|
Abstract
|
This paper explores the conceptual and empirical ties between membership in youth gangs, youthful misconduct, and Akers's social learning theory. The adolescent population studied, however, is unique: it consists of adjudicated and incarcerated delinquents. The data for the study were obtained by conducting a census of all youths in the custody of the New Mexico Youth Authority in January 1991; more than 85 percent of all youths incarcerated on the administration day (258 young men and women) participated in the study. We found that gang members had acquired more pro-gang attitudes than nongang youths and were more favorably inclined toward gang activities; neither gang membership nor the gang-based social learning theory variables, however, were related uniformly to all forms of self-reported delinquency. We address the theoretical and policy implications of these findings.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study by Winfree et al. was to examine whether Aker's social learning theory could distinguish between gang and nongang youth and predict the breadth of self-reported offense-specific offending.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a quasi experimental survey design in this study. Youth in the sample were adjudicated as delinquents by the state of New Mexico and were incarcerated at the time of their interview. Individuals in the sample were chosen from two facilities in New Mexico. Both females and males were included. The total number of individuals that were interviewed was 258.
General delinquency was measured by a 22 item inventory asking respondents the number of times they had committed each offense since leaving middle school. Because subjects were already involved delinquents, the authors assigned values of 1 to each offense where the respondent indicated they had committed this offense more than once or twice. Responses from individuals who did not report that they had committed the offense were coded 0. They authors also employed a measure for specific offenses. These included indices for theft, property crime, drug crime, and group context personal crimes. Gang membership was measured in a three step process. First, respondents were asked if they were involved with gangs. Those who answered yes were asked if their group of friends had a) an initiation, b) leader(s), or c) nicknames. They were also asked if their group of friends had characteristic a) colors, b) tattoos, c) hand signs, or d) jewelry. Respondents who answered yes to one of the previous lists from both questions were identified as gang members. Next, researchers asked these individuals to identify if their gang's important activities included a number of different illicit and illegal activities. If yes, respondents were identified as gang members. A total of 140 gang members were identified using this three step process.
A number of different social learning concepts were operationalized. Differential association was measured along two dimensions. Norm qualities were measured by questions asking the attitudes toward gang members of most of the adults/peers whose opinions matter to the respondents. Gang association was measured by a question asking if the respondent's best friends were gang members. Differential reinforcement was also measured along two dimensions. First, respondents were asked about the probable rewarding and punishing reactions from friends/family if they were a gang member. Second, respondents were asked to identify, from a checklist, the good things that would happen to them if they were in a gang. Reinforcers, such as feel successful and be cool, were coded as 1 and punishers, such as feel guilty and get in trouble with my parents, were coded as -1. The results were then summed (Cronbach's alpha = .50). Differential definitions were measured by questions asking whether the respondent approved of a) having friends in gangs, b) being in a gang, c) participating in illegal gang activities, and d) doing what gang leaders say. The answers to these likert scale questions were summed (alpha = .83). Respondents were also asked to give personal-biographical information such as gender, age, and race.
The authors examined three specific hypotheses. First, they examined if the degree to which exposure to gang peers, pro-gang values from significant others, and reinforcers of pro-gang behavior were related to pro-gang definitions. Second, they examined if social learning processes were related to gang membership. Third, they examined whether social learning processes predicted delinquency regardless of gang membership, age, gender, or ethnicity. The data was analyzed using OLS and logistic regression techniques.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
First, the authors examined the social learning correlates of pro-gang definitions. Results showed that peer gang members had a significant and positive effect on pro-gang definitions. Results also showed that respondents who perceived their parents and peers to have pro-gang attitudes held significantly more pro-gang attitudes themselves. Of these two differential association variables, peer gang members had the strongest effect. Of the differential reinforcers, results showed that pro-gang attitudes were significantly lower the more negative the response by parents toward gang involvement and pro-gang attitudes were significantly higher the more parents positively viewed the net effects of gang membership. Neither gender, age, or race were significantly associated with pro-gang definitions.
Next, the authors examined the correlates of gang membership in five models. The first model showed that Hispanics and men were more likely to be gang members. While this model efficiently classified gang members it did not for non-members. The differential association model showed that peer gang member significantly increased the likelihood of gang membership. Overall, this model predicted gang membership/non-membership better than the first model. In the third model, the effects of differential reinforcements on gang membership were estimated. Results showed that friends negative reactions to gang membership were significantly and negatively associated with the likelihood of gang membership. Overall, this model was not as good of a predictor as the second model. Fourth, the effects of pro-gang attitudes on gang membership were estimated. Results showed that pro-gang attitudes significantly increased the likelihood of gang membership. This model was the best predictor of all previous models. Lastly, the previous models were summed. Results changed little. However, the effect of differential reinforcements lost significance, suggesting that it has an indirect effect on gang membership. This model, however, did not predict gang membership/non-membership as well as the fourth model. The results of all of these models provide support for the second hypothesis.
Finally, the authors examined the effects of social learning variables on incidences of specific offenses. Results showed that disapproval of significant others had a significant, negative effect on theft. In addition, pro-gang attitudes had a significant and positive effect on theft. Peer disapproval, Hispanic, and peer gang member had significant effects in predicted directions on property crime. Results show that parental negative reactions had a significant and negative effect on drug crime while peer gang members and pro-gang attitudes had a significant and positive effect on drug crime. Social learning variables had the greatest effect on group-context personal crimes. Results showed that peer gang member, peer approval, pro-gang attitudes, and gang membership had significant and positive effects on group-context personal crimes. When the authors examined the effects of social learning variables on all types of crime, they found that peer gang members and pro-gang attitudes had significant, positive effects on general criminality while peer disapproval had a significant, negative effect on general criminality.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors made several recommendations. First, they suggested that, according to their analysis, differential identification theory might better explain gang membership than Aker's social learning theory. Second, they suggested that intervention strategies that help individuals avoid internalizing, or delearn, pro-gang values might be particularly effective. In contrast, they suggested that intervention programs designed to target gangs as sources of property and drug crimes would find limited success. Finally they suggested that more research needs to be done on the recruitment and retention of gang members.
EVALUATION:
This study will be valuable to future researchers, social learning theorists, and intervention strategists. Yes, there are limitations. The sample underrepresents African- and Asian-Americans as well as middle class, suburban gang members. This limits the generalizability of the findings. In addition, it examines correlations only. The causal import of social learning processes on gang membership and gang delinquency was not established. However, this study makes a significant contribution to both the literatures on gangs and social learning theory. The authors operationalize and test more social learning variables than most studies. Hence, it serves as a benchmark for demonstrating how the complexities of social learning theory can be operationalized for more detailed tests of the theory. In addition, its insights into the effects of social learning processes on gang membership and gang crime not only give an empirical backbone to similar findings in qualitative studies, but makes empirical statements directly applicable to the question of whether and what kind of intervention strategies are likely to succeed.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
New Mexico
Self Report Studies
Social Learning Theory
Juvenile Gang
Juvenile Offender
Incarcerated
Juvenile Inmate
Inmate Studies
Correctional Institution
Delinquency Causes
Delinquency Effects
Crime Effects
Crime Causes
Juvenile Crime
Juvenile Delinquency
Gang Delinquency
Gang Crime
Gang Membership Effects
Gang Membership Causes |