, P. (1967). Gangs, networks and subculturd delinquency. American Joumal of Sociology, 73,, 63-83.Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of anti-social and delinquent child behaviour: A review. Child Development,
53, 1331-1446.Menard, S. & Morse, B. J. (1984). A structuralist critique ofthe IQ-delinquency hypothesis: theory
a.nd evidence. American Joumal of Sociology, 89, 1347-1378.Miller, W. B. (1958) Lower culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues,
14, 5-19.Miller, W. B. (1975). Violence by youth gangs and youth groups as a crime problem in major American cities.
Washington, DG: Government Printing Office.Morash, M. (1983). Gangs, groups, and delinquency. British Joumal of Criminology, 23, 309-331.Randolf, M., Richardson, H. & Johnson, R. (1961). A comparison of social and solitary delinquents.
Joumal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 293-295.Riley, D. & Shaw, M. (1985). Parental supervision and juvenile delinquency. Home Office Research Study
No. 83, London: H.M.S.O.Robins, L. (1966). Deviant children growing up: A sociological and psychiatric study of sociopathic personality.
Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Shapland, J. (1978). Self reported delinquency in boys aged 11 to 14. British Joumal of Criminology, 18,
255-266.Singh, A. (1979). Reliability and validity of self-reported delinquency studies: A review. Psychological
Reports, 44, 987-993.Short, J. F. (1957). Differential association and delinquency. Social problems, 5, 207-213.Sutherland, E. H., Gressey, D. R. (1970). Principles oj criminology (8th Ed). Ghicago: Lippincott.Voss, M. L. (1964). Differential association and reported delinquent behaviour: A replication. Social
Problems, 12, 78-85.Wilcox, K. D. (1964). Neurotic differences between individualized and socialized criminals, youma/
of Consulting Psychology, 28, 141-145.West, D. J. & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London: Heinemann.Zimbardo, P. (1970). The human choice: Individuation, reason and order versus deindividuation, impulse
and chaos. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds) Nabraska Symposium on motivation (pp. 237-307).Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
